Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2003-05-2020353 MINUTES OF THE 8W PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, May 20, 2003, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 865" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Robert Alanskas William La Pine Carol Smiley Members absent: John Walsh Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Scott Miller, Planner III; and Ms. Marge Roney, Secretary, were also present. Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat anc/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven Q) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2003-03-0141 MICHAEL FANT Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2003- 03-01-11, 00303-01-11, submitted by Michael Fant requesting to rezone property at 36025 Ann Arbor Trail located on the south side of Ann Arbor Trail between Grandon Avenue and Linville Avenue in the Southeast%of Section 32 from RUF to R-1. 20354 Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the exist ng zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There is a letter from the Engineering Division, dated April 11, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. An additional 27 feet of right-of-way for Ann Arbor Trail should be dedicated at this time. If approved, the resulting parcel descriptions should be based on the survey information. There are water mains to serve these sites on the north side of Ann Arbor Toil. Sanitary sewers will have to be extended in Ann Arbor Toil from the east property line to serve the four parcels. There am no storm sewers adjacent to the site that will serve the splits at this time. Provision will have to be made to extend storm sewers in conjunction with the splitting." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Michael Fant, 566 Sandalwood, Canton, Michigan 48188. Mr. McCann: Thank you. And yourco-petitioner? Mike Petro, 6747 Edgewood, Canton, Michigan 48187. I'm a master builder. Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you'd like to tell us about this development? Mr. Petro: Basically what we want to do is, if we get the rezoning, there's an older farmhouse . it's actually very nice on the inside. We're going to dean that up, re -side it, really dean up the area, put upsome nice brick homes and make it a nice looking site. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. LaPine: I have a question for Mark. Seeing that I wasn't at the study session, I haven't heard all the arguments for this, but if this went R-1, how many homes can be built on it compared to R-3? Mr. Taormina: Four would be the maximum number of homes under the R1 zoning. Was that your question, or was it how many homes can be built if it was zoned R-3? 20355 Mr. La Pine: Yes. Mr. Taormina: I don't believe they could divide this into any more than three parcels under the R3 if they want to keep the existing house. Mr. La Pine: So, it would be four homes under R-1 and three homes under R-3. Thankyou. Mr. Piercecchi: You could get four homes under R-2, right? Mr. Taormina: No, I dont know that it would be possible to have four building sites under the R-2 zoning classification. I think only the R-1 would allow four. Each of these sites meets the minimum frontage requirement, but not by ruch. The minimum width is 60 feet in the R-1 district, whereas the minimum width requirement in the R-2 district would be 70 feet, so I don't believe there's enough frontage to allow four sites. Mr. Piercecchi: It's the same 191 feet. Mr. Taormina: Yes, but given the angle of the property, I don't know that it could be divided into four conforming sites with the R-2 district. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay Mr. Shane: For the petitioner's benefit, we're discussing R-3 as opposed to R-1 because when you look at this plan you submitted, the angle of the most westerly lot is rather narrowing towards the back. I think some of us feel that it is better to cul one lot off and make all the other lots a little bit wider to get rid of that steep angle back there. That's why the discussion is headed in that direction. Mr. Petro: The lots are so deep we figured that if we centered the house, maybe do a nice colonial, the sides still fit nicely, maybe horseshoe them towards Ann Arbor Trail so they follow the line of the street instead of putting them all in a row, because the way it is sitting, they should have large building envelopes. Mr. Alanskas: Sir, do you own the property or is this on a contingency? Mr. Petro: No, we own R. Mr. Alanskas: You heard the concern about the sewers? 20356 Mr. Petro: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: You have to run it from a different area to get them in there. Mr. Petro: The sewer stops right on the property line to the east. We have Soave Construction already lined up, hopefully so everything goes well. We'll have them run the water and sewer. Mr. Alanskas: Would you have a problem going with one less lot and going to R3? Mr. Petro: That would really hurt us as far as financial -wise and what we paid for the properly. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, just one more question. Mark, no matter if ft's three houses or four, there will be a driveway off Ann Arbor Trail on each of them. Is that cored? They will all have drives off Ann Arbor Trail? Mr. Taormina: That is my understanding, cored. Mr. LaPine: That's a pretty heavy traveled road. Are there going to be turnarounds so they don't have to back out? Mr. Petro: Yes. Definitely on the site plans, we will show turnarounds on every one of them. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Donald Sidor, 36026 Dover. I live directly behind the house. I dont see how you can gel any more than two houses on that property. I've lived there over 20 years. I knew a couple previous owners. My biggest concern is Ann Arbor Trail is definitely overloaded in traffic. I mean, its a two lane road. If you were to go to Five Mile, Six Mile, Seven Mile, you've got five lane roads. This is a two-lane road. And Joy Road dead ends into Wayne Road, so all the traffic that comes from Joy Road where it dead ends at Farmington, is all picked up by Ann Arbor Trail. When Hines Drive is dosed down, Ann Arbor Trail picks up all the traffic. The area along Ann Arbor Trail - there's a lot of flooding. There's some new houses and an apartment complex — anytime there's a lot a rain, half of Ann Arbor Trail will be flooded out on the lower side where the apartments are and 20357 there's a house there that they built. In the old homes, they had a ditch because they don't have any sewers along Ann Arbor Trail. They had a ditch. So now you've got all these extra houses going up, all this extra traffic, there are no left tum lanes. During rush hour, it's just pitiful. I mean the traffic is just so bad during rush hour, you're afraid to let your kids out there. There are no sidewalks. The kids walk along the shoulder of the road. If all these places are going to be built, all these houses that used to ... they put up the condominium complex. Idon't know how many. They put up subdivisions down towards Hines Drive. They probably put up 20 - 30 homes since I've been there. The traffic is getting worse. And like I said, the kids can't even walk to school because there's no sidewalks. But after school, therre up and down the road on the shoulders. And during the wintertime, theyre oft the shoulder and actually on the road. So if all these homes keep getting built, I feel that Ann Arbor Trail definitely needs to be widened. You need at least a tum lane. You need two-way traffic and a turn lane. And you need to do something about the drainage, and you need a place for pedestrians to walk because all these houses keep getting built, and this adds more people, more congestion and nothing has been done, but many homes have gone up. In the last 20 years, I'd say at lead 20 to 30 homes, plus two subdivisions have gone up now, a condominium complex. We've got two apartment complexes along there. I dont see how you could handle any more without doing major work on Ann Arbor Trail. That's my opinion. Like I say, on the property itself, I don't see how you can get more than two homes on that without cramming something in there. And if you curve them towards the road, that one, the house on the west side, the whole house would be facing the front of the other house that's to the west of H, in my opinion. Mr. McCann: You're saying two homes on top of the home that's already existing? Mr. Sidor: I'd say that home and one more just looking at be properly, because that house isn't oft to one side. You'd have to tear the garage oft or something. That's my opinion. My whole concern is the road and doing something with the pedestrian traffic and doing something with drainage. The more property, the more building you do, the less place for the water to drain. It's all on Ann Arbor Trail. In the springtime, we get big puddles out there. The City comes and puts signs up, but that doesn't do us any good. You still have to drive through it. Then they start freezing again, and then every heavy rain ... I don't know, like a couple 20358 of houses they built, they just don't seem to care. There's no place for that water to go. And if they're going to keep building homes, I'd like to see some type of sewer along the roadway since they're no longer pulling the ditches there to pick up that. Mr. McCann: Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak? The petitioner has the last opportunity. Is there any additional comments you'd like to make? Mr. Petro: As far as the water concern, of course we'd be working with the engineers and grading to solve any water problems if there were any. I don't know if Livonia requires it, but we'll be putfing in sidewalks if we can. We're going to try to upgrade the neighborhood and make it a little nicer. And its three homes we're looking for. We're not looking to put in condominiums and other things from 20 years back. We're looking to have a little peace and make it nice. Thank you. Mr. McCann: I will close the public hearing. A motion is in order. Mr. Alanskas: I agree in regards to the traffic situation on Ann Arbor Trail, but because of the depth of the lots and width, I believe it certainly could take three homes. So I will offer an approving resolution to change the zoning to the R-3 classification. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-66-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 20, 2003, on 2003-03-01-11, submitted by Michael Fant, requesting to rezone property at 36025 Ann Arbor Trail located on the south side of Ann Arbor Trail between Gmndon Avenue and Linville Avenue in the Southeast %of Section 32 from RUF to 1-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-03-01-11, as amended, be approved so as to rezone this property to R-3, for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area; 2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the development of the subject properly for single family residential purposes in a compatible manner with other developed properties in the area; 20359 3. That the proposed change of zoning to the R3 classification will provide for more appropriately sized and shaped lots given the dimensions of the subject property and the angles at which the side lot lines intersect with the Ann Arbor Trail right-of-way; and 4. That the proposed change of zoning to the R3 classification would allow for the development of homes that would be more in keeping with standards of new construction throughout the City. 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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution to R-3 zoning. ITEM #2 PETITION 2003-04-01-12 GENERAL PROPERTIES Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-04-01-12 submitted by Frank J. Kokenakes, on behalf of General Properties Company, LLC, requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Sunset Avenue between Kenwood Court and Eight Mile Road in the Northwest '/. of Section 2 from RUFA to R-3. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated April 14, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description provided is missing a length of 132 feet in the last call on the fourth line. We would recommend that any division proposed include the construction of Modock Street from its current dead end to Sunset Avenue. There are water mains, sanitary sewers and 20360 storm sewers to serve this site. However, these utilities will have to be extended to serve this site and the water main that currently dead ends in Modock Street must be looped to the existing main in Sunset Avenue." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The next letter is from a resident, Robert Eddy, 20238 Sunset, dated May 19, 2003, which reads as follows: 7 am writing to you to express my deep concern over the proposal to further develop Sunset Street. The proposal is slated for consideration during the Commission's normal session on Tuesday, May 20, 2003. Please accept this letter as a substitute for a verbal argument. 1 will unfortunately not be able to attend the 0,520 session. My family's position against the proposal continues to be based on the following points: (A) Preservation of current environment. Home location contributes largely to both quality of life and property value. Constructing new single family homes on the proposed property will unequivocally change both for the current residents of Sunset Street The proposal would change a wooded vista frem my front door into a view of an aged apartment complex. Noise buffering. Removal of the trees will create a daily reminder to the property owners of their proximity to 8 Mile and Merriman. Cumentiy, peace and quiet are large pluses to current owners and potential buyers. Loss of all character on the street. 1 can only say that you would have to drive by to comprehend the impact. (B) Questionable impact on property values. New construction is generally accepted to enhance overall property values for a given area. 1 would strongly disagree in this case. Proposed lot sizes are smaller than the current residents of Sunset Street. Small backyards will be facing an ugly apartment complex. Houses will to have to be biggerlbetter to equalize values - doesn't make sense on smaller lots, who's going to buy these homes? (C) Safety. The proposal will apparently necessitate the construction of a crossroad connecting Sunset and Merriman. Suddenly a new shortcut for the balance of the Sunset subdivision. Loss of all value on living on a cul-de-sac. No longer a positive forfamilies with children to live on this dead-end street. 1 realize that 1 am asking the City of Livonia to forego future property tax dollars in a period of revenue difficulty. 1 further understand the need to be flexible for the good of the city. `It's all of our problem.' But this is too much. The current residents of Sunset Street will be too negatively affected to allow this proposal to pass. 1 thank you for the opportunity to 'speak' on this important matter." Lastly, we have a letter from resident, Tony DiVilo, 20210 Sunset, dated May 13, 2003. This is a somewhat lengthy letter, but there is a conclusion section, which reads as follows: 'I think 20361 that the neighborhood is better served if the rural atmosphere is maintained. With new homes, the neighborhood will resemble an overpopulated subdivision with no 'country atmosphere.' Although more homes bring the city more tax dollars, less desirability brings values down. And an adequate buffer needs to be maintained between the Sunset subdivision and the multi -family development. Although 1 dont know what the current zoning would allow with regard to development of the property in question, 1 respectfully ask that the commission retain the Rural Urban Farm zoning. 1 also dont know the ownership details, but 1 wonder whether the city has considered purchasing the land for preservation purposes if there is no development considered for the future." That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Mr. Kokenakes, you are representing the pettoner? Frank Kokenakes, Frank Kokenakes, PLC, 39040 West Seven Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Yes. Good evening, members of the Commission. I am representing General Properties Company, LLC. In the audience with me is Mr. Elliott Schubiner, one of the members of the LLC. His brother, David Schubiner, did sign the pelition. David was called away to business in California. If necessary, Elliott can assist. This is our pefifion to rezone 2.8 acres of land on the Sunset Avenue Iocafion from RUF to R3 zoning. We have provided to you earlier a drawing of the prospective site under R-3 zoning which would show 11 lots. As was menfioned earlier, a similar petton came before the Planning Commission in 1999. At that lime, it was, in fad, unanimously adopted by the Planning Commission. It then went on to Council where it was denied. However, I believe the Planning Commission at that lime made the right decision, and I believe that there has been, in fad, a substamal change in circumstances since 1999, which would also mitigate in favor of allowing this pelition. As you are aware, since 1999, Wayne County has, in fad, imposed a stone water drainage requirement. That, in fad, will require us to make sure that any stone water would drain off the property at the appropriate amount. Because this is less than five acres, it's based upon a ten year stone volume versus a 100 year stone volume. Our first point is, any reduction in lots less than 11 would cause us a problem because we may have to use one of those lots as a potential water basin. I did have a chance to speak with Mr. David Ryzyi of the Wayne County DPS. We were talking hypotheticals. He didn't see this plan, but he did remind me, and I suppose you members know, that if a basin went in, we'd 20362 have to have a 25 foot buffer around that. So obviously it's an extensive situation. As we would develop this property, we will obviously have to get into those types of issues. It should be mentioned that some of the surrounding area is RA. I'm sure the Commission is well aware at that. Under an RA designation, there would only be nine lots available for this side of the street, whereas on the pre-existing Sunset Subdivision, they already have their ten lots. It is important to note, as Mr. Taormina mentioned, that these lots are R3 zoned but not quite R-3 configured. In fad, the widths of the lots, and that's what the yellow arrows indicate, are 87-1/2 feel. The depth is only 110 feet. Conversely, on the petitioner's plan, they have 132 feet depth. They are proposing traditional R-3 zoning with an 80 foot width. One of the concems that has come to my attention, and I'd like the Commission to avoid in a sense, a subjective perception ... there seems to be some concern that if we had 11 lots on the west side of the street, that the homes wouldn't match up to the east side of the street. And I believe to make that kind of determination is very subjective and I would suggest arbitrary. That, in fad, the perception of an intangible location is pretty hard to deal with. I want to reiterate that the east side of the street is R3 zoning with 10 lots. There is additional land. We have additional land coming off where the street enters and, in fad, we have sufficient room with the cul-de-sac to have a full 11 lots. I would note, and I'm sure the Commission's aware, that over here there's another small court, Kenwood Court, which is R4. And I would suggest to you, and of course the surrounding area is RUF, but I would suggest to you that this street is so isolated that it doesn't really lend itself to the issue of incompatibility with the other RUF areas. For sake of argument, if the plan was flipped and say that the current subdivision was actually situated on the west side and we were asking to rezone the east side, then you'd be actually abutting RUF property. Maybe that argument would have some weight, but not sufficient enough weight to overcome this strict ordinance at the R-3 ordinance, but it might have some weight. But, in fad, that's not the way it is. In fad, as has been mentioned, there is a Whispering Woods apartment complex here on that boundary. We have a parking lot and car ports and, of course, a dead-end road from Modock Avenue which does service the apartment complex. In fad, with this apartment here, with this other subdivision already built on the east side of the street, this whole development is isolated. And the change we're requesting does allow for compatibility. And I will note, I went back and looked at some of the minutes of the December 14, 1999, Planning Commission decision on this very same petition. 