Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2000-12-12 18133 th MINUTES OF THE 816 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA _________________________________________________________________________ On Tuesday, December 12, 2000, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held th its 816Public 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 LaPine Elaine Koons Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II, and Robby Williams 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, 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 and/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 (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. 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 2000-10-01-18 City Planning Commission (North side of Glendale) Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 2000-10-01-18 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and Council Resolution #781-00 proposing to rezone certain property located on the north side of Glendale Avenue east of Westmore Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 27 from PL to M-2. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. This parcel is presently utilized as the City landfill. It totals approximately 3.4 acres in size and includes 517 feet of frontage 18134 along the north side of Glendale Avenue. This petition was initiated at the request of the City Council. It seeks to rezone the property from its present classification of PL to M-2 in order to allow for the sale of this property to the adjacent landowner, which is Quality Metalcraft Inc. This would allow Quality Metalcraft to expand its existing operation to include the construction of a 25,000 sq. ft. manufacturing facility. This property presently contains the City's archery range as well as leased property. The archery range as part of the agreement with the City would be relocated on land immediately to the north of the proposed land sale. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence and it is a letter from the Engineering Division, dated November 15, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal or the legal description contained therein. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Since this is a petition from the Planning Commission, I am going to go directly to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition this evening? William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft. I am here representing Quality Metalcraft and if your Board has any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Taormina, this is the second parcel that we are selling off in the landfill area and I am just wondering, is that land that has already been filled? I guess my worry is, we keep selling off those parcels over there and we use this for landfill for articles that the citizens of Livonia bring in there. Are we getting to a point where this is going to be filled and we aren't going to need this land? Mr. Taormina: These are portions of the landfill property that the City has determined to be surplus land. In fact the City Council, through studies prepared by the Public Services Division, has taken a close look at this property and all the land that would be available for sale. This property was identified as such. Mr. LaPine: I guess my question is, do we still have landfill available in the City for dumping that the citizens can do now? Mr. Taormina: Yes. This property is part of a considerably larger parcel of land that still has adequate capacity for the future operations of the DPW. Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was 18135 #12-206-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 12, 2000, on Petition 2000-10-01-18 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and Council Resolution #781-00 proposing to rezone certain property located on the north side of Glendale Avenue east of Westmore Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 27 from PL to M-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-10-01-18 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning reflects the fact that the subject property is to be sold and will no longer be under public ownership; 2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan designation for the property of "Industrial"; and 3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #2 PETITION 2000-10-01-20 Leo Soave Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-10-01-20 by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Ellen Drive and Gill Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFB to R-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 two items of correspondence. The first item is a letter from the Engineering Department, dated November 17, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The following legal description should be used in connection therewith: 'Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Fairway Subdivision, as recorded in Liber 70, Page 86, Wayne County Records, said subdivision being a part of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4, T. 1S., R. 9E., Livonia Township (now City of Livonia), Wayne County, Michigan.' Under the proposed layout, the road right-of-way would be a maximum of fifty (50) foot wide. Currently, our standard for residential right-of-way width is sixty (60) feet. We would be willing to accept the current layout as long as the 18136 developer provides us with a ten (10) foot public utilities easement adjacent to the roadway. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second item is a letter from the Engineering Division, dated December 5, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. We would like to point out that pursuant to Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, Section 18.63 and the Livonia Code of Ordinances 16.24.220, rear-yard drainage structures will be required for the lots. This will require the developer to obtain easements from neighboring properties to bring storm sewers to the lots. Water main and sanitary sewer are available to the proposed lots, although a road crossing may be required to connect to the sanitary sewer. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: We also received a letter from Dennis Behrendsen, President of the Deer Creek Subdivision Homeowners Association addressed to myself which reads as follows: "Concerning proposed rezoning of the property adjacent to the northeast portion of Deer Creek Subdivision to R-4. The Deer Creek Homeowners Association Board Members endorse the rezoning of the above property to R-4. We believe development of this property into single family homes of equal or greater value and size as our members' homes is more beneficial to our members than any other likely development of the property. To minimize traffic congestion and the potential for collisions, we recommend that the proposed development's streets be arranged so that the cul-de-sac will be at the west side of the development and the intersection with 8 Mile Road will be at the east side. We further request that the existing berm on the north side of Deer Creek lot number 646 be extended eastward along the entire north edge of the new development and be planted with the same kind of trees as the existing berm. If, however it is not practical to conceal the cul- de-sac from 8 Mile Road with a berm, we recommend that the development's street intersect 8 Mile Road in two places. Best Regards Dennis Behrendsen." Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft, representing Mr. Soave who is also sitting in the audience for any questions. Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us? Mr. Roskelly: Engineering indicated that because of the 50 foot right-of-way, certainly at the time of plans there would be a ten foot easement on each side to accommodate any sewer or water or any utilities required. My personal opinion is, I am looking at the same preliminary plan, realizing this is premature. But the layout, in my personal opinion, would be that we should have a "U" shape and eliminate that cul-de-sac and have two roads going out 18137 to Eight Mile which makes it better for traffic circulation. Other than that, I would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. McCann: Again, we will look at the site plan if and when this is approved and it comes back. That is a separate hearing. Mr. Roskelly: That would come up during the preliminary plat hearing. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. LaPine: Does your petitioner own this land at the present time? Mr. Roskelly: I'll let Mr. Soave answer that. Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke. Yes sir. I own two parcels and am closing on another parcel Friday and I have another piece, which is lot #7. That is on a contingency right now. Mr. LaPine: Putting together this project, if you look at the zoning in that area, all the lots that abut this parcel, not the surrounding area abut this parcel are R-5. Why can't you build R-5 there so we have continuous R-5 abutting up against R-4? Mr. Soave: R-5 would be 100' X 150' and it wouldn't work. I was sitting right here in 1986 when this thing was rezoned and they used the transition from R-4 to R- 5 because it was RUF on Eight Mile. Right now we don't need a transition because we are going to go with the same type of zoning. Mr. LaPine: That doesn't answer my question. The property that abuts the land is R-5. Am I right? Mr. Soave: Yes sir. Mr. LaPine: You knew it was R-5 when you purchased it. The only reason I can see that you want to go to R-4 over R-5 is that you can get more lots in there. To me, that is not a good reason for me to rezone to R-4. I believe it should be R-5 that will abut with the R-5 that is there. Give me an argument why you believe the R-4 is better for me for the surrounding areas than R-5. Mr. Soave: Lots R-5 will give you lots 100' x 150' and the numbers just wouldn't work and therefore I wouldn't be developing it. Mr. LaPine: I don't know if it will work or not. I haven't seen a plan but I think it could work with less lots. Mr. Roskelly: I perhaps would suggest that in view of the fact that this property is on Eight Mile Road, I suggest that this is a good tempered use for this land. Who knows in the future if somebody would come with some recommend commercial or multiple. I think from R-5 to R-4 is a real reasonable transition for this type. Secondly, I think in the City of Livonia right now 18138 land is so valuable, the shape and size configuration of this land would certainly mean that Mr. Soave would not be able to economically develop this land and in turn, the homes in this specific plan, if you were to approve this, would certainly be far in excess dollar wise for footage wise to the local area and I think would be a very acceptable transition from R-5 to R-4. Mr. LaPine: You talk about the Eight Mile Road. We have some beautiful subs that abuts Eight Mile Road and the cost of those homes there today in today's market are $300,000 to $350,000 homes. I don't see your argument that you can't build homes in there of the same value that is in the area there now. Mr. Roskelly: I wasn't indicating that you couldn't. I am indicating that it would be certainly possibly at some future date with the value of land going the way it is that someone may come in and attempt to use a C classification or multiple. I think this is an excellent use in the City of Livonia at this specific time in view of the fact that land is so scarce and in such demand. Mr. LaPine: I would just say that we have had some inquiries about the area and I for one would never go for C-1, multiples or office on that area. I think it should be all residential to correspond with all the houses to the south of there. Mr. Roskelly: I certainly would agree with you. On Seven Mile I was a partner when we built Caliburn on the south side of Seven Mile. There you have R-3 and R-4 and I think they are beautiful homes and I think it would be quite acceptable to this City. Mr. Shane: What are the relative price homes that you are proposing for this site. Mr. Soave: We are going to try and keep it upscale. It is going to be $400,000 and above. If I can answer Mr. LaPine's question for a second, I checked with Planning and since it was 1988 or 1989 there were only three petitions from Ellen to Gill and they all have been for multiple and office. No petitions have ever been asked for as far as residential. Mr. LaPine: If I may answer. You were misinformed because one petitioner came in there and he wanted to put a combination of things in there. Not just commercial or office but I am only saying for one member, I will never go along with that. Mr. Shane: Do you own the other property in the area, Mr. Soave. Mr. Soave: In this area? Mr. Shane: Adjacent to this or right down the street or right in this area. Mr. Soave: No sir. Right now I own parcel #4, #5 and #6. Mr. Shane: Have you attempted to purchase any other property? Mr. Soave: No sir. 18139 Mr. Shane: My only thought was that since there are other properties in the area which are similarly located, if a project is approved on this site, it would be nice if it were expanded to include additional property so we don't have piecemeal development. I didn't know if you attempted to buy any more or if it is for sale or what. Mr. Soave: No. It is my understanding that some other developer owns three or four pieces over there and I don't think he is in the market to sell. Mr. Alanskas: I just want to state that I appreciate Mr. LaPine's opinions and it is correct that what he is saying that the R-5 surrounds the property. There are 17 homes that are R-5 homes but, however, just to the west of that and to the south there are 68 homes that are R-4 so you have more R-4 homes there than you have R-5. I don't think going R-4 is out of the question. Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Soave, the R-4 is 130' X 90', correct? Mr. Soave: Yes sir. Mr. Piercecchi: Do you think the layout would be 130' and a 50' road, Two rows of 130' lots, a road then another 130' lot? Is that how you are thinking about doing it? How many total units would you have in there? Mr. Soave: Probably 22 or 23 units and the lots are going to be 90' X 130'. Mr. Piercecchi: I was just wondering how the layout was going to be? Mr. Soave: We put in a sketch with the Planning Department. Mr. Piercecchi: I just wanted to know if that was what you planned on doing. That is how you were going to lay it out. Mr. Soave: That is just a conceptual sketch. We are willing to negotiate it. Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I am going to go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? I do just want to remind you that we do look at possible layouts this evening, but this is a zoning issue this evening whether R-4 zoning is appropriate for that area. We would be coming back either for site plan or for preliminary plat approval for the design of the actual subdivision at another time and at that time you would have an opportunity to speak with regard to the design of the subdivision. Dennis Behrendson, 20012 Wayne. I am the author of the letter previously read correctly by Chairman McCann so my points are already made, however, there are some of the potential neighbors, the adjoining property here tonight and I think they 18140 would like to at least mention some of the things that they have considered in the property. It doesn't relate directly to the zoning issue. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Milt Wilcox, 35104 Morlock, Lot 649. I heard the arguments about R-4 and R-5 and they are both in the subdivision. My thought would be the property that abuts R-5 should be R-5 and if the property across the street were R-4, that would be fine. In fact, that is the way it is in the subdivision now. But I think the property that abuts R-5 should be R-5. The other thing, the discussion about the street, we have the President of the Association sending a letter recommending that the entrance be on the east end. I would agree with that and also oppose the dual entrance because when we come into the subdivision heading west on Eight Mile, we are in the left hand turn lane. Anybody leaving this development, wanting to go west on Eight Mile, I think enough people are familiar with the area, what you do is you head out into the left hand turn lane and drive along until you can get out into the traffic lane. There is definitely going to be a problem if this entrance was on the west end. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Mark Cottrell, 20500 Gary Lane. I would also agree with just the single entrance, also on the east side of the development and not on the west side. There is just way too much traffic there for us to combat each other trying to get into our individual subs. Along with the developments on the north side of Eight Mile, using that same traffic lane to get into their respective locations. Also, I would like to emphasize it is R-5. I live on one of those R-5 lots and I fully support the development of a residential community of single family homes, but only if it zoned like ours. We have all moved there so that we could live in that type of community and see our homes increase in value. If they want to build something of similar value and start right from the beginning and zone it R-5 where it is respected and if they want to move it back to R-4 as it goes away from the R-5 lots, that would probably be a fair comprise but at least the minimum of where R-5 abuts up to R-5. Also, the berm along Eight Mile, right now we have trees there and in the summer time Eight Mile can be a very noisy street. The trees cut down the noise. When you put up the houses and knock down all the trees, obviously we are going to hear more traffic noise. A berm would definitely help that. I know that there are some other things that are going to be considered in the future but I will just throw it out here for your consideration as you go through this. Lighting, we have special lighting in our subdivision. Again, if they want to make it comparable to the surrounding area, put the same type of lighting in. Also, signage at the entrance, we put up special signage at the entranceways, to make it compatible. That is all that I am asking of the Planning Commission is to make it compatible with the subdivision that surrounds it and if you do that, I think you will do a fine job. Without that then I question that it is really compatible. Thanks. Sam Baki, Baki Home Builders, 36800 Seven Mile Road. I am the owner of Lot #7 which is the one that Mr. Soave has an option on to buy through us. I am one of the 18141 developers on Seven Mile Road on one of the subdivisions that we have. Current zoning in that subdivision is R-3. The minimum house price is $400,000. At a colonial we are running at $475,000 plus. That is the average that it is going to be in any new home in that area where this sub is going which is more than comparable to the area. The R-5 zoning that was adjacent and a buffer and the problem with having a R-5 on Eight Mile at this time, if you look at the configuration of the lot, 620' wide by 600' deep with an R-5, 150' depth and put in a 50' road and another 150', that gives you 350'. Now you are left with 250', that means you are left with a one sided road on one lot side, if you want to configure the R-5. That is the reason the R-4 is coming into the picture. The homes that are going to be built on R-4 or the R-5 is comparable, supercedes the neighboring properties and homes and I give it an average of $500,000 plus if what is going to happen as under R-4 zoning, for size of square footage of homes at that size lot. The owner on the east side which owns four lots, he is not interested in selling because he is coming for rezoning himself at a later date. That is the reason this parcel is only four pieces at this time. I am in support of the R-4 and I think that will keep the neighborhood and improve the area with nice homes to accommodate the neighbors. Greg Black, 20568 Ellen. I feel strongly that some of the points that have already been made, I'll mimic so you will know my feelings. To have an R-5 abutted by an R-4 doesn't make sense. The R-5 development has a openness and a feel to it that will not be the same as an R-4 development when it comes to lot size. I would agree an R-5 should be abutted by an R-5 lot. Secondly, I think the deed restrictions should be made the similar in the sense of some of the restrictions of the Deer Creek Subdivision should be carried over to those lots because of the adjacency to the other development. Thirdly, there is a concern on my part as far as drainage and what will be done on this land. I know behind my lot right now I have a 12 month, a year, wet area in the woods behind my house and when I see houses going in there, I wonder where the water is going to go at that point and that is a concern that I would like to express to this Commission. Fred Geletzke, 20536 Ellen. This is also to reiterate the points of my fellow homeowners in the subdivision. The point I would also like to add is regarding the future vision of the existing lots that Mr. Soave does not own where the direction should zoning be requested, changes in that area. If we keep it as a R-5 abutting R-5 and R-4 abutting R-4 but my major concern is some of the things we are seeing "called subdivisions" which is actually just a little "U" street. We are surrounded by a large group of subdivisions and in order to maintain property values, something of that similar value along those lines makes much more sense than a small R-4 development which is just more or less a street. Thank you. Mr. McCann: If there is nobody else wishing to