Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1996-06-18 15011 MINUTES OF THE 726th REGULAR MEETING ,,om,_ HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, June 18, 1996, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 726th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Jack Engebretson William LaPine Robert Alanskas James C. McCann Daniel Piercecchi R. Lee Morrow Patricia Blomberg Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. Shane, Ass't. Planning Director; and Scott Miller, Planner II, were also present. Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the Nifty resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. Engebretson: We will begin this evening with the pending section of the agenda. Before we get into this, let me just mention that our procedure for pending items, as some of you have heard before, is that because these issues have been heard at some length in public hearings and previous hearings, the conversation tonight and the audience participation would be limited to new information. If there is to be audience participation on each of these items, we would need to have consent of the entire Planning Commission. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 96-4-2-14 by Walkon & Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a twenty screen movie theater on property located north of Seven Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Engebretson: This item was tabled at our last Regular Meeting on June 4th. We need a motion to remove it from the table. 15012 On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #6-99-96 RESOLVED that, Petition 96-4-2-14 by Walkon& Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a twenty screen movie theater on property located north of Seven Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: The issue had been tabled for the petitioner to work out some wrinkles with some neighbors and some other outstanding issues. Mr. Nagy, I guess we will go to you first to ask if you are aware of the outcome of any of those matters? Mr. Nagy: There was no mutually satisfactory resolution of those matters. We did provide the Planning Commission with copies of some of the conclusions reached by the principal party involved, Haggerty Road Investments, with respect to their negotiations. I think it is clear that they indicated some good faith effort to try to reach a common ground. Final analysis, they did not, and they set forth their reasons. While they are in support of the plan itself, the proposed uses of the property, it is just a matter of utilities, and principally ingress and egress. The `w.. driveway in relation to their property poses the biggest obstacle to them. While I have the floor I might also mention that at your last meeting you asked us to obtain some information from the Department of Assessment relative to values of commercial property versus industrial property, and we have furnished the Commission with copies of the report we got from Judie Nagy, our City Assessor. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, the two letters that we received from Haggerty Road Investments, one of them basically dealt with the issue of that drive that you just outlined, and I haven't had the opportunity, since we just received this four or five minutes ago, is the same issue dealt with in the longer letter? Mr. Nagy: Exactly. Mr. Engebretson: We will ask the petitioner to come forward. Mr. Jonna I would like to ask you to make whatever comments you feel are appropriate relative to the issues that we are talking about here, and I will give Mr. Carmichael the same opportunity. Gary Jonna: We had the opportunity to meet and we discussed several infrastructure issues. I think we were in basic agreement on some conditions and 15013 coordination and final engineering relative to storm and sanitary and grading. Although we had received a different grading plan we did ,,�, send that on to our engineer and we have been evaluating that. To make a long story short, I think most of the remaining issues relative to utilities and grading and otherwise, I think we can come to some meeting of the minds. The lone issue, and I think even Mr. Carmichael and his counsel would agree, is the access issue. We received some correspondence from our Traffic Engineer relative to the amount of trips and the conflicts, etc., and he has taken the position that he doesn't believe that approach is going to cause any problems, which is further supported by the County correspondence. I think we have whittled it down, and I think there is probably again more time to discuss the issue of access but I think I am pleased to report on the remaining issues that I think we have made a lot of progress. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Carmichael do you or your representative want to comment from your point of view. Barry Steinway: I am representing Mr. Carmichael. I agree with Mr. Jonna. We have had an opportunity to meet and discuss the various issues. Basically the main problem still is the access. Mr. Cool, our Traffic Consultant, advised us the only solution to that would be to connect into the Pentagon site. We discussed that and we have not been able to reach mutually agreeable terms. The other alternative that Mr. Cool suggested was to relocate the southerly drive, that is the driveway from Pentagon, from south of Mr. Carmichael's property to north of Mr. Carmichael's property where it would match with up with the Home Depot northerly drive. By doing that it would give us the gap time we need for access and ingress to our site and would, we believe, resolve the issues. That has not been concurred in to my knowledge to this date by Mr. Jonna and therefore the issue on access remains. As to the storm and sanitary sewer, we are aware of what the City Engineer would most likely dictate in regard to that. We are satisfied with what the City requirements are, which is what we would be following. As to the grade, a merger between the properties has not been resolved. Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Steinway. Mr. Jonna did you wish to add something? Mr. Jonna: We prepared a letter that covers these issues relative to the utilities and our progress. I would like to hand it out. What you will find in there, in addition to what you have already received besides a synopsis of the issues, a letter from Wayne County and also a letter from our Traffic Consultant relative to the access issue. 15014 Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address this issue with new information? Is there any objection? Mr. McCann: Mr. Chairman, we have been through this three times and I guess at this point I am going to make an objection. I think we are ready for a vote on this and I would like to call for a vote. Mr. Dunn: Mr. Chairman, you opened the meeting by saying you don't want to rehash old problems. I don't want to rehash what was said by Mr. Tent and I and others two weeks ago but I do have some new comments to make that I think this Commission should hear because this issue is just beginning and we formed a citizen's committee to oppose this project,and we are off the ground. I do have some serious comments to make. Mr. Engebretson: As you are well aware in order to hear those comments at this meeting we need unanimous consent and Mr. McCann has objected. You will have other opportunities assuming this matter is voted on tonight and disposed of. You will have opportunities to raise those issues with the City Council when they take it up. Mr. Dunn: All that Mr. McCann is trying to do is gag me because he knows I have some legitimate words to say to this Commission. Mr. Engebretson: With all due respect, we do have rules and we have to live with those rules. We publish those rules. They were announced last time. They were announced at the beginning of this meeting. Regrettably we have these rules that we have to live with. Mr. Dunn: I understand and I will accept your decision but I want to say for the record that Mr. McCann is dead wrong in denying the citizens of this City the opportunity to talk to the Commission because obviously he just wants to ramrod what his position is on this issue. