Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1995-04-25 14027 MINUTES OF THE 702nd REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA \.. On Tuesday, April 25, 1995 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 702nd Regular Meeting & Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with approximately 35 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jack Engebretson R. Lee Morrow William Tapine Robert Alanskas Patricia Blomberg C. Daniel Piercecchi Members absent: James C. McCann Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing 'Nowtonight. Mayor Bennett presented a Pin to Lee Morrow in recognition of 20 years of service to the City. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 95-3-2-13 by Victor Corporate Park Land Investment Partnership requesting waiver use approval to construct a retail building in excess of 30,000 square feet to be located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. We have also received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the following deficiencies were found: 1. Deficient front yard setback. Required 100', provided 70'. 2. Deficient parking spaces. Required 788 spaces, provided 749 spaces. 3. Deficient parking space width, 10' width required. Provided 749 spaces, 490 spaces - 10' in width; 259 spaces - 9' in width. They end by saying this proposal will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals granting relief from the above requirements. 14028 We also received a letter from the Tandy Corporation who wanted the letter read into the record. This letter was addressed to myself and is re: Incredible Universe and reads as follows: "At the request of Mr. David Johnson, I am forwarding you this letter of explanation regarding our proposed Incredible Universe Electronic Center. When Tandy Corporation created this facility, we patented a system for the electronics distribution part of our project. The system is an internal operating system, designed to function solely on behalf of the existing physical center. In other words, the patented electronics distribution system would service only our Livonia location. It is an internal operating system designed to support the other operating divisions at our electronic center. We have no intention, nor capability under the system, to service other divisions of Tandy Corporation, nor any other Incredible Universe location. This system is a very high-tech, advanced, distribution-type system, far ahead of any counterpart, and we are very proud of our accomplishments in this area. We are excited about the possibility of coming to your great city and look forward to the opportunity to present this operation to you in person. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. If I may be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me." This letter was signed by Bryan L. Spain, Director of Real Estate, Tandy Corporation. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and make your presentation. David Johnson, Chairman of Victor International: Also with me tonight is Bryan Spain, Director of Real Estate for Tandy, and Charles Hodges, the Architect for Tandy. Ten years ago is when we started this project and I feel it would be appropriate to go through a little bit of the past and then where we started 18 month ago with this particular site. This is a site plan that was involved with the original zoning which was submitted in 1985 and finalized in 1986. (He displayed the plan) It provided for three million square feet of office and an infrastructure that would support three million square feet of office. It provided for an eight-story hotel, and high-rise, twelve-story office throughout this area, which later became the Digital site. The pond was built. All the infrastructure throughout the development was built at our expense. There were no tax abatements or no credits of any kind. All utilities were extended for a mile from Seven Mile to Eight Mile and out to Newburgh Road and were completed to support that density. In 1988 this was modified with the introduction of the Hillman Company, a national office building developer, and the Embassy Suites location sat in this area. (He pointed this area out) Digital had been put in place and the 25 acre piece to the north, overall 104 acres. I might point out that in the original site of the 104 acres, there were five restaurants in that which totaled about 15 acres. In this site plan we concentrated and 14029 defined the high-rise office and the office plan to project the restaurant down here, which ultimately became Cantina Del Rio. This was a site plan for 750,000 square feet of office with 2500 v.. car parking in this 15 acre parcel. The #5 office building has now been built and we have 18 acres of office up in here. The site plan for 15 acres then proceeded for that particular section and was redefined with the 2500 car parking and three different office buildings. As the office market deteriorated and we had built the #5 building, we redefined the parking and in 1993, staying consistent with the office concept of the park but concentrating the commercial in one spot instead of spreading it throughout the development, we revised the master plan and submitted a Builders Square concept and redefined the office and downsized the office areas that were in the rest of the development. After about six months of working with everybody and hearing the residents' resistance to the Builders Square proposal, we agreed to withdraw the proposal and seek another commercial user that would be more compatible with office, that would have more corporate strength than Kmart and Builders Square were reviewed to have at that time, and also that would be more counter-cyclical to traffic patterns. We now, a few months later, are proud to present a site