speak, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and approved, it was 18142 #12-207-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 12, 2000, on Petition 2000-10-01-20 by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Ellen Drive and Gill Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFB to R-4, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-10-01-20 be approved 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 single family residential development similar in density to what is existing in the neighboring area; 3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot sizes which are consistent with other developed properties in the area; 4) That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land Use Plan which designates the subject area for low density residential land use; and 5) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: I am going to be voting against this because I think is the wrong thing for us to do. It seems to me that when R-5 abuts R-5 like it does here and we have vacant property to the east of here, which to my thinking should continue to R- 5, it gives us a separation between the R-4 and R-5. One of the problems I see around this town right now on these R-3, R-4 and R-5 lots, they are not large lots. We are talking about 70 foot, 80 foot and 100 foot lots and you build these large homes on it. The homes look like they are too large for these small lots and, in my opinion, we are doing a disservice to the people that abut this property by zoning this R-4. Mrs. Koons: I am also going to be voting against this proposal. I have been convinced that I think R-4 is the correct transition to Eight Mile. However, I feel it will become piecemeal road wise to develop this piece of R-4 and then the next piece of R-4 that people have said that another developer is going to come in. I would rather have them catch up with each other and see more of a total package. Mr. McCann: If there are no further comments, I have a comment. I would love to see this thing developed with the project down to the east. Mr. Beaune owns that property and I know that there has been discussions between the different groups trying to work it together. That hasn't worked out. But the issue we are dealing with tonight is not site plan, not whether it will tie in with the other 18143 parcel but whether or not R-4 zoning is appropriate. I have a lot of concerns. I have looked at this pretty closely. I took a look at the plans. I have talked with the Planning Director. We met on this on the Planning Commission. The problem we have is that this is a piece of property that abuts Eight Mile. Across the street we have multi-family residential. Just down from that we have an oil change, a auto repair, a commercial video store. Farther to the east on the Livonia side, we have office and then we have more residential that is going to be coming. I have sat on this Board for over 13 years. During this time it was previously stated, we did have three petitions come before us for different uses for different parts of this parcel. All of them included some type of office use, multi-family, some with a mix of residential, as Mr. LaPine says. I think Livonia would be hard pressed eventually if we don't allow this area to be developed in some form by the owners for not allowing them to develop it to a reasonable use. So we have to look at what is reasonable. I have tried to look at this piece of property even with the other pieces of property, considering its transition to Eight Mile. R-4 zoning would allow them to build nice homes. Homes that would match the existing subdivision. Further, the parcel that they own would not allow for 150' lots along that side. As Mr. Soave says, if he can't develop it as R-4, he is more likely to sell it to another investor to try and come in with something else. Because R-5 he cannot build it. The street width as it is, is reduced to 50' instead of 60' to get the R-4. That is not a problem, we have done it in many of the streets around the City where we can get a utility easement on the property. I think that this would be in the best interest of the City and the neighbors to allow it to go forward with an R- 4. I believe it is a reasonable use. I believe it is a good transition piece and I think that there is a good possibility of laying it out so that it would be the least intrusive to the neighbors. Therefore, I am going to vote for approval of this petition. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Shane, Alanskas, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: LaPine, Koons ABSENT: None 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. This will go on to the City Council with an approving resolution. At that time you will be able to go before the City Council and let your feelings be made known. You will be notified if we do come back for a site plan, or the abutting property neighbors will be. You can let your neighbors know. ITEM #3 PETITION 2000-11-01-21 James Morphew 18144 Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-11-01-21 by James Morphew requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road between Five Mile Road and Lyndon Avenue in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 21 from R-2 to C-1. 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 is one item of departmental correspondence and it is a letter from the Engineering Division, dated November 15, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal or the legal description contained therein. We would like to point out that the developer will be required to make a road crossing of Farmington Road to connect to water main and storm sewers, or will need to obtain easements from neighboring properties to connect to other locations. When planning for these connections, it will be necessary to obtain permits from Wayne County before construction can begin. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. We have a letter from J. D. Dinan Co., LLC, 28815 Eight Mile Road, Suite 101, Livonia, MI 48152, dated November 30, 2000, addressed to the Planning Commission which reads as follows: "Please be advised that we are the owners of Heritage Commons Office Center, 14600- 14800 Farmington Road at the Northeast corner of Lyndon Avenue and Farmington Road. We want to go on record as objecting to the proposed re- zoning from R2 (Single Family) to C1 (Local Business). The subject property is located directly across the street from our Office C4ener, and local business would be not only spot zoning, but it would also have a detrimental effect on property values in the neighborhood. Therefore, we would appreciate the City Planning Commission denying this proposed rezoning request." That was signed by John D. Dinan, Managing Member. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Frank Kokenakes, Brashear, Tangora, Gallagher, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan, appearing on behalf of Mr. Morphew of LaMoore Photography as the record was correctly reflected by Mr. Taormina. Mr. Morphew requested a change of zoning classification on November 2, 2000, from R-2 to C-1 zoning on the particular parcel that was referenced by Mr. Taormina which is located at 14185 and 14801 Farmington Road near Lyndon. Subsequently I was contacted by Mr. Morphew and I did file a supplemental attachment which I believe was received by the Planning Commission on December 1. Mr. McCann: For the record, I do have your two letters; one to the City Planning Commission and one to the City Council. The City Planning Commission's letter basically requesting this to be considered an OS zoning and the reasons 18145 stated why and the Council to change the ordinance regarding photography studios. Is that correct? Mr. Kokenakes: That is correct. The second letter that you referenced to the City Council is basically an alternate strategy but we do come before the Planning Commission to date to discuss the appropriate rezoning for this particular endeavor. As the Commission may know, LaMoore Photography has been in business since 1981. They basically have grown to a point where they need new facilities and they want to remain in Livonia. Mr. Morphew basically has indicated to me and in correspondence to the Commission, that the retail operation of his photographic studio is not really commercial in nature anymore. That that definition is outdated and that in fact his business is similar to an office of an insurance agent or possibly even an attorney. He very seldom has walk-in business. Everything is by appointment. There isn't a flow of traffic other than by appointment. As the Commission notes, he has a store front now with a large commercial sign. That is something that he is willing to forego in his new location because he is confident because of the type of business he runs now, that he will still have a successful business. What is important to note is that the degree of sophistication to run a studio of this type has increased many fold. Now, photography is typically digital. And he does not in fact develop any film on site. Basically the operation is such where a customer makes an appointment, comes in, they discuss the plan for the shoot. The shoot may be in his studio or very possibly at some other location, a wedding, for example. At that point, the appointment is made, the photographs are taken at what location and the development phase takes place off site at another location. Then the finished product comes back to his store where he presents it to his customers. They may discuss it as to coloring and that type of thing. It really requires a degree of sophistication that was not previously required. Mr. Morphew has mentioned to me that there are colleges such as centers for creative studies that offer four year programs in photography. There are the types of specialties and expertise necessary to run this type of business now which I would suggest falls within the OS district regulation. As this Commission is aware, the OS district regulation deals with professional offices. It also deals with vocations that require a knowledge of an advanced type of field of science and learning customarily acquired through specialized intellect study. We would suggest now that photographic studios of the type that LaMoore Photograph runs and the people that he has doing his work, rise to that level of sophistication. We would also note that under OS district regulations under the waiver uses, with approval of Council, they would allow real estate offices, insurance offices and privately owned museums. Typically in an insurance office you might have an appointment to come in and out. You wouldn't necessarily stop in or even with a real estate office. So the similarities of the way the businesses are run between Mr. Morphew's studio and such waiver uses as insurance offices and real estate offices are very similar and I can have him expand on that. One final comment before Mr. Morphew speaks would be the fact that we believe that his operation is most closely aligned to a OS district and it is a fact that camera stores or photographic studios that have developing and printing on site are set forth in C-1 does not necessarily have to be determinative in this issue. That in 18146 fact, the way his business is run, it would be better suited under the OS district. So we would ask that the petition be amended to allow this current R-1 district that is two lots that are being purchased subject to approve of your bodies be allowed to be changed to an OS district with a waiver use for his photographic studio if the Commission is decided that it would unlikely be a permitted use. My first position would be that under 9.02 a permitted use under OS district, his business would fall within that because of the type of training and work they do there. The second theory would be that it would still be an OS district but it would fall under a waiver use, the waiver use section 9.03 under the reasons I set forth before. So if I may allow Mr. Morphew to set forward and talk to you a little bit about his business personally, I would appreciate that. James Morphew, 33860 Five Mile Road, Livonia, MI 481554. I would just want to reiterate a lot of the statements that he made for me. The primary one being that the typical flow of our business, in my opinion, is exactly like that of any other professional office. None of our business originates from a drop in standpoint. It all happens by a phone call. An appointment is made before the work is done. We don't offer any retail items for sale at the studio. No one that is not a current client or doesn't have an appointment could walk in off the street and buy anything fro us. It is not that type of an operation. We don't have retail display of any kind. Our current building is set up very much like any other professional might be with separate offices and a waiting area. We have been in Livonia since 1981 and have been very successful and that is why we need this additional space. It is a goal of mine to stay in Livonia. We have looked pretty extensively around the area for something that works as well as this and can't find it. I think that under the current verbiage of that ordinance that we very much do fit within an office service. We would even be willing to do it on a basis of specific restrictions as to no film sales or no retail items for sale on site, that type of thing. With regard to the section that speaks to any other professional service under the ordinance, there was a question put to us as to whether photography was a profession. I certainly believe it is. We have been at it for 22 years. As he mentioned, there are a number of schools that offer four year degree programs in photography It definitely requires an on-going education as it has changed dramatically in 20 years. We do that very often. Our people will attend regular workshops, seminars or that type of thing. One of my newest hires has a four year degree. She works in digital and graphic design and so forth. That is basically my position because of the way the business functions which is exactly like that of another professional office and that it is not part of a larger retail operation, which is what I believe is what the ordinance was trying to restrict such as a photography studio as part of a department or that type of thing. I would like the Commission to consider that usage. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Morphew, how many square feet do you have now in your existing building? 18147 Mr. Morphew: 3,600 sq. ft. Mr. Alanskas: Our notes say that you are going to build between 8,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. building. Do you know what size it is going to be? Mr. Morphew We hope to build 10,000 sq. ft. Our usage would be 6,000 sq. ft. Mr. Alanskas: What do you plan on doing with the other 4,000 sq. ft.? Mr. Morphew: We would like to rent those units. Mr. Alanskas: Would that be on the front of the building, the side of the building, or the open part that you are not going to use? Mr. Morphew: As far as where they are positioned? Mr. Alanskas: Yes. Mr. Morphew: They are adjacent to our section. Mr. Alanskas: To the front of the building? Mr. Morphew: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: You've got 132 feet on the front of the building and 600 feet deep. Mr. Morphew: Right. The buildings would run perpendicular. Mr. Alanskas: Would your business be more in the back of the building? Mr. Morphew: No. It would be the front section of the building. Mr. Alanskas: So you are going to try to lease 4,000 sq. ft. to someone for the building in the back? Mr. Morphew: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Don't you think that would be kind of difficult? Mr. Morphew: Not in an office setting. I don't. Mr. Alanskas: O. K. Thank you. Mrs. Koons: A question to the staff. Mr. Taormina, this petition came to us as a request for C-1 and was it posted as a request for C-1? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Mrs. Koons: Wouldn't we have to readvertise for OS? 18148 Mr. Taormina: No, it would be within the Planning Commission's authority to consider the OS being that it would be a less intensive zone than the C-1. Mrs. Koons: Mr. Morphew, what is it about this parcel that is attractive to you? Mr. Morphew: A number of things. The proximity to our existing business, we are on Five Mile, two or three blocks west of Farmington Road. This would allow us to stay in the immediate area, no change of phone numbers. The fact that it allows us an opportunity to build a studio that specifically meets our needs, is very attractive. In the past, we have been in three different buildings in Livonia and we have always somewhat adapted to the building rather than the other way around and this gives us an opportunity to build something that is custom to our uses. The fact that it is a large enough parcel that in the future could allow for additional office space is an attractive aspect as well. Mrs. Koons: Thank you. Mr. LaPine: As I understand it, this is not a portrait studio. Do you have families come in for sittings and things of that nature? Mr. Morphew: Yes. It is a portrait studio, portraits and weddings. Mr. LaPine: Which is basically a commercial type of an operation, a portrait studio. Do you do shoots for advertising agencies and things of that nature where you go out on sites or anything like that? Mr. Morphew: Our portrait work can be done on location as well as all our wedding work is. We do not do any advertising or illustrative type of photography Mr. LaPine: So basically what you do is people make appointments with you, they come in, you take their portraits and they are gone and you've got these lined up so that there is no problem with traffic problems or parking problems? Mr. Morphew: Essentially, yes. Mr. LaPine: Thank you. Mr. McCann: I have a question for Mr. Kokenakes. My concern is we are always very hesitant to change the zoning on a particular area, especially if we are not sure of the type of business that is going to be going into it because the zoning runs with the land. If he goes out of business, or say we put the C-1 in there, any C-1 use could go into that as soon as he leaves. We cannot restrict that. The same is true with OS. I guess what you are telling me is that we want to change it now to OS but in order to do that we are still going to have to City Council and get the City Ordinance changed so that we can put a photographic studio within this section on the possibility that it could be used as a waiver use which would again need O.K. from the Planning Commission and the City Council. I guess we are dealing with what I would 18149 think is the last step first, or second to last. I would think that, number one, if he is really interested in doing this, he would first go through and petition the Council to see if, in fact, they would consider amending the ordinance, sending a proposed ordinance to us to hold a public hearing on to amend it so that we could, a possibility of a photographic studio to go in there, then it would, once the ordinance was in place, then coming back and saying O.K., this is a potential use for this property. This is what we want to do with it. We would like for you now to look at C-1 zoning. But going forward and saying well we are going to go forward with the C-1 zoning and if we get it then we will go back and try and get the ordinance changed, we end up with OS zoning and we don't know what is going to go in there. Again, it is one spot and we are always concerned with spot zoning. Mr. Kokenakes: Mr. Morphew initially filed for the C-1 zoning because that was what he felt was the appropriate request. I felt that we could ask that the change be to OS with a factual discussion with the Commission that his particular business is such that even though his particular work is a photographic studio that because of the way that he runs his operation it wouldn't be at odds with the OS restrictions. I thought that this Commission could in fact from the facts of our testimony could reach that decision, or would feel that we are close enough under OS that with a waiver use that this Commission could recommend the change to OS with a recommendation of waiver use as well. The last resort in my thought was to actually change the ordinance and that was basically a feeling on my part from hearing some of the discussions with the Planning Department that that may be alternative strategy to get to where I want to go but I thought that was actually was the most intrusive method that, in fact, if we look at the ordinance that is before us, we could given the fact of how Mr. Morphew has testified regarding how his business works, that that could fall in a less restrictive OS district classification. I believe even if you look at the ordinances C-1, OS, they do somewhat talk about some of the same type of uses and I would suggest that the Council and potentially the Commission here, where the type of operation is not blatantly commercial, not large signage, not a lot of walk up traffic, that it could be considered a suitable operation for OS or an OS district. I have represented a sketch of the landscaping plan but the idea was that he would have a free standing building that would house his photographic studio and included would be additional space attached, 4,000 sq. ft. additional, perhaps divided into two sections, which he would then lease out to an accountant or an attorney, that that could be done in addition to his own business. Mr. Alanskas talks about how you would configure the building. Our initial configuration was to have his business up front. I suppose that could be changed but that was how he discussed it with his architect and that is how it evolved. I would suggest if we were showing you the plans of what the building would look like, it would look virtually similar to the accounting office at Levan and Five Mile on the south side of Five Mile across from the Mobil station and that those would not be intrusive. Mr. McCann: To our staff, I believe with regard to the potential use of the photographic studio, the notes indicate that the Building Department or that the Planning 18150 Department has looked at this, as well as the Law Department, and it would not qualify without the ordinance being amended. Is that correct? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. All three departments have reviewed the request by Mr. Morphew and it is our determination that a zoning compliance permit would not be issued for a photography studio if the property was rezoned to OS. Mr. McCann: He abuts residential and even if it was OS, he would not be able to have a zero set back, would he? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. There would be a minimum setback requirement, I believe, of 15 feet that would apply to all three sites of this property Mr. Morphew: In fact, we did notice in the rendering that in fact the one side was too close. That is not a problem. Mr. McCann: Have you purchased this property or do you have it on an option? Mr. Morphew: I have a purchase agreement at this time that is based on the ability to get it rezoned for the proper use. I would like to address the application for C-1. My position all along was I felt that our business fit within the definition of an office services business. I only filled it out as a C-1. It was somewhat of a mistake on my part based on what our purchase agreement called for. I thought I was required to do that. It isn't because we thought we were a C-1 business and now we are falling back to an OS and saying, "but wait, we can fit into this." My position all along was that I felt that our business operates virtually identically to any other professional office. I would question the legal department as to how they would say that a photography studio does not and what that criteria is. Mr. McCann: You can question them. We already have and they gave us an answer. Mr. Kokenakes: Was that a written opinion? Mr. McCann: They reviewed the petition and informed the Planning Department. Mr. LaPine: I personally think his business is a C-1 business. If you look at the photographic studios, Focal Point for example, has a store in Farmington right on Farmington Road and Grand River right in a commercial district. They've got one out in Canton right in a shopping center so basically they are in that type of operation, a C-1 district. Although I have no objection to this property being zoned OS, because I think eventually all of those properties between parking for the senior citizens building and all of those properties along Farmington Road are all going to go OS, in my opinion and I don't want to start out by putting some commercial in there. If you can get the Council to amend the ordinance to say that this is a permitted use in an OS district, I personally would have no objection zoning the property OS. Unless we go through that procedure, I don't think that we can proceed going to C-1 here in this particular instance. 18151 Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I am going to go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak for or against this petition this evening? Vince Lee, 6062 Dunmore Drive, West Bloomfield. I have owned the subject property for approximately 30 years. I bought it with the idea at the time I was a real estate broker in the City. The City had it at that time for Future Land Use Study - office. Obviously, I have owned it for 30 years, paid taxes on it for 30 years, thought it was a good investment. When Jim and I talked, and he told me what he wanted to do with the property, it seemed like the correct purchaser had come along with the correct user. I am not an attorney. When he described what he was going to do with the building, it seemed like an office service building to me. I was an independent broker here in the City, enjoyed being here. I joined Century 21, moved to West Bloomfield, rented at the corner of Middlebelt and 14 Mile Road and was told that I couldn't rent there because our real estate broker was not a professional. I went to the West Bloomfield Township, had an attorney respectfully appeal saying that I thought maybe it would difficult to say that a real estate broker was not a professional, at least it was hard since I had just been sold the Century 21 concept and franchise and the Township changed its mind and said after consideration said, "we could put that in the professional service." It seems to me, not being an attorney and not having the wisdom and the judgment that you people have, but it seems to me that we are facing something similar and reasonable here today. When I entered into the purchase with him, I thought it was a win for me. I thought it was a win for him and I thought it was a win for the City. I still do. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Diane Smith, I am representing my mother, Margaret Holly, 14821 Farmington Road. She owns the property directly north of the land that Mr. Morphew is inquiring about. First of all I wonder what it would do to the other residential property values if this is zoned OS or C-1? Mr. McCann: You are asking us that question? Ms. Smith: Well, based on prior history, would this maintain the property value of the residential or would this be something where the taxes would be drastically increased? Mr. McCann: It is a real double-edged sword. The property taxes will not increase because you own personal property they don't increase anymore unless there is an increase in the actual tax but your state equalized value, the base of your tax stays the same. Now, would the property increase? Yes, I am sure it would. I'm sure if this went to office, other people would want to buy her property or adjacent properties, if they had potential office use in the future years. That may increase it, it may not. Ms. Smith: But this wouldn't have a direct effect on her taxes then, right? 18152 Mr. McCann: Not at the immediate time, no. Ms. Smith: One of my concerns was Mr. Morphew did mention about the sign... Mr. McCann: This is just a zoning issue. We don't deal with site plans, we don't deal with signage, we don't deal with anything like that at this time. That would all come back later with a site plan review. You would be invited as a neighbor and at that point you would be able to give your insight and we could go through everything. He would have to meet all City requirements and we would certainly be deferential to your views. Ms. Smith: Some of those issues would determine whether I was for or against it. He is talking about 10,000 sq. ft. and using 6,000 sq. ft. My concern would be what would be allowed in the other 4,000 sq. ft. Mr. McCann: It would be under the OS zoning which could be anywhere from doctors offices to accountant, real estate, etc. Ms. Smith: So it would be open to medical and everything? Are there any photographs or pictures of what might be proposed for the type of building? Mr. McCann: No. Ms. Smith; Is it a one story building? Mr. McCann: We don't have any of that yet. I would imagine for that area it would be. Mrs. Koons: Ms. Smith, often times abutting neighbors meet the developer at a meeting like this and many of your questions can be answered and worked out by talking directly with Mr. Morphew. Ms. Smith: The rental property next door has been neglected. I would not object to the photo studio being put in there. Thank you. Mr. McCann: If there is no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Kokenakes I am going to give you the last opportunity to make a comment. Mr. Kokenakes: I would like to extend my appreciation to the Commission for hearing our petition tonight. When we look at the C-1 zoning and it talks about photographic studios, it seems to make some kind of distinction regarding retail as part of a retail business, including developing and printing of photographs, as conducted on the premises as part of the retail business. I interpret that as potentially something like Wards or Sears where you have a photographic studio as a part, and that is the curious part of that language when it talks about part of a retail business rather than, the retail business. I am not sure what the distinction is being made under the ordinance under C- 1. It seems to me that we can make an arguable distinction that is it doesn't include developing or printing, that it would fall outside the C-1 designation 18153 here. I am drawing a very precise distinction here but I think can be argued but again, I appreciate your consideration on this matter. Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: Have you tried anywhere in the City where C-1 property is already existing where you could go in right away and have no problems? Mr. Morphew: We did do quite a bit of looking. There is so little of that. Mr. Alanskas: The reason I ask is because you say you had 3600 sq. ft. and now you want to go to 6,000 sq. ft. tells me that you have a very good business and I don't think if you went anywhere in the City your people would follow you there and we have a lot of property that is existing now and vacant in C-1 and I think possibly, if this is on a contingent, you could go elsewhere and have no problems at all. Mr. Morphew: We have explored that. Mr. Alanskas: Have you called the Chamber of Commerce because they have a listing of properties? Mr. Morphew: We have looked at a number of them and for a number of reasons they don't meet our needs. Sometimes it is a matter of pricing in a C-1 zoning. Mr. Alanskas: What you are trying to do now, I think, is a tough road to follow. Thank you. Mr. McCann: If there is nothing else, I am closing the Public Hearing. Mr. LaPine: I just want to get a clarification from you. If we make a denying motion for the C-1, then that still leaves him the option to go the route you talked about, going to Council and having the ordinance changed. So his type of operation would be available in OS then come back at a later date. Mr. McCann: No matter what, this goes on to Council. It is either with an approving or a denying resolution. We can deny to a C-1 and then leave it to the Council to determine whether the OS is appropriate. Mr. LaPine: But if we make an approving motion for the OS, then the Council would still then have to go through the whole process you stated before they can approve an OS. Is that correct? Mr. McCann: No. They can approve it as OS but that does not mean the petitioner would be entitled to go there and put in a photographic studio. Mr. LaPine: I understand. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was 18154 #12-208-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 12, 2000, on Petition 2000-11-01-21 by James Morphew requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road between Five Mile Road and Lyndon Avenue in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 21 from R-2 to C-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-11-01-21 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning would constitute a spot zone since it is not contiguous to a similar zoning district; 2) That the proposed change of zoning will be detrimental to and not in harmony with the zoning and land uses along Farmington Road in this area; 3) That the existing commercial zoning in proximity to the Farmington and Five Mile Road intersection adequately provide for commercial uses in this area; 4) That the proposed change of zoning will not provide for a comprehensive solution to future development of the subject property, as well as adjacent properties; 5) That the proposed change of zoning would tend to encourage future requests for similar zoning changes along the west side of Farmington Road in this area; and 6) That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Plan designation of office use for the subject area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Shane: Am I given to understand that the petitioner has not formally amended his petition to OS? Mr. Taormina: The request came by way of a letter submitted by Mr. Kokenakes. Mr. McCann: I think that is a good clarification because our denying resolution is for a C-1 and if he has amended his petition, then the question is whether or nor there is a formal amending of the petition to OS. Then we would have to make a recommendation based on the OS. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, my question would be then if it was advertised for a rezoning to a C-1, would it have to be re-advertised? 18155 Mr. McCann: No because it is a less intensive use. I will leave this to the Planning Director, whether or not we have actually amended the petition. Mr. Taormina: I believe in Mr. Kokenakes's letter dated December 1, he provides that in the alternative the Planning Commission consider the rezoning from R-2 to OS. Mr. McCann: I would agree that in the alternative that it is just asking us to review but not necessarily to amend his petition therefore he can go forward on a C-1. We leave it as it is. Mr. Morphew: Could I address that? We asked that question of Planning that would the Council be able to make a decision regarding OS? Mr. McCann: They will be able to. Mr. Morphew: And that it could happen at the same time? Mr. McCann: Right. Basically by sending it on the way we are, they will be able to deal with it as either C-1 or OS. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #4 PETITION 2000-10-02-31 Rite Aid of Michigan, Inc. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-10-02-31 by Rite Aid of Michigan, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a SDD license in connection with an existing pharmacy located on the southeast corner of Eight Mile and Merriman Roads in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 2. Mr. McCann: We received a letter dated November 29, 2000, to Mr. Nowak from John J. Doyle, Doyle Group Attorneys, PC. "Please accept this letter as a request for an adjournment of the Public meeting before the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia which is currently set for December 12, 2000, at 7:30 p.m. No one from this office is available on this date. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Should you have any questions, or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me." The letter is signed by John J. Doyle, Doyle Group Attorneys, P.C. Actually we have already published for this hearing. It is set for tonight. I would like to know if there is anybody in this audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Since there is nobody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition, I will close the Public Hearing. Do we have a motion to table to a latter date? On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane and unanimously approved, it was #12-209-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 12, 2000, on Petition 2000-10-02-31 by 18156 Rite Aid of Michigan, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a SDD license in connection with an existing pharmacy located on the southeast corner of Eight Mile and Merriman Roads in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-10-02-31 be tabled to a date uncertain. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #5 PETITION 2000-11-02-32 Hooters of Livonia, Inc. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-11-02-32 by Hooters of Livonia, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant within an existing building on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 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 three items of correspondence. The first letter is from the Engineering Division, dated November 17, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal or the legal description contained therein. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Inspection Department, dated November 20, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of November 13, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) Attached is a copy of Zoning Board of Appeals Case 9601-02 dated May 24, 1996. (a) The ground sign of 30 square feet was approved. Only a permit would be needed to reface that sign. (b) The proposed wall signage at 123 square feet would not be permitted without a variance, or amended variance, from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Although 9601-02 allowed 160 square feet of wall signage for this entire site, this petition would only be allowed up to 63 square feet of wall signage as their street frontage is 63 lineal feet. The balance of available wall signage would be reserved for the hotel (or other occupant). (2) The drawing labeled plan 2010 dated 8/18/00 does not accurately reflect the site condition as it does not detail the porte-cochere added to the hotel. However, the count of parking spaces appears to be accurate. (3) The rear (south) parking area is in a state of disrepair and needs resurfacing and to be re-double striped after said resurfacing. (Area is depicted as spaces 31- 152). (4) The parking spaces provided are adequate for the hotel and the restaurant. This Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated November 22, 2000, which reads as 18157 follows: "We have reviewed the proposed site plan as submitted. The plan indicates eighty seats with a total capacity of one hundred and eight. Parking appears to be within requirements with two designated handicap parking spaces. Please remind the petitioner that each handicap space must be individually signed. Parking lot lighting is not indicated on the site plan. Lighting should be addressed so that there is adequate lighting for patron safety." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Charles Lane, 14620 East Port, Sterling Heights, Michigan. I am the attorney for Hooters of Livonia, Inc. Before the Commission today are two petitions. One petition is to permit the use of a restaurant, the other petition is to permit the use of a transfer of a Class C liquor license to the site. The current site that we are seeking approval on used to be a restaurant. They had a liquor license. They had operated a restaurant facility at this location from 1966 to 1997, I believe. It operated under the names of Plums and Francesco's. Before I get into the particulars with regards to the restaurant itself, I would like to provide you with a little background about Hooters and what Hooters is. Hooters of Livonia is a newly formed corporation. It was newly formed solely for the purpose of creating a restaurant here in Livonia. In Michigan there are currently nine operating restaurants named Hooters. Several of those restaurants are owned by the parent corporation of Livonia, which is called Hooters of America, Inc. Hooters of America, Inc. is a Georgia corporation. The other two restaurants that are operating in Michigan are franchisees. They operate under a separate corporation, a separate entity and different from Hooters of America, Inc. They do operate under a agreement whereby they use the same name. They use the same menus. They operate under the same principles and guidance from the franchiser. With regards to the nine licensees currently operating in Michigan, they operate out of Grand Rapids, Muskegon, Roseville, Sterling Heights, Taylor and Troy. Those are the ones operating under Hooters of America, Inc. The two franchisees you may be familiar with operate out of Bay City and out of the City of Saginaw. Hooters was organized in 1984. It started as a sports bar down in Clearwater, Florida. From its very humble origins being located on the beach, it has grown into an international operation whereby it has more than 240 restaurants operating in 42 states of this country, operating in Canada, Asia, Puerto Rico, Aruba, England, Mexico and as far south as Argentina. It has been named by the Food Chain Magazine as the second largest growing restaurant in America. All the restaurants operate under the same type of franchise agreement. They operate with certainly the same type of foods, same type of menus and they do have the world famous Hooters girls as their wait staff. With regards to the Hooters girls, with regards to management, with regards to everybody that works at any establishment at Hooters, they train under a very strenuous program called the Bar Code. I am not sure if the Commission is familiar with that. It is an out-of-state training program with regards to administration and the handling of alcoholic beverages. It is a program with regards to responsibility in serving alcohol. This Bar Code service that Hooters 18158 restaurants subscribes to, is very similar to what you may be familiar with in Michigan as the TIPS program or TAMS program. It is a program that Hooters had their people participate with before Michigan even adopted the TIPS program. Hooters feels that it has a responsibility to the community. It has a responsibility to the state and it has a responsibility to the rules and regulations with regards to the administration in the service of alcoholic beverages in its community. It has lived up to that standard in Michigan. It works very closely with the Michigan Liquor Control Commission with regards to special permission, with regards to certain types of contests that it conducts in the restaurant. With regards to the restaurant itself, it is a sports bar. I am not sure how many members of the Commission have ever been to Hooters or have ever visited one but they are all very similar. In terms of the physical facade, it is open windows. It has a very open look. Anybody can look inside. It is a very nice looking sports bar. It has TV monitors