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Dunn, I don't know what Mr. McCann's position is and maybe you have some way of knowing that. Mr. Dunn: All I know is I don't want the lack of democracy and that is what it is here. Mr. McCann doesn't object to the petitioner talking. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Dunn respectfully I would ask you to be aware that the reason that this issue was tabled two weeks ago was to allow the principals in the matter, the petitioner and his neighbor, to work out some issues. That is why we tabled the matter. There were no other outstanding issues. That is why we needed to call on those individuals here tonight. 15015 (Petitions were turned in to the Commission) Mr. McCann: We have had a public hearing on this. We opened up the second hearing we had on this for a public hearing. We brought this back for one particular issue, as a matter of fact it was on my motion to table it for that one issue, and that is regarding the access and entrance to this. I do not believe it proper to open it up to another public hearing on the issue of the theater and whether it is proper or not. We have done that. We gave notice. Everyone was given ample opportunity and we opened it up for a second public hearing on this. At this point I would as for the chair to call for a motion. Mr. Engebretson: A motion would be in order. Mr. Piercecchi: At the June 4th meeting I offered a denying resolution for a number of reasons. I would like to offer the same denying resolution this evening for the same reasons as follows: We have studied the traffic connected with the petition because that is our job. Likewise we have studied the site plan, the elevation, the landscape plan, the public safety connected with the petition because that also is our job. Because we are a recommending body all of this ',tawwill go forward to our City Council for their information. It is time to move this petition forward. However, this is not our prime responsibility here tonight. We must first determine if this waiver to a more intensive use is appropriate for the surrounding area, and for that matter is it a use that is lacking in Livonia as a whole. I would like to share some of the notes that I have put together. Mr. Chairman, some of these may be a repeat so please bear with me. To my satisfaction we have not answered the ultimate question. In my opinion, is this facility in the best interest of Livonia with concerns for our neighbor Northville Township? Will it enhance or take away our image? Is it a plus or a minus? What about our composition nationally regarding safety and drivability? Is this facility being built for Livonians or the surrounding communities? Will it have a deleterious effect on the value of property west of Haggerty Road? How about the number of unsupervised young adults this complex will draw? There is too a definite limit on good movies. With this complex, what would the long-term viability of our current 22 screens be? There are two other facilities now owned by AMC. Regarding traffic, no matter what type of activity is placed in this area, it will have a negative impact on traffic. There is little doubt we could use five lanes now without other additions moving on stream. However, I do feel that office or light manufacturing, etc. in the C-2 zoning would create less congestion than a 4,000 seat theater. In 15016 reference to an enhancement to our City, this entertainment center is designed to attract people from a five to seven mile radius. It is not being built for Livonians. As mentioned before, we have currently 22 screens operating here. Quite enough I believe. The 20 proposed screens are earmarked for our suburbs with the potential for attracting good as well as the bad elements to our safety-conscious community. As far as crime impact Mr. Chairman, if you read the crime impact for Dallas and San Diego, of course they have no effect. Those are huge cities. All the crime is internal. You merely shift it around. The question of effect on home values across on Haggerty is, in my opinion, simple to answer. Home values will decrease. This facility is not compatible with residences. If it was suggested that a complex such as this would be placed across from a $300,000 Livonia subdivision, would this waiver reach this stage? Why burden our neighbors with it. Unsupervised young people which could number in the hundreds could present a problem. This is a big possibility or the theater would not have prepared such an elaborate security program. Fellow Commissioners there are currently four sites where movies are shown in Livonia, Laurel Park, Wonderland, Terrace and Sears mall. The Mai Kai was an early fatality. If there was a need, and someone else brought this up, for additional screening why was not the Mai Kai reactivated. Will others go via the Mai Kai giving us another empty box? After all, even if this proposed 20 screen is designed for our suburbs, taking a small percentage away from Sears mall, for example, would not fare well, and Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about the future of Sears mall. Lastly Mr. Chairman, what if this facility fails? The market for a 20 screen facility I would guess is very limited. I can appreciate the developers wanting to locate in Livonia. We are a great community with an outstanding record and promise. We are doing fine because of our City government, a great City Council and Mayor, a good Planning Department, an even great department I would say, and we do have citizen involvement. There is plenty of land elsewhere. This is a big city project like the ones in Dallas and San Diego, I too, like the young woman that came up that mentioned she had not received any positive impact on this facility going in Livonia, I have not received one saying"do it". Everyone, and I would say at least two dozen or more, have commented to me, even a City Councilman and a person high in the administration has said "It does not belong". Mr. Chairman, if you insist on this being up or down and not accepting a tabling motion, I would offer a motion to deny. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was 15017 #6-100-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 14, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-4-2-14 by Walkon& Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a 20-screen movie theater on property located north of Seven Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-4-2-14 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance#543. 2) That the proposed use fails to comply with Section 18.37 of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to required parking space sizes; 3) That the proposed use will overburden the area with additional vehicular traffic; 4) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding existing and proposed uses in the area; and 5) That the proposed use will adversely impact other similar uses within the City of Livonia and surrounding areas. 