plan for Incredible Universe, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tandy Corporation, which is really a Macys of the electronic business. We think it is representative of the future, and it is not a concept that exists anywhere around there. The home improvement concept, there were a number of competitors like Home Depot and Home Quarters. Even after we were through with Builders Square, Home Quarters came into the area. When we went through with the Lone Star Steakhouse approvals and brought in Champps, and after discussion with the Planning Commission and resistance to late hours of operation of some of the restaurants, we went and focused on a single user retail center that would be compatible with office and also an asset to the area. I would like to have Bryan Spain, at this point, present the site plan. Bryan Spain: I do appreciate very much the opportunity to be here before you tonight to present the Incredible Universe. The Incredible Universe is a mastermind of our Chairman John Roache, whom I have a tremendous amount of admiration and respect for. I would like to walk you through how it evolved. Most of you probably know the Tandy Corporation via Radio Shack, and I say that in hopes that you have shopped, are still shopping, and Christmas is not very far away. We have found in the past probably four to five years prior to this time we manufactured approximately 80% to 85% of all products that were sold within a Radio Shack store. That concept of private label selling just no longer was working in today's current market so our Chairman went to work to set out to devise a new future and a new program for Tandy Corporation. In so doing in 1992 we divested ourselves of virtually 95% of our manufacturing. We channeled all our efforts to two new retail 14030 operations and the most magnificent of which is the Incredible Universe. Incredible Universe is like a mall under one roof. It is an 1400' interior operation. It is designed solely inside the store. We sent a team of market researcher executives around the country, at a great deal of expense, to find out exactly what the shoppers wanted in today's market in the next decade. We found out five major things. They wanted ease of shopping. They wanted convenience. They wanted a good quantity or selection. They wanted a good price, and they wanted to have fun. What we did was set out to try to answer those five wants. We did that by first off hiring one of the executives from Disney Corporation to come train us, to teach us haw to let the customer enjoy itself, haw to have fun. Secondly, we decided we were going to have a selection, and we do have a selection. We have some 85,000 different products within our store. We tried to find out how can we service the customer? Haw can we be the best at what we want to do? We patterned a distribution system. It is an internal distribution system as you heard in my letter. It is hard to explain but I will try to do it like this. The sales people out on the floor have a computer on their wrist. When you come in to our store to shop, you are identified on this computer. If you buy a piece of merchandise, it radios back to the distribution system and that product is waiting for you at \.. the counter automatically, never touched by human hands. The system works strictly internal to our store, and as I said we are very proud of it. It makes it so a customer can be in and out of our store in 15 minutes. That is not the case. Our demographic studies tell us the normal customer spends two to three hours in the store. We encourage you to play with the merchandise. We encourage you to pick it up, feel of it, use it, operate it. The problem with my generation and those alike is we have inhabitations about electronics that we are afraid that we are going to break them. That is the whole idea to use it to find out you won't break it. That is a little bit about the store. We have another area that I want to stress and that is we will bring some 350 employe into the store. They will all be hired locally. We will bring one person in and he will be a manager from another store. The only reason he will be brought in is simply because he was trained in another store and he understands the operation. All the rest would be hired locally and they will be trained as we will be building the store. The internal operations of the store consist of such that we have to spend 10%, it is mandatory in all our stores, that we spend 10% a month in a training center. We have a separate segment of our store that is involved, the mezzanine as well as some lower area, where we go through quite ti,, 14031 extensive training. Manufacturers help us in this respect because they want to market their products so they train our employccs themselves. That brings us to another ng point. We don't have commission salesmen. It is not high pressure. It is not a discount. It is not a volume type sales. What we have tried to do is bring the CES show, the Consumer Electronic Shaw, which sells twice a year, under one roof, coupled with our distribution operation, coupled with our service operation. We service everything we sell. Absolutely, if you need it fixed, right there on location, all done inside the mall under one roof. We looked very heavily around the country. We did a tremendous survey to what customers wanted and we did surveys to what customers we wanted to appeal to. I want to say I am very proud of your City for you because Livonia was one of the top 20 cities and locations in the United States of America that we looked at. You are a very well educated group, good income level, a very nice community, and we would like to be an asset and part of that community. We do that by coming in and we will work with the local citizens. We have a 8,000 square foot rotunda