throughout. It shows continuously golf, racing and other sports games such as football. Right now this being football season, that is quite a regular feature on the in-house TV set. Its sales are principally 70% to 75% of food product. Its sale of alcoholic beverages ranges from 20% to 25% on location and sells approximately 5% in merchandise, logo merchandise. It is renown for its special theme. It is renown for its special sauces, its oysters that melt in your mouth and chicken wings that people die for. With regards to the personnel that will be working at this site, it is very similar to the numbers that work at the other sites. There will be a manager. There are three assistant managers. They are 25 to 30 full time cooks and kitchen help. There are approximately 50 to 70 part and full-time Hooters girls. Mr. Alanskas: Did you say 25 to 30 cooks? Mr. Lane: Twenty five to thirty full and part time cooks and kitchen staff that will work in the restaurant. At any one particular point in time the average working staff is 16 and its hours of operation have been standardized and they go as follows: Monday through Thursday, 11:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M.; on Fridays and Saturdays, 11:00 A.M. to 1:00 A.M., on Sundays they open up at 12:00 noon and they close at 11:00 P.M. With regards to the location, the location that we are seeking the restaurant to operate at, the specific building is owned by John Glasnak and his corporate group. We will be entering into a lease with them. We have options on it that will extend over a 20 year period. The reason we do this is we always intend to have a long term connection with the local community, if we receive approval. The restaurant will consist of approximately 4, 205 sq. ft. It will have an occupancy of 108 persons and under the local ordinance that would require a minimum of 70 parking spaces. We not only meet the requirement of 70 minimum parking spaces but we exceed that. The cost of the construction, remodel and start up cost has been estimated to be somewhere around $900,000, quite a sizeable investment into that building. We believe that Hooters presence in the community will be a plus and attribute. We believe in terms of economic terms, not only does it bring a solid economic base to the community, but it also provides an opportunity for employment for staff and other personnel. In terms of Hooters, Hooters has a reputation since 1984 whereby they have pared 18159 themselves up with various charitable groups and they have developed a foundation called HOOC.E.F. whereby they have received 8.5 million dollars they have given to charities. They believe, and it is their corporate policy that they return some of the monies they earn to the community back to the community. Hooters is requesting that they be allowed to open a restaurant. That they be granted permission to transfer a Class C Liquor License with an entertainment permit without dressing rooms to the current location. In speaking with Mr. O'Reilly, William O'Reilly of the Michigan Liquor Control Commission. I spoke with him today and he has finalized our application to the Liquor Control Commission and it was his opinion today that he was going to make a letter of recommendation to the State that the license be approved. Now I understand that that operation is obviously separate of the City but I thought I would indicate to you what the status of that license application is. With regards to the signs, I believe that the reference to the signs has been correctly stated. There are two signs that we are seeking approval on. One sign would be on the face of the building, I believe I provided in the application a picture as to what that would appear to be and we have agreed with the City that that would be of the size that is be required under the ordinance. The second that we are asking approval for is merely the signage out in front along the roadway that there is an existing sign, we are just asking approval that our name be able to be placed on that sign. I will withhold any further comments in terms of, and leave it open to the Commission, as to whether you have any questions for me. Mr. McCann: One of our concerns when we brought this up, and I want to get right into it, you are talking about 108 persons for the seating capacity, approximately, 16 plus employees. It has very limited parking up near your restaurant, nowhere near sufficient to handle the type of business that you propose to use. All the parking is to the south, which abuts neighbors on the west side and the south side. It appears to me that for everybody using your restaurant coming and going in the evening is going to have to compete with the people using the hotel who are going to park with their luggage near their hotel rooms. It would be very difficult for them to carry all of their luggage from the rear end of the building and most likely they will be there before your customers get there in the evening or possibly they will be parking quite away south. My question is, does this design work for where your parking is so far away from your building? Mr. Lane: Well actually, in speaking with Mr. Glaznak with regards to the use of the parking spaces in front and the manner by which his patrons park in utilize the entire area, he feels that it would not be a problem. We don't feel it is a problem. I believe in front there are approximately 45 or 50 parking spaces, based on my last count, and then the excess would carry us around the corner. Mr. McCann: Isn't that the entrance to the hotel? Mr. Lane: The entrance to the hotel and both the restaurant faces Plymouth Road. 18160 Mr. McCann: Correct. So anybody checking in is going to be taking these parking spots right here in the front area. Mr. Lane: Usually, quite often, they check in and I believe their practice is to get their key and then move down to an area that would be closer to where their room would be. In terms of answering your first question. Would that parking perhaps interfere with the operation of our business, our patrons and our customers? The answer is no. I can illustrate it this way. We have a th restaurant in Grand Rapids. In Grand Rapids it is located along 28 Avenue. It is located in a strip center and it is located whereby there is an area parking in front of the strip center. It is not only utilized by the restaurant but it is also competed with by the various other merchants that are along the strip center. There is a parking area that is to the rear of the restaurant and the other merchants. In terms the time periods that there is an overflow and a demand for more parking, the patrons have then, in fact, used the other area. Mr. McCann: Wouldn't your 16 to 20 employees be parking then in the bottom area down here? Mr. Lane: Actually that was something that had been discussed that the employees could be parking away from the main area. It is the policy of corporate that in the areas where parking is, like Grand Rapids, the employees do park in the back area, not in the front area. So those are things that staff would take care of insuring that there would be more space available for their customers rather than being utilized by their own personnel. Mr. McCann: I have been in the restaurant business. I owned a restaurant for 14 years and what you want to do is make is most accessible. If people can't find parking, if it is not convenient or its snowing out, they are not going to walk all the way down there, so I would assume that is where you would put your employees is back at the farthest points to make it convenient for your customers. Here is where we are coming into problems. That restaurant has never been used other than as an ancillary use to the hotel. It was there for customers. Other people did come and attend it but it was always run by and part of the business of the hotel. If you have a sports bar where you are going to have 16 people coming in and 16 employees leaving at 1:30 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. which backs up to numerous homes and residential, don't you think that will have a numerous impact on the neighbors and the people leaving the business at 1:00 a.m. when you close? Mr. Lane: I believe the area where the parking would occur would probably be to the east side, which would be away from the neighbors. It would separated from the residential is to the southwest, if I remember correctly. Therefore the parking would be utilized more the east of the building rather than on the residential end. I don't believe that would an intrusion into the residential area. Mr. McCann: The residential abuts the wall right behind the restaurant, if I am correct. Is that correct, Mr. Taormina? 18161 Mr. Taormina: Yes. Mr. McCann: Behind the parking to the west? Mr. Taormina: The residential area begins in the offset portion of the building and extends south along the west side of the property abutting the parking lot. About two lots abut the rear of the hotel building and then another five or so lots are adjacent to the parking lot along the west property line. Mr. McCann: According to my drawing the parking goes all the way down south and abuts all the way down here. This is a backyard right here, isn't that correct? You can see this is all housing that comes up right here along the back of the parking lot. That is where you intended your employees and overflow to park. Mr. Lane: Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. Glaznak, the owner. He is going to show you exactly where the parking is in relation to the restaurant. John Glaznak: The parking for the hotel is not anywhere near the restaurant. It is behind the hotel itself. Mr. McCann: You are going to tell your guests that they cannot park along the building there? Mr. Glaznak: There is no parking there. Mr. McCann: The east side. Mr. Glaznak: For the hotel itself, very seldom do we have parking for the guests for the hotel in front. If a person comes and checks in, they come under the porte cochere and they either enter door number one or door number two or door number three. The parking generally begins over here for the hotel and most of the time, if you come by the hotel, this area is always vacant. This area back here is always vacant. Usually what we will have back here are semi- trucks parked back there. Mr. McCann: How long has that restaurant been closed? Mr. Glaznak: It has been closed for about four years. Mr. McCann: Now I understand why you have a lot of vacant parking. Mr. Glaznak: We have reduced the number of rooms there from 150 to 127. Mr. McCann: Did you increase the size of the rooms? Mr. Glaznak: Some of the rooms, yes. 18162 Mr. McCann: I am going to go to the other Commissioners. Mrs. Koons: Mr. Lane, in your description, thank you for your thoroughness of it, you talked about the special wings and the special theme. What is the special theme? Mr. Lane: It is a sports bar. It is a fun place to go. We have both men and women that go there. We have both elderly and young. We have children that go there. It is not a location or type of restaurant that anybody has to worry about or be ashamed of. There are some concerns that have been raised at other council meetings with regards to the use of the name Hooters. It does carry a double entendre to some people. However, the name has been copyright protected with the Federal Government. It has been approved at nine locations throughout Michigan. It has been approved throughout the United States and as said by a lady council member in the City of Portage three weeks ago is that if I choose not to go there, the choice is mine. In terms of the theme, the theme is a fun place to go, a sports bar, activity, the Hooters' girl, the food, the menu. As I indicated 70% to 75% of the sales of the restaurant is from the food. We are not a bar where people go in and sit down. We are a type of restaurant where people come in. They have a lunch. They have a supper. We turn the table and we have another customer there to replace them. Mrs. Koons: I understand about the theme. You just talked about the customer base. What is your guess about percentages of customers? Mr. Lane: Mr. Koffman here, is the area supervisor from Hooters. I would like to introduce you to him and I believe he can better answer that question. Mr. Koffman: To that particular question, basically we recognize that 80% of our clientele is men. About four years ago we did a study and we figured the average man customer of Hooters is between the age of 21 and 45 years old, some college to Master Degree college, well educated, well financed and they understand what we do. They take it at face value and enjoy it. Back to the parking, when we say that we have 16 employees that work there during a shift, probably more on a Friday night or a Saturday night I will acknowledge that, it is customary in almost all of locations that there are girls that leave earlier than some. Sometimes we will cut at 10:00 p.m. which means that half of the wait staff will leave due to the slowdown of business. We don't serve liquor. We only serve beer and wine so we don't have a late night crowd. People come in they eat, as Charles said, and they leave. So by 10:30 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. half of our servers have already left. Mr. McCann; Can you repeat what you just aid. That you don't serve liquor. Mr. Koffman: Our wait staff doesn't serve the beer or wine. We don't serve any kind of liquor. We only serve beer and wine. Our servers get the opportunity to leave earlier in the night which means they can actually leave those spots at the back of the hotel. So there will maybe eight spots taken up by the end of the night. 18163 Mrs. Koons: Do you have other Hooters that are housed in hotels and motels? Mr. Koffman: Not in Michigan. One of our major units that does very well is in Greensboro, North Carolina and they are adjacent to a Holiday Inn. Mrs. Koons: Adjacent or housed? Mr. Koffman: Well, housed, they are connected. They do very well as far as parking and they have been there almost ten years now. There have never been any major issues. I don't know the exact amount of parking spots but it is very similar the way the hotel wraps around. Mrs. Koons: My question doesn't have to do with the parking. My question has to with the double entendre of the name and the special theme in connection with the hotel. I visited many of your home websites and found the double entendre not to bother me after I took a look at it, but some things did bother me. Are you familiar with the contract that your waitresses sign? Mr. Koffman: With the contract? Can you explain that a little further? Mrs. Koons: Several different sites stated that the waitresses had to sign a contract. "I do not find my job duties, uniform requirements or work environment to be offensive, intimidated hostile or unwelcome." Mr. Koffman: That is part of the handbook and obviously if they are going to apply that is something that is not a concern of theirs. Mr. Lane: I think in answering that, what Mr. Koffman is saying is that Hooters has a very extensive program they have worked out with their employees, all of their Hooters staff, especially their Hooters' girls. They have an extensive training program. They put them through not only the training program regarding alcohol awareness but they put them through a very extensive training program with regards to the male/female relationship for example. How to handle and diffuse problems. How to handle problems that may be coming to you either from the public, the customer or from the staff. They have developed a very strong internal program to protect all the young ladies to provide that they are not just put out at large and they are in danger if that is what you are referring to. Mrs. Koons: I am and I appreciate your answer. To me, I don't know how you protect someone who has to sign that they don't find it hostile, intimating or unwelcome. Mr. Lane: In terms of those words, in the beginning when somebody comes to be hired as a wait staff, Hooters girl, the Hooters girl is just more than a waitress. She is involved in national programs that promote modeling. Quite often there is a number of these young ladies who use this as a step to future careers. Our Hooters' girls are comprised of not only of single ladies, but some of them are 18164 divorced, a number of them are married and have children of their own, they have husbands of their own or they have boyfriends of their own. That language is not designed to say we are taking away any of your rights. We are just saying that we want you to be aware that you are entering into a work environment, a work position that we don't want you to come back and say that you weren't aware of certain types of concepts or theories in the work place, as it may affect an employer or employee relationships. However, the fact of the matter, I have to stress this because I have been involved in some of the programs, is that when a young lady does have a problem, there is a hotline that is very confidential, where nobody will ever know what it is and it is promoted and it is requested and in their weekly meetings the managers do talk to the young ladies about making sure, if you have a problem, you either come to me about the problem or you call this number, but you take of this problem. I think that is what it is really designed for. Don't come back later on and say there is a problem. Take care of it now. Be aware of it. Mrs. Koons: Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: I need some help on some numbers. Is it fair to say that your two busiest days are Fridays and Saturday? Mr. Koffman: Friday at lunch is our busiest day. Mr. Alanskas: At your other nine locations, on Friday from 11:00 to 11:00, how many people would be coming and going in that facility? Mr. Koffman: Per hour? Mr. Alanskas: No, per day. Do you have 1,000, 200 or 500? Mr. Koffman: Maybe 300. The average check is $11.00. So our average on a Friday lunch sale is anywhere between $3,000 and $3,500. Mr. Alanskas: So you are looking at a maximum of 300 people in a total day? Mr. Koffman: Yes. I am talking 11:00 to 5:00 when I am talking lunch. Mr. Alanskas: I want for the total day. Mr. Koffman: For the total day, depending on location. Mr. Alanskas: What percent do you sell dinners in the evening. Is it a big percentage or mainly lunch? Mr. Koffman: Fifty-two percent for dinner. Mr. Alanskas: The gentleman said you have between 25 and 30 cooks there daily? Mr. Koffman: No. When he said cooks, that is not daily, that is on staff. 18165 Mr. Alanskas: On staff at that restaurant? Mr. Koffman: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: How many would you have for the day for cooking? Mr. Koffman: Maybe on our busiest day we probably schedule four guys to come in, in the morning and maybe a mid-person we would bring in around 10:00 a.m. to help us get ready for that rush. Mr. Alanskas: So you have no more than five, total? Mr. Koffman: Correct and we also have a staff person and a host person. Mr. Alanskas: The reason I ask is because very close to you there is another restaurant that staffs eight cooks per day but they average between 2,000 and 4,000 customers a day. That is why I wanted to know how many you have. Mr. Koffman: That is what makes our concept different from others. We have a very fast paced atmosphere which can turn our menus very fast. Our average ticket time is 10 to 12 minutes, a lot of chicken wings, and things of that nature. Mr. Alanskas: What is the average time for a young man to come in and watch a game. Will they be there for an hour and just sip on a beer and watch a game? Mr. Koffman: If you are talking like a football game on a Sunday, they will be there longer through the course of the day. And we are not as busy on Sunday. We are not the greatest sports bar in the world. There is a sports bar up the road on Plymouth Road named Kickers who I am sure do a lot better job in promoting football and all the different satellite systems. They will probably do better than us on Sunday and we accept that fact. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Mr. LaPine: Mr. McCann brought up one of the problems I see too and that is the parking and secondly, in most cases, wouldn't you agree that a restaurant in connection with a motel or hotel, is primarily there to service the people who are there for the day or the night? Isn't that primarily what a restaurant is in a motel or hotel for? Mr. Koffman: Our location in Taylor is not adjacent to a hotel, connected. Directly behind it there is a Red Roof Inn and I would say, we get some people. I was in there Tuesday helping out and there were two guys sitting at the bar from the hotel. They did have a couple of cocktails, they grabbed some "to go" food and walked back across the street. So primarily, customers coming from that hotel, I would say totally the opposite. We are a destinational kind of place. 