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. LaPine: This case is one of those cases where you are going to be condemned no matter which way you go. When this case first came before us two years ago the land was up for rezoning from ML to C-2. I was opposed to it at that time. If you read the record it states there that I was not saying I was utterly opposed to the rezoning of the property, but I think we were moving too fast because at that time Northville was just beginning to develop their property. I thought we should have met with the people in Northville to discuss our common problems, what we perceive maybe happening along that corridor and work out those differences. Also, my position was that a ML zoning development where we have traffic coming just in the morning from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and then leaving in the evening, no traffic on the weekend because the development would be closed, would be better for us, but unfortunately the members of this Commission and City Council 15018 disagreed with me and I buy that. Now we have a proposal before us for theaters, and my position right now and my main concern is what is good for the people of Livonia? That worries me more than anything else. Do we need 20 additional theaters? Will those additional 20 theaters have any impact on the other developments we have in town, not only on the theater development, but if one of those theaters go out in one of those developments, what impact will they have on the retail stores that are in that development, and it has to have some kind of impact. Contrary to what we have heard and all the studies we have received from the different traffic study people, I still think we will have a traffic problem.. I really don't understand traffic studies. I wish somebody would just get up here and say between seven and nine, 3,000 cars are going to go here and between nine and twelve 10,000 cars will go there. I have to go by what I read in that study. I can't say I completely agree with them but I have to assume they know what they are talking about. They are the experts and I have to accept what they say but my gut feeling is we are still going to have problems with traffic in that area. I guess the question here is two-fold for me. Number one, would a development in there of 150,000 to 170,000 sq. ft. of retail be less intrusive than a theater, two restaurants and say 50,000 sq. ft. of development. On one hand you have the argument, the traffic to the theaters is going to be later in the evening, it won't have that much impact on the people in the area. On the other hand, in my way of thinking with the development as retail you have people v.. coming and going all day and you spread the traffic over ten to twelve hours a day and with the theater you are going to have the impact of a lot of traffic coming in at a certain time of the day plus the theaters will be open longer hours than a retail development. When you balance all these things out, I come to the conclusion that I don't think it is in the best interest of the citizens of Livonia or for the people in that area, to have the additional 20 screens. I may be proven wrong somewhere along the line but that is my gut feeling. I have been on boards and commissions in this City for 35 years and after you have been here as long as I have you get a feeling for something. I realize the petitioner has every right to develop his property but we as Commissioners also have a responsibility to look out after the interest of the people in Livonia. I just thoroughly believe that this is too much of an impact. They have to get a waiver use. If they didn't have to get the waiver use, the development would go in, and I just honestly feel that this is too much for us at this time. I wish to commend the petitioner. I think Mr. Jonna has done a tremendous job. All the people that represented him. AMC Theaters, a good organization. Everybody has done a terrific job. It is a hard decision to make to vote against you but it is just my feeling. I just want to get that on the record the reason I was voting against it. 15019 Mrs. Blomberg: I want to explain why I will also be supporting this denying petition. For one thing, I really would like a theater there. I like the proposal v.., but I really feel I represent the people in Livonia, and I have taken a personal poll in grocery stores, in every establishment that I have gone, all my friends,just people period. I have not heard anyone want this that lives in Livonia. Therefore, I feel I am doing what the people want by denying this petition. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to be redundant but I do want to say one thing. I was personally offended by some of the remarks that were assailed at Mr. McCann, I thought they were inappropriate and he was certainly not deserving of it, and I didn't care for that at all. He was working within our rules and it is just unfortunate with the many hours we spent on this that something like that had to occur. That is all I wanted to say. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Blomberg, LaPine, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow NAYS: Alanskas, Engebretson ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution Now adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-4-2-15 by Walkon& Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant (J. Alexander's)to be located on the east side of Haggerty Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Engebretson: This item was also tabled at the June 4th meeting. We need a motion to remove it from the table. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #6-101-96 RESOLVED that, Petition 96-4-2-15 by Walkon& Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant (J. Alexander's)to be located on the east side of Haggerty Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 15020 Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, we had tabled this to allow it to go hand in hand with the principal theater proposal. Mr. Carlin had submitted a letter. I don't know if you feel that it is appropriate or necessary to read that letter or portions of it into the record here. It had more to do with the waiver use on the liquor license as I recall. Perhaps that would be the right time to bring that letter up. Would you agree with that? Mr. Nagy: I would agree with that. Mr. Engebretson: Have we received any new correspondence on this? Mr. Nagy: Nothing other than the letter from Mr. Carlin. Mr. Engebretson: This item also had a complete public hearing. The petitioner had the opportunity to make their presentation in detail. There were no outstanding issues that I can recall. The only thing we held this up for was to go hand in hand with the theater. A motion would be in order. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was #6-102-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 14, 1996 on Petition 96-4-2-15 by Walkon& Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant (J. Alexander's) to be located on the east side of Haggerty Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the N" Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-4-2-15 be approved subject to a variance being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient size parking bays and to the following additional conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 5-28-96 prepared by Johnson Johnson& Roy, Inc. Landscape Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; 2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A3.2 dated 4-8-96 prepared by David A. Hutchins, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; 3) That a fully developed Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval within thirty (30) days of the date of the approval if granted by the City Council; and 4) That the maximum number of seats shall not exceed a total of 230. for the following reasons: 15021 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and *ik, 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; 3) That the proposed use is compatible to an in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area; and 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, LaPine, Morrow, Engebretson NAYS: McCann, Piercecchi ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, the reason I voted no is because everything was predicated on the theater package. If the theater package is denied, we are just going through a lot of motions here by approving restaurants N`"' that are going to back out of the proposed package because the theater is not going in. Probably the most prudent way to handle this is to table them all until we get it resolved at the City Council what their action is on this. Mr. LaPine: The restaurants are a separate petition. I have an objection to the theater but I have no objections to the restaurants. It is up to the developer. If the theater gets turned down by the City Council, let's assume that happens, then he can, if the Council approves, go ahead and build the restaurants. I have no objection to the restaurants. Mr. Piercecchi: I see your point Bill but the people that represent the restaurants have told us right here that if the theater package is turned down, they will not put the restaurants there. Mr. LaPine: But I say that is a decision they have to make. I am giving them the option to put the restaurants in if they want to put them in. If they don't want to because they didn't get the theater, that is their decision to make. 15022 Mr. Engebretson: I would just like to add to that, that the petitioner has filed separate petitions on each of these matters, and we really have an obligation to deal with each issue individually. What the petitioner chooses to do after that is up to them. I think Mr. Piercecchi that we are in order here. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-4-2-16 by Walkon& Associates requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C license for a proposed restaurant to be located on the east side of Haggerty Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Engebretson: We need a motion to remove this from the table. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #6-103-96 RESOLVED that, Petition 96-4-2-16 by Walkon& Associates requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C license for a proposed restaurant to be located on the east side of Haggerty Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the southwest 1/4 of Section 6 be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Nor Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, this is the issue that I believe Mr. Carlin was addressing in his letter. Mr. Nagy: Mr. Carlin begins first with a cover letter addressed to the Planning Commission indicating he is enclosing 10 copies of a letter addressed to the Planning Commission concerning the issue on liquor licenses. As you know, he cannot attend the meeting of June 18th, so he is asking that I provide each Commissioner with a copy of this letter. In his letter of June 10th he indicates that as you know, Class C liquor licenses are allocated by population, and the City of Livonia has two licenses remaining in its quota and available for issuance. The City actually has one more license in the quota, but the City Council has designated and allocated that license to the Italian/American Club, and that investigation is currently being processed with the Michigan Liquor Control Commission. Champps and J. Alexander's have made application to the City for issuance of the City's two remaining Class C licenses for their proposed restaurant complex in the Pentagon Entertainment Complex. And, the Planning Commission is considering a waiver use for the restaurants and the liquor licenses. 15023 The City Council and the Planning Commission should not be concerned as to whether or not there will be any licenses available for ``. future development in the City once their two remaining licenses have been allocated. In fact, once the two quota licenses are gone, the State can then entertain applications for Resort licenses under MCLA 436.19C(4). I am enclosing a copy of that statutory regulation. In essence, the State will grant a Resort license in a community where there are no licenses available in the quota and no escrow licenses available for transfer under a reasonable standard of economic feasibility. At present, the City of Livonia has two licenses in escrow which are not being used. First is a license held by Darden Restaurants, Inc. at the China Coast restaurant. However, that license is not available to an applicant who would move the liquor license. The license is for sale, but only to a buyer which would also acquire the real estate and restaurant facilities at China Coast. There is another license available in the City held by Jamie's Enterprises, Inc. This writer personally spoke with the owner of that license, and when I asked him the price, he indicated that he wanted $100,000.00 cash. He also indicated that he had already turned down an offer of$90,000.00 cash. He felt that since the Liquor Commission was going to require a hopeful developer in Livonia to purchase a license if one was available in escrow, he could control pricing on the license and would get what he wants for it. On the contrary, the Michigan Liquor Control Commission is not interested in being used as a wedge or as leverage by escrow license holders trying to extort money out of developers and restaurateurs who want to invest money in this State. Under no circumstances is that liquor license worth that kind of money in the City of Livonia or, for that matter, anywhere else, with one exception, that exception being the City of Birmingham. As an example, there are Resort Class C licenses which are transferable anywhere in the State of Michigan currently for sale, and the purchase price for those licenses (which are state-wide licenses) is approximately $50,000.00 to $60,000.00, which is far less than what the owner of Jamie's wants for his license, even though his license is restricted to the City of Livonia only and cannot be used anywhere else. It is for this reason that we do not believe that this licensee is being fair, and we do not believe that either Champps or J. Alexander's (or both of them) should be forced to spend this kind of money on a liquor license. I am firmly convinced that the Liquor Commission would not force an interested Resort license applicant to buy the Jamie's license as it would not be priced reasonably. 15024 It would appear that the only reason the City has any concern about issuing these two licenses to these two applicants is that they are both on the same site or development. The City is well aware of the fact that there have been numerous developments throughout Livonia and the surrounding communities where there have been multiple liquor licenses for the various developments. The Victor Park/Cantina del Rio/Lone Star location is a good example. Quite frankly, we believe it is good planning to have multiple restaurants using the same site, parking, access and visual attributes. Again, the City should not be concerned that some developer is going to come into the City and not be able to build his or her restaurant, hotel or convention facility because they cannot get a liquor license. In 1995, the Michigan Liquor Control Commission only granted 22 of the 25 available million dollar Resort licenses under MCLA 436.19C(4). So far in 1996, the Commission has issued only 3 of the 25 licenses available. Most applicants are acquiring escrow licenses where the pricing is reasonable, and the Commission is supporting that procedure. The Commission has previously ignored escrow license holders where the pricing is unreasonable, and we believe the Commission would be willing to do so again in Livonia if the Jamie's license remains at its present asking price. Liquor licenses in the communities surrounding Livonia have generally been in the $45,000.00 to $50,000.00 range, and at those prices, an applicant can justify the investment. The City of Livonia already has four Resort licenses in the City, so there is no question that Livonia qualifies under the Resort criteria. I realize that this narrative has been rambling. However, as you know, I cannot attend the meeting on the 18th due to a commitment to a family vacation which was made many months ago. I therefore appreciate your allowing me to address you in this fashion, and I would once again like to encourage you to feel confident that a favorable recommendation on the liquor license waiver use for Champps and J. Alexander's will be in the best interests of the City and will not deprive the City of any liquor licensing opportunities in the future for developers meeting the requirements of the State to acquire a license direct from the State. I can assure you that in all the years I have been doing this, I am not aware of any developer who did not develop his project because he could not get a liquor license. That should not happen. Very truly yours, John B. Carlin, Jr. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Jonna, do you have some new information? Mr. Jonna: Two quick points. Mr. Pat Land, who is Mr. Carlin's associate at Plunkett & Cooney is here this evening to answer any questions relative 15025 to the restaurant petitions including the liquor license petition. I would also like to take the opportunity to confirm that what Mr. LaPine said is absolutely correct. We said it was a preference to have the restaurants with the theater but they are free standing. They were designed as such with one being near Seven Mile, which is Champps, the other being off Haggerty. So they are free standing proposals, and there is certainly an impact but we would like the opportunity to work those details out with the restaurateurs. So I appreciate those comments. Mr. LaPine: I have a question. Maybe Jim can answer it. In the letter it says in 1995 the Michigan Liquor Control Commission only granted 22 of the 25 available million dollar Resort licenses. What does that mean? You have to do a million dollars worth of business? Mr. McCann: No. It means you have a million dollar investment. That was one of the requirements and that it be related to the transportation industry or resort industry. You have to have a capital expenditure of a million dollars. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #6-104-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 14, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-4-2-16 by Walkon & Associates requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor �..� license in connection with a proposed J. Alexander's restaurant to be located north of Seven Mile Road, east of Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-4-2-16 be approved subject to the waiving of the provision set forth in Section 11.03(h) which requires a 1000 foot separation between Class C licensed establishments by the City Council for the following reasons: 1) 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 subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 15026 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. Mrs. Blomberg: I would like to say that I think that I would support one of these restaurants with a liquor license but I really feel that Livonia could use more restaurants without liquor licenses where families could go and not be exposed to liquor all the time. Therefore I will support this one but I will not support the next one. Mr. McCann: I disagree with Mr. Carlin's letter. I think there are many reasons that a developer may not come to the City, one of which is being at the mercy of the State to try and bring in a liquor license. We already have two liquor licenses available to service that corner. We are possibly adding a third. To take away the last two licenses and put them within 500 feet of each other, I think would not benefit the citizens and would severely limit our ability to draw possible new developments in the City in an area where we might need one and that might be a critical factor. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, LaPine, Morrow, Engebretson NAYS: McCann, Piercecchi ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-4-2-17 by Walkon& Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant (Champps Americana) to be located north of Seven Mile Road, east of Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Engebretson: We need a motion to remove this from the table. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #6-105-96 RESOLVED that, Petition 96-4-2-17 by Walkon& Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant(Champps Americana)to be located north of Seven Mile Road, east of Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 15027 Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do you have any correspondence or comments regarding this particular petition? ti Mr. Nagy: No. Mr. LaPine: If I could ask one question of the representative from the restaurant? I know about Alexander's. I have been in an Alexander's. Is Champps Americana is that a sports type bar? Representative from Restaurant: No, it is not a sports bar. It is more of a family oriented restaurant. Mr. LaPine: It was my understanding when we first heard this, you have a disc jockey. Is that correct? Representative from Restaurant: I don't know if a disc jockey is there full time. There are occasions when a disc jockey is there. It is event oriented. They bring in people for various holidays, etc. Mr. LaPine: Would you say J. Alexander's is a more upscale restaurant than this one? Representative from Restaurant: Champps is more of a casual restaurant and J. Alexander's is more upscale, yes. `om" Mrs. Blomberg: Sir, I believe I remember from the past meeting that it was stated that you would not develop the restaurant if you did not get a liquor license. Is that correct? Representative from Restaurant: That is correct. Mr. Alanskas: I just wanted to clear the record. I was under the assumption that you were going to have a disc jockey there, I thought nightly is what we were told, and you were also going to have karoke. I don't know how many days a week but you were going to have karoke there in the bar. Representative from Restaurant: I was not at the previous meeting. Mr. Jonna: You are correct. There will be a disc jockey. There is a karoke. There are theme events throughout the year. There is large screen television viewing and things of that nature. It is kind of an entertainment theme but certainly I would not categorize it as a sports bar. 15028 On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was #6-106-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 14, 1996 on Petition 96-4-2-17 by Walkon& Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant (Champps Americana)to be located north of Seven Mile Road, east of Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-4-2-17 be approved subject to a variance being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to deficient size parking spaces and to the following additional conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 5-28-96, as revised, prepared by Johnson, Johnson& Roy, Landscape Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked sheet A3.2 dated 4-8-96 prepared by Frederick Bentz/Milo Thompson/Robert Pietow, Inc. Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; 3) That the maximum number of customer seats shall be limited to 323; and 4) That the parking lot light poles shall not exceed a maximum height of twenty (20) feet; and 5) That a fully developed Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval within thirty (30) days of approval if granted by the City Council. 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Morrow, Engebretson NAYS: Blomberg, McCann, Piercecchi ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-4-2-18 by Walkon& Associates requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C license 15029 for a proposed restaurant to be located north of Seven Mile Road, east of Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Engebretson: We need a motion to remove this from the table. *r.. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #6-107-97 RESOLVED that, Petition 96-4-2-18 by Walkon& Associates requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C license for a proposed restaurant to be located north of Seven Mile Road, east of Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: For the purpose of the record we will insert Mr. Carlin's letter in with this package as if it had been read. If there are no questions or comments, a motion would be in order. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was #6-108-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 14, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-4-2-18 by Walkon& Associates requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C license for a proposed Champps restaurant to be located north of Seven Mile Road, east of Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-4-2-18 be approved subject to the waiving of the requirement set forth in Section 11.03(h) that there be a 1000 foot separation between Class C licensed establishments by the City Council for the following reasons: 1) 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 subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding existing and proposed uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. 15030 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: ��.► AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Morrow, Engebretson NAYS: Blomberg, McCann, Piercecchi ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat Approval for Caliburn Manor Subdivision No. 3 proposed to be located on the west side of Newburgh between Seven Mile Road and Laurel Park Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7. (Mrs. Blomberg left the meeting at this time) Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, can you confirm that everything is in order here in regard to this plat? Mr. Nagy: I do, the financial matters as well as Engineering matters. Mr. Engebretson: Do you care to make any comments Mr. Roskelly? William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft: I think you saw this at the time of the preliminary plat. I think you will find all lots are beyond the minimum size in area. Therefore I am here to answer any questions. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #6-109-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for Caliburn Manor Subdivision No. 3 proposed to be located on the west side of Newburgh between Seven Mile Road and Laurel Park Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7 for the following reasons: 1) That the Final Plat is consistent with the Preliminary Plat in every respect; 2) That the City Engineer recommends approval of the Final Plat; and 3) That all financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been satisfied. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 15031 Mr. Roskelly: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask if it is at all possible, that you waive the seven day waiting period. Mr. Engebretson: Would someone like to make that motion. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #6-110-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Final Plat approval for Caliburn Manor Subdivision No. 3 proposed to be located on the west side of Newburgh between Seven Mile Road and Laurel Park Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat Approval for Caliburn Estates Subdivision No. 3 proposed to be located east of Newburgh and south of Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, if you can again confirm that everything is in order. Mr. Nagy: Yes the Final Plat has been drawn in full compliance with the previously approved Preliminary Plat, and the letters of recommendation and all Engineering matters have been satisfied and also the financial obligations have been satisfied by the City Clerk. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Roskelly, do you have any comments? Mr. Roskelly: No comments. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #6-111-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for Caliburn Estates Subdivision No. 3 proposed to be located east of Newburgh and south of Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8 for the following reasons: 1) That the Final Plat is consistent with the Preliminary Plat in every respect; 15032 2) That the City Engineer recommends approval of the Final Plat; and .- 3) That all financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been satisfied. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #6-112-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Final Plat Approval for Caliburn Estates Subdivision No. 3 proposed to be located east of Newburgh and south of Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. (Mr. LaPine left the meeting at this time) ``ow Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#398-96, to hold a public hearing on the question of whether certain property located at 19810 Farmington Road (Tax Item No. 010-99-0020-000) and 19730 Farmington Road (Tax Item No. 011-99-0001-000) should be rezoned from OS and R-3A to a more appropriate zoning classification such as R-C or R-9. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, could you interpret all of that. Mr. Nagy: What this does is give direction to the department to schedule a public hearing to consider public comment in connection with a petition to rezone subject property, which essentially is the closed Ardmore property on the east side of Farmington Road north of Seven Mile Road from its existing zoning classification, which consists of office services and R-3, single family residential, to the potential zoning classifications of either the R-C, Residential Condominium, or R-9, Housing for the Elderly. The result of that may be that subject property may or may not be rezoned all or in part to any one of those two zoning classifications. Mr. Engebretson: All we are doing here is setting a public hearing. A motion is in order. 15033 On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was Noy #6-113-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#398-96, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property located at 19810 Farmington Road (Tax Item No. 010- 99-0020-000) and 19730 Farmington Road (Tax Item No. 011-99-0001- 000) from OS and R-3A to a more appropriate zoning classification such as R-C or R-9. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSENT: Blomberg, LaPine Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution 'vow adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#459-96, to hold a public hearing on the question of whether the additional 14,250 square feet of vacant land owned by the City of Livonia, located adjacent to and immediately south of the land previously authorized to be sold to Exhibit Works, Inc. in Council Resolution#796-95 (which land is located to the west of Exhibit Works, Inc. buildings on Merriman Road) should be rezoned from PL to a more appropriate zoning classification, such as M2. Mr. Engebretson: I think that is pretty clear unless Mr. Nagy feels it necessary to clarify. Mr. Nagy: This is obviously public lands that the City has chosen to sell to a private owner, Exhibit Works. As a result of that sale and its potential use of the property for private as opposed to public purposes, the zoning classification therefore is inappropriate. The adjoining property is used for manufacturing purposes. Therefore, we are considering what we would call a housekeeping chore here to rezone the property from Public Lands to the Manufacturing zoning classification. 15034 Mr. Engebretson: We are looking for a motion to set a public hearing. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was #6-114-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #459-96, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether the additional 14,250 square feet of vacant land owned by the City of Livonia, located adjacent to and immediately south of the land previously authorized to be sold to Exhibit Works, Inc. in Council Resolution#796-95 (which land is located to the west of Exhibit Works, Inc. buildings on Merriman Road) should be rezoned from PL to a more appropriate zoning classification, such as M-2. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson NAYS: None 'tow ABSENT: Blomberg, LaPine Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#460-96, to hold a public hearing on the vacating of a certain street located at the south end of City owned property located adjacent to and immediately south of land previously authorized to be sold to Exhibit Works, Inc. Mr. Engebretson: I think that is quite clear. We need a motion to set a public hearing. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was #6-115-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, and Council Resolution#460-96, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a Public Hearing be held to determine whether or not to vacate a certain street located at the south end of City owned property located adjacent to and immediately south of land previously authorized to be sold to Exhibit Works, Inc. 15035 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSENT: Blomberg, LaPine Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 724th Regular Meeting& Public Hearings held on May 14, 1996. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was #6-116-96 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 724th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on May 14, 1996 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSENT: Blomberg, LaPine Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-6-8-8 by Christ Our Savior Lutheran Church requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct additions to the church located at 14175 Farmington Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21. Mr. Miller: This property is located on the west side of Farmington Road. Ford Field, which is a City park, is to the north, and an office complex known as Livonia Commerce Park is located to the south. They are proposing to construct two additions to their church for a total of 5,000 square feet. The first addition is located on the northeast corner of the church. This addition is 4,000 sq. ft. in size and would add on to the church six classrooms and two offices. The other addition is 15036 located on the north elevation. This new addition is 1,219 sq. ft. in size and would add to the church a pre-school room, trustee's chamber and a small pantry area. The materials used for the new construction will Nr. ` match the church so once it is completed it will look like it was all constructed at the same time. (Mr. Miller than presented elevation plans) (Mr. LaPine returned to the meeting) Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner is here. Would you please come forward and give us your name and address. Rolland Schlosser:I am a Registered Architect and a member of the congregation. I will be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Morrow: Sir, I noticed that your church is very well landscaped. Do you have landscape plans for the wall that will be facing Farmington Road? Mr. Schlosser: We have not developed landscaping plans. We would develop landscaping that would be complimentary to what is there currently. Mr. Morrow: I noticed there is one tree which we hope will remain in front of the new wall, the one furthest to the north. `"'w Mr. Schlosser: That tree will probably stay where it is. It is actually behind that evergreen. If that evergreen has to be relocated because of construction, it will be replanted. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, if it is appropriate I would like to see a landscape plan of that wall come back. Is that appropriate? Mr. Engebretson: Let me ask Mr. Nagy. With a plan of this small size, would we normally ask for a landscape plan to come back? Mr. Nagy: I think it is reasonable in view of the proximity of a wall to Farmington Road, the prominent position it will have with respect to that elevation. I think that would be a reasonable requirement to make sure the wall is softened and there is appropriate landscaping in relation to how the site has already been treated. Mr. Schlosser: We can certainly do that. I just want to mention that the landscaping plan that was approved for the previous sanctuary addition, we far exceeded what had been approved so we intend to maintain that kind of effort with this addition also. 15037 Mr. Engebretson: As Mr. Morrow indicated, we acknowledged the grand job that was done throughout that property so I guess we will learn later whether or Nownot it is necessary to bring a landscape plan back or whether we will have confidence that you will continue what you have started there, and as you indicated you have exceeded the commitment that was made previously. Mr. Piercecchi: I want to thank you for having the outline in chalk. It made it very easy to evaluate whether that extension would be an eyesore, and it certainly is not. I think that big pine tree that Mr. Morrow referred to can stay. It seemed like it was several feet away, and if it stays there, you have no problem. That door will be hidden, believe me. Mr. Schlosser: Right. We may have to trim a branch or two but the big one will stay. Mr. Engebretson: I think Mr. Piercecchi made a very important point that all the screening that we were so concerned about was not possible to visualize until you actually stood on the site and had the opportunity to view the footprint that was going to be formed by the addition taken into consideration with the existing landscaping, and presumably that was your idea and I would like to commend you for doing it because it just made it very, very easy to get a sense of what was going to end up there, as was said earlier. Now On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #6-117-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 96-6-8-8 by Christ Our Savior Lutheran Church requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct additions to the church located at 14175 Farmington Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21 subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated 4/24/96 prepared by the Christ Our Savior Lutheran Church, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 5 dated 4/24/96 prepared by the Christ Our Savior Lutheran Church, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the building materials of the new additions shall match the building materials of the existing church so that upon completion the entire structure will look like it was constructed at one time. 15038 4) That the landscaping shall be in keeping with the existing landscaping. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Robert S. Gazall, on behalf of the Horizon Health Center, requesting approval for signage for property located at 19900 Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Miller: This is the property on Haggerty Road that right now is called the Horizon Health Center. They are changing the name of the center to Center for Specialty Care/University of Michigan. The site is zoned OS so they are allowed one identification sign either to be used as a wall sign or ground sign at 10 sq. ft. They are proposing more than that so they had to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to get a variance for the signs they are requesting. The signage before you tonight is what they are requesting. They are proposing one ground sign at 36 sq. ft. to be located on the left hand side of the north drive as you drive in off Haggerty Road. They are also proposing a wall sign on the north elevation which would face more or less towards Eight Mile Road at 39 sq. ft., and a wall sign on the west elevation which would face towards Haggerty Road at 105 sq. ft. So the two wall signs equal 144 sq. ft. By virtue of the variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, this Newis a conforming sign package. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner with us this evening? John Gazell: I am with the architectural firm Gazall, Rino & Associates. After discussions with the board at our last meeting we received somewhat preliminary approval based on signage location, color and size. I think there was only one outstanding question that had to be resolved and that was in terms of illumination of the signage. In our most recent discussions with the University, it is their intent to illuminate the signs at the beginning of dusk to shortly after closing hours, which will be between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. based on patient load. The two signs that will be lit will be wired to their own individual timer and photocell and on that note we are here asking for your approval for this so the University may proceed with this project. Any questions, I will be happy to answer them. Mr. Morrow: Is there any thought in the future you will become a 24-hour operation at this time or is it pretty well etched in stone as far as your hours? 