20363 The ruling was that the change is compatible with the surrounding area, that the change is a logical extension of the existing zoning district, that this change also allows the residential development in a compatible manner with the current Sunset Subdivision, and that the proposed change is consistent with the Future Land Use in this area. I had, in fact, appended several photographs, and I can share additional photographs with the Commission if you so desire. This is the view down the street. The screen arrow corresponds to the view of this photograph. It is attractive. However, what I also want the Planning Commission to note is that I have another photograph here. What is happening is this is becoming a dump for compost, grass and some cement and different things at that location. So, it's not being maintained as a park -like structure; in fad, someone, and I would suggest it must be some neighboring persons, are dumping their grass dippings and refuse on this site. It is our belief that the only fair and reasonable change of zoning would be to R-3. In fad, you would have a substantial yard for each home at 80' x 132'. The setback of these homes could be slightly offset. With careful planning, some of these trees, and I know that construction sites do get ripped up, but some of these trees could be retained in such a fashion as to block off the view of some of these homes, which I'm sure would be nice. But the point is that it would negate this perception that somehow this subdivision would not match with the subdivision across the street. It really penalizes the petitioner because, in fact, these sites, if I read the numbers correctly, don't really comply with the R3 zoning because they are not deep enough. Now maybe the total yardage, the total area, would work under the formula, but I don't believe the site and the width and depth does work. They received some zoning which may be arguably, and we believe we should be allowed the same type of R-3 zoning. Finally, I'd like to mention just a couple economic issues and then open the matter up for questions. First of all, I don't believe there is any traffic issue here. Further, this is a standard residential street and certainly able to service this number of homes. Note that on numerous occasions, members of the City talk about helping out our school district. Well, this is the Clarenceville School District, and for every child that goes into one of these homes, that's a foundation grant for the Clarenceville Schools of approximately $8,000. So, allowing an extra lot, an eleventh, would benefit the Clarenceville School District if someone moved in with children, which is probably the target area of this site development. Obviously additional property taxes. And the other issue is the fact that because the homes in the prior subdivision were built 20364 earlier, it would cost the petitioner a substanlial amount of money to con a new sewer system to service this new development. That cost would typically be passed on to the home buyers in some fashion and some proportion, and in fad mitigate against the type of development that you would want in this part of Livonia so that it would match with the existing homes, be comparable or upgraded somewhat. In conclusion, the petitioner believes that the Planning Commission made the right decision in 1999, should continue to make that ruling, and if necessary we will deal with the issues at Council. We believe that the Planning Commission did make the correct decision and this is, in fad, an R3 area and should be zoned that way. Thankyou. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Piercecchr You keep bringing up the Planning Commission decision of a couple years ago. The Council rejected that proposal because of the lot sizes; namely, the widths. So we're playing by different rules now. The rules are to try and match up that area across the street. Now, if we went into RA 90 foot lots and 132 feet in length, that meets all the requirements. You would match up with the property to the east because they are 87-1/2 feet there. Plus, across the street there are 10 lots, and with R- 4, you could gel 10 lots. So R4 is logical zoning under the present ground rules that's were working on, not 80 foot lots. Mr. Kokenakes: May I respond, sir? My understanding is that actually there might have been some discussions back in 1999 about trying to obtain 10 lots. My understanding is that on a straight R-4 development, we'd only get nine lots. I believe that's even set forth in the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals decision. I believe that is correct. In fad, I'm led to believe that once we extend out the distance for the R4, there would only be enough for nine lots on this parcel. And then we have to take into consideration that we have our storm water basin requirements out of Wayne County, which we're going to have to deal with. Mr. Piercecchr Sir, the point is that we should match up across the street the best we can, and R4 does that, not 80 feel. I can understand why the Council voted the way they did. I dont know how the people out there feel; perhaps somebody will come up and tell us how they feel about lot sizes. Mr. Kokenakes: Well, I hear what you're saying. I respectfully don't agree because that was one of the things I was trying to caution 20365 against earlier. We're talking about matching up. Well, what are we matching up? We're subjectively perceiving that the ... we don't have anything to compare because we have nothing built yet, so we're perceiving that there will be an ill match. I'm suggesting to the Planning Commission that is subjective, which tends to be arbitrary. And if you simply look at the land mass, 2.8 acres and the way its configured, R-3 makes the most sense from an objective point of view. When you start saying, well, this new development is not going to match up with the old development because they have three -and -a half feet more on each side of their houses, I think that gets very subjective, and I think that's something the Planning Commission should avoid. Mr. Piercecchi: Well, @ isn't any more subjective than the 80. Mr. Alanskas: Through the chair to Mark. Mark, on R4, how many lots could he put on there? Mr. Taormina: I believe Mr. Kokenakes' evaluation is accurate, that nine would be the maximum number of lots that could be achieved under an R4 zoning classification. Mr. Alanskas: So you would be losing two lots, from eleven to nine. I'm not that concemed as far as matching up because, as you say, you don't know until you build. What came in first, the R-3 Sunset or the R4 Kenwood? Did Kenwood come in after Sunset? Mr. McCann: R-3 came in first, I think, and then we did the R-4. Mr. Alanskas: So Kenwood came in last. I think the City is always trying to make an RUF property the biggest zoning we can. And that's my issue. I think the R4 is the correct zoning. Thank you. Mr. La Pine: Mark, when we originally heard this case, it was strictly a rezoning. We never saw a plan and how many houses were going to go in there and him they were going to be built. I never saw a plan. This is the first one I've ever seen. Mr. Taormina: I believe that there was a plan submitted during the rezoning petition and it may, in fact, be the same plan that is presented here this evening that shows an 11 lot design. There was a second plan generated. I'm not sure at what point during the rezoning process. It also showed the ten lot design with 88 foot wide lots. Mr. LaPine: We did have one with 10 lots atone time? 20366 Mr. Taormina: There are two plans in the previous rezoning file: one with 11 lots and one with 10 lots. Mr. La Pine: Mr. Kokenakes, a couple questions. Number one, you talk about the lots across the street are 110 feet deep and yours are 138 feel deep. Well, you know, a normal road in Livonia is 60 feet wide. So you've got a 55 fool wide road there. Maybe what we need here is you add five feel to that road and that would make the road 60 feel. But the other point I want to make, you stated the fact that there's a possibility, we don't know at this point, that you may lose a lot anyway because of the Wayne County water shed situation. Is that cored? Mr. Kokenakes: There is either a retention basin method or some kind of underground system. Mr. La Pine: So at this point, if you want me to vote on this tonight for 11 lots, I can't do it because I don't know if you're going to lose a lot or not You may end up with only len lots anyways. Mr. Kokenakes: Under the 123, yeah, with that siluabon. If we go to Rd, I'm at nine lots, and then what am I going to do? I'll be down to eight. Mr. La Pine: Well, you'll have nine lots, but you'll still have room to put in your retenfion basin or your underground system, whatever you have to do. You would lose two lots, but no matter which way you go, if you have to put the retenfion basin in, you're going to lose a lot. Mr. Kokenakes: Potentially, yes, and that's what we're concemed about, of course, because then ... Mr. La Pine: You're looking at it from a monetary point of view. I'm not looking at it monetarily; I'm looking at what I believe is in the best interests of the area and the City. And I have to agree, my personal opinion is, because it's R-3 across the street, it makes sense to have R-3 on this side of the street. No argument on my part on that. But I do believe we can make it ten lots. You would lose that one e)dm lot that you have to eliminate for the retention basin or else you're going to increase the size of the other ten lots. To me, that makes more sense, and widen the road and make it a 60 foot road. Maybe you can take this cut - de -sac and bring it around somehow and dosomething here. Mr. Kokenakes: I do note thatthe road is properly curved on both sides. 20367 Mr. La Pine: I understand that and it's 55 feel, but our normal is 60. Is that right, Mark? Mr. Taormina: Typically the right-of-way width is 60 feet. In this case, it's 55 feet. Mr. La Pine: Right. If your lots are that much deeper than the guy across the street, maybe we can increase the road and make it a 60 fool road and be compatible with most of the roads in Livonia. I have no problem, personally, with the R-3 because of across the street. But I do have a problem with the 11 lots, and at this point, I don't know if you're going to lose a lot for the underground retention basin or piping. No matter which way you go, you're going to have to shift the lots I vould assume. Thankyou, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCann: Frank, do you know if this is going to be going as a preliminary plat or a site condominium? Mr. Kokenakes: Well, that's a discussion that I briefly had with my client. We're not quite sure. He's showing some preference for a subdivision at this point, as the development across the street is. Mr. McCann: I'm just refering to the process. Preliminary plat or site condo process. Mark, did the other one go in as a condo or is that a preliminary plat? Mr. Taormina: It's a platted subdivision. Mr. McCann: The platfing that there's now, is that a supervisors plat? Is he going to have to go through and file a law suit? Mr. Taormina: No, this is an unplatled parcel. Mr. McCann: So he could go through a normal preliminary plat? Mr. Taormina: It could be developed either through the Land Division and Subdivision Control Statute and ordinances or site condominium, either way. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Kokenakes, you also brought up the point that if you lose a lot or if you have to run the sewers down through here, it's going to run up the cost of the land. Well, you're going to pass it onto the buyer anyways. If the buyer doesn't want to pay that price for the lot and house, he's not going to buy R. So I mean that's 20368 not really an argument. And about the children and the school, you can't guarantee that people with kids are going to buy these homes anyways. I mean, we got to have a home for old people like me. Mr. Kokenakes: That's correct, but I've heard on numerous occasions various city officials talk about their concem about developing new subdivisions, new residences, so that more children can move into the districts of both Livonia and Clarenceville, so I bring it up as a point. And you're right, there are some passing on of expenses, but we obviously have to make a development that is compatible with the neighborhood, especially directly across the street, so there are certain financial aspects thatwe look at. Mr. La Pine: Well, let me ask you this: the homes you are going to build, are they going to be compatible in sizes and prices of the houses across the street? Mr. Kokenakes: They would be compatible. That's coned. There would probably be some additional architectural details. Mr. La Pine: I'm saying as far as price -wise, basically. Mr. Kokenakes: I cant really confirm that in the sense that the pricing and all that has not been determined, but we're getting into those issues of what additional costs we will have in developing this site. Mr. La Pine: I would assume they're going to be a little more expensive because of the fact building material, labor costs and things of that nature have gone up. Mr. Kokenakes: That's reasonable. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to give Mr. Kokenakes the last opportunity to speak on this. Mr. Kokenakes: Just a final comment. I'm not surprised that some of the Commissioners had the suggestion of R-4 zoning. I was relatively prepared for that type of inquiry. I do believe that fundamental fairness does allow that this development should mirror the development across the street in regard to the zoning. I believe that the thought that tie eleventh lot is somehow going 20369 to askew the view of this area is subjective. We have extra land. This is the roadway in. We have the extra land on the side, and it seems to me this plan is reasonable and that most people would, in fad, like to have bts that are 132 feet in depth and not another five feet off for the road. And thafs a real positive. I dont want to reiterate, but I believe that the Planning Commissions'decisionbefore was appropriate. Thankyou. Mr. McCann: The public hearing is closed. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. La Pine, itwas RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 20, 2003, on Petition 2003-04-01-12 submitted by Frank J. Kokenakes, on behalf of General Properties Company, LLC, requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Sunset Avenue between Kenwood Court and Eight Mile Road in the Northwest % of Section 2 from RUFA to R-3, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003- 04-01-12 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area, and especially across the street from this petition; 2. That the proposed change of zoning is a logical extension of an existing zoning district in the area immediately to the south of the subject property; 3. That the proposed zoning district will provide for development of the subject property for single family residential purposes in a compatible manner with other developed properties in the area; and 4. That the proposed zoning district will allow for lot sizes that will be consistent with lots in Sunset Subdivision on the east side of Sunset Avenue directly across from the subject property; and 5. That no more than 10 homes shall be built on this property. 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. 20370 Mr. McCann: I don't know that we can condition the zoning. Mr. LaPine: Well, ifyou can't, then I will withdrew my motion. Mr. McCann: But it will come back for a preliminary plat and we can condition it at that point. If we make them aligning, it would reduce it to len lots; or if it went as a site condominium, we'd also have the opportunity to develop that. Mark, can we limit it? Mr. Taormina: Al this time, no. I would advise against trying to impose any conditions as part of the rezoning. Mr. La Pine: Then l withdrew my motion. Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as we can't resolve this thing by a motion, I'd like to move that we table this item and go through with the actions one more time. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, it was RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2003-04-01-12 submitted by Frank J. Kokenakes, on behalf of General Properties Company, LLC, requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Sunset Avenue between Kenwood Court and Eight Mile Road in the Northwest % of Section 2 from RUFA to R-3, be tabled. Mr. McCann: Is there support? Mrs. Smiley: Are they going to redrew it? Mr. Piercecchi: We're going to study it. That's all. Mr. McCann: The problem with redrawing doesn't matter because he's not bound by any of the drawings. This is strictly zoning. Its a question of what the proper zoning is. Is there a second for the motion to table? Motion fails for lack of support. Mr. Shane: I will repeat Mr. LaPine's motion absent his reason number five. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously adopted, R was #05-67-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 20, 2003, on Petition 2003-04-01-12 submitted by Frank J. Kokenakes, on 20371 behalf of General Properties Company, LLC, requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Sunset Avenue between Kenwood Court and Eight Mile Road in the Northwest ''/ at Section 2 from RUFA to R-3, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003- 04-01-12 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area; 2. That the proposed change of zoning is a logical extension of an exisfing zoning district in the area immediately to the south of the subject property; 3. That the proposed zoning district will provide for development of the subject property for single family residential purposes in a compatible manner with other developed properties in the area; and 4. That the proposed zoning district will allow for lot sizes that will be consistent with lots in Sunset Subdivision on the east side of Sunset Avenue directly across from the subject property. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions at Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Piercecchi: What was number five, limiting the number of homes? Mr. McCann: He made that motion with number five. Mr. Shane: I think the petitioner has made a reasonable, logical case for R- 3 zoning. I think it would be compatible to adjacent zoning in the area. I see no reason for notsupporfing this petition. Mr. Piercecchr I, loo, share Commissioner La Pine's feeling that one side of the street is R-3, the other side be too. I went through a lot of scenarios with it, too. Lets just say you really wanted to match up, I use that tens but I dont mean exactly matching up. But lets say we take the 87 foot. Using that logic, you could gel ten units in there. That what you'd gel because you have 922 feet and 10 units at 87 feel is 870 feel. If it comes back to us, that 20372 something we should consider. There seems to be a lot of opposition to 11 units on that street. The 87 feet gives you len, unless you lose a lot, then you're at nine. With the different regulations today with water, a lot of people are giving up lots. Mr. McCann: Yes, I agree. I think there are some issues, but they can be addressed at either site plan or site condo review. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Shane, Smilley, Pieroecchi, McCann NAYS: Alanskas ABSENT: Walsh Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2003-04-02-06 BILL BROWN FORD Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-04-02-06 submitted by Bob Gunnigle, on behalf of Bill Brown Ford, Inc., requesting waiver use approval for temporary storage and display of a maximum of 450 new cars and trucks in the parking lot of Wonderland Mall located at the southwest comer of Middlebell and Plymouth Roads in the Northeast %of Section 35. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated April 14, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. No additional right -0f -way dedication is required at this time. We are assuming that the petitioner will restrict his operations to the lots contained in the descriptions of parcels 1 and 11 so as not to interfere with the continued operations of the Target Store, the bank, the White Castle and the businesses who use the east end of the 20373 complex. We suggest that delivery traffic of vehicles be restricted to the three easterly drives from Plymouth Road and the northerly drive from Middlebelt Road." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated April 16, 2003, which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request by Bill Brown Ford, Inc., to temporarily store and display a maximum of 450 new cars and trucks in the parking lot of Wonderland Mall located on the southwest corner of Middlebelt and Plymouth Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Reasonable access is provided for fire equipment. (2) Storage does not block access to any fire hydrants. (3) Recommend that vehicles be separatedinto reasonably sized groups." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated April 21, 2003, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal Por temporary storage and display of new cars and trucks in the parking lot at Wonderland Mall. We have no objections to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated April 15, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 11, 2003, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objection to temporary storage and display at this location." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Bob Gunnigle, Bill Brown Ford, Inc., 32222 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Mr. McCann: What would you like to tell us? Mr. Gunnigle: We're here to request a waiver use for the display of new vehicles at the Wonderland Shopping center. As most people in Livonia know, we stored vehicles at the George Bums Theatre for a number of years and it served some good purposes. One, R made a wonderful display for us and it also made very good use of property located in the City of Livonia and improved the appearance of that intersection. If you happened to drive by there two days after we took the vehicles oft, before the George Bums Theatre was crushed, you saw how ratty it looked. It would have looked that way for years without us being there. 20374 I'm not saying that Wonderland looks that way now, but I think the appearance of our vehides there improves the appearance of that location. It certainly is a viable business purpose and it makes that particular shopping center look better used. So we're here requesting your approval for us to display vehides there. Mr. McCann: Do you have a copy of your sign package for this location? Mr. Gunnigle: I dont have one. Mr. McCann: Thank you. That's what l wanted to hear. Mr. Piercecchr I have a question and a comment, Mr. Gunnigle. Do you have a long -tern solution? What if you lose these parking privileges at Wonderland? What's next? A neighbor of mine said, 'What are we going to do? Move one eyesore to another location?" And he's got a point there. Aesthetically, if I can touch on that, when I was over there a couple days ago with my colleague, Mr. LaPine, we both thought that the southeast and southwest of the Wonderland lot was more favorable. You wouldn't have the cars just sifting there on Plymouth Road making a parking lot out of R. In the bade, you could hide them. Mr. Gunnigle: I beg your pardon? Mr. Piercecchr Basically, if you wished to, you could hide cars in the back because there's so much space there. But obviously you're looking for display here, too. Mr. Gunnigle: Absolutely. We're here merchandising vehicles. And if I put them in the back there, people won't see them. I could find another storage space in the City, back where you couldn't see the vehicles. Mr. Piercecchr To repeal my question, what long-term solution do you have when your parking privileges are exhausted here at Wonderland? And its going to exhaust because, as I understand, its on a month -m -month basis. Mr. Gunnigle: P�adty. Mr. Piercecchi: We added some language in our motion in reference to the duration. What long-term plan do you have? Mr. Gunnigle: We look at every piece of properly. 20375 Mr. Piercecchr First you used the George Bums property. Mr. Gunnigle: Right. Mr. Piercecchi: And when that was gone, you moved to Wonderland. Now when Wonderland is gone, what next? Mr. Gunnigle: We look at every piece of property that becomes available that looks like it would be good display properly on the major corridors, Plymouth Road and Farmington Road, which makes sense for us to display on. And we've yet to find one that is good display that we can afford. Obviously, the George Burns property was a wonderful display but it was way too expensive for vehicle storage. So we continue to look. We've looked at lots and lots of properties. Mr. Piercecchr In other words, you have no other site after this one? Mr. Gunnigle: Not display site, no. So if this goes away next month, then we'll be storing vehicles behind buildings. There's someone on Stark Road that offered us storage behind what used to be Erb Lumbers place there. But that's where you cant see them and that's a security problem there, greater than the one we have now. Mr. Piercecchi: The storage and/or display features ... does one dominate the other? Is it really display you wish or storage? Mr. Gunnigle: I use the terms interchangeably. I need to store them but I also would like them displayed while they are being stored. Mr. Piercecchr But you have no solution to your long-term storage as of now? Mr. Gunnigle: That is correct. If we had it, we would be there. Mr. Piercecchr I'm surprised you didn't buy that George Bums properly years ago. Mr. Gunnigle: That was pretty expensive. Ten years ago it was way too expensive for what we could do with it. Mr. Piercecchr $2.2 million ilwas a few years ago. Mr. Gunnigle: It sounds pretty expensive to me. 20376 Mr. Piercecchr That's a lot of acreage. Mr. Alanskas: In continuation of what Mr. Pieroecchi said, Bill Brown Ford would not consider reducing its inventory by 450 units? You always want to have at lead those somewhere? You would not have a lesser inventory? Mr. Gunnigle: Absolutely. Right now we have on the ground in Livonia, and you cant see this because a lot of them are parked in places that are hard to see, we have 500 new vehicles behind our used car facility on Wayne Road. You cant see them unless you drive in behind the building. So we have on the ground right now 2,100 new vehicles. Mr. Alanskas: Do most dealerships have that many vehides or do you just have more? Mr. Gunnigle: We have more. We're one of the largest Ford dealers. We're the eighth largest volume Ford dealer in the country. We normally don't carry this many vehicles, but in February, Ford came to us and asked up to buy an additional 500 vehicles in February and March to help keep their plants running. So we did. So that's one of the reasons why we have lots of vehides now. Mr. Alanskas: All right, thank you. Mr. LaPine: Bob, if you will remember, I mentioned to you that Wonderland might be a spot where you could store your cars. Mr. Gunnigle: Yes, sir. Mr. LaPine: But, I think I also told you that the spot I wanted was behind Wonderland, not along Plymouth Road. All we're moving is one parking lot from Plymouth Road and Farmington to Middlebell and Plymouth Road. To me, that's not acceptable. Why can't we put those cars behind the building? Mr. Gunnigle: I looked into that. Mr. La Pine: Let me just go on. You keep saying you want display. Mr. Gunnigle: Sure. Mr. LaPine: You're not selling cars there. I checked out the Terrace Theater. Mr. Pieroecchi and I went out there. When you came 20377 Mr. Gunnigle: I was told that I shouldn't even consider storing vehicles behind this property at Wonderland because the neighbors to the south objected to other people wanting to store vehicles there. With respect to displaying vehides as opposed to having them stored behind somewhere where people can't see them, sure. The more exposure they have, the better opportunity you have to sell the vehide. Truthfully, it is a positive thing for Bill Brown Ford and for Livonia to have people in Livonia and other people come to Livonia to buy Ford products from us. It provides jobs; it pays taxes. There's nothing wrong with this concept in our estimation. Mr. La Pine: Well, in my estimation, there is because you're trying to create now three different display areas in the City. Tell me what other car dealer in the City has that many displays? Tennyson Chevrolet only has one location. The Buick dealership only has one location. The Volkswagen dealership only has one location. I'm not opposed to you having the cars there. I'm opposed to in at the Terrace Theater, that was going to be a used car lot. And then the big window says "used cars" That's what it says there. Ninety percent of the cars parked there are brand new cars. Mr. Gunnigle: No, no. Mr. La Pine: Oh yeah. We went out there and checked R. Mr. Gunnigle: I understand that. But let me .. there's a misconception here. Our petition was for new vehicle storage, a body shop and used vehides. Righlfrom the get -go. Mr. La Pine: Well, that's not the way I understood it, but that's not here nor there. You've got a display shop there where people can look at cars. Before you had the George Burns Theater, you had all those cars parked behind your building north of the Bill Brown dealership. You've got hundreds of cars parked back there. How many places do you need to shoe cars? There's only so many models made. They look at the models there. They pick out which car they want. You look at your inventory and you find out if you've got one stored around town, and they can go and get them. I don't understand why we have to have three or four locations to display your automobiles. I always thought this was for storage. You had so many cars, and you had someplace to store them because you didn't have enough room at your dealership. Mr. Gunnigle: I was told that I shouldn't even consider storing vehicles behind this property at Wonderland because the neighbors to the south objected to other people wanting to store vehicles there. With respect to displaying vehides as opposed to having them stored behind somewhere where people can't see them, sure. The more exposure they have, the better opportunity you have to sell the vehide. Truthfully, it is a positive thing for Bill Brown Ford and for Livonia to have people in Livonia and other people come to Livonia to buy Ford products from us. It provides jobs; it pays taxes. There's nothing wrong with this concept in our estimation. Mr. La Pine: Well, in my estimation, there is because you're trying to create now three different display areas in the City. Tell me what other car dealer in the City has that many displays? Tennyson Chevrolet only has one location. The Buick dealership only has one location. The Volkswagen dealership only has one location. I'm not opposed to you having the cars there. I'm opposed to 20378 where you're putting them. We spent a lot of money on Plymouth Road to beautify it. And in my opinion, you say, "oh, it makes it look good." I dont think so. I think new people coming into Livonia, they drive in and say, "Oh, my god, they have a parking lot here" They're building a new big project right across the street from Wonderland, the new Walgreens. It just doesn't seem logical that you would have all those cars parked. And then when I go out there and look at them, you have them as close as you can to Plymouth Road. There's no way we can police that. I cant police that. The City isn't going to police that. You heard tonight, there were cars out there. Mark was out there. I was out there. And they are loo dose to Plymouth Road. They are not 20 feel back from Plymouth Road. Mr. Gunnigle: You know what we did. We put them in the available parking spots as they were designed. So we will take a look at getting them off Plymouth Road. Mr. La Pine: See, that's the point. Once you gel it, who is going to police it? You can put them anywhere you want. I'm not opposed to it being here. It's just that I think the location is the wrong location right on Plymouth Road. That's my personal opinion. I might be the only one to vole against this, but that's the way I feel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Smiley: Is it also a security matter, sir, that you want to park them on Plymouth Road as opposed to behind the building? Mr. Gunnigle: Absolutely. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? I don't see anybody. In a way, I understand what Mr. Gunnigle is saying. You really saw what the abandoned property like the Mai Kai looked like when they removed the cars. I'm not saying the cars there were a blessing, but it beat a vacant parking lot with weeds growing in it. It had a blighted look to it and we're getting that a little bit. But I am concerned about the cars getting too tight out there. Would there be a solution on this? I see what you're saying. Restrict it so there is no parking in the first row of the lot that abuts Plymouth Road and Middlebelt Road to kind of deaden the impact a little bit. Mr. LaPine: Its still my gut feeling. I just don't think that's the right thing we should use it for, a parking lot. I understand we said in the motion two years. But when he originally moved to the Mai Kai 20379 location, that was supposed to be a short term situation. And then we get two years. He comes in, we give him another year. Then two years, he gets another year. I mean Wondedand is not going to be tom down and new construction done in the next two years in my opinion. Its going to be a long term operation and it's going to take a little time. I have no objection to the cars being parked here. Lel me ask you this question. All the vehicles you have there, you say you want them for sales reasons. What if you put two or time of each make out there and put the rest in the back? You have so many different vehides, different trucks, so many models. Maybe there are 20 models. I don't know how many different models Ford Motor Company has. And you put five or six each of hose out on Plymouth Road and Middlebell so they can be seen and the rest are behind the building. Is that a solution? Mr. Gunnigle: One of the things that you do with a volume display, a large display, is you let people know you have a terrific selection. That's one of the reasons we have it there. When we originally put vehicles down at the George Burns Theatre, I had a personal friend come by and said, "I saw your vehicles at the George Bums Theatre" We had under 300 vehicles there. And he told rte, "I wasn't aware you were such a large dealership." Now, when I told him that was about a third of our inventory, it surprised him. It's really important for people to see that you have a large selection, and this is a good place to go if you want to be able to pick out what you want in terms of personal choice in a vehide. So that's why we like to have a large display. Mr. La Pine: But the point is, you only have so many models. Cant they look at the model? I dont care if you have one color of every model you own, you dont have to have them all out there in front, do you? Mr. Gunnigle: If I did the permutations, we'd probably have 450 out there anyway, Mr. La Pine. Mr. La Pine: Okay. Mr. Alanskas: Do you have a problem taking your front row of cars and putting them in back? Mr. Gunnigle: Mr. Taormina is pointing out that it's not within the ordinance anyway, so I need to move them. Right? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. 20380 Mr. Gunnigle: So we'll take them out of there. Sure. Mr. Alanskas: I'm sorry. What? Mr. Gunnigle: We'll take them out of there. The only reason they were there is because we parked the cars in available slots. Mr. Alanskas: If you just move that front row back so you'd have 20 feet off Plymouth Road before we start seeing cars. Mr. Gunnigle: Sure, we can do that. Mr. Alanskas: I mean that would help somewhat. Okay. Thank you. Mr. McCann: I'm going to dose the public hearing if there is no one in the audience wishing to speak. Any last comments, Mr. Gunnigle? Mr. Gunnigle: No, I appreciate your consideration. Thanks for hearing me out. Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. On a motion by Mrs. Smiley, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and adopted, ilwas #05-68-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 20, 2003, on Petition 2003-04-02-06 submitted by Bob Gunnigle, on behalf of Bill Brown Ford, Inc., requesting waiver use approval for temporary storage and display of a maximum of 450 new cars and trucks in the parking lot of Wonderland Mall located at the southwest comer of Middlebell and Plymouth Roads in the Northeast % of Section 35, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-04-02- 06 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the maximum number of vehicles to be displayed or stored on the site at any one time shall be limited to 450; 2. That the display or storage of vehicles shall occur only within the designated area in the northeasterly portion of the Wonderland Mall parking lot as shown on the site plan submitted with this request; 3. In accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to this use, no vehicles shall be displayed or 20381 stored within 20 feet from the Plymouth Road or Middlebelt Road rights -0f --way; 4. That this approval shall incorporate the following comments listed in the correspondence dated April 16, 2003 from the Fire and Rescue Division: - Reasonable access shall be provided for fire equipment; - Storage shall not block access to any fire hydrants; - Vehicles shall be separated into reasonably sized groups; 5. As recommended in the correspondence dated April 14, 2003 from the Engineering Division, delivery trucks and car haulers shall be restricted to the three easterly drives from Plymouth Road and the northerly drive from Middlebelt Road; 6. That this approval is granted for a period of two years only from the dale of approval of this pefition by the City Council; and 7. The Petitioner shall submit a letter of understanding to the City acknowledging the temporary nature of this waiver use and the fact that it will terminate on the date provided herein, unless it is approved by a resolution of the City Council to extend or renew the waiver use upon fling of a request for same by the Petitioner prior to the expiration date. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved 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 adjacent uses in the area. 20382 Mr.Shane: Okay. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Oh, on the waiver use. Thank you, Mr. Shane. Mr. McCann: As long as its part of your agreement. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Shane answered my question. I always thought the waiver use went with the land, but if he is going to limit it to two years, he can't get an extension on the waiver use unless the Council approves it? Is that right. Mr. Taormina: In this case, that is correct. He would have to seek an extension of the waiver use. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann: Mr. Gunnigle, I have one concern before we vote on this. I understand when we remove it from the right -0f -way, the parking spots are 20 feel in depth. You may only lose half of a 10 foot spot. I dont want to be driving down the road and see the side of all the cars parked sideways. I'd prefer that if they are not going to fl into a proper marked spot, that we just don't create a line of cars coming down parallel to Plymouth Road. Mr. Gunnigle: No, we wouldn't do that. Mr. McCann: All right. Just so we have you on the record because right now the parking spots are perpendicularlo Plymouth Road. Mr. Gunnigle: Correct. Mr. McCann: And you'd have to back it up about len feet in order to meet the 20 fool requirement. I just don't want you to put them in sideways. It would look odd to me to see a line of cars parked liked that. Mr. Gunnigle: I promise you I'm not into odd looking displays, Mr. McCann. Mr. Shane: Mr. Gunnigle, you have agreed to the two year limitation. Mr. Gunnigle: Yes, Mr. Shane. Mr.Shane: Okay. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Oh, on the waiver use. Thank you, Mr. Shane. Mr. McCann: As long as its part of your agreement. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Shane answered my question. I always thought the waiver use went with the land, but if he is going to limit it to two years, he can't get an extension on the waiver use unless the Council approves it? Is that right. Mr. Taormina: In this case, that is correct. He would have to seek an extension of the waiver use. 20383 Mr. La Pine: Okay. Let the record show that I'm not opposed to the cars being parked there. My opposifion is to the location of the vehicles. Mr. Piercecchi: I share that opinion. That's why I'm voting "no" because of item number two. It states that this "shall occur only within the designated area in the northeasterly porfion." A roll call vote on the foregoing resolufion resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, Alanskas, Shane, McCann NAYS: La Pine, Piercecohi ABSENT: Walsh Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolufion adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #4 PETITION 2003-04-02-07 M&M Enterprises (Quizno's) Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-04-02-07 submitted by Mark Lambert, on behalf of M & M Enterprises of Michigan, requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant (Quizno's Subs) on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington and Norwich Roads (33602 Seven Mile) in the Southeast %of Section 4. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated April 23, 2003, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a limited service restaurant located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 7, 2003, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal to operate a limited service restaurant located on the north side of 20384 Seven Mile Road between Farmington Road and Norwich. We subject the following observations for your consideration. The site plan shows two handicap parking spaces on the property near the storefront There is only one handicap parking space and it is not property posted. A person using the handicap parking space while in a wheel chair will not be able to get to the entrance door of the proposed restaurant due to the front ends of other parked vehicles hanging over the sidewalk along the building front We recommend that a second handicap parking space and ramp be installed in the front of the proposed restaurant. There is a second handicap parking space behind the building, but it is not practical for use by customers since they would have to walk or wheel around to the front of the building in order to access the door. On a recent Saturday morning at 10.30 a.m., there were three employees working. This left only seven parking spaces available for customers. There is additional parking available on the north side of the building. We recommend a sign be placed near the entrance indicating additional parking in the rear." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 2, 2003, and revised May 9, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 17, 2003, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) As this is a change in use group, this site will be required to be fully barrier free compliant to include the entry door and entry access with proper ramping. (2) This site with twenty seats plus employees requires two bathrooms, one for men and one for women. This will change their configuration substantially and should be addressed now. (3) The parking lot needs repair, maintenance, resealing and double striping. (4) The barrier free parking must be property sized, marked and signed. (5) Maintain/replace small berm landscaping east of lot entry. (6) There are two unenclosed dumpsters in he rear existing. A Wood' enclosure appears to be proposed for this site. This should be clarified. (7) The chain fence at the northeast comer needs repair. (8) No signage has been reviewed. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. There is a letter from a resident received by the Planning Commission on May 14, 2003, which reads as follows: 7 am out of state and will be unable to attend the May 20 meeting. 1 am strongly opposed to the subject waiver. The proposed location of the Quizno store is in a very small strip mall that backs up directly to several private homes, including mine. The existing stores have daytime hours and do not disturb residents in the evening. A Quizno store will 20385 have late hours and noise late at night. Itis unfair to existing homeowners to allow this change. 1 am thanking you in advance for reading my letter at the May 20 meeting." The letter is signed by Joseph Ceru, 33895 Gable, Livonia, Michigan. Lastly, there is a letter from the owner of the shopping center, Dominic Soave, received on May 16, 2003, which reads as follows: After Reviewing the report from the Inspection Department, we will agree to repair parking lot, re -stripe, and install additional handicap signs and ramps according to code or direction from inspection department. The cyclone fence has been repaired and new shrubs installed. In addition, we have also seeded the right of way. We would prefer to build a wood dumpster enclosure at this time. The report from the haffic bureau states that there are only ten parking spaces in front of building. According to the site plan them is eighteen. 1 hope this will help the planning department in coming to a favorable decision for the Quizno's sub shop proposed for our building at 33602 West Seven Mile. If I can be of any further assistance don't hesitate to let me know." That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Mark Lambert, M&M Enterprises of Michigan, 8905 Houghton, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Mr. McCann: Is there something you would like to tell us about your petition? Mr. Lambert: Yes. We're aslang for a waiver to operate a Quizno's Sub Shop at this location. All the issues that were brought up as far as parking, Mr. Soave has agreed to handle those and meet the requirements. As far as the noise issue from the one letter, we close at 9:00 p.m. I would say that the majority of business is done before 7:00, so the noise would only be from cars pulling up to the front on a limited basis. We have four employees, so I don't see where there would be any problem as far as noise affecting the residents. There is a brick wall that's 12 foot tall behind our building. So I don't see how the noise is going to affectanybody. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: On the site plan, it says "place toaster oven away from sneeze guard" Can you tell me what a "sneeze guard" is? I'm pretty sure I know what it is but I want to make sure. Is that so when employees sneeze, it doesn't go on the food? 20386 Mr. Lambert: Actually, ifs not the employees, ifs the customers. When you come into a Quiznos, you have a line that you follow going through. As you're placing your order, you have to talk to the order maker. So there is a clear, plexiglass guard there, so if a customer sneezes, it wont gel on the food. Mr. Alanskas: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: You said 9:00 is the closing time. Is that cast in cement? Mr. Lambert: Yeah. The Quizno's hours ... they open at 11:00 a.m. and they close at 9:00 p.m. Of course, we have people there before 11:00 to do food prep. We open about 8:00 with a minimum crew to do food prep and after 9:00 it would be the deanup, which would probably be two people in the store atthattime. Mr. Piercecchi: What is your busiest time flame? Mr. Lambert: 1100 to 2:00 is the busiestfime for fundi. Mr. Piercecchr But at 9:00 for sure, you're closed down. Mr. Lambert: Yes. We are restricted by Quizno's as far as to how our hours go, but that is how it is. If there was a problem, we would have to come back and gel authorization. Mr. Piercecchr Thankyou. Mr. La Pine: Two things. I talked to the owner of the properly and he's agreed to put up a masonry trash receptacle so we have no problem there. As far as the operation, 9:00 is fine. Apparently, this letter from a homeowner, and I happen to live in that subdivision right there. Apparently this guy is not an original homeowner because for years and years we had a Little Caeser's in there. Little Caeser's was open to 11:00 at night and there never was a problem as far as I know, because by that time, everything is closed in there, except we have a 'kung fu" type store. I dont know what time they close. I dont see a problem at all. Thankyou, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Smiley: Are there always two people there? Mr. Lambert: A minimum of two people. Mrs. Smiley: Good. 20387 Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Mr. Lambert, do you have any last comment? Mr. Lambert: No, other than I look forward to opening my restaurant in Livonia. I'm a long time resident. I think it will benefit the area and the businesses that are in that mall. Mr. LaPine: I assume you're going to have a sign on the front of the building, plus one of those panels in the free-standing sign. Mr. Lambert: Yes, sir. Mr. McCann: I'll close the public hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-69-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 20, 2003, on Petition 2003-04-02-07 submitted by Mark Lambert, on behalf of M & M Enterprises of Michigan, requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant (Quimo's Subs) on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington and Norwich Roads (33602 Seven Mile) in the Southeast % of Section 4, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-04-02- 07 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the number of customer seats shall be limited to no more than 20 seats; 2. That the following issues as outlined in the correspondence dated May 9, 2003, as revised, from the Inspection Department shall be resolved to that department's satisfaction: - Repair, maintenance, resealing and double striping of the parking lot; - Maintenance and/or replacement of landscaping east of the lot entry driveway; - Repair of the chain link fence at the northeasterly comer of the site; - This space shall be fully barrier free compliant, including the entry door and entry access with proper grading, since this is a change in use group; The restaurant shall provide two bathrooms as required based upon the number of seats plus employees; A dumpster enclosure shall be provided in the rear parking area which shall be constructed of brick or reinforced poured concrete walls with simulated brick pattern and with wood or metal endosure gates whidi shall be properly maintained and, when not in use, closed at all times; That this approval shall incorporate the following recommendations listed in the correspondence dated May 7, 2003, from the Traffic Bureau ofthe Division of Police: - A second handicapped parking space and ramp shall be installed in the front of the proposed restaurant; - A sign shall be placed near the entrance indicating that additional parking is available at the rear of the site. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 10.03 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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 20389 ITEM #5 PETITION 2003-04-02-08 CVK Enterprises (Quizno's) Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petiton 2003-04-02-08 submitted by Vijay Kapadia, on behalf of CVK Enterprise LLC, requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant (Quizno's Subs) in the New Five Village Plaza shopping center located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Blue Sides Avenue (37621 Five Mile) in the Northeast %of Section 19. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated April 30, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above-refemnced petition. We have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated April 23, 2003, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a limited service restaurant located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 7, 2003, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal to operate a limited service restaurant in the area of Five Mile and Newburgh. We have no recommendations concerning this proposal" The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 2, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 22, 2003, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) As this is a change in use group, this site will be required to be fully barrier free compliant to include the entry door and entry access with proper ramping. (2) At the entry, the lower solider brick course need tuck -pointing. (3) The parking lot needs double striping and repair in certain areas (settled trenches for lighting, etc.). (4) There are many unenclosed dumpsters at the rear of this site. What provision has been made for this site for trash? (5) There are south rear exit doors on this center that need maintenance or to be replaced. This Department has no further objections to this 20390 petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Vijay Kapadia, CVK Enterprise, LLC, 43726 Stuart Drive, Canton, Michigan 48187. Mr. McCann: Do you want to tell us anything more about your restaurant? Mr. Kapadia: We'd just like to gel waiver use approval from you. Wed like to open the business pretty soon. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: Sir, are you going to have your own dumpster in the back? Mr. Kapadia: Yes, we can arrange for that. Mr. Alanskas: How many times a week will you be having that dumped? Mr. Kapadia: It will be a maximum of two. Mr. Alamkas: The reason why I ask is because I work for the bank there three days a week, and I have to take trash out Monday, Wednesday and Friday. And due to the restaurants there, a lot of times theyll get so busy that the dumpster will be full. They'll take trash bags and put them right on the driveway in the back, and it's a total mess. Mr. Kapadia: It won't happen. Mr. Alanskas: Well, that's what they've said also. What happens is a lot of employees when they want to put trash in the dumpster, if they're puffing a box in a dumpster instead of breaking it down small, they just throw the entire box in there. Well, you put in eight or ten boxes, that dumpster is full. So it's very important that if you get approved, that you must keep that back rear area dean at all limes because when a wind mmes by, it blows these bags away. Then you've got trash all over, and it's not fair to the neighbors and its not fair to the other business people that do a good job of putting their trash out. In fact, the bank has a lock on their dumpster so no one else can go into that dumpster. I behoove you that you must keep it clean at all limes, because if this petition is approved, I'm 20391 going to be policing your dumpster. And if that happens, I'm going to tum you in. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Anybody else? Mr. LaPine: Will your hours be the same as the previous owners? Mr. Kapadia: Yes, the same as the previous owners. Mr. LaPine: Mark, I notice in the motion that they talk about the dumpster back there, but I don't see anything about an enclosure as we have in the other case. I noticed when I inspected back there, there are a lot of dumpsters without enclosures. Why aren't there any enclosures back them? Mr. Taormina: Well, it was probably never a requirement of the original site plan for that center. There is a number of dumpsters back there that are not endosed, but theyre not visible to the public either. There is a screen wall on the opposite side of the service drive adjacent to the rear of the building and then on the opposite side is a church parking lot. Mr. LaPine: But doesn't the ordinance say you're suppose to have an endosure? It doesn't say that if its not exposed to the public you dont have to have one. I don't think it says that. Mr. Taormina: Site plan review standards stipulate that dumpsters are not to be visible to the public. Our current practice is to have all dumpsters screened with masonry enclosures. I don't believe that was the practice a couple years ago. Mr. LaPine: Can we start here? Mr. Taormina: We could start with this particular petitioner. It would be somewhat onerous to have this particular applicant screen all 12 or 14 of those dumpsters behind this shopping complex, including everything from Fanner Jack all the way to this space. Mr. LaPine: Thankyou. Mr. Alanskas: I can address that for you. On all those dumpsters, when the truck comes in, they come in east and west. If it was endosed facing the south, the truck could not come into an enclosure and get back out. There's not enough room. So they pick up from the side. Every time you go back there, a dumpster will 20392 be in a different location. It would be moved a fool or two this way depending on how they drop it. Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Rick Fell, 37579 Five Mile Road. I own the Subway store in the center. My concern is the duplication of another sub store in that center. That center has an unique situation where they have two landlords. When I went into this center, on my lease I had a clause that said no competing sub stores or anything of my type of business would be in that section. My landlord asked me to speak for him tonight, as well as some of the other food businesses there. We're concerned about what will happen in having a duplicafing store coming into the center. Basically, its a lose -lose siluaton because it reduces the revenue for both stores. A good example is, you look at a lot of centers around Livonia and you won't see two drugstores or two grocery stores in the same center. For that reason, it is our concern as far as putting in another sub store in that center. Mr. LaPine: I understand you said there are two separate owners of that property? Mr. Fell: Correct. There are two landlords. Mr. LaPine: So the landlord you have is different from the landlord that these gentlemen will have. Mr. FNI: Correct. Mr. LaPine: So therefore, the one landlord has no obligation because you don't have an agreement with him? Mr. FNI: Right. Now, there's no problem with that. However, for the reason of having that in there, it just reinforces the concern about the duplication. Mr. LaPine: l understand what you're saying. Thank you. Mr. Shane: Is there a significant difference between the product that you sell and the product that this other gentleman sells? I know theyre both subs. Mr. Fell : I think they're basically sandwiches. However, how theyre prepared is where it differs. I've never been to one, but from 20393 what I've read about them, they run the sandwiches through a wanner and they are limited on the types of condiments that go on the sandwiches compared to where we use fresh condiments and a larger variety, but basically they're both sandwiches. Mr. Alanskas: I've been to both Quiznos and Subway. Of course, I go to Rick's quite a bit. They are entirely different menus because Quizno's has salads, hot soups, chili. So they both are a sub shop, but they both have different products. Thank you. Mr. McCann: I know Subway because my son orders the chicken soup. Mr. Fell: We do offer soups as well and the salads. We're not just sandwiches. I probably misspoke. I should have said that we do offer a larger variety. We have the party subs. We have platters. We have the salads and the soups. Our soups generally though ran through the fall, winter and spring months. And then in the summer we discontinue those because the demand is reduced. Mr. McCann: But doesn't Burger King want to park right across the street from McDonalds, need to Wendy's across the street from Arby's? Mr. Fell: Well, that's true, but they're not in the same center. They're across the street. Mr. McCann: Okay, thank you, sir. Is there anybody else wishing to speak? I'm going to close the public hearing. Any last comments, Mr. Kapadia? Mr. Kapadia: Yes. There is a difference. This one is toasted subs. Mr. McCann: Okay. Yours are toasted. Mr. Kapadia: They are toasted and they go through the oven. We have different condiments and all this stuff also. Mr. McCann: And Burger King's are flame broiled. Mr. Piercecchi: All these people with knowledge aboutfood. Mr. McCann: When you've got kids, you get to know all this. A motion is in order. 20394 On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. La Pine, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-70-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 20, 2003, on Petition 2003-04-02-08 submitted by Vijay Kapadia, on behalf of CVK Enterprise, LLC, requesfing waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant (Quizno's Subs) in the New Five Village Plaza shopping center located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Blue Sides Avenue (37621 Five Mile) in the Northeast''/.of Section 19, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-04-02-08 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the number of customer seats shall be limited b no more than 30 seats; 2. That the following issues as outlined in the correspondence dated May 2, 2003, from the Inspection Department shall be rectified to that department's safisfaction: - This space shall be fully barrier free compliant, including the entry door and entry access with proper grading, since this is a change in use group; - At the entry, the lower soldier course needs tuck - pointing; - The parking lot needs double striping and repair in certain areas; - Where it is needed, south rear exit doors on this center shall receive proper maintenance or be replaced. 3. That a dumpster shall be provided for the subject restaurant and shall be emptied regularly as needed. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 20395 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate tie 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. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Alanskas: Sir, what are your hours going to be? Mr. Kapadia: The same. Mr. Alanskas: You dose at 9:00. Is that six or seven days a week? Mr. Kapadia: Seven days. Mr. Alanskas: Thankyou. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #6 PETITION 2003-04-02-09 RED ROBIN RESTAURANT Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-04-02-09, submitted by Ansam Restaurant Group, on behalf of Red Robin Restaurant, requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in connection with the redevelopment of a full service restaurant at 16995 S. Laurel Park Drive on property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between -275 and South Laurel Park Drive in the Northeast%of Section 18. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? 20396 Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated April 30, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal or legal description contained therein." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated April 23, 2003, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a Class C liquor license in connection with the redevelopment of a full service restaurant located on property at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 7, 2003, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal to operate a fullaervice restaurant at the old Bill Knapps location on Six Mile Road and South Laurel Park. We have no recommendations or objections concerning this proposal." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 2, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 22, 2003, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Repair south access drive as needed. Provide repair, maintenance, resealing and double striping of all existing parking areas as needed. (2) The landscaping should be updated to replace dead and unsuitable trees and plants. The irrigation should be tested prior to occupancy. (3) The ramping from the parking lot to the sidewalk is unclear at this time and will be reviewed by the field inspector. (4) No signage has been reviewed, however, the petition will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to have an additional wall sign (2') and extra square footage. (5) The petition will also require a waiver from Council, as there are several other Class C licenses in the area. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the pefitioner here this evening? John B. Carlin, Jr., Plunkett & Cooney, PC, 38505 Woodward, Suite 2000, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304. 1 am appearing on behalf of the Ansam Restaurant Group. Also with me tonight is Victor Ansam, President of the Group. The Ansara family has been in business here in Livonia for over 20 years. They own the Big Boy in the Newburgh Plaza. This will be a brand new Red 20397 Robin Restaurant. They are going to tear down the old building and replace it with a new one as you heard Mr. Taormina indicate. It's a full service restaurant with Class C license, beer, wine and spirits, which is very typical of the other Red Robin Restaurants. They have ten of them in the metropolitan Detroit area at this time. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: You said there are 10 restaurants in the area. I've been to two. Do they all have liquor licenses? Mr. Carlin: Yes, they do. Mr. Alanskas: What percent of sales is liquor in the restaurants? Mr. Carlin: Approximately 10 percent. Mr. Alanskas: So 90 percent is mainly food sales. Mr. Carlin: That is correct. Mr. Alanskas: So if you did not have a liquor license, could you survive at this location? Mr. Carlin: No, wewould not do it without a liquor license. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Mr. Piercecchr Sir, this is a common question I'm going to ask you. What hours do you plan to operate? Vidor Ansara, Ansara Restaurant Group, 39303 Country Club Drive, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48331. Our typical hours are from 1100 in the morning until midnight during the week and until 100 a.m. on the weekends. Those would be the maximum hours. Mr. Piercecchr In regard to this Class C license, will you be serving the alcohol only to seated guests in the restaurant or will you serve walk-in guests in a bar atmosphere also? Mr. Ansara: We do have a small bar in the restaurant. We do have walk-up service to the bar. There are seats at the bar. Its not a carry- out type situation. Mr. Piercecchr Do you get much walk-in traffic without dinners? 20398 Mr. Ansara: Very litlle actually. We're mainly a family-oriented restaurant. We're a family -friendly, casual dining restaurant. A liquor license is required not only by us but by our franchise. Mr. Carlin said ten percent. Ten percent is really the maximum that we have in alcoholic beverage sales. Mr. Piercecchr With regard to the blueprint that you gave us, wouldn't it be prudent to replace the dryvil on the walkway adjacent to the entrance with cultured stone up to the first limestone accent band just to keep that area from being beat up? Mr. Ansara: We have considered that. Actually, the plans that you have right now are preliminary. We are looking at some slight modifications to the exterior. We would be willing to look at replacing that first band. Mr. Piercecchr Yeah, right up to that limestone accent band. When I look at your color rendering, I can see the problem with people banging into it and then chipping it. Mr. Ansara: We've already considered that, and we would have no problem in doing that. Mr. Piercecchi: You don't have an objection to that? Mr. Ansara: Not at all. Mr. La Pine: I'm looking at the Poor plan, and I'm trying to find where the bar area is located. I see where the liquor, beverage, and ice are. I'm just curious where the bar is and how many seats are around the bar. Mr. Ansara: We'll pull that out. The bar area is located right here. To kind of orient yourself, this would be Six Mile Road. The entranceway is right here. This is the bar location. Mr. La Pine: So the bar is behind Dining A. Isthatcomect? Mr. Ansara: It's adjacent to Dining A. Mr. La Pine: How many seats will you have at the bar? Mr. Ansara: There are 10 seats shown here, and typically that's where we're at. We're between 9 and 12 seats at the bar. 20399 Mr. LaPine: I've only been in one Red Robin. It's been so long I'm not really up on it. At your entry area, i you're crowded in here and people want to wait, how much waiting room do you have outthere? Mr. Ansara: This is the entire area here. You can see it's a pretty significant waiting area. We have bench seating along this radius as well as this radius. Our host stand would be right here. There's quite a bit of wail area. Mr. LaPine: As you said, this is more of a family -type restaurant. Is it similar to what a Big Boy restaurant is? Mr. Ansara: No, I wouldn't consider it similar to a Big Boy. We wouldn't be putting it next to our Big Boy if we thought it was that dose. Mr. LaPine: Would you consider it to be like an Applebee's or something like that? Mr. Ansara: I would say its similar to Max and Ira's, or a Chili's, or Applebee's. Mr. LaPine: This isn't an area where the young crowd hangs out. This is more of a family -type operation? Not aTGIF? Mr. Ansara: I would say the only young crowd we gel is teens and pre- teens. Not at all like a TGIF. We consider ourselves a very family -friendly restaurant. You come in on a Friday night and you will see a lot of young families. We really consider ourselves the only casual dining restaurant where young families feel comfortable. Mr. LaPine: Based on that, why are you open until 1:00 in the morning? I can't believe families are out eating then. Who's eating at 1:00 in the morning. Mr. Ansara: Well, certainly we don't restrict ourselves to people walking in with young children, so if a couple comes in after a movie or that type of thing, that's typically the business that we get at Tale night. Mr. LaPine: So it isn't the type of operation where they are coming in to get drinks. They are actually coming in to eat at that time of the morning? 21400 Mr. Ansara: Obviously, somebody can come in and order just a drink, but that's a very, very minor, small percentage of our business. Mr. La Pine: Okay. That answers my questions. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions? Do you have the color rendering with you this evening? Mr. Ansara: I don't believe we do. Mr. McCann: You provided the Planning Commission with a copy of t. If you want to put it up there so the audience can see it. Is that similar to what we're looking at here? Mr. Ansara: Yes. This is our Toledo restaurant. There haw been some slight changes to the prototype, but essentially that is the look of the building. Mr. McCann: What were some of the changes? Mr. Ansara: Minor things. What we call the "bird's nest" up above here. It's Red Robin so we call it the bird's nest. Its now currenfly a cone here, but it's really been made more straight up and down. It's still a circular thing, but it's more up and down. Some of this stepping in the stone has been modified. More stone has been added versus the brick. Mr. McCann: Do you want to flip over to the front elevation? That might help us a little bit so you can explain it. Mr. Ansara: If you see the cone shape of the "bird's nest" on the front of the building, that's been made more cylinder -like where its straight up and down rather than a cone -type shape. Also, where we have the steps on the stone and the brick, what's being considered at this point is turning this all into a stone look rather than including the brick. So this area here would be all stone. As we talked about today, we've talked about pulling a stone wainscot across the front where the current d"t is, as well as on the sides where the other dryvil is located. The doors have changed somewhat, where we have an oval shaped door. We've also lowered the windows down, not all the way to ground level, but closer to ground level to open the restaurant up a little bit more, add a little bit more light to the interior of the restaurant. 20401 Mr. McCann: I dont know if the audience can see it, but it appears as though it's brick above the stone on the east and west side of the entrance. Is that correct? Mr. Ansara: That is correct. Although this isn't final yet, we were really waiting for site plan approval to discuss that. What we're looking at doing now is basically turning this entire area into a stone area rather than the brick. Mr. McCann: Okay. So this wont be quite as bright red as what you're showing us. It is will be a little more toned down. Mr. Ansara: We can lone the red down a little bit. We don't like to, but we can. Mr. McCann: Well, the more stone you add in it ... Mr. Ansara: It will lone it dawn a little bit. Mr. McCann: You'll keep the red. You'll still have the dryvit going around the bottom and the strip going across the lop, but it looks as though most of the side of the building will be brick or stone, which will considerably alleviate some of that. I know we do have some neighbors here. I was looking at the general site. If you look at the rear property line adjoining the neighbors, we have an existing five foot wall. I'm just using my fingers and kind of measuring from the parking spots, but it looks like, Mark, we have about 40 - 45 feet to the back of the parking spaces to the wall? Mr. Taormina: It's right about 50 feet, just over 50 feet. Mr. McCann: Okay, we have 50 feet there. Right now, we've got a row of bushes growing across. Let's face it. You're not going to find another restaurant like the one that was there that's going to deal with the same dientele unless maybe Sweden House, but we've already got one of those. So this may have some more impact and that's what the neighbors have informed the staff that they're concerned about. My thought is that you have 50 feet of greenbelt there. We could ease the impact of this with a considerable amount of shrubbery or some trees back there. According to the plans, we have some existing trees there now. Mr. Taormina, would you have a recommendation on that? Mr. Taormina: I visited this site today. I believe most of the plantings immediately adjacent to the wall are mature enough and in a 20402 healthy enough state that you wouldn't want to necessarily remove those. It presents a nice landscape buffer adjacent to that wall. There are some gaps in wall, so that can be taken care of and any dead, dying or diseased plant material can be replaced. In fact, there is some of that throughout the site. There are deciduous -type trees that are adjacent to the parking lot in that island on the north side of the drive easement. Several of those are moderately mature Maples. Again, there are some openings in that landscape island that possibly could be filled in with some kind of an evergreen in order to get better screening. That would probably be the only opportunity for additional landscaping between the parking lot and the residents. Mr. McCann: I was looking on the island there as well. Mr. Ansara: Are you referring to this area across here? Mr. McCann: Yes. Mr. Ansara: We would have no problem in adding some evergreen -type trees along that island. Mr. Piercecchr Are you going to play music or anything like that inside your establishment? Mr. Ansara: No, you mean live music? Not at all. We have a sound system where there is some background music that plays in the restaurant. Mr. Piercecchr But the sound won't penetrate? Mr. Ansara: We do have a speaker right outside the front door just for people who are waiting for seats, but that is something we can certainly assure that the residents will not be able to hear at all. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Jim Boloven, 37848 Bloomfield Drive. I live right on the corner of Bloomfield Drive and Laurel Park South. I'm the first house you come to when you come into the subdivision off Six Mile Road directly behind the old Bill Knapps. I'm the original homeowner. I've been there since 1984, so I've seen the area develop. I don't have a problem with the Red Robin Restaurant going in there. My problem and a big problem is the thought of people having 20408 consumed alcoholic beverages making a right hand tum past my house going through the sub to get to southbound Newburgh. If you're familiar with the site, there is no entrance from Six Mile Road. The easiest way from that site to get to southbound Newburgh is through the sub. I watched just tonight. There was a group over there tonight when we were coming here and I watched four cars leave: two went to Six Mile Road, the other two came through the sub, just a natural exit to come through the sub. I hale the thought of people having been drinking going through our sub. I'm not just guessing. I'm not theorizing. I've already been through this one time with Ground Round. They put Ground Round in there; there's going to be no problem. The amount of traffic through the sub increased tremendously. We argued. We argued with the City. They finally put a sign in there on Professional Drive, no Teff tum into the sub coming out of Ground Round. That helped a little bit. Traffic was still tremendous. It didn't alleviate it until they put an entrance off Six Mile Road. That's when the traffic slopped from Ground Round coming through the sub. So we're going to be faced with the same problem with the Red Robin. The traffic is going to come right through our sub going to Newburgh. That's the easiest way to gel in and out of that Red Robin, and I fear people having consumed alcohol coming through the sub. If you're going to put a restaurant like this in there, I have no problem. Put an entrance off Six Mile Road. Block that back entrance so they can't come through our subdivision. I do not want a parade of traffic coming through our subdivision. I do not want to have to go through what I went through with the Ground Round. And it really surprised me that the Traffic Division said they had no problem with this. That's who we harped on for years, and they finally were instrumental in putting that entrance off of Six Mile Road. I'm sure some of you were there tonight. I don't know if you were or not, to lake a drive over to the sub and see the easiest way to get out. You can't get out. You go to the first entrance to gel out; you can't see the cars coming from the sub. So the easiest entrance is to go through the back, and if you're going southbound Newburgh, you make a right and it takes you right to southbound Newburgh. And that's a big concern. We have a subdivision with older people in there now. We have a subdivision with younger people. I don't need traffic to increase tremendously to put a restaurant there. When we had Bill Knapps, it was an entirely different type of restaurant. The dientele by 8:00 at night, it was pretty well done for the night. The amount of traffic that is going to increase with the Red Robin is probably going to be three limes the amount of customers that Bill Knapps served. 20404 So I have a big problem with that. I have a big concem with that, and I wish you guys would lake a serous look at how these cars are going to come in and out at this restaurant. Thank you. Len Schoenborn, 37644 Mallory. I am the President of the Laurel Park South Association. I have to say that we're excited to see something going in there in place of Bill Knapps. Since the property has been vacant, there have been an awful lot of vehicles stored there. I spoke with the manager of the hotel complex. She's had a lot of problems with partying going on back there, etc., and whatnot. We're looking forward to this type of restaurant. I have patronized the Red Robin Restaurant. We are pleased with the fact that it's not some of the other restaurants that could go in there. We don't really see a problem with the liquor license. The traffic situation is something that has concerned some residents. I've not heard from anybody personally. We put a flyer out last weekend announcing the fact that the Red Robin Restaurant was going to be going in. I have not received any communications from any of the residents. I have received some positive comments regarding the Red Robin. I guess they are in favor of that over, again, some other restaurants. We have also mel with one of the councilmen concerning the traffic pattems, and its something that we have met with the prospective Red Robin owners about. They said they would be willing to work with us in trying to solve that issue, and we're confident that we will be able to hopefully address that issue. Thankyou. Phyllis Brenner, 37876 Bloomfield Drve. I am immediately behind the stated property. I beg to differ with the Association President in terns of impact. This is my backyard we're talking about. This is not somewhere vaguely located in the neighborhood. I have a number of concems. I think Mr. Boloven nicely addressed the issue of traffic flow. I also have a major concem regarding the hours of operation. The most excitement that ever happened at Bill Knapps was the weekly ambulance visit, but those ended by 8:00 in the evening. This is a restaurant that is 50 feel from my backyard. Its hours of operation of 11:00 a.m. until 100 a.m. are definitely a concem. There will be parking lot noise well into the night, and all of the houses in that area have bedrooms that back up to the back parking lot. They are not in the front of the house. Another concem regarding hours of operation is when will deliveres be ocourrng? Bill Knapps had essentially one delivery because all of their products came from a single company. We anticipate that there will be far more than one delivery truck because its unusual to have food and alcohol 20406 delivered by the same company. So the hours of delivery become a concem. Another concern is that the major business will be brought in by cars on Six Mile. So I guess I don't understand why a second sign on the Laurel Park side, the south side, is needed. It is a lighted sign, and although it doesn't project light far in the distance, it still is a sign closer to the homes that immediately back up to it. The ability to put in a sign that says no right tum' out of the south driveway into the neighborhood - ifs slim hope that it will do anything due to the nature of the trees that are there. The stop sign that is there often does not get seen. I mean when you pull into Laurel Park South, you cannot pull in believing that you are on a street. You have to drive down that street to Bloomfield Drive as if you were on a driveway. People do not see it as a street. They see it as the extension of the parking lot, both from the businesses to the east of Laurel Park South as well as to the west. In terns of overall in the neighborhood, I would like to point out it is a voluntary homeowners association. It is not representative of the neighborhood. I have been there for eight years and there have been issues within the neighborhood where the Association has spoken for small clusters of groups and presented themselves as a unified voice. So I would like to point out this is strictly a voluntary effort. The largest number of homeowners in the area do not belong to the Association for a variety of different reasons. The newsletter that came out did not say that Red Robin was considering purchasing the property contingent on the rezoning to allow a liquor license. It was a statement that Red Robin has bought the property. Why bother commenting on something thafs a done deal? You have to come and do some homework yourself to understand that there is still a public hearing. So I would just say that I think you need to listen to the residents who immediately back up to this business because we're the four homes that are going to be impacted. Two of the other homes are also represented; one in a letter that was sent in. I am presuming it has been received. Julia Hering sent in a letter. She mailed it last week she stated, and we have other neighbors here. Thank you. Dan Steines, Best Western, 16999 Laurel Park. I am representing Best Western Laurel Park. We just wanted to let everyone know here the issue with the driveway, relocating it to Six Mile. We certainly would have no issues with that. I would agree just from being part of the management team over there that I can see how that causes problems for that subdivision. If the driveway was to be moved to Six Mile, I think it would be better. 