18166 Mr. LaPine: So, Hooters being in this hotel is a draw. Hooters name itself is a draw? Does that draw help the hotel get more accommodations, more rooms rented or does it not. Mr. Koffman: Maybe by through the amount of people that get actually exposed through the hotel, maybe not that night but maybe in the future, if they need a hotel room we'll stay at the Quality Inn on Plymouth Road. I don't think people come in and say they are going to get drunk and stay at the hotel. I don't foresee that being a problem. One, our bar code, which is recognized by the National Restaurant Association, we have signs of cutting people off and methods and systems to do that. Mr. LaPine: You said you have a fast turn over and that people eat and leave. It is my concept of a sports bar is a group of guys go and watch a hockey game at night and they are not there for one hour or two hours and I can't believe they are eating all that time. Where is this turn over that you mentioned. Mr. Koffman: On the turnover, I was basically directing that answer towards lunch. At dinner time probably our average table will stay about 45 minutes to an hour. Not everyone will come in to watch the sports. A lot of people will come in just to eat dinner. Mr. LaPine: They come in to look at the girls. Basically, let's be honest with this. That is what a lot of them are going to be doing. My point is, if they come in there and they order, do you have any rules that a person has to order food in order to stay there and watch the football game? Mr. Koffman: I don't know if that is legal to do. If someone is going to come in to have a couple of beers and watch a game, just like any restaurant or bar, we can't tell them no. Mr. LaPine: If three or four guys sit at a table and they buy six or eight beers and they stay for two hours and watch the hockey game, there is no problem with that? Mr. Koffman: We have a rule, five beers per person per table and that is over a course of three hours. If they are there for three hours and they have had a total of five beers, we will not serve them anymore. Mr. McCann: You talked about promoting modeling. Does that mean that you advertise for the girls to come out to this location to model to be part of a national contest? Mr. Lane: It is strictly a volunteer. Mr. Koffman: We have entities within our company. A lot of girls, I don't know if anyone has seen the movie, there are a few movies out that a lot of our girls have actually gotten into, PG movies too, I might add. We have a magazine and calendar that comes our yearly. That is purchased by a lot of individuals. Our individual employees have an opportunity to submit pictures and get 18167 picked for those certain entities and get paid to do it and enjoy the benefits of that. Mr. McCann: You don't have a contest for the girls for the job say, "Come here, do a contest to become a waitress here?" Mr. Koffman: No. Mr. McCann: You don't advertise in the paper that you are going to have a contest of all your different models to see who is the best? Mr. Koffman: When Charles brought up contest, he meant things like that we have done through the LCC as far as for customers, like have an opportunity to win a trip to the Super Bowl, which last year we gave away, a trip to Coors Field and things of that nature. Not a girls contest, it is for our customers. So if you would come into our restaurant, one day there might be a promotion be going on and one day you might have opportunity to win tickets to the Super Bowl or bowl game or hockey game, those kinds of things. Our employees, the Hooters girls are treated with the utmost respect. Recently we have been involved with the industry of choice which is coming our strong because the restaurant business does experience some sort of turnover. We are trying to be the company of choice and by doing so, we have offered these employees insurance benefits, tuition assistance. A lot of our employees go to school where depending on how good your grades are, that is how much money you get back. We promote things of that nature to make people want to stay in our company and enjoy themselves. Mr. Alanskas: Because you say Hooters of Livonia, Inc., is this the only site that you have looked at in the City? Mr. Lane: No. Various sites have been looked at, not only in Livonia but around the local community. It has been a business decision made by the real estate development arm of Hooters that has selected this site. I imagine there are several considerations as to how they arrive at that. Many of them we could probably pull out a computer ticker tape on it and spend two or three hours on it as to how they arrived at this site. It took a lot of study. Livonia has been looked at for probably six to nine months before that site was targeted. The location, we feel, is on a business avenue. We believe it is ideal for this type of restaurant. There is a lot of commercial along Plymouth Road. There is a lot of white collar workers along Plymouth Road. We believe there is a demand for lunch service. Mr. Alanskas: There are also a ton of restaurants on Plymouth Road. Mr. Lane: But we believe in terms of restaurants, restaurants are like malls. If you are a retailer, you don't shy away from the competition. You go where the competition is. We don't believe that we are either going to be taking away from anybody or that we are going to be left without, either. We feel that by moving in on Plymouth Road, it is an economic decision. It is going to be 18168 beneficial to Hooters restaurants and it is going to be beneficial to the other merchants along the avenue including the restaurateurs. Mr. Alanskas: Do you agree that the word "Hooters", if someone saw that, no matter where you would be, they would come to your facility because of your girls and having a good restaurant and good food? It doesn't matter that much where you go. Mr. Lane: I believe the name Hooters, to many people who are our frequent customers, that the name represents a good meal. It represents a good time and they will recognize it anywhere they go. It would be almost synonymous as to a MacDonald's. Mr. Alanskas: I have to commend the gentleman that owns that facility because he has remodeled that and done a great job. I do believe he needs a restaurant there but my thought is, does he need a restaurant that is going to bring so much traffic in that area on Plymouth Road, which we have now? That is why I asked if you looked elsewhere because right on the corner of Schoolcraft and Merriman there is a building that has been empty for two years. It used to be Mountain Jacks. It has a huge parking. They are not near residential. It is an excellent site. That is why I asked if you looked somewhere else because where you are looking at now, the restaurant setback in the back and like Mr. McCann said, the parking in the front cannot take care of the people you want. They are going to be parking in the back and along the side where people have rooms and you are going to infringe on these customers. Mr. Lane: That is an economic consideration that has been taken in and considered very much by not only corporate of Hooters but also by Mr. Glasnak, the owner of the hotel. They both believe that the economics for this type of an association is a plus/plus on both sides. Mr. Glasnak, I believe, would not wanting to be lease to us if we are going to be in anyway damaging or interfering with his business operation. In answering one question that you had, such as the old Mountain Jacks, square footage, size, all that makes a difference, as well as location. There are so many factors that go into the real estate development as to what makes these gentlemen and persons and experts determine which is the better site. I left it to them because it is not my forte'. But they considered these things and they do believe that this is a very viable area. Mr. Alanskas: Of the nine that you have in our area, what is your average seating capacity, 125, 200, 250 ? Mr. Koffman: It ranges anywhere from 90 to probably, I think our largest restaurant is 145. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Mr. LaPine: During your presentation one of the things that you said about getting your liquor license. One of the things you said about the liquor license is that you were getting an entertainment in connection with the liquor license. What is the entertainment? 18169 Mr. Lane: You've got to understand the rules of the Michigan Liquor Control. At the Michigan Liquor Control Commission, in order to hold any contests that Mr. Koffman spoke about, you must have an entertainment permit. You can't do it without it. The type of entertainment permit we are seeking is what they call an entertainment permit without dressing rooms. We are not seeking an entertainment permit for dancing. That is out because you need a special permit for that now. We are not looking for any type of nudity. That is a special entertainment permit for that now. We are not looking for anything other than what they call the general entertainment permit without dressing rooms, which is to hold the contest. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, let me ask you since you are an attorney, is there something from the Liquor Control Commission that tells us what is permissible under that entertainment permit? What actually can go on? Mr. McCann: Yes. He may better able to explain it than myself but yes there are certain limitations as to what you can use it for and what you can't. Mr. Alanskas: Such as lingerie shows? Mr. McCann: Again, in order to have lounge' shows in the City of Livonia, you have to have separate dressing rooms for that. Mr. Lane: We don't do that. Mr. McCann: It can also provide for like karaoke or multiple other types of entertainment as well. Mr. Shane: Is the size of this proposed restaurant the same or larger than those that were there before, in terms of area and seating? Mr. Koffman: Seating area compared to compatible size of Hooters in the area? Actually I think it is going to be a little bit smaller than our Taylor location. Mr. Alanskas: No. He means that location right there. Mr. Shane: That location in this particular site, is it going to be larger or smaller? Mr. Koffman: Smaller. Mr. Glasnak: It is smaller. Previously there was a lounge and a restaurant. So it is probably about 40% of what it was. Mrs. Koons: The entertainment license, does that cover the, I don't know if it is typical, or occasional, hoola hoop contest that the Hooters girls participate in? 18170 Mr. Koffman: We abolished that kind of activity. A lot of times kids will come in and that is basically what the hoola hoop thing is for. Little kids will use the hoola hoops on weekends when they come in. Mrs. Koons: When did we abolish the hoola hoop? Mr. Koffman: We got a mandate from our corporate office about two years and that kind of activity game wise, has been abolished. Mr. McCann: I am going to go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition? Jowella Messing, 11342 Hillcrest, which is behind this proposed property. First of all I would like to say I did speak with some of my neighbors and I had them sign this paper for me. I would like to hand it to you. It is 40 signatures of the residents that live along this street, that border this hotel property and parking lot, which we have a lot of problems with the parking lot. It reads as follows: "This is a petition to oppose Hooters to operate at the proposed location and also oppose a liquor license. We do not want this in our neighborhood." Everybody I spoke to today, I didn't have one person say that they wanted this in their neighborhood. Everybody opposed it. I have never heard Hooters have a reputation for being charitable. Everybody had one reputation and one thought in their mind when they thought about Hooters at this location and it wasn't hoola hoops or what they donate to charity. I have been a life long resident of Livonia and chose to be a homeowner in Livonia and raise a family there. I currently have a six year old daughter and a three year old son. We already currently have quite a lot of problems that some of you may be unaware that go on in the back of this hotel, which I would be referring to the southwest portion of this parking lot. We have teenagers coming back and sometimes we have running trucks. We have bottles thrown in our yard. We find crack pipes and other miscellaneous drug paraphanalia in our yard. We have been threatened. We have obscenities yelled at us. We have had our dog threatened. We listen to trucks running all night long and we also have sometimes just an occasional noisy partying group. We do call the police and they try to be very supportive but they can't live in my backyard. Having children, it is a little scary to let them go into the backyard and not know who is standing over a wall talking to my children or exposing them to all sorts of things. Hooters is known to draw a partying crowd. Does Hooters send a good message to our young people, our young women and our community? After the wonderful work that the City of Livonia did with the Plymouth Road Development, I don't know if bringing a bikini club is what we had intended to up our community in this area. We have heard that there has already been current problems with prostitution in other neighborhoods that are close to a partying bar and a hotel sort of atmosphere. I think we know what two and two is going to add up to. I did also bring a copy of an article out of the newspaper that just happened in Farmington Hills, which just adjoins to Livonia. I don't the lawyer knows what us residents have gone through living with this commercial property in our yard but I believe to allow this Hooters to operate so close to residential, our neighborhood and 18171 our children, I don't think it is sending them a very good sign. We do listen to already, even though I don't think the hotel is at full capacity. When you are putting your child to bed, I am listening to slamming doors. I am listening to loud noises of people maybe having a wonderful time joking around but it doesn't sound so good to me at 1:00 a.m. with my children in my house. I don't have a choice sometimes about who comes and parks in our backyard and how they are going to be about leaving or coming on to the premises. We have some wonderful restaurants, Archies' Restaurant and Red Lobster is right there, they both have beer and wine and liquor. We have several other good restaurant right along this same area and I don't think that this choice of a restaurant is going to fit into the fine City of Livonia. Thank you. Shirley Case, 11077 Hillcrest, Livonia. I live a little down from the woman who just spoke. I want to commend the Quality Inn for all the work they have done on the exterior and landscaping. It looks so much better and I really appreciate that but we are very concerned about the possibility of having a Hooters in our neighborhood. We are for neighborhood improvement. The addition of a reputable restaurant would be a good idea but we feel this would not improve our neighborhood. Families live behind the hotel and directly around it, as you were concerned about, Mr. McCann. I am concerned about what kind of message this sends to the children and the families nearby. My eleven year old son was concerned enough about this to come tonight. He said, "I want to here. I think this is going to have a bad effect on our neighborhood and I want to be here, Mommy." He is sitting out here tonight. I am also concerned about the hours of operation on Friday's and Saturday's. It will be loud and it will be late at night and also the problems with traffic because we already have problems with traffic in that area and it will only increase the problems of traffic. Thank you. Cliff O'Brien, 11311 Hillcrest, directly by the hotel that the restaurant is planning on going into. I have lived in Livonia 62 years. I grew up in Livonia. I thought it was enough family oriented where I wanted to raise my family and I have. I have four children. I think that this restaurant would not help Livonia give the impression of being a family oriented city. By their own admission, this is not a family restaurant. They are targeting a very select demographic of person to go to this restaurant. As you heard from the other neighbors, I do want to reiterate that the parking lot, directly behind there, has a lot of activity already. When the owner says that it is empty at night, it's not. There are trucks running all night long. Truckers do use that hotel quite a bit. I suspect that the hotel owner would probably increase amount of truckers using the hotel if this type of a restaurant was inside the hotel. This summer my kids grandparents came to visit from Colorado and I put them up at that hotel. I don't think I could that if this restaurant was allowed to go into this hotel. Again, I don't think this gives Livonia the appearance of being a family oriented city. Mr. McCann: I don't 1see anybody else. I will give the petitioner the last opportunity to speak. 18172 Mr. Glasnak: When we came here about five years ago, this property was a derelict building. We weren't even sure whether we were going to renovate it to keep it as a hotel. The reputation was bad. The clientele was bad. We probably spent a million dollars to bring this property back. We have pretty much eliminated the customer that we had there. We pretty much eliminated the calling of the police, which was a daily event there. Right now our largest client is Ford Motor Company and our second is General Motors. We pretty much have a business clientele. The parking that is in the back is with truckers. It is a customer that we would like to eliminate. We get paid very little for it. We would like to have all business clientele. We have surveyed our business clientele and have asked them how they felt about it. They are all in favor of it. Before I decided to sign a lease with Hooters, I visited all of their locations because I was very concerned about our customer and how they are going to feel about this. I would say, like many of the neighbors, I was probably under the impression that Hooters was something other than what it actually is. I found that a lot of families go to Hooters, contrary to what the image of Hooters is. I found nothing at all that was negative there that was going to impact our business. As far as the parking is concerned, I said I have reduced the number of rooms there so we have less of a need for parking. We have more parking that we have ever used there. Usually in the back it is always truckers and hopefully I can eliminate the truckers and I'll have even a 100 extra places for cars. Mr. McCann: How can you eliminate the truckers? Mr. Glasnak: Because I have to sign a contract with terminals for truckers to come in. That trucking rate is probably less than 50% of what we charge at the hotel and the only reason I take them is because we are not running at full capacity. So it is a cheaper rate. It is a rate that is not profitable for us. But we brought the business up with that base and we have eliminated a lot of the lower rates because now we have business clientele and it is our desire to eliminate it completely. We do not desire it. It is not profitable. As far as problems that were brought here with the lady that was first up here, I am not aware of these problems. I would ask the Commission to go look at the police reports. Very seldom do we ever have police come. If police come, we are the people that call them. We cannot control the people that check in but we can control the activity once they do come in. If we find they are undesirable, we are going to eliminate them completely. We are going to eliminate them before they even check in. It is our desire to have a good quality hotel without any bad elements. Thank you. Mr. McCann: I am going to close the Public Hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #12-210-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 12, 2000, on Petition 2000-11-02-32 by Hooters of Livonia, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant within an existing building on property located on the south 18173 side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 35, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-11-02-32 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area; 3) That this area of the City is currently well served with restaurant uses similar to that which is being proposed; 4) That there is no demonstrated need for additional restaurant uses in the subject area; 5) That the traffic generated by proposed use, due to its size, intensity and hours of operation, will be detrimental to and in conflict with the normal flow and circulation of the traffic, associated with the established existing use on the subject property; and 6) That competition for parking spaces will result in parking that is inconvenient and distant for customers of both the proposed use and the established existing use on the subject property. 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: I really feel for the petitioner because I think he does need a restaurant in that hotel because there are so many hotels that have restaurants to support their customers but I just think that unfortunately, this is the wrong type of restaurant to have in that building. There is nothing wrong with Hooters. They are very well known but I think the average age, when they say they are only 25 years old, young, single people that come in there to just sit around and watch sports and have a drink, I just think it is the wrong clientele for that business. I would hope that in the future that you would come back to us with another restaurant for that facility. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Any other discussion? Hearing none, I have a comment. My concern is more with the design and layout of the building, the parking and the type of use. A restaurant in that location would be appropriate as an ancillary use. I believe that this is independent of, it is not part of being operated by or controlled by the hotel. It is not a breakfast place where the clients come in and have breakfast before they head to work. I just don't believe that type of use was 18174 ever envisioned for this property. I don't believe it is laid out for this property with the parking problems and it just would not fit in this particular area, therefore, I am going to vote against it. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. You have ten days in which to appeal the decision in writing to the City Council. ITEM #6 PETITION 2000-11-02-33 Hooters of Livonia, Inc. (Class C License) Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-11-02-33 by Hooters of Livonia, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C license in connection with a full service restaurant proposed to operate within an existing building on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. McCann: We've kind of mixed this one in with the last Public Hearing item. I will go through the procedures first. Is there any additional correspondence? Mr. Taormina: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There are two items of correspondence. The first item is a letter from the Inspection Department, dated November 20, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of November 13, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) This petition will need waiver approval, as there are two (2) other establishments in close proximity - Quality Inn and Archies. (2) Site condition comments are in letter (11/20/00) in response to petition 2000-11-2-32. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated November 22, 2000, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a proposal for waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license in connection with a full service restaurant on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James C. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Again, to the petitioner, do you have any additional comments regarding this petition? Mr. Lane: I don't have anything further to add. I think every comment I made addressed the issues with regard to the liquor license and of course, the liquor license issue is moot, if there is no restaurant. So I will stand by the comments I made earlier. Thank you. 18175 Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience who has any additional information they would like to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I am going to close the Public Hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #12-211-2000 RESOVLED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 12, 2000, on Petition 2000-11-02-33 by Hooters of Livonia, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C license in connection with a full service restaurant proposed to operate within an existing building on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 35, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-11-02-33 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the proposed use fails to comply with Section 11.03(h) of the Zoning Ordinance requiring a 1000 foot separation between Class C licensed facilities and other similarly licensed establishments; 3) That this area of the City is currently well served with Class C licensed establishments; 4) That the proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote and encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not over saturate an area with similar type uses as is being proposed; 5) That the proposed location, character and scale of operation of this proposed use of a Class C license are such that the use would be detrimental to and would adversely affect the surrounding uses in the area, particularly with respect to the residential neighborhood to the west and south; 6) That the proposed use is contrary to the principles and objectives of good land use planning, which seek to insure compatibility and appropriateness of uses so as to enhance property values and to promote a more favorable environment for neighborhood use and enjoyment; and 7) That the proposed use would function as a second principal use when the previous restaurant and bar served as a subordinate use to the motel. 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. 18176 Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. You have ten days in which to appeal the decision in writing to the City Council. ITEM #7 PETITION 2000-11-02-35 SJL Development, LLC Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-11-02-35 by SJL Development, LLC requesting waiver use approval to construct a cluster housing project on property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Fairlane Drive and Ellen Drive in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 16. 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 a letter from the Engineering Division, dated November 17, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to our request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The attached legal description is sufficient for the property in question. We have no objections to the proposal, but we would like to point out that the developer will be required to obtain storm water construction approval from the Wayne County Division of Watershed Management. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Inspection Department, dated November 17, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of November 17, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) This Petition as proposed will need a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient building and parking setback from Five Mile Road. 75 feet required, 50 feet at unit 1 provided, 60 feet at unit 12 provided and units 11 and 10 may be deficient also. (2) The east property line abuts an R-3C zoned property, which currently is an existing agricultural use (Turkey Farm). An 8-foot side-yard setback is proposed with no screening, landscaping or berming. (3) Plans provided to us do not detail proposed landscaping as required. (4) Signage has not been reviewed due to a lack of detail. This Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated November 22, 2000, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the proposed site plan and have the following recommendations. (1) Stop sign for existing vehicles, (2) One-way signs indicating direction of travel for the two driveways, and (3) Placement of No Parking signs along one side of the street to allow for emergency vehicle movement." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? 18177 Jim Szkrybalo, 14316 Gary Lane, Livonia, Michigan. I represent the LLC that is formed SJL Development of Livonia. I would like to make a general comment about me being here a year ago and somebody suggesting windows in the condos that we are building in the garages. It was a great idea and I really appreciate the give and take that we had on that project. It is being accepted overwhelmingly by the citizens of Livonia and we anticipate a sellout date sometime early this spring. First of all I would like to apologize for the tardiness of giving a detailed landscape plan for this project. We haven't had cause to file to date a landscape plan, which details the type of trees and shrubs that we put on the berm to the south. I also have cause to file to date certain restrictions in a letter dated to you concerning the nature and types of buildings that we propose here. I want to take this opportunity to thank both Mr. Taormina and Mr. Nowak for the staff assistance that we have had in the three or four months that we have been discussing this project. It became very apparent that we had a very nice piece of property that had some unique characteristics and once again we decided that it would best to go with the planned residential development, clustering housing. For the audience, I would like to say that the cluster housing can be attached or detached. Our site plan calls for 12 detached homes that will look just like any other home in the neighborhood. It became very apparent that there were certain requirements that we had to plan around. Number one was the State of Michigan and the County would require us to try to come and locate the entrance road as close in line to Ellen Road as we could. That was a very large thing on our plan. I think that we have done that. It was also a desire, not only by Planning but many of the people in the City, that because we are next door to Christine Roperti's Turkey Farm and although I have had discussions with Christine as far as developing her property, I do not think that it is time for her to decide that she no longer wants to raise turkeys. There was a concern that the project that we design not have homes with backyards facing the turkey farm. If we could design a project that didn't have that, it would be much more desirable. I would like at this time to put up the easel so that the audience can see the plan. Once again, I got the address labels of all the parties that were neighbors adjacent to this that were notified by the City of herring and I tried to effectuate a meeting at the office so that we could discuss this. I find that it is always better to try to talk to the neighbors. I try to be a good neighbor and we did, in fact, have a meeting with half a dozen of the property owners at my office on Saturday afternoon. I think the initial concern was that cluster means condos which means attached and I allayed their fears and said no. This will look just like a subdivision. The reason that we have the ordinance, planned residential ordinance, is to deal with these small sites. If we have a square forty acres, those were no-brainers. Those were developments that were done in the early '60s and '50s here in town. We still have a very few number of parcels left and I think that this ordinance lends itself to the development of these unique parcels. It was also determined this summer that based upon the mathematical formula used of the 4.3 acres and the 1.4 acres as flood plain, that we probably could have obtained a density of about 13-1/2 to 14 units. It became apparent that although that might have been allowed under the planned residential development, it was not our idea of what would best be 18178 suited for the property. That would have contemplated attaching units. We did not want to do that. We wanted to stay with the detached unit. As far as I know, all the setbacks that were required under various ordinances under the planned residential have been followed except for the 75 foot setback off of Five Mile. We show a 50 foot setback. My examination of Idyle Hills Subdivision to the west, which was platted in the 1960s and properties to the east, the other subdivision to the east is that their setback is approximately 30' to 35' from the roadway. This ordinance was added in 1980. We have been told that we have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to obtain a variance for that. We have tweaked this plan several times. We have continually been concerned about any possible encroachment on the wetland and any nature preserve. Our initial plans, and there were several of them, had units 1 through 8 pushing to the north. We kept trying to push it to the south. We tweaked the entrance road and we gained approximately 4' to 6' on the backyards. We felt that units 4 through 8 are spectacular walkout sites. They are approximately 400' to 450' from any house that would be on the north. Idyle Hills Subdivision has an outlot here for flooding and has an outlot here. The nearest that we would be any adjacent house would be somewhere in the 150' to 200' range. I had difficulty looking at this site from the north this summer. There is a dead-end right here. I tried to see it from the north. I couldn't even see the site because of the natural terrain here. This site is totally insulated from any residential area. We only have two units that are adjacent to Christine's farm. In reading from the notes of your prior meeting when you discussed this, you had some concerns that I would like to address tonight. Additional information is needed pertaining to the proposed storm sewer drainage system and whether or not there is a need for storm sewer detention on this parcel. We have been in contact with Mr. John Hill of the Engineering Office and we have discussed local ordinance, Wayne County Watershed requirements and DEQ requirements. We were told by Mr. Hill that there was a new measure of possible detention that was coming down from the County Engineer's Office and this was about two months ago and that they could not give us a firm answer of whether we needed detention or we didn't need detention but our reading of the statute and the ordinance and the requirements of the County was that possibly we would not need a detention basin. We are prepared to address that when we do the final engineering. If we need detention, we will probably have to come back here and revise the plan. But at this point, it does not look like we need detention because an acre and a half of this parcel is on a mesa, which is the flood plain to the rear. The computation of the runoff, there was a question of whether we had to prepare for a 10 year storm or a 100 year storm and which would apply. In looking at the severe requirement, it did not become apparent to Mr. Hill that we had to do anything except have a sufficiently large enough storm sewer design to accommodate any surface runoff. You also were concerned about lack of information and once again I did not have this in the file at the time, as to the type and size of the units and the amount of brick that will be used. In my restrictions I am informing you that the dwelling units to be built will not only be detached, they will be 100% brick, all four sides, from the ground to the soffit. All peaks and dormer sides of whatever units we build will not have any dryvit. They will not have any 4' x 8' particle 18179 board and they will not have any stucco. They will either be wood clapper or vinyl. If you looked at the condos, you will see what I mean. We have wrapped the trim in aluminum. We just feel that the maintenance is much less. I don't like the appearance neither does my partner of dryvit. It has a tendency to wash out. Stucco is something that is not as durable as either wood, wood meaning 1 x 6 clappers as opposed to 4 x 8 sheets of particle board that are pressed and then sprayed with some stain. All approaches and drives shall be concrete. All units shall be landscaped by the individual unit owner. We are not treating this as a condo. There will be individual custom homes on this property. Do I know exactly what type of home? No. I don't know that. I know that it will fit a footprint of 44' x 60'. I know that it will be a custom home. We have had discussions with our architect who is excited about the design that will fit on this footprint. We are going for 1800 sq. ft., one story ranch, 2300 to 2500 sq. ft. story and a half or colonials. This is a substantial home today. All units shall be landscaped by the individual unit owner. Once again, I do not want to establish something that is cookie cutter in appearance. On the condos that we did, our responsibility to landscape the condos, we did it and we are still making some variations because of the trees that are being welled inside the condo project, so that we do not have a uniform cookie cutter print. We will be requiring an escrow of purchasers of between $10,000 and $20,000 to insure the installation of landscaping. We will require that all grass areas shall be sodded and not hydro-seed. We will require that all landscaping must be sprinkled. This will be our deed restriction before we sell to anyone. All units shall have full basements under the entire first floor level. There will be no slabs or crawl spaces allowed. The south side of the project, the entire 500' of the south side except the entrance driveways, will be bermed. There is a cross section of the berm, I believe it is a 1 and 3 with a 6' tall height. We are right now about two feet above grade on the south end. We would have to bring in fill to create the new berm. We will be responsible for landscaping that berm and the end of the cul-de-sac, which shows as reserved for possible future development into Christine Roperti's Turkey Farm. The traffic island will be initially landscaped by us. The berm and traffic island is to be maintained by the association of owners. It will be their requirement. We will turn it over to them. It will be sprinkled and landscaped and it will be a cost of ownership. A private road will be maintained by the homeowners, including snowplowing. The owners shall also maintain private storm sewers on the project and drains just the condos that we built. I said that there is a minimum of 1800 sq. ft. for one story and 2300 sq. ft. for as two story. There will be a homeowners association organized pursuant to Michigan statute. In such case, made and provided they shall be responsible for all exterior landscaped areas. This will be as far from a condo as you can get but it will be governed under the condo statute of the State of Michigan. The responsibilities for exterior maintenance of each individual home will be the homeowners' responsibility. Fire and other insurance will be the homeowners' responsibility as opposed to the association on the project that we are doing now. We also are insuring compliance with the restrictions that we are placing on this land by reserving to ourselves superintending control over any plans that are done, any building and site plans that might be 18180 requested by the owners. That provision is put in there in the event that someone like Mr. Soave or another builder in town would have a client that would want to build there and he would give them the permission to do it. Mr. Soave is a fine man, a fine builder. I think this is going to be a very exciting project. I have tried to answer the neighbors that came by and I am sure there are going to be many questions and we can respond. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Piercecchi: You mentioned that you talked to Engineering regarding the detention of water. Bell Creek, right now, overflows tremendously. There are tremendous erosion problems on Bell Creek. In fact, there was a seminar held in Livonia a couple of months and it is really bad news. Some people are loosing three to four feet of property a year. With these homes taking up where normally the water went into the ground and stayed there, you are going to put an additional burden. I can't understand why Mr. Hill says that it is not going to be a problem. What could you do to guarantee that that is not going to mess up Bell Creek any worse than it is? You talked about bigger sewers. How are you going to keep the drainage off the backyards. Mr. Szkrybalo: First of all, I believe the front of the homes will have a slope coming down toward Five Mile which will give us plenty of time for this water to congregate on the lawns and soak in. Mr. Piercecchi: Are you going to have storm sewers in the streets? Mr. Szkrybalo: Yes. We are going to have storm sewers and gutters in the streets and we are also going to have them in the grassy locations. Mr. Piercecchi: Because the water doesn't settle when it comes down very hard. It just keeps running. Mr. Szkrybalo: We are governed by the requirements of the Wayne County watershed which has just adopted much more severe detention requirements than they had even four months ago. In our discussions with Mr. Hill, we were confident that we could comply with what they required. Now the question is, what will they require? Mr. Hill, at that time, did not know what they required, because it was evolving from Wayne County. I think that they were having meetings this month to discuss that. Not only for this project but for projects throughout the County. It is a concern. It is a concern of Bell Creek. We have the problem coming through the golf course and eroding sprinkler systems in the golf course. I am confident that ground water detention will be required of us, one way or the other, and we will comply with the state and the county requirements. Mr. Piercecchi: In other words it is being addressed? Mr. Szkrybalo: Yes. It is being addressed. Part of the property is on a nature preserve wetland so the DEQ is very interested in what we do with water. 18181 Mr. Alanskas: On all of your buildings you have a 16 foot side yard setback. On unit #8 and unit #9, it is only eight feet on one side. Mr. Szkrybalo: That is eight feet on the easterly end because there is no building on the other side. Mr. Alanskas: On the 1800 sq. ft. ranch, what are they going to start at money wise? Mr. Szkrybalo: Over $300,000. Mr. Alanskas: How about the 2300 sq. ft. building? Mr. Szkrybalo: I don't anticipate anything less than $300,000. Mr. Alanskas: I am asking because my son is looking for that area and he asked me to find out. That is why I am asking. Mr. Szkrybalo: It is hard to say because we are not going to be building per se models and say pick this one. It is our intention in this development because land here in Livonia is so scarce and that site is so beautiful that there are a number of people you are going to want to design their dream home and we will sit them down with our architect. I anticipate that the starting point is all brick. I can envision brick paver driveways but I am requiring that they have concrete driveways. Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: When I originally looked at the plan I had a problem with units 1, 2 3, and 4 because they are the closest to the wetland limits. My concern is that you should have a 100 year rainfall, those units are susceptible to being flooded. Is there any way that we can get those away from the wetlands more? Mr. Szkrybalo: If you look at units 1, 2 and 3, you will see seven gradation lines showing the elevation. Those sites have from the front to the back, a seven foot gradual gradation down. There is a flat area to the west and to the north and then there is another severe gradation down to the creek. The flood plain is approximately 6 or 7 feet below the surface level of where you would see the number one, the number two and the number three. The requirement is that these are all natural walkout sites. We don't want to be disturbing any of this land. We cannot do much in the way of remuneration of this gradation but we do have a slope there. Before we could do any walkout site, it would require that the finished basement floor on the walkout site would be at least three feet above the 100 year line of water. The solution of that is that you do not dig a hole 9 feet in the ground on a walkout site. It grades from the front to the rear and the basement in the rear of the house is actually 4 or 5 feet above the front grate so flooding would not be a problem on 1, 2 or 3. Any soil runoff would not be a problem because we will have retention fences around during construction phase so we don't contaminate the creek. 