in the middle of the store. It is coupled with a $300,000 audio/video system such that local community activities can utilize this rotunda for their awards ceremonies and things such as this. I would venture to say that to give you an example of one of our stores in Tempe, Arizona, we were written up in the newspaper. They had a magnate school system. They did not have computers in their school system for their children. Our manager worked an `"' arrangement with them whereby he opened the store up for an hour each evening just for these children to come in and use our computers that we had on demonstration to run their programs. The newspapers out there were highly appreciative of it as were the citizens. We believe in being a part of the community. That is us. We realize when we come into your area, we have to be a part of you because we want you to come and enjoy our store. We do have a lot of fun. We try to create a lot of interesting things to do, a lot of activities, and we draw a lot of interest. We will, in fact, bring a large tax base to your area, and that is a very positive thing when you think about it from the school system, for example. We add a large property tax base and yet we don't increase enrollment so we don't do anything but enrich and enhance your schools for the pupils that are already there. The other thing that is very interesting, and this to me is a surprising aspect, we not only appeal to the family shopping, but a large percentage of our sales come from businesses. For example, I told you our Tempe store, I mentioned it is located in a residential area. They are very happy with us. We work with the local residents to meet with them, to address their needs. Our architect, Charles Hodges, is here with me tonight to answer some questions. He did an excellent job. We actually built a 14032 a wall. We worked a lighting scheme out. His company did a tremendous job in working a landscape buffer and the residents are extremely happy with it. On the converse in Columbus, Ohio, `.• we are up against an office tower. They are extremely happy about us being there because they utilize our business products. We do have a large variety of business products. We do a tremendous amount of our sales, a high percentage of our sales volume, goes to the business market. We absolutely appeal to them. We carry every type of computer imaginable, every type of computer paraphernalia, every type of machines and telephone systems and networking systems. We try to appeal to all segments of the market. Another interesting fact, I think, we have for example in our Indianapolis store, there are two hotels right adjacent to us, a Holiday Inn and a Ramada Inn. They are very, very excited about us being there because our studies prove we have a lot of traffic that comes in from out of town, overnight, just to see our store and to shop there. They spend the night and utilize the hotels. Another city that I can't name, simply because we haven't put it together yet, there is a hotel across the street from us. They came to the Planning Commission meeting and spoke in favor of us. They were excited about us coming there. As a matter of fact, at two other locations that we are looking at around the country we are going to buy the property from Marriott and share the courtyard hotel with one of them and a possible high-rise hotel with another one. We are very excited about our store. It is the up-and-coming thing for the next decade. Tandy Corporation has been around since 1967. We are approaching five billion in sales. Tast year it was 4.9 billion. We expect to go above five and possibly six. We are approaching two billion in assets. We are a very cash-rich, debt-free corporation. We changed our focus to our retail concept. We have gone away from the manufacturing. We are selling products that everyone makes. It is a very exciting time for us and we look forward to having the opportunity to bringing this store to you. I will stop there and allow you to ask me some questions, and I am sure some of you probably have some. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Spain, it seems to me that during our study session we were told Tandy gets involved with the community and has certain fund raising things. Is that something we could look forward to? Mr. Spain: I would like to address that in this manner. Let me describe to you what we have done in the past, and I don't know of any change in that concept other than to enhance it. In normal times, with the nine stores that we currently have open, we have a gala grand opening the night before we actually open to the public. It is a VIP grand opening. We will have auctions on merchandise such as footballs signed by famous people, and that sort of thing. Those proceeds are turned over to local charities. On grand opening 14033 day we take a percentage of sales and Tandy Corporation has been gracious enough to match that percentage of sales and that too is turned over to local charities. We do that to try to enhance our coming into a community. We want to be a part of that, and then obviously, we continue our growth with the charitable organizations as we move forward. Mr. Alanskas: Do you have any problems with your other nine stores as far as parking? Mr. Spain: No sir. Mr. Shane indicated there will be a variance required. We use nine foot parking spaces in all of our stores throughout the country. This would be the first store where we would be attempting to go to the ten foot parking space, at your request. Parking has never been a problem, other than most cities claim we have too much parking space. The reason we do that is we don't want to cause a traffic problem. While we are talking about that, let me address the traffic issue. In our studies we have found that we are actually complimentary