20406 Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: I am curious to know, when you say relocate that drive because Best Western relies on access from that driveway, are you talking about a relocated driveway onto Six Mile Road that would serve access to not only Red Robin but also to Best Western? Mr. Sleines: Correct. If you did it and had it serve both, the only thing we'd be looking for when they do the construction is for them to handle the expense of it. But certainly where it would come in, it would feed both properties. So it would work for us. It wouldn't matter. Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, if I may just clarify a point. The only means of access to Best Western is via this driveway that runs along the southern boundary of the proposed Red Robin site. So they share access. I'm assuming that's through some kind of legal easement agreement that exists between the property owners. The Ansara Group is not purchasing but leasing this site on a long term basis. Mr. Carlin: A couple of comments. First of all, the six or so cars that were there tonight were us. We mel with a number of the homeowners. Mr. Ansam and I were the two that went out on Six Mile. The people that went in the subdivision were the residents that were there that went into their awn subdivision. We met with the homeowners in an effort to try to alleviate some of their problems. We promised them that we would work with them and the City on the ingress and egress issue. There is some consideration about the entryway being on the northern end and then the exit would be on the southern end. We have no problem with putting up a sign that would indicate "no right tum" into the subdivision from the back entrance or exit. Mr. Ansare said the hours of operation were the maximum hours that they were going to be open. It depends a lot on what the customers want. If enough customers are there at that time, it would stay open until midnight. If not, it may close at 11:00 p.m. Deliveries are normally during the day and, preferably, in the morning. They do not want deliveries in the afternoon when they are busy and certainly not around the lunchtime area. There would be no deliveries at night. As far as the sign is concerned, we do not intend to apply for a variance. We will eliminate the one side sign. We don't need that sign. And again, there has been a reference to the entryway off of Six Mile. It is our intent to eventually try to get the County to 20407 approve a curb cut off Six Mile, but we don't know if that will occur. We're going to go ahead with the restaurant and hope that we can work with the County and the hotel in the future to try and put that curb cut in because I think it would serve the hotel, us and the residents, certainly a lot nicer than what's there now. We also agreed with one of the concerns of the neighbors we met with tonight. I talked to a number of them last week in anticipation of tonight's meeting regarding the landscaping of their subdivision street. There's a little island there; it looks like a rock garden right now. We've agreed to try and work with the City maybe to sprinkle that and put in some bushes and trees that are better looking than what's there now, and maybe some flowers. We would agree to maintain it. So we're trying to work with them. It is zoned for a restaurant; it was a restaurant. We're trying to add the Class C license because we can't do it without it, and the franchise doesn't allow it. And I want to indicate to you that it is a family and a children friendly establishment. In fad, at Christmas time they will have Santa Claus there. Al Easter, they have an Easter bunny. They have a clown that comes into the various restaurants; they float around entertaining kids. Its that kind of a restaurant. So you're not going to see a lot of people coming in there to sit down and drink loo much and then drive somewhere into a subdivision. If its less than 10% alcoholic beverages, its probably one of the lowest in the industry. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Ma'm? Melinda Leininger, 37932 Bloomfield Drive. I live directly behind the old Bill Knapps restaurant that backs up to our house. First, what I would like to know is, what residents of the neighborhood did you meet with? Mr. McCann: Ma'm, you have to address the Planning Commission. Mrs. Leininger: Okay. I would like to know that because we were never notified. We were never contacted. We are the ones who are the main concern with this restaurant. We are concerned about the shrubbery. The shrubbery mostly is dead. It was never maintained while Bill Knapps was there. The traffic was pretty bad coming in and out. We would like to see the traffic being exited and entranced off of Six Mile. Throughout the neighborhood, we do have a lot of children. We do have a lot of families who walk through there. We do find a lot of traffic noise going through our neighborhood. They do speed. They do think of it as a street for the companies. I am a customer of Red P11111 r: Robin in their other areas, and we do go in there just to have dunks. I am a younger crowd. We do go in there just to have alcoholic beverages. It is a family restaurant, but after the 9:00 hour is when the majority of my generation goes in there. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Just to follow-up on the one question, what was your source of contact for the neighbors? Mr. Carlin : Mr. McCann, I got a call a week and a half ago from John (help me out with the name). Mr. Ansara: John Aguslus. Mr. Cadin: Yes, and he indicated that he was part of the Association group and was concerned and wanted to meet with us. So we made arrangements, Mr. Ansara and 1, to meet them there tonight. They showed up. There was about six or seven including this gentleman and the two ladies that are here, and there were several others that were there including John Agustus. We met with them in an effort to try to resolve things. I understand they sent a circular around to all the residents. They can speak for themselves. Mr. McCann: All right. Is there something new that you would like to tell us? Mr. Schoenborn: No, just to answer a question even though I shouldn't be addressing you. As the President of the Association, yes, it is a voluntary membership in the minds of many of them. We have chose not to try to force the issue to collect the dues. Mr. McCann: That's really not an issue before us. Mr. Schoenborn: Okay, I apologize. I still feel as the Association President that I do represent the majority of the neighbors in the Association and that's why I was making an effort to address tie restaurant ownership to solve some of the issues because traffic through the subdivision is definitely a problem. That's why we are trying to make a contact, so hopefully we can solve that issue by working with them. Mr. Carlin: We made it pretty clear to them tonight that we want to work with them. Mr. LaPine: Did I understand you said you met with the Council or council people? 20409 Mr. Schoenborn: In an effort to find out what we should do as residents, what channels we should go through, one of the members is an acquaintance of one of the council members, and he suggested that we try to make contact and see what they would be willing to do to work with us. Mr. La Pine: Okay. I just thought maybe you mel with the Council and talked with them. Mr. Schoenborn: No. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody else wishing to speak? I'm going to close the public hearing. Mr. Ansara, you have the last opportunity to say something. Mr. Ansara: Thank you. I just want to make one point in regards to the layout of the restaurant and the homes that are back here. This is the entrance of the restaurant. You can see that we have a significant amount of parking that immediately surrounds the entranceway. So especially at late night hours, once the restaurant has slowed down after about 9:00 at night, you're really not going to have any activity at all in the back porton of the parking lot. It really is all going to be here. And the restaurant is designed in that way. The entrance is here; parking will be surrounding it So I think the concern about late night activity in the back part of the parking lot is probably not a concem at all. Mr. Alanskas: Isn't it also true that this restaurant is going to be a smaller building than the restaurant you're tearing down, so it will be less intrusive? Mr. Ansara: Correct. I think the number is 7,300. Actually, I think that's incorrect. It probably includes our exterior dumpsler enclosure. It really is less than 7,000 square feet. The current building is 7,600. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Mr. La Pine: One other question if you could answer it. You say you need 138 seats, but 30 are for employee spaces. Are there 30 employees there at all times? Mr. Ansara: Typically, that's a maximum. That's what we look at. 20410 Mr. La Pine: So when they talk about you needing 138 parking spaces, you need 108 for customers and 30 for employees. Really, you don't need 30 for employees because you don't have 30 employees there at one time. Mr. Ansara: No, we wouldn't have 30 there at one time. I just want to make sure I speak correctly. Typically, there would be between 10 and 20 employees, and in slower limes, it would be less than 10. Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-71-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 20, 2003, on Petition 2003-04-02-09 submitted by Ansam Restaurant Group, on behalf of Red Robin Restaurant, requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in connection with the redevelopment of a full service restaurant at 16995 S. Laurel Park Drive on property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between 1-275 and South Laurel Park Drive in the Northeast % of Section 18, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-04-02- 09 be approved subject to the waiving of the 1,000 fool separation requirement as set forth in Section 11.03(h) of the Zoning Ordinance by the City Council, and also subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet PL -1 prepared by Vetter Design Group Architects, dated April 18, 2003, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Building Elevations Plans marked Sheets A-2.0 and A-2.1 prepared by Vetter Design Group Architects, both dated April 18, 2003, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except as modified under condition 3 below; 3. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition; any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 4. That the maximum number of customer seals shall not exceed 216; 20411 5. That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full -face 4 -inch brick, no exceptions; 6. That either brick or stone be added between the grade and window sill on the front entry of the building; 7. That a fully detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for approval within 60 days following approval of this petition by the City Council; 8. That all off-street parking spaces provided in connection with this restaurant shall be double striped; 9. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and shall be shielded so as to be deflected away from the neighboring residential properties; 10. That the following issues as outlined in the correspondence dated May 2, 2003, from the Inspection Department shall be rectified to that department's satisfaction: - Repair of the south access drive and repair maintenance, resealing and double striping of the parking lot; - Replacement of dead or unsuitable trees and plants in landscape areas; and - Proper ramping from the panting lotto the sidewalk; 11. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department althe time the building permits are applied for; and 12. That there will be no outside speakers on the building whatsoever for noise control for the neighbors. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 20412 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. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, we discussed the landscaping along that one area, and I think the petitioner agreed to put some additional landscaping in there on the south wall. Mr. McCann: We do talk about replacement, but I think we need some supplemental language. Mr. LaPine: Right. Exactly. That's what I want to add in there. Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, if I may offer a suggestion that there is a condition No. 6 that requires that the issue come back so we can supplement that by stating that it shall induce those areas as well. Mr. Shane: I'm in favor of this particular petition, but I want to make sure that the record is clear on the fad that at least some of us are concerned about the traffic issue brought up by the neighbors. I don't want the idea of an entrance off of Six Mile Road to die at any point. I want to make it very clear that at least 1, for one, would like to see that happen. Although I will have to say that the closer you get to the state-owned freeway, the less likely it is going to be for the County to approve that particular exit. I just want to make sure that the record is dear. I don't want that idea to drop. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Shane, do you think we should add something in the motion that we would like the treffc problem looked at? Mr. Shane: I would be in favor of that. Mr. McCann: My concern is that they probably wouldn't allow another curb cut there without a deceleration lane considering it's so dose to the hotel's traffic. But if they can create some type of joint easement where on the northern parcel they could gain access 20413 to their entrance/exit, if that is what they want. Obviously. the hotel benefits by having a restaurant there. Mr. Alanskas: But that would be up to Wayne County and the petitioner. Mr. Shane: But I don't want the idea to die. Mr. Alanskas: But we can't put it in the resolution that they must do this because... Mr. Shane: I wasn't suggesting that we do. I just want to make sure the City Council understands our concern and the concerns of the neighbors on this issue. Mr. Alanskas: I'm sure they would know that when they read the minutes. Mr. McCann: I think that's what his point is. Mr. Shane: Yes, I want to bring it out so when they read the minutes, they are concerned about it. Mr. McCann: I agree. The only other thing I'd like to tell the neighbors is that I've sat up here for quite a long time doing this. By living in Livonia and being involved, one of the things you do is try and learn who are the business people in Livonia that you can trust. Which petitioners, when they come before you, will do what they say they're going to do judging by past deeds. And there are a lot of good corporate citizens in the City. I believe the Ansam's are one of them. I think if you go to the restaurant they have there at Six Mile and Newburgh, you'll see that the shrubbery is well taken care of and the restaurant is dean; the operation has done nicely. I visit it quite regularly with my wife and kids. We have a situation where we have a restaurant on that comer. We're not going to gel away from it. You're not going to find another restaurant like you had there. Obviously, theyve had problems in recent years. I think if we had to pick one, Red Robin is a good choice. I think the operators are good people. I think the traffic issue has to be addressed and that's something that should be mised. The audience should also appear at the Council hearings on this to make sure their voices are heard and their recommendations are taken into consideration. Would the secretary please call the roll? 20414 A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Smiley, La Pine, Shane, Piercecchi, is carried and the McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: Walsh Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #7 PETITION 2003-04-06-02 RELIGIOUS LAND USE Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-04-06-02, submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #131-03, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 11.02 and 18.38 of the Zoning Ordinance to comply with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which prohibits any land use regulation that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a non -religious assembly or institution. Mr. Taormina: The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, also known as RLUIPA, was adopted by Congress and signed into law in September, 2000. Its intent was to relieve governmental burdens on religious exercise by prohibiting any land use regulation that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a non -religious assembly or institution. In an effort to bring the Citys Zoning Ordinance into compliance with this Act, the Law Department has prepared language to amend Section 11.02, which is the permitted uses in the C-2 districts of the Zoning Ordinance, which is in contradiction to this rule. Basically, this would treat places of worship in the same regard as meeting halls and catering establishments and private, fraternal and religious clubs and lodges. Presently Section 11.02 expressly permits these uses but makes no mention of places of worship so that would be the language added to that particular section of the ordinance. It also contains a provision to amend the parking regulations of the Zoning Ordinance for places of assembly without fixed seats. Based on the recommendations of the Inspection Department, 20415 they feel that the parking ratio for this type of use should be increased from one parking space for every 50 square feet of usable floor area to one parking space for every 25 square feet of usable floor area. The Planning Department, however, is concerned over doubling the parking requirement for assembly uses without fixed seats because it would be very difficult for churches and other places of assembly to comply with the number of spaces that would be required under this change of the ordinance. So for this reason, we are recommending that the Planning Commission approve the amendment relating only to Section 11.02 for the reasons stated in our report, but postpone any action on the amendment relating to Section 18.38, Parking Regulations, until that issue can be studied in greater detail. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piercecohi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-72-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 20, 2003, on Petition 2003-04-06-02, submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #131-03, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 11.02 of Article XI and Section 18.38 of Arfide XVIII of the Zoning Ordinance to comply with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Ad (RLUIPA), which prohibits any land use regulation that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a non- religious assembly or institution, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-04-06- 02 be approved amending Section 11.02 only for following reasons: 1. The proposed language amendment will Ming the C-2 District regulations into compliance with the provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by allaying churches as a permitted use; and 2. The proposed language amendment will remedy the problem of current C-2 District regulations that are in 20416 ITEM #8 PETITION 2001-01-07-01 MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2001-01-07-01, submitted by the City Planning Commission to amend Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, The Future Land Use Plan, so as to change the designation of land lying west of Farmington Road and north of Lyndon Avenue in the Northeast %at Section 21 from Medium Density Residential to Office. conflict with the RLUIPA by grenfing churches the same treatment as that accorded to meeting and assembly halls. Further, the proposed language amendment to Section 18.38 of Article XVIII, Parking Regulations, is not approved at this time. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution to amend only Section 11.02. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-73-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 20, 2003, on Petition 2003-04-06-02, submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #131-03, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 11.02 of Article XI and Section 18.38 of Artide XVIII of the Zoning Ordinance to comply with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Ad (RLUIPA), which prohibits any land use regulation that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a non- religious assembly or institution, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the proposed amendment to Section 18.38 of Article XVII, Parking Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance be tabled. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution tabling only the proposed amendment to Section 18.38, Parking Regulations, is adopted. ITEM #8 PETITION 2001-01-07-01 MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2001-01-07-01, submitted by the City Planning Commission to amend Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, The Future Land Use Plan, so as to change the designation of land lying west of Farmington Road and north of Lyndon Avenue in the Northeast %at Section 21 from Medium Density Residential to Office. 20417 Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under pelifion plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-74-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to the provisions of Ad 285 of the Public Ads of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia having held a Public Hearing on May 20, 2003, for the purpose of amending Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, so as to change the designation of land lying west of Farmington Road and north of Lyndon Avenue in the Northeast of Section 21 from Medium Density Residential to Office for the following reasons: 1. The proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Plan will place all the frontage on the west side of Farmington Road from Lyndon Avenue north to the area designated Community Service under one uniform land use category; 2. That the proposed amendment is consistent with recent zoning changes that have occurred within the subject area; and 3. That the proposed amendment will encourage the use of the subject lands in keeping with the developing character of the area; AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Ad 285 of Public Ads of Michigan 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission with all amendments thereto, and further that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds forthe County of Wayne for recording. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: LaPine, Alanskas, Smiley, Shane, Pieroecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: Walsh ABSTAIN: None 20418 Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. This conduces the Public Hearing section of our agenda. We will now begin the Miscellaneous Site Plans section of our agenda. Members of the audience may speak in support or opposition to these items. Will the Secretary please read the next item? ITEM #9 PETITION 2003-03-08-06 Marketplace at College Park Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-03-08-06 submitted by SchoolcraR Commons, on behalf of Marketplace at College Park, requesfing approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a multi -tenant commercial building on property located at 17370 Haggerty Road in the Southwest%of Section 7. Mr. Alanskas: In regards to Items 9 and 10, 1 will be stepping down due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Miller I will defer to the petitioner for an explanation of this petifion. Mr. McCann: All right. We will go the petitioner. Would you like to give us a brief explanafion of your plan? Robert W. Bednas, Elkin Equities, Inc., 29100 Northwestern Highway, Southfield, Michigan 48034. 1 am representing Schoolcmft Commons, the pefifioner, in both these instances. In a brief overview of what you have before you tonight, the site plan for the Marketplace at College Park and the site plan in Item 10 for the one building and the three restaurant pads, is the initial phase of the development at College Park. It also sets the tone for the rest of the Park and the image and the standards that we're trying to create for College Park. Both buildings are brick and stone or stone-like accents with glass as appropriate. It is our intention for a good portion ofthe buildings thatthe ... Mr. McCann: Do you have some site plans? Maybe we can put them up so as he's talking and describing the buildings we have some point of reference. 20419 Mr. Bednas: Item 9 is the Marketplace at College Park. It represents 14,000 square feet of mulfl-tenant retail space. The floor plan is presenfly divided into nine tenants. The building itself, in he elevations and color renderings that you have, is composed of brick and stone and E.I.F.S. veneer with canopies over the store front entrances. Since we are reviewing both at the same time, this building at the opposite corner of this first phase of the College Park development is virtually identical in materials with slightly different architectural treatment because of its different nature and use than the retail building. As I was starting to say, what we are trying to create at College Park is something that is really a cul above the typical retail buildings that you see in either a strip center or a free-standing building. This could be an office building or, in the case of the application, a furniture store. But we are attempting to do something totally different in this entire complex, and this is setting the stage for that. We intend for it to be a first class development. We believe our approach to the site planning to dale reflects that. The sites are well landscaped and well illuminated. In some essence, they are over -parked as far as the zoning requirements because our experience with other similar uses dictates that we should have some additional parking, especially for the retail center. The three restaurant pads that are in the center of the development by their nature will not be similar materials. They will be more representaflve of the typical restaurant that sits on those pads. We have one seafood restaurant, an Italian restaurant and a third restaurant yet to be determined. But as you can see in the material before you, the preliminary elevaflons for the two buildings are well done. Those photographs are representaflve of what we intend to do here. I hate to use the word upscale, but they are higher scale restaurants with linen table clothes in the Italian restaurant. The seafood is more of a theme so it will have some table clothes, some wood table tops with placemats. The plan was done in an attempt to create some sort of sense of place around the three restaurants with this little plaza in the center being kind of the focal point for the three. We have the three entrances and outdoor seating areas located around this plaza. Similarly, the third restaurant, although ifs separated by an access driveway between the two, also provides the opportunity for valet parking dro"ff in this location. So as I previously said, I think we have a very well done plan here and we're soliciting your approval. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Mr. Piercecchr Have you signed anyone on those restaurants yet? 20420 Mr. Bednas: Pardon? Have we signed anyone on? Mr. Piercecchr Anybody that you're trying to gel? Mr. Bednas; I don't know if we can announce the seafood restaurant yet. No, I guess we can't. I think you have a clue who they are in the information that we have. Mr. Piercecchr Italian, seafood and burger. Right? Mr. Bednas: Curiously, I don't know if you noticed this footprint. It's very similar to the Red Robin that you approved three items back. We were talking to them at one time. When we first started talking to them, they also made the deal for the other location on Six Mile. This one is the furthest away from making a deal. The seafood restaurant, we are very close on conducting negotiations. We are less close with the Italian restaurant, but we are well on our way with that one. Mr. Piercecchr And they are upscale? Mr.Bednas: Yes. Mr. La Pine: I have this rendering, which is that building on the right there. Mr. Bednas: That's the retail center. Yes. Mr. La Pine: Is this a pretty good idea of what's going to be there? I guess what I'm questioning, with the canopies, I have no problem. Will all the canopies be the same? Starbucks won't have one color and the other stores different colors? Are we going to have some consistency there? Mr. Bednas: That is correct. Mr. McCann: Just hold that upthere for a minute so people at home can see. Mr. Bednas: That is coned. The canopies are purely an architectural treatment. The intention is to have the signs for the retailers in these efface bans above the canopies. Mr. LaPine: I can be assured that the layout is going to be pretty much like this? I mean I like the idea of the two buildings at the end being taller. It kind of gives it a better feel here, and that's basically what we're going to get? 20421 Mr.Bednas: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Okay. The next question I have is, the driveway right there. What is that off of? Mr. Bednas: This driveway here? Mr. LaPine: Yes. Mr. Bednas: That is off of this roadway here which is internal circulation. North would be up if I turned it this way. Mr. LaPine: Where is Haggerty Road? Mr. Bednas: Haggerty is at the bottom. Mr. LaPine: So the only way to get into those restaurants is to come off of Haggerty at the south? Mr. Bednas: That's correct. Mr. LaPine: Then they can go tum up there and tum in, and then they also can gel in from the main entrance to the college campus, which is down at the north? Mr. Bednas: This is not necessarily the main entrance to the college campus. Its one of the entrances to the college. It's the entrance to their south parking lot. Let me get this other plan. Mr. Piercecchi: That's where the light is? Mr.Bednas: Yes. Mr. LaPine: That's where the light is. Now, I guess I assume you're going to have signs here, which I don't think is part of this proposal tonight. But are you going to have a free-standing sign here? Mr. Bednas: The intention is to have three ground signs. One which is shown on the site plan for the Marketplace at this location, which would be for the retailers here. And this is really required. We first tried to figure out if we could avoid doing this sign, but because the building is oriented longitudinally, the side of the building is on the Haggerty frontage and most of the tenant storefronts face to the north in the internal roadway. The initial contacts with many of the tenants that we're dealing with 20422 indicated that they absolutely had to have some sort of identification on Haggerty that indicated their presence, primarily for the northbound traffic. Mr. LaPine: I guess my question then is, I hope that sign is not going to have nine different names on it. Its just going to be one College Park Center sign or something like that? Mr. Bednas: No. You're correct in your initial fear. The intention is to have, discreetly done, it would be the Market Place at College Park, with most likely the nine tenants listed on it. Mr. LaPine: Where is the other free-standing sign? Mr. Bednas: The other flee -standing sign is on the other site plan submitted for approval for the one building and the three restaurant pads. It's at this location and it's primarily for this building's identity. Mr. LaPine: Will that one have the restaurant signage on it? Mr. Bednas: No, it won't. Mr. LaPine: The only signage on the restaurants will be on the west side or maybe partly on the south side. Mr. Bednas: The only restaurant signs will be on the buildings themselves. The restaurants will not have ground signs. Mr. LaPine: The only sgn I might object to is the one with all the names on It, but otherwise I like the proposal. It's very nice. Mr. Bednas: The third sign, although it's schematically shown in the plan, it really hasn't been developed. It would be a College Park sign in the median here at the main entrance because it does become the main entrance driveway into the campus. But we don't have any design development on that. Mr. LaPine: When you bring in your sign package, we can fight that battle. Mr. Shane: Describe for me the rear architecture on the building on the south. Mr. Bednas: On the Market Place? Mr.Shane: Yes. 20423 Mr. Bednas: Before I get to the rear, let me walk you around from the front. This is the front elevation, which is the color rendering, but this front elevation also wraps around the ends of the building, the Haggerty frontage and also the eastern frontage. Because this is quite visible on the Haggerty frontage, we replicated the front on the Haggerty frontage, and also turned it back to the extent that we believe it's visible from Haggerty Road. In relation to the site, Comerica has a berm back here along with some trees that really obscure a good portion of the rest of the building, so the back of the building is made of decorative concrete block, painted or stained as the case may be. Mr. Shane: The second point I have, can you go over the landscape plan please? I think I'm reading this right. At all three of these developments, you've neglected Haggerty Road entirely with respect to street trees. Is that correct? Mr. Bednas: No, I don't believe so. Mr. Shane: I don't see any on the landscape plan I'm looking it. Mr. Bednas: You say the Haggerty Road frontage? Mr. Shane: The Haggerty Road frontage, the entire width. Mr. Bednas: Let me go back to this one. You can see part of what's here on this color plan, but the entire frontage of Haggerty Road is landscaped. First of all, there's a sidewalk that's going in, so that's the right-of-way line. Then there's a 20 foot greenbelt with lawn. Since this is mostly retail, there is low shrubbery. Its either junipers or vibumam in these areas, and then where the circles are, in this instance, they show Maple trees. Mr. Shane: I should have made myself more clear. I was talking about within the right-of-way on Haggerty Road where you would normally find street trees. I don't see any on this plan. Mr. Bednas: That's not a requirement. Mr. Shane: It may not be a requirement, but its going to be a requirement for me to vote on this project. I'd like to see a series of street trees along Haggerty Road. Mr. Bednas: Well, street trees are usually done by the municipality, and normally we're prohibited from doing anything in the right-of-way 20424 approval, but I dont think you'll have a problem with that as long between the sidewalk and the curb other than putting in lawn and an irrigation system. Mr. Shane: I think you'll find that you'll be able to put street trees in here, and I'd like to see them at least 40 - 50 feet apart. Maybe even duplicate the Columnar Maples that you have on the rest of the site, something of that sort. I'd like you to consider it. Mr. Bednas: Let me just be perfecfiy candid in the problem that we have again with street trees. Because this is retail, anything that begins to obscure a retailer's line of sight to a potential customer or from a customer is really anathema to them. We try and introduce trees wherever we think they can be brought into the landscape plan without really obstructing that line of sight. This is what this plan represents. To try and introduce any trees is a problem to begin with. I believe you said on 40 or 50 foot centers? Mr. Shane: Whatever. But if you pick the right tree, I think you're going to negate the problem you're talking about. Mr. Bednas: About the only thing that might work would be a locust, which is semi ... Mr. Shane: Why don't you pick a Columnar Maple? I've got one in front of my house and it obstructs nothing. I can see some out here in the parking lot that are very narrow and high branched, that type of thing. I'd like you to consider it. I would not like Haggerty Road along there to be bare without some kind of major street trees located there. Mr. Bednas: I'll plead naivety here. Is this something that you typically do in Livonia? Mr.Shane: Yes. Mr. Bednas: Al site plan review require that the developer place .. . I'm talking specifically within the right-of-way. Mr. Shane: Yeah. It's not unusual. Mr. Bednas: With the agreement of the engineer ... in this case, its Wayne County. Mr. Shane: I understand. Naturally, you'd have to have the Countys approval, but I dont think you'll have a problem with that as long 21425 as they are placed in the right locations and they don't interfere with anything the County has there. Mr.Bednas: We'll certainly take it under advisement. Mr. Shane: Maybe the rest of the Commissioners dont care, but I do. Mr. Bednas: I am not in a position to commit that we will do that, but we can certainly lake it under consideration. Mr.Shane: Thankyou. Mr. LaPine: The furniture store has now been eliminated. Is that correct? Mr. Bednas: No. As far as the site plan approval we're seeking tonight, we do want approval for this building as it's presented. Its use can either be an office building or a furniture store. Mr. LaPine: I thought I was told by you that its not going to be a furniture store now; its going to be an office building. Mr. Taormina: Well, there is discussion relative to its use that will be through a contractual agreement between the college and the developer of this site. That has yet to be determined, but the indication at this point is that it would be more along the office use category as opposed to retail, notwithstanding the fad that it actually exists on whatwill be commercial zoned property. Mr. McCann: Will be? It hasn't been voted on yet. Mr. Taormina: That's correct. The zoning issue will come before the Council in the next couple weeks. Mr. LaPine: The next question ... I love the exterior design of the Italian restaurant. I hope that's the way its going to look. Regarding the exterior design for the fish marl, is that basically what we're going to get? Mr. Bednas: It's almost identical. Yes. Mr. LaPine: Okay. And the other restaurant you mentioned. It was the Red Robin but that's gone by the wayside. Mr.Bednas: Correct. 