18182 Mr. LaPine: I understand the private road will be maintained by the homeowners including snowplowing, no problem. But this is the first time I have ever seen that the homeowners shall maintain the private storm sewers and drains. I have never seen that before. Can you explain that to me? If something goes wrong with the sewers in the whole complex the homeowners are responsible for repairing it. Is that correct? Mr. Szkrybalo: That is correct, on this project. Mr. LaPine: You are so close to Five Mile Road, is there no way you can route your water into the storm sewers on Five Mile Road? Mr. Szkrybalo: If the County would give me permission to tap into their storm sewer if it is under Five Mile Road, yes, we would like to do that. I will say that the final engineering has not started because we need site plan approval before we undertake the expense of designing a sewer system for the unit. We have to have a general idea of where these things are going to be before we start platting them out and finding out where we can tap. We do have all of the utilities underground, of course. Mr. LaPine: O.K. Mr. Shane: On the site plan, you show a building envelope which indicates the largest area which a building can occupy and you have a building outline which seems to indicate your particular floor plan. Is the building outline accurate? Mr. Szkrybalo: These building outlines were done for illustration purposes, to show you more or less where a garage would go. These are generic. These are not specific. Mr. Shane: Is it possible then that some of these buildings will be narrower than they are and perhaps not as long? Mr. Szkrybalo: It is possible that they will be narrower than 44 feet. They will not exceed 44 feet in width and they will not exceed 60 feet in depth. Mr. Shane: The reason that I ask that is, if there are some deficiencies with respect to setbacks, which you have already indicated, it could be that with some tweaking of the sides of those units you might be able to negate some of that setback problem. Some of these you see are within the envelope but it doesn't take it all up. I am just wondering if they are nearly accurate. I don't know how much tweaking you can do but I think before we approve this thing we need to see what is really out there. Mr. Szkrybalo: Our intent is to customize the homes as opposed to telling the people what we are going to build there. That is why we have some difficulty with giving you an exact model for each lot. We do not intend to ask for, and all of the setbacks that are required by the ordinance, interior to this unit, are there. 18183 Because we kept moving them around to make sure that they complied. The only setback requirement that I am aware of that we would need a variance is at Five Mile front which by use, is substantially less than 50 feet on any other subdivision. Mr. Shane: I don't have a particular problem with that but I was hoping that you could tweak this so that you could lessen that deficiency as much as possible. Mr. Szkrybalo: I will tell you that I intend on unit 12 to build a ranch, which is on the east side of the road and the existing ranch model that we have at the condos have a building envelope of 38 feet wide. They are double buildings so it is 76 feet by 52 or 53 feet. I intend to build basically that house but expand it from 38 feet wide to 44 feet and expand it deeper so I get approximately 1900 sq. ft. It is a spectacular house. It is a floor plan that everybody is loving it. Some people say, "I would like three bedrooms, I want more of a home." We can do it. Unit 12 is where we are going to put a ranch. That will be a spec house. But I have several people that are interested in building a story and a half and I just candidly can't tell you what they are going to look like until we get an architect. Mr. Shane: The only other problem I have about the houses siding up to the turkey farm because sometimes when it gets hot, you get some smells from that and you know we have a prevailing west wind which hopefully will be there all the time. Would you think about some barrier perhaps or a fence? Mr. Szkrybalo: There is an existing fence on the property right now. There is an 8 foot fence. We could be convinced to more in the way of shrubs next to unit 8 and unit 9. Mr. Shane: I have driven down Five Mile Road on occasion on a hot day with the window open and it is not too pleasant. Mr. Szkrybalo: We have kind of addressed that concern. Instead of having five or six homes backing up to Roperti, we just have units #8 and #9. Thank God for this project that the prevailing westerly wind blows the odor to the east and I hate to say that but the poor neighbors on the east get it much worse than the neighbors on the west. Mr. Shane: I understand. Mr. Szkrybalo: Everybody who builds here will know that Roperti's is next door. We are not going to be hiding Christine's business. Mr. McCann: I have some concerns. One of the things that you said earlier was that land is scarce and this is a beautiful parcel. I agree with you. I agree that this section of the City is a very desirable area to live in and to raise children. I grew up, actually right behind there, there used to be an elementary school that I went to, Lincoln. The property you are asking to do here is a cluster home. We use that in situations where you generally have the land mass but because of 18184 physical conditions it just doesn't lay out quite right for R-3C. You've got 44 foot width homes. I don't think that matches the local area. There are a lot of ranches in there. There are a lot of larger homes. I have looked at this site and having numerous homes at 44 feet is going to limit, I think as far as your target audience, as far as people that want to raise children and people who want to build a custom home. This is a little bit different than your other project because these are going to be custom homes. This is going to be a residential setting. I have talked to the staff and I even talked to you. I don't see what we can do on the south side for unit 9 through 12. If you took two homes out of the north side and only put six on there, that would give you 60 foot width homes. That would meet the R-3C conditions as far as having 80 foot lots. To me, you would be taking a home that is going to represent a condominium type home to a person and give them a true residential home that you would get custom homes. I think that would be reflected in the price. You would have to make up the difference on two homes by going to a full size R-3 lot on that rear portion. You would make a tremendous difference to the look and the aesthetics and the area. I know the turkey farm is a problem. It is just a matter of time before that changes. That is going to turn into residential at some point. I like the fact that you have left this open so that this could develop right into there, if that were the situation. Hopefully she will come back to you and say that she has changed her mind and say that she loves what you are doing. Have you given any thought at all about going to full size residential homes in the back? Mr. Szkrybalo: We have given many things a lot of thought. One of those, we were going with the larger 3200 sq. ft. That would require us to probably shift the access road to the east substantially. The reason that we are in PRD is that we do have the unique parcel that is the focus of a radius. The homes that are to the west and to the north in Idyle Hills, there are eight homes on Ellen to our west and there are four homes to the north. That is twelve homes on the outside of the arc. We, in the middle of the private drive, would be at the focus of the arc. We are fanning eight homes out on that arc. We are minimizing the width but expanding the depth. If you physically walk the site, the density issue is within. Usually density issues come from outside. People are looking at it. It is in my backyard. You are putting too much density. We have such a buffer of this natural preserve that this plan, in our opinion, is the best for this parcel. It fits PRD. I had mentioned that in the summertime I can't even see the parcel from the north. We are abutting other people by 400 feet or 500 feet on the north and on the west. The first three houses will be approximately 200 feet away. With the woods and the nature preserve, we are our own little enclave there, so the density issue would come from within. That would come from the consumer. Mr. McCann: That is also what this City desires for putting over 400 condos that are designated to go within the City in the next year. There is a plan, I attended a meeting on the one for another 170 condos, it is a decision as to what the community needs as well. I want to go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? 18185 Tim Brennan, 35025 Roycroft. I happened to attend the meeting the developer had last Saturday. As well as a meeting earlier to which you referred when we said "Save the Rouge". The issue is the flooding and I certainly concur that this project will increase the problem. There is no doubt about it. I live behind there. We are already having tremendous flooding. I now have a beachfront which is very unusual in Livonia. By the same token, I can't get the City to do anything about it. They claim there is no money. I remember that at the meeting for "Save the Rouge", people said in ten years we may have some retention pools. The fact that we are going to have additional housing, Roperti's is going to be residential, eventually. If we don't have retention pools prior to that time, I think it is incumbent upon the builder to do something about that. Then we are going to have an exacerbation of the problem. I really am asking that the Planning Commission look at the need of the type of retention pools, that two or three of you have addressed already. That are certainly necessary, if you are going to look on the long run and you are planning, you can see what is going to happen. What is interesting is I think that Bell Creek residents are not here but fortunately you did mention them. Bell Creek is having many more problems than we are. The City claims that it is the problem because of the northern or western suburbs. Here we have an opportunity to take steps to alleviate the problem before it gets any greater. Thank you. Robert Cross, 35009 Roycroft just north of this proposed project. Flooding, I live right next to beachfront property, with Tim. We are next door neighbors. Right now Tim has about this much sand in his back yard (indicated about 10"). I have areas of 6" to 8" that just come over from the erosion. We have trees which are falling back into the creek which are stopping the water and backing it up. We moved in five years ago and I talked to the neighbors before I bought the house and they said, "Yes it floods every once in a while in the backyard, not too bad." I moved into the house six months later after I bought it because I did some painting and stuff like that. The first big rain in the spring, I had three feet of rushing water in my backyard. I am standing in waders in it. That was the start of, "Oh, it doesn't flood too often." It floods multiple times each spring and in the fall. I have concerns with the grade of this property. I have walked back there with my son, playing in the creek and what have you. I need to know how close these buildings are going to be to the flood plain area. You are talking walkout basements. How far are these basements going to be coming out because I really don't know if you looked at it during the summertime because of that one road looking back towards the new property, that you cannot see the property. Right now, since they have torn down the barn and the house, I see Five Mile from by bedroom window, no problem. There are no leaves on the trees. I hear noise from Five Mile now. I am concerned about the number of housing that you are trying to put there because I looked at buying that property when the older gentleman lived there and I was thinking four beautiful homes right there, because I am a contractor, not with homes, but I could do it with that piece of property. If you are going to put eight or nine pieces of property down on that back side, that is going to be a bunch of just houses right there. I don't know how much land or trees they are going to take out further. If they go into the turkey 18186 farm, when it does get sold, how many houses are going to be able to be put there and I would have to ask the City Engineer, does that road have to come across from our subdivision. Will there be a bridge across. If they build a bridge, that is going to flood my backyard even further. I was told three or four years that if that was built residential housing, that road from our subdivision would have to be built. That I don't know. I would have to look into that further. The size of the house on that property, you have a 44 foot by 60 foot, how high are these houses going to be? Are they going to be 3- 1/2 stories high? Custom homes, you are going to have to restrict that because anybody can go in there. I can get real creative with housing. This property has not been rezoned for this property, right? Mr. McCann: It is currently zoned properly. This is a sub-use within the proper zoning. Mr. Cross: I think that property would be better used as more to the houses that are in the whole area, from Haggerty all the way down Five Mile to Inkster. I don't think you have any cluster homes or one or two condos off of Five Mile. Maybe over further down Inkster, Middlebelt, I know there are condos down there. I just don't see it fitting into our area. Across the street it doesn't fit those houses that face Five Mile, this many units in that small of an area, plus the turkey farm, which is going to go. It just won't work. John Beeson, 15631 Riverside. I have a couple of concerns of the subdivision that they are proposing for that property. Forgive me for stating all of the things that have already been stated before butt hey should be restated. I am concerned about the wetland between our two subdivisions. Obviously the flooding problems on the creek are just going to be exacerbated more with the development and I am certainly concerned about the private ownership of the storm drains. At this point we have, I don't know what kind of recourse we would have if there were to develop any problems with those storm drains as a neighbor of theirs. I would also be concerned if they decided to open up the road between the two subdivisions. I think that would be a very bad idea and I think that this just increases the potential of that happening and I certainly don't want that to happen to my subdivision. The final concern that I have, which has been stated before, is I don't think what they are proposing to put in here matches the current housing along Five Mile and through this area. Thank you. Mike Healy,34911 Roycroft. Along with my neighbors, I just want to reinforce everything that they have said. I don't want to take up too much of your time. The only comment I would like to make is, if there is a potential that a problem could be created by putting those houses in there, why are we even thinking about it, that many houses? Everybody is talking about the flooding aspect. I am in insurance and if you increase the possibility of the flooding that only increases the possibility of property damage, as well as, God forbid, somebody's kid gets sucked down by that water when it really rains. You mentioned it very articulately when it rains, is a real hazard. If we put in what is being proposed into area and something happens as a result of that, that could be a fatality of that sort. Those are my thoughts. 18187 Carl Ardroff, I am a resident of Livonia for over 40 years. I live just down stream from one of the tributaries in the project areas. I am here to express my concern that the development fully adheres to not only what I believe is Livonia law on flood plain development, but also fully conforms to Michigan law as enforced by the DEQ and also under the agreement with FEMA which, I believe, the City of Livonia has signed a contract with. It is my concern that the City fully follow City, State and Federal laws, rules and guidelines. I am sure we are all aware of the importance of preserving the integrity of the flood plain in order to prevent damages to upstream and downstream properties. During this evening I have heard discussion of wetlands and floodplains and floodways but there are distinct laws for each of the three. There is a floodplain law. There is a floodway law and there is also a wetlands law. I think it is important we distinguish between the three when we make our decisions. Also, I was pleased to see that the developer has recognized the fact that if you have walkout basements you have to come out three feet above the 100 flood year elevations. That restricts the use of the property quite a bit. I think that particular aspect of the rules of FEMA and DEQ have been violated in one or two instances that I observed in Livonia. I do speak with some knowledge on the issue since I have worked with your City Engineer. I have worked with your Attorney and the State to develop your ordinance. I have been instrumental in developing your floodplain ordinance. I have testified in courts on the City's behalf on this issue when it was first developed. I do feel responsible for coming in and expressing my concern that full recognition is given to the floodplain ordinances that you have in your City and as a 40 year resident and as a person who working with your City Engineer, stood on almost that identical spot in 1969, in which we developed your ordinances and which has become almost a model throughout the United States as to a good floodplain ordinance. Earlier this evening we heard concerns about the development in the City of Livonia. You people are facing those concerns on everyone of the issues that you have when you have very restricted property for development. It is a known fact that developing, once it becomes restricted, then goes into those areas in which you have restrictions on and that puts a bigger burden on the City to make sure that we keep our City using our fine ordinance that we developed and not have them encroached upon. Thank you very much for your time. Linda Lutz, 15648 Riverside. I am very concerned with the drainage. My house backs up to the creek and Idyle Hills has a lot of sewer problems. I don't know if it related or not but it took many months for them to replace the sewers. We had tractors and all kinds of trucks sitting around, alternate routes, people having to park down the streets. I just want to make that one more person is concerned that the drainage is addressed. Barbara Meduefeff, 15555 Fairlane. My neighbors are turkeys and I have always enjoyed them. Regarding Mr. Shane's comment, when we first bought that property in 1967, we had a neighbor who sent a petition around to get rid of the turkey farm. I said, "Why would you have bought this property knowing that the turkey farm was there?" We have been very happy. I often comment I am happy to have that turkey farm there as opposed to whatever other type of 18188 high rise apartments or whatever could have gone in there. Christine has certainly been a good neighbor. When we moved in our children were young and our property was bought when there was a heavy snowfall, like today. We didn't even know that we couldn't use our back door wall because it dropped off. She helped us fill in some of that property. My children could have played in foxholes at the time because of the erosion before we got a lawn in there. However, when my husband was living we used to canoe occasionally when there was a heavy rain. It comes half way up my property. Fortunately, I have never had water in my basement and I have enjoyed that location very much. I would express similar concerns that the other people have mentioned as far as potential water problems in addition to what we have already experienced. Other than that, Christine has been a very good neighbor and I have not been objecting to any smells from the turkeys or feathers that are occasionally in my yard. My neighbor likes to have her shirt that says, "My neighbors are turkey." I think this offers a little comic relief to the evening. Thank you. Deidra Madonna, 35009 Roycroft. My main concern is the flooding. Five years we moved in. We researched with the City. We talked to insurance agents regarding living near a floodplain and everyone assured us that it is a 100 year floodplain. I have lived there five years and since I moved in, the 100 year has come every year since we have been there. The current from the flooding is tremendous. I took video. I couldn't believe it. The trees that are falling. The changing of the way that the creek is now flowing has occurred because it is flowing so much. My neighbor's beautiful evergreens that have been there for 50 years are now dying because there is so much saturation and sand that it is strangling the roots and they are not being able to live. That is pretty tough after 50 years of beautiful evergreens. My concern is the flooding and I think when you build, that is what happens. The water has to go somewhere and they are higher up than we are. You walk back there, you look up. We are down and they are up. I just want to address my concerns of the current and the flooding that goes with it. Elinor Masheff, 15761 Riverside and I have know Mr. Johnson all the years that we have lived there. Our sons called him Dr. Johnson because he always repaired the little animals legs and things. But my concern is the fact that there are going to be so many homes in that small area. It doesn't look like such a small area but I walk it many times with Mr. Johnson and I would say, not maximum, the lay of the land, six homes of a decent size. The structures that they are building today, I would figure between four and six because they don't build small homes anymore. Thank you. Mr. McCann: If there is nobody else wishing to speak, I will go back to the petitioner. Do you have any last comment? Mr. Szkrybalo: It is nice to get the concerns of the neighborhood and I know that one of the main concerns, after tonight's meeting, is the surface water drainage. This is something that we knew we were going to have difficulties with and we were 18189 prepared to do whatever the State and the DEQ and the County Drain Commission requires of us. Mr. McCann: Is that FEMA that we want to look at too? Mr. Szkrybalo: Yes. That is about it. Mr. Shane: While I don't have a big problem with the concept as a whole, I am very concerned, as are the residents, about the storm water question, therefore, I am going to call for a tabling resolution until such time as we can get a better idea of how that is going to be handled. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved, it was #12-212-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 12, 2000, on Petition 2000-11-02-35 by SJL Development, LLC requesting waiver use approval to construct a cluster housing project on property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Fairlane Drive and Ellen Drive in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 16, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-11-02-35 be tabled to a date uncertain. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. This concludes the Public Hearing portion of the agenda. We will now proceed with the Miscellaneous Site Plan portion of our agenda. ITEM #8 PETITION 92-09-02-30 DHC Property (on behalf of Target) Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-09-02-30 submitted by DHC Property, on behalf of Target, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct additions to and renovate the commercial building located at 20100 Haggerty Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Haggerty between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct additions to and renovate a portion of the Target Store located in the northwest corner of the City. Even though Target only owns their defined piece of property, this store is considered part of a larger development. Because of mutual parking, this store, the adjacent Costco Store and the medical clinic are regarded as interconnected. The petitioner has explained that the reason for the expansions is to bring this existing store up to a square footage more in line with new Target prototypes. The main purpose of the new additions is to permit area currently being used for storage to be converted into retail floor space. One addition would be added to the west elevation of the building and would wrap around and include the main entrance area of the store on the south elevation. The extension to the south elevation would allow the entrance area to be slightly modified. This new 18190 addition would be 20,635 sq. ft. in area and would expand out into the existing parking lot. Approximately 74 existing parking spaces would be lost. Another smaller addition would be 1,776 sq. ft. in area and would square off the southeast corner of the building. This addition would be utilized mainly as an optical and pharmacy section. The existing building is presently 117,561 sq. ft. in size. Once completed, the building, including the additions, would become a total of 139,972 sq. ft. in area. Parking required for Target is 896 spaces, parking provided by Target is 511 spaces. There is a deficiency of 385 spaces. Because this site is linked with the Costco and the medical center and parking would inevitably be shared by the three uses, the following is a parking summary of the entire complex: Parking required for entire complex is 2,288 spaces. The parking provided for the entire complex is 1,633 spaces. There is a deficiency for the entire complex of 655 spaces. Because of the deficiency in parking, the petitioner would be required to be granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The elevation plans show that the new additions would basically only be expanding the structure, not altering its character. The large addition on the west elevation would match the existing structure in materials and look. It would almost be as if the wall was slid out and then the sides closed in. The outward appearance of the entrance area would change only slightly but would have the same traits as the existing store. The small addition would be constructed to match the existing walls and should look as if it were constructed when the original building was put up. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first is a letter from the Engineering Division dated November 21, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal, but we would like to point out that the developer will be required to relocate the existing 12" diameter water main on the northwest side of the building as shown on the attached plan. It will be required that the new main be centered in a minimum 20' easement for dedication. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated November 22, 2000, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the proposed plans to construct additions to the Target Store. The Police Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated December 7, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of November 16, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) This site has been the recipient of several zoning variances in regards to the parking space deficiencies. (a) The first, Appeal Case 9304-54 (5/25/93), granted a variance for 160 spaces, only for four (4) years. Approval has expired without a rehearing. (b) The second, Appeal Case 9411-130 (10/4/94), referred directly to Horizon Health but referenced the entire complex. A variance was granted for a deficiency of 291 spaces. (c) The third, Appeal 18191 Case 9411-131, referred directly to Home Quarters Warehouse, (now Costco) and a parking deficiency of 18 spaces. (d) The total deficiency existing on this entire site is 565 spaces per the above cases. (2) Approaching Target as a stand-alone case would show the following: (a) Provided spaces (as proposed: stated 539, actual 530. (b) Required spaces (as proposed): 899 (139,972 square feet x 80% = 111,978 square feet. 11,978 divided by 125 square feet per space = 899 spaces. The correct amount of building square footage per parking space is 125 (not 150) per Ord. 543, Section 11.03(p)(2). (c) Deficient spaces (as proposed) 369 (d) Therefore, a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals will be required for the 369 deficient spaces. Now may be the time for the petitioner to revisit Appeal Case 9304-54 (5/25/93) which has expired, or roll it all into one request. (e) As the building exists now, 752 spaces would be required, 592 spaces are provided; therefore, a deficiency of 160 spaces now exists as noted by Appeal Case 9304-54 (5/25/93). (3) This petition does not detail the required accessible spaces which are 2% of the required spaces; 899 x 2% = 18. Due to the required larger size of these spaces an additional 2 parking spaces may be lost unless the plan can be reconfigured. (4) The parking lot needs repair and resealing, moist notably along the north boundary. The entire lot needs to be restriped with the required double striping. (5) This site currently has eight (8) non-wheeled storage trailers along the east side and south side of the building. These should be removed. (6) The plans received did not detail the landscaping or parking lot lighting and should be clarified. (7) The fence is damaged at the north end of the building at the boundary line and should be repaired. This Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Paul Maxwell, 1000 Nicolet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Mr. McCann: Can you tell us anything more additional about the petition that you think that we need to know. Mr. Maxwell: To respond to the Public Works Department and Building Inspector's comments, first of all I would like to briefly explain Target's remodel program. As a corporation, on an ongoing basis, we like to, every six or eight years, go in and remodel our existing stores particularly in metropolitan markets such as Detroit where we periodically compliment the existing store market with new stores as growth allows. We strive to maintain our brand, our image and obviously maintain our existing facilities and improve those facilities. As such, our store in Livonia is approximately six years old, given the volume that it is doing and the condition that it is in, we propose to remodel the store in 2001. As part of our remodel, some of the comments made by the Building Inspector, we do have, I believe, about 11 storage containers out on site. That is out there to manage the business that the store is doing today. It is part of our remodel that we like to do that expansion off 18192 the north side. A bulk of that expansion would be used for warehouse space and try to eliminate the storage containers on site to service the volume that we are doing out there today. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: Could you give us any idea in regards to having an optical and pharmacy, how many more people would be coming in for this service? Mr. Maxwell: We don't see a big increase. We are basically trying to provide the service for the customers that are coming into our store, another added convenience. Mr. Alanskas: We are concerned about parking because we are losing 76 spaces for parking and I was just wondering how much more influx you would have for people coming into your facility. Mr. Maxwell: As I mentioned, we don't really see a large bump. We basically are providing and adding an additional convenience to our existing customer base. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: When you put the addition onto this store, the one at Haggerty and Eight Mile, what would the size of that store be in relationship to the Target store at Wonderland Shopping Center? Mr. Maxwell: Off the top of my head, I am not familiar with the existing store that you are talking about. We basically have three different prototypes. Our smallest prototype is called a "P" prototype and that is 126,000 sq. ft. The next bump up is a "Greatland" and I believe the store you are discussing is a "P" store so it would be in the range of 106,000 sq. ft. to 112,000 sq. ft. Mr. LaPine: Then this would be one of your largest stores, is that correct? Mr. Maxwell: Yes. Our next model up from a "P" is called a "Greatland" and that is 144,000 sq. ft. So we are not quite that large and then our last one that we are doing in other parts of the country is the "Super Target". Mr. LaPine: When you put the addition on, are you going to be increasing the merchandising mix you have in the store now? Mr. Maxwell: No. We are going to be enlarging our sales floor slightly, not to increase the mix but to be able to put more merchandise of our existing sales out there. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition? Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, one question for the petitioner if I may. If he could explain how the pedestrian access would be handled along the front of the building with the addition and any changes to the driveway that may occur. 18193 Mr. Maxwell: There are some slight changes to the driveway along the notch out where the pharmacy/optical will be. But I believe there will still be sidewalk area for pedestrians to walk along there. Mr. Taormina: Do you know the width of that walkway? Mr. Maxwell: Four feet. Mr. Taormina: Would that be along the entire store front? Mr. Maxwell: No. It gets wider as it gets closer to the new entrance. That is just merely along the south edge of our building. Mr. Taormina: Would there be a grade separation between the sidewalk and the travelled portion of that area? Mr. Maxwell: Yes. Mrs. Koons: Will we lose any width of the drive in front of the building with the addition? Mr. Maxwell: I don't believe we will. Scott Clein from Giffels-Webster Engineering can probably answer that question. Scott Clein, Giffels-Webster Engineering, 407 Fort Street, Detroit. We are civil engineers. No. The drive isle will be maintained. There will be a small loss of several spaces, one or two spaces I believe, out in front that is already included in the total being lost to make sure that drive isle is being maintained for fire access, etc. Mr. LaPine: The parking at this location is predicated on three items, Costco, Target and the health center. Hardly anybody parks over where the health center is so to me I don't even consider that as part of the parking for Costco and Target. Do you have any problems with the parking there? You are going to lose some parking spaces when you put the addition on. Are you going to lose any of your handicap spaces that are close to the building? Mr. Maxwell: No. We are replacing the handicap stalls that we would be losing. We keep the number of stall out there. Mr. LaPine: But the same relationship as there is now with the building? Mr. Maxwell: Yes. The proximity is to the main entrance. Mr. McCann: We have gone to the audience. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and approved, it was 18194 #12-213-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-09-02-30 submitted by DHC Property, on behalf of Target, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct additions to and renovate the commercial building located at 20100 Haggerty Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 6 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plans marked Sheet Cover, SPl, SP2 and SP3 all dated 11/3/00, as revised, prepared by Giffels - Webster Engineers, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 3) 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; 4) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan dated October 10, 2000, prepared by Robert M. Lucius Architect, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5) That the brick used in the construction shall match that of the existing building; 6) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following site deficiencies as outlined in the correspondence dated December 7, 2000: - that all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the Michigan Barrier Free Code - that the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and double striped - that all non-wheeled storage trailers shall be removed - that the fence at the north end of the building at the boundary line shall be repaired 7) That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient parking and any conditions related thereto; 8) That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition; 9) That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. 18195 10) That the developer will be required to relocate the existing 12" diameter water main on the northwest side of the building to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department as outlined in their letter dated November 21, 2000. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Piercecchi: I would like for a moment or two address the parking issue. My direct contacts with this site during this, the busiest time of the year, truly indicates that this site which will and can provide 1,633 spaces rather than the 2,288 spaces required by ordinance, can and will meet its parking needs. I might add that a recent study by the performed by the prestigious Urban Land Institute on the basis of car counts at various centers recommends a parking ratio for centers between 30,000 sq. ft. and 40,000 sq. ft., four spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. The site we are evaluating encompasses 280,000 sq. ft. which according to our standard requires 2,288 spaces. 2,288 spaces translates to a ratio of 8 per 1,000. That is twice as much. The 1633 spaces that the center can and will provide represent a ratio of 5.7. This includes the 74 spaces lost due to the proposed expansion and is 42% more than this institute over many areas. There was 165 centers involves in this unit and they counted them and they found that the most effective hour was between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. and they used December 12, which is the busiest time of the year. I just wanted to make that comment. I have no concern over parking for this area. In fact, today when I was there, half of the parking lot wasn't even plowed and they had no problems. Mr. Alanskas: Target has done a fantastic job in our City. They give money for different organizations in the City but you know, we've got so many drug stores in the City now, and actually what we are doing is we are adding another one even though it is inside a Target facility. We've got so many areas for pharmacies that I don't think we need another one. You people do a wonderful job but I think we are just adding smoke to the fire and I'll be voting no on this. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Please call the roll. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Koons, LaPine, Shane, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: Alanskas ABSENT: None Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan portion of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda. These items have been discussed in prior meetings therefore, there will only be limited discussion tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent from the Commission. 18196 ITEM #9 PETITION 99-01-01-01 Phoenix Land Development Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-01-01-01, as amended, by Phoenix Land Development Corporation requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road between Plymouth Road and Capitol Avenue in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 27 from C-2 and M-1 to R-8I. Mr. McCann: We received a letter from Steven Schafer, Phoenix Land Development, dated December 5, 2000, addressed to Mark Taormina, Planning Department, which reads as follows: "Phoenix Land Development would like to request that you remove us from the Agenda of the December 12, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting. As a result of today's meeting with the Mayor and other city officials, we are making changes to our site plan. We would like to be added to the agenda for the first Planning Commission meeting in January, 2001. Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated." Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #12-214-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 1, 2000, on Petition 99-01-01-01, as amended, by Phoenix Land Development Corporation requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road between Plymouth Road and Capitol Avenue in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 27 from C-2 and M-1 to R-8I be tabled to a date uncertain. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #10 PETITION 99-04-02-13 Phoenix Land Development Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-04-02-13 by Phoenix Land Development requesting waiver use approval to construct a planned residential development on property located on the east side of Farmington Road north of Plymouth Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 17. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #12-215-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on November 1, 2000, on Petition 99-04-02-13 by Phoenix Land Development requesting waiver use approval to construct a planned residential development on property located on the east side of Farmington Road north of Plymouth Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 27, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-04-02-13 be tabled to a date uncertain. 18197 Mr. McCann: Is that all right or do you have it scheduled already? Mr. Taormina: That is fine. I think we are going to wait until we have a complete packet to be submitted for the Commission's review. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #11 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Approval of Minutes th of the 814 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting held on November 1, 2000. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Shane, and unanimously approved, it was th #12-218-2000 RESOLVED that the Minutes of the 814 Public Hearings & Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on November 1, 2000, are hereby approved. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Alanskas, Shane, Piercecchi, LaPine, McCann, NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Koons ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. th On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 816 Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on December 12, 2000, was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________ Dan Piercecchi, Secretary ATTEST:___________________________ James C. McCann, Chairman /rw