15039 Mr. Gazall: That is something I think the University has to address but I think at this time these are the hours that we are planning to deal with. I think they are talking about two to three shifts that will run from seven or eight in the morning until ten or eleven p.m. at night so I think at this time these are the hours they plan on using. Mr. Morrow: So if we add to our resolution that the lights would go off one hour after closing time, that would touch all the bases? Mr. Schlosser: I believe so. No problem with that. Mr. Piercecchi: I just want to ask a question of the fellow Commissioners. It seems like in the past we used to handle signs and then if there was a variance required, they went to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Sometimes we get them before, sometimes we get them after the Zoning Board. Wouldn't it be better if they all came through here first? Mr. Engebretson: You're right. The process has changed from time to time but it has been a number of years since Mayor Bennett changed that. Mr. Nagy: Mayor Bennett is the one that set the procedure that they go to the Zoning Board of Appeals first. That has been our policy for the past five or six years. `"""' Mr. Engebretson: Prior to that Mr. Piercecchi they would come here first and then go for the variance and it wasn't sure which came first, and Mayor Bennett made a determination after consulting with the various departments, and that is the way it has been on signs. Mr. Piercecchi: You should be right and I am sure you are. You generally are but it seems to me the one on Schoolcraft Road came to us first and then it went to the Zoning Board. Mr. McCann: If it is part of the site plan, sometimes we get it first. Mr. Engebretson: That is a good point. If it is just a plain sign, if it is standing on its own as this case is, then clearly it goes to the Zoning Board first. If it comes as part of a site plan, as Mr. McCann mentioned, it might be that it does not go to the Zoning Board because the principally underlying construction isn't determined by going to the Zoning Board. Mr. Nagy: The Schoolcraft and Merriman Road site when the petition first came in and we talked about signs, the petitioner advised the Planning Commission that his signs were going to be in excess of what was allowed by ordinance so the signs were not made part of the initial site 15040 plan. The site plan was approved separately and obviously the building was commenced accordingly but the sign package was brought back later after he sought the relief through the Zoning Board of Appeals, and then you dealt with only the signs at a later date. Again, where there was a conflict with the ordinance, the signs then were removed and dealt with separately, variances were first acquired and then brought back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Piercecchi: Do all monument signs, Mr. Nagy, come to us first? Mr. Nagy: All monument signs would come to you that are part of site plan approval process but if they are not in the control zone or not part of the site plan, then they would go to the Zoning Board of Appeals or directly to the Building Department. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #6-118-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Robert S. Gazall, on behalf of the University of Michigan Medical Center, requesting approval for signage for property located at 19900 Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6 be approved subject to the following conditions: `t"' 1) That the Sign Package by Gazall, Rino & Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on June 3, 1996, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That all signage shall not be illuminated beyond one hour after closing. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Hardy& Sons, on behalf of Quality Inn& Suites, requesting approval for a ground sign for property located at 30375 Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Miller: This property is located just west of the Wonderland Shopping Center. This site is zoned C-2 so they are allowed one ground sign at 30 sq. ft., 6 foot high. What they are proposing is in excess of that so they had to go to the Zoning Board to get a variance for the signage that is before you tonight. They are proposing one pole sign at 19 ft. high and 158 sq. ft. The top sign reads "Quality/Inn& Suites". This is 108 sq. ft. They are also proposing a changeable board underneath this sign, and 15041 that is 20 sq. ft. and then for the restaurant that is located in the motel, the"Golden Griddle/Family Restaurant" is 30 sq. ft. They have a total '41.100, of 158 sq. ft. This conforms to what the Zoning Board approved so by virtue of the variance this is a conforming sign. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner with us this evening? Nouri Sitto representing Sitto Sign Company and John Glasnak, owner of Quality Inn. Mr. LaPine: When the Chairman and I were out there Sunday, we are not sure where the sign is going. Is the sign going approximately where the three flags are? Mr. Glasnak: Yes. Mr. LaPine Are the flagpoles staying or are they going to be removed? Mr. Glasnak: They are going to be removed. Mr. LaPine: The sign you have up there now on the building. Is that coming down? Mr. Glasnak: That will be removed. Mr. LaPine: I noticed you are replacing all the fence along the east property line too. Mr. Glasnak: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: The parking lot needs a little repair. Mr. Glasnak: The parking lot is going to be completely redone. Mr. LaPine: Well you are doing a fine job there. It looks real nice. Mr. Piercecchi: I can understand why you want to move the sign. The building east of you really blocks the view coming west. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #6-119-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Hardy& Sons Signs, on behalf of Quality Inn& Suites, requesting approval for a ground sign for property located at 30375 Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35 be approved subject to the following condition: 15042 ,` 1) That the Sign Package by Hardy & Sons Sign Service, as received by the Planning Commission on June 4, 1996, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by First Federal of Michigan, requesting approval for a ground sign for property located at 19410 Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. Miller: This site is located across the street from the Livonia Mall, and south of the Goodyear Tire Store. This site is allowed one ground sign of 30 sq. ft. They are proposing one ground sign at 28 sq. ft. so it is a conforming ground sign. Also on the site there is an existing 99 sq. ft. 25 ft. high pole sign that will be removed. This conforming sign will be taking its place. Mr. Engebretson: At the study meeting we indicated to the petitioner that because he had a conforming sign it was not necessary to come to the meeting tonight and indicated to him that he would receive an approving resolution. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #6-120-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by First Federal of Michigan, requesting approval for a ground sign for property located at 19410 Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Sign Package by Brilliant Electric Sign Company, as received by the Planning Commission on June 5, 1996, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the signage shall not be illuminated beyond 10:00 p.m. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 15043 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 726th Regular Meeting held on June 18, 1996 was adjourned at 8:48 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Robert Alanskas, Secretary f ATTEST: / ,1 * Jac Engebret on, Chairman Jg `os.