20426 Mr. LaPine: When we first started out with this project, months and months ago, I questioned if there was going to be any way for the people at the Fairfield Inn, and all the hotels just east of there, to have direct access to these three restaurants, which I think is a plus for the restaurants and a plus for the hotels. Is there going to be anything like that? Mr. Bednas: Ultimately. Appreciating that this is only the first phase of the development ... Mr. LaPine: I understand that. Mr. Bednas: When we gel into the second phase, it will require the extension of Fox Drive. If I just may again, north is to left. This is the Residents Inn, the Town Place Suites, the Fairfield Inn. So Fox Drive will be extended along with a connecting lock that ties into the walkways. Mr. LaPine: I see. They can come around there. Mr. Bednas: Depending on whether they want to bike, walk or drive their car. Mr. LaPine: I think its a plus for the hotels and its a plus for the restaurants. A lot of people staying at the hotels will want to find a place to eat and some of them might want to walk over there, which isn't that bad of a walk. Okay. Thank you. Mr. McCann: I want to follow up on Mr. Shane's point here. The worst thing in the word we can do is take these sites and say, "Okay. C'mon and look. We want to put a restaurant here; we want to put a restaurant here; this will be a road entrance" We're talking about 20%, maybe 15%, of the total site. And then once we go ahead and build everything else, we've laid the foundation for the whole entrance to this site. We're talking about this Iiffie section right in here, and you've got another 380,000 square feel of office building going in behind? Is that coned? Mr. Bednas: That is correct. Mr. McCann: Can you drop that board down to the ground for me? As far as I can tell, this is going to be the main entrance for the whole plaza or park. You're going to share an entrance here, but that's not going to be your main gateway. This is going to be the main gateway off of Newburgh Road into the whole park. Mr. Bednas: Off of Haggerty, yes. 20427 Mr. McCann: Of of Haggerty. You'll be able to at least enter off of Fox Drive. We haven't determined whether they'd be able to exit yet, but there s no opportunity there to make anything of a statement to these companies. I've talked to the people at Schoolcraft College. They are in agreement. To me, this is a center like we have at Vidor Corporate Parkway. There is an issue here where we dont have the wetlands right up front to work those in and water retenfion. My concern is that this is not gang to be commercial; it's going to be an office -type use. Now, if that's the case, Mark, wouldn't that reduce the parking requirement? Mr. Taormina: That all depends on the type of office use that goes in there. Medical space, for example, would dictate parking in excess of what certain retail operations would require. Again, that depends. Mr. Bednas: The office use was not intended to be medical office. It was intended to be what is traditionally known as office. Mr. Taormina: I understand. Well, I'm not sure what the agreement is going to be with Schoolcraft College, but if they're going to limit it to only general office use, ben the answer to your quesfion is, yes. It will require less parking for that building than would otherwise be the case if it was retail. Mr. Bednas: Okay. But it depends on what kind of retail. If it's a furniture store, the furniture store fits perfectly because a furniture store only requires 30 parking spaces. Mr. Taormina: That is correct, but keep in mind that as we reviewed this site plan, we had to factor the parking not based solely on your intended use as a furniture store, but as a retail store requiring one parking space for every 150 square feet of floor area. We looked at it on that basis as well. Mr. Bednas: As a potential eventuality. But the wording on the application, the site plan approval request, was for an office building or a furniture store. Our intention was not to do some kind of other retail here. Mr. Taormina: But you understand that with the zoning, you have that ability to have other types of retail. We can't condition this site plan on only a furniture store. 20428 Mr. Bednas: That's correct, but even though the zoning allays it, you still have to satisfy the zoning requirements for parking and other setbacks and things of that nature. Our intention with this plan was either an office building or the furniture store. Mr. McCann: I sat with Mr. Walkon and some of the other partners up in the Mayors chambers with the Council and other representatives of the City. Originally, we were going to have three restaurants out front and one commercial strip. Last week we got surprised with the furniture store being thrown in. I got the feeling that this has all been compacted down in order to fit in this additional commercial/office space. You have very little greenbelt as far as I can tell along the front here. You've got a very small entrance area for a 450,000 square foot office/retail complex. I really wanted to see something grander as far as an island going all the way back, more room and space up front, because this was suppose to be the entrance, as I've said before, for this whole park. We're trying to really cram everything we can in for this commercial space that was supposed to be saved for three restaurants and a building. By adding this building, we've just destroyed the whole concept of a great entrance to a park. You've got major corporate sponsors you want to bring into this. You need something. If theyre going to say, "Yeah, we're going to bring our company and make its headquarters here," we need something more than a Iittie commercial center to run through to get back to our buildings. And I think you've lost the whole point of what was presented to us at the Mayors office. Mr. Bednas: I appreciate your comments, but I also want to disagree with you. This plan is not that much different than the initial plan that you may have seen in the Mayor's office. The initial plans had this retail center in this configuration. We always had this roadway with a small median boulevard as shown here. It did not extend beyond three lanes once you got into the property as is shown here. I think this plan is even better than what you saw initially because the initial plan had the three restaurants lined up in a row in the old, traditional, conventional 1960's, 70's, 80's fashion. Here we're tried to create a sense of space and somewhat critical mass with the three and a place for people that is much friendlier than what you typically see walking through a panting lot. True, we did have the opportunity after we went through all the machinations of parking counts and site planning parameters and constraints, to drop in another building here, but whether it was office, which fit, which was the initial thought, it worked. We met all the setback requirements; we provided the landscaping required; we had more than 20429 enough parking available. Circumstantally, what happened is while we were chasing tenants for this and the retailers, this first class furniture store operation said, 'What do you have in Livonia?" These people are going into Ann Arbor and Birmingham. Mr. McCann: Yes, but what we're seeing from the road is a giant parking lot with four buildings. That's not what you initially presented. Now, Mr. Shane provided a good point, that you look at some of these nicer office and commercial mixed parks, and they do have street trees; they do have things going on. Maybe we need to set back the buildings and everything 50 feel and add a greenbelt to the front of this project so that we can accommodate those if you dont want to put them on the Wayne County road right -0f --way. Maybe you're right. Mr.Bednas: We can't do that. We went through... Mr. McCann: If you lose that building, you can. Mr.Bednas: Pardon me? Mr. McCann: If you lose that building, you can. Mr. Bednas: Wed lose everything if you push everything back 50 feet. We created the zoning line in our initial presentation to the Planning Commission in December and January. The rezoning line is here somewhere. Mr. McCann: Yes. We had three restaurants and one commercial center. Mr. Bednas: But if you're trying to create more green space ... and we don't have any less green space than Comenca or Schoolcratl. This 20 fool setback is the identical green space that they have from the nghl-0fway line. Mr. McCann: I disagree. I think by the time you get back, the presence that those buildings are going to have and the green space that works around Comenca, you're going to look like your buildings . .. it's going to be one after another. You are creating a commercial. Again, it's just from a point of view. I was anticipating when we were coming into this, something on a Victor Corporate Parkway scale of a huge complex that's coming to Livonia. We're going to attract star companies from around the word that want to put a headquarters or at least a regional corporate headquarters in this mall. 20430 Mr. Bednas: Am I wrong? I mean Victor Corporate Park becomes a three lane roadway shortly after you enter it. Mr. McCann: It does, but you have the water and you have the greenbelt. I guess I'm rot seeing it. Maybe we need some renderings or something to show us what you plan to do to kind of give us that effect. I think that would help. Are there any other questions? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Mr. La Pine: The main roadway, is that an island right there, right in the center? Is there any reason why that can't go all the way up so then we can put landscaping and trees and things along there? Mr. Bednas: Sure. It takes more space and more money, a lot more money. Then it interferes with turning movements when you cut into the various driveways. The three lane road is the most efficient way of handling the traffic. It gives you a center lane for left turns so that people gel out of the way of people that are going through, and unless you go into a boulevard, which will require twice as wide a roadway with almost twice as much pavement. Mr. La Pine: Getting back to what Mr. McCann was talking about, the main entrance to this whole project is that road right there, plus the one oft of Fox Road off of Six Mile? Mr. Bednas: Right. This will be the ceremonial entrance, and to the extent that we have the room, Fox Drive will create a similar landscape median. But as was mentioned earlier, Fox Drive will probably be an ingress for and not an oullet. Mr. La Pine: Can't you also get into the whole complex from the main entrance off of Haggerty where the street light is? Mr. Bednas: Yes, that would be that one here at Schoolcraft College, their parking lot. Mr. La Pine: Okay. So they can come in that lot and go into the whole project? Mr. Bednas: They come into this driveway, which is between the parking lot and our development. Mr. La Pine: I understand. Can they come in there and get over to the office buildings? 20431 Mr. Bednas: Sure. They'll come in this way, down this concrete roadway, and then into complex. Mr. LaPine: So they have to come back through where the retail is. Is that right? Mr. Bednas: Right. But this roadway here also is a three lane roadway between the retail space and the second office building. Mr. LaPine: Thankyou, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCann: Anybody else? Nobody in the audience. Mr. Walkon did you wart to comment? Marvin Walkon, 30445 Northwestern Highway, Suite 320, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334. First of all, I want to address Mr. McCann. This is a two-step process for us. First, we have to gel approval from Schoolcraff College. Without their approval, we're not going to be before you. They have to sign of and then we will come to you. And secondly, the other question that was mentioned about the corporate headquarters, which is exactly what we're going to see. We're hoping that a 200,000 fool ABC corporation is going to settle on this site. The reason they would settle on this site is because of the freeway exposure. That would be the reason they would come. But for that, and I'm sure you are aware of this, Mr. McCann, Northville Township has sent out a request for proposals. It's 426 acres. We would be competing with all the frontage, probably 1.5 million new square feet of office. So, what we have to differentiate us from the 1.5 million square feet is the freeway exposure. Hopefully, that will be the excitement that will bring a headquarters to this community. Thankyou. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Walkon, you said you need to get an agreement with Schoolcraff. What is this agreement for purchase and sale all signed? Isn'lthatthe agreement? Mr. Walkon: No, we don't have an agreement with Schoolcmff College, a lease agreement signed as we speak. I believe that was for the Archdiocese piece. Mr. La Pine: You're right. Okay. I'm sorry. 20432 Mr. Walkon: But at this very moment, we don't have an executed agreement. It's close. We're in the ninth inning. Mr. LaPine: I wasn't at the meeting in the Mayors office. I'm just going by what Mr. McCann is saying here. It seems like we got some difference of opinions here. Mr. Walkon: Was I there, Mr. McCann? I don't remember the meeting. Mr. McCann: When we originally ... for the rezoning of that property. Mr. Walkon: The Schoolcraft property? Mr. McCann: Yes. Mr. Walkon: I'm getting old. I don't remember the meeting, but age 61 is probably over the hill. Mr. McCann: I guess we're atthe point where a motion is in order. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve. I like the project. I'd like to see some things changed, and maybe with the information we brought up here tonight, its in the minutes for the Council to read, maybe we'll get some remarks from the Council. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, it was RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-03-08-06 submitted by Schoolcratt Commons, on behalf of Marketplace at College Park, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a multi -tenant commercial building on properly located at 17370 Haggerty Road in the Southwest %of Section 7, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plans marked S-3 and S-0, both dated March 10, 2003, as revised, prepared by Atwell -Hicks, Inc., are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LP -1 dated March 14, 2003, as revised, prepared by Jeppink Partners, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 20433 3. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader; 4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A5- 1 dated February 14, 2003, prepared by Minora Yamasaki Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 7. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4 inch brick; 8. That the three walls of the trash dumpsler area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building and the enclosure gales shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 9. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water management permits from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan; 10. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 11. That the petitioner shall correct to tie Police Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated April 23, 2003: - That "slop" signs shall be installed where traffic exits the lot onto the proposed road of the development; - That "slop" signs shall be installed for traffic exiting the proposed road onto Haggerty Road; 20434 That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the Michigan Banner Free Code; 11. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated April 3, 2003: That if the subject building is to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feel from the Fire Department connection (FDC); That adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with a maximum spacing of 300 feet between hydrants; most remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 FPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI; That any curves or comers of streets shall accommodate emergency vehicles with a turning radius of 45 ft. wall to wall;; 13. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition; all such signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 14. That a Master Sign Plan establishing ground signage for the entire College Park development shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; included in the application shall be the location and graphics of each Business Center Sign, all Identification Signs and any directional signage; 15. That no LED lightband or neon shall be permitted on this site, including but not limited to, the building or around the windows; and, 16. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department atthe time the building permits are applied for. Mr. La Pine: If any memberwants to add something, be my guest. Mr. Shane: I'll second the motion, but I would hope that Mr. La Pine would agree to the following amendment to Item No. 2 regarding the landscape plan. I'd like to add the language 'that additional 20435 street trees shall be planted along the Haggerty Road frontage either within the right-of-way as may be approved by Wayne County or within the greenbelt between the sidewalk and the parking lot" Mr. LaPine: I have no objection. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: Do you want to add anything, Mr. Chairman, on the entranceway? Mr. McCann: I'm just not comfortable yet with voting on this, but thats my personal opinion. I think it needs more work. Mrs. Smiley: Is this going to be approved by Schoolcraft College? Mr. McCann: Not to my understanding. They are in negotiations with Schoolcraft College regarding that building, and I'm not sure what the final outcome will be. I talked to Mr. Walsh, but he said he didn't have final information. There's a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Mrs. Smiley: Truthfully, I thought we were going to do more before we came back tonight to change this a little bit, but I haven't seen that. Mr. McCann: More with ... Mrs. Smiley: You know, we're not definite about that commercial building in the back, if its office or if it's going to be an upscale furniture place. It is pretty much sti l the furniture place? Mr.Bednas: No. Mrs. Smiley: No. Mr. Walkon: Mrs. Smiley, maybe I can answer that. Mr. McCann: The hearing is over, but go ahead very quickly. Mr. Walkon: Am I out of order on this, Mr. McCann? Mr. McCann: I don't think anybody will object. 20436 Mr. Walkon: Unless there is an approval on the furniture store, which we do not have from SchoolcreR College as we speak, it will not come forward. Thank you for letting me go ahead and speak. Mr. Piercecchr Is it only that one building that hasn't received approval? Mr. Walkon: Yes, sir, just that one building. Everything else has received approval. The only issue with Schoolcrett is the furniture store. We have received approval on the others. Thank you, sir. Mr. Bednas: And 0's not really the building per se. Its the use that is the question, whether it is an office building or a furniture store. Mr. McCann: I want to make a substitute motion to table this for two weeks. We do have a meeting on the third. I just don't feel that we have sufficient information. There's certainly not with Schoolcrett College regarding what's going in there. Is there support fora motion to table? On a motion by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-75-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2003-03-08-06 submitted by Schoolcrefl Commons, on behalf of Marketplace at College Park, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a multi -tenant commercial building on property located at 17370 Haggerty Road in the Southwest''/.of Section 7, be tabled until the Regular Meeting of June 3, 2003. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Taormina: June 3 would be the voting meeting. The study meeting will be on May 27. Mr. McCann: Hopefully, we can have some answers with regard to Mr. Shane's questions and possibly have some drawings for what the entrance is going to look like, since we're kind of approving thattonight. Mr.Bednas: What was that request? 20437 Mr. McCann: Something along the lines of drawings, color renderings, maybe, of what the entrance is going to look like. Like Mr. Walkon did for us at Millennium Park. Mr. Bednas: The driveway entrance into the park? Mr. McCann: Yes. Mr. Bednas: Or the building? Mr. McCann: No, the driveway entrance up Haggerty. What effects you're planning on putting in there. I assume thats part of this site. Is R not? Mr.Bednas: Yes. ITEM #10 PETITION 2003-03-08-07 College Park Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-03-08-07 submitted by SchoolcraR Commons, on behalf of College Park, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a building and obtain preliminary approval for three restaurant pads on property located at 17600-17900 Haggerty Road in the Southwest''/. of Section 7. (Note: Discussion on this item was combined with Item #9, Petition 2003-03-08-06, submitted by Schoolcraft Commons, on behalf of Marketplace at College Park.) On a motion by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-76-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2003-03-08-07 submitted by SchoolcraR Commons, on behalf of College Park, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a building and obtain preliminary approval for three restaurant pads on property located at 17600-17900 Haggerty Road in the Southwest''/.of Section 7, be tabled until the Regular Meeting of June 3, 2003. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 20438 ITEM #11 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 38C Special Meeting Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes oflhe 388"' Special Meeting held on March 18, 2003. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Pieroecchi, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-77-2003 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 388r" Special Meeting held by the Planning Commission on March 18, 2003, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Shane, Pieroecchi, Alanskas, LaPine, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: Walsh ABSTAIN: Smiley Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 865" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on May 20, 2003, was adjourned at 1100 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Piercecchi, Secretary ATTEST: James C. McCann, Chairman mgr