to your traffic in that our stores don't open until eleven o'clock so we don't create any a.m. traffic problems during your peak traffic time. The peak hours of our traffic are actually seven o'clock in the evening, after most traffic has thinned out from the p.m. traffic time. We actually pull traffic off the road during the p.m. traffic time so that we enhance the traffic area. Mr. Alanskas: The reason I ask is we show here that you have 783 parking spaces and if your average customer spends three hours, are you saying \r. you would be at full capacity for three hours? Mr. Spain: When I say the average customer, you have to understand the trip generation is back and forth, but let's assume the average car would bring two to three people. We would never have more than 2,000 in the store at one time so I would say we would more than adequately be able to handle it with what we have. Mr. LaPine: Do you have any location where you have a situation like you have at this Victor Park location where you only have two ways to get into that facility, either off Seven Mile Road or Eight Mile Road? Mr. Spain: Yes in Hollywood, Florida we only have a singular access. It is a six-lane access in and out but there is only singular access there. In Tempe there are only two approaches. Mr. TaPine: At that location, how many cars do you figure will travel that road at any one period of time, say your peak hours? Mr. Spain: Let me say that our normal traffic count during the weekdays would be about 3,000 cars for the whole day. That is for a 10-12 hour period. 14034 Mr. LaPine: On Seven Mile Road cars would have to back up to make a left hand turn coming off the expressway going east into Victor Parkway. Do you have that much traffic at the light as it sits now? It could be changed I assume. I was out there the other morning and I just sat there and it looks like there is a lot of traffic that makes a left hand turn off Seven Mile Road going east, cuts down the parkway and comes out to Newburgh Road so they don't have to wait at the light at Seven Mile and Newburgh. I understand you said there is no traffic before eleven o'clock. What time in the morning does the truck traffic come in? Mr. Spain: We have the ability to regulate that. I didn't really discuss that with you. For example, there will be no truck traffic on the weekends. We just don't accept truck deliveries on the weekend. There are no trucks left there overnight. We do use a pro-typical building. We have never to this point deviated from that prototype concept, and the reason being we are using national advertising. With national advertising you need to maintain that framework. We have done that with Radio Shack. We have been very successful in that respect. Thus far we have tried to address some of the concerns that we have heard from members of the Commission and we found you do not like tilt-wall construction so we are going to do away with that. We are going to use split-face brick construction. We have never done that before but we are willing to make that concession for you. Secondly, I understand there was a concern about having eight truck docks. Again, we are proud of our distribution system but to try to address it and enhance the City's wishes, we are going to lower it to six truck docks. There will be no trucks left there overnight. Trucks can be regulated as to their time of delivery. What we would most likely do, at your request, is mandate that all deliveries begin at nine o'clock or later so we don't hit your peak a.m. traffic. Mr. LaPine: There is a condominium development off Eight Mile Road, which there is access from Eight Mile Road into the parkway from that way. Can the trucks be told they can't use the Eight Mile Road entrance? Mr. Spain: Absolutely. We did this in Tempe. We were adjacent to a condominium area in Tempe. What we have done is put all our truck traffic on notice that they will not enter into the residential area. We have not had one complaint to date regarding that problem. Mr. LaPine: I have lots of questions but for right now that is all I will ask. Mr. Piercecchi: Will Tandy buy or lease this property? Mr. Spain: We will be purchasing it. 14035 Mr. Piercecchi: When Lee Morrow and myself were at the site on Sunday, he brought up an interesting point. You went through some of it by showing some of the different stages that this particular piece has gone through, and we were wondering what was the traffic impact on this site as compared to some of the previous plans such as the office complexes? Mr. Johnson: In January of 1986 there was a traffic study submitted with the zoning that showed with 1,250,000 square feet and a hotel in place and restaurants there would be 2580 cars entering in the a.m. peak hour and 577 cars coming out in the a.m. peak hour. This would not affect the a.m. peak hour at all. It has been Tandy's experience at their other locations that it also pulls away from the peak hour in the evening where people are diverted from the office buildings into the store or out of restaurants into the store so it has become a counter-cyclical use. More specifically on this particular site, the previous site plan for this site had 2500 cars approved in the master plan in a three-story parking deck. That parking deck abutted the front of Embassy Suites and now the 2500 cars has been replaced by 788. Mr. Piercecchi: So this is an improvement over the previous plan? Mr. Johnson: That is correct. It has gone down about one-third of what was previous approved for this site specifically. Mr. Piercecchi: It was mentioned earlier by the other gentleman's presentation about where the customers are drawn from. What is really the �.. radius of the draw for this type of facility? Mr. Spain: The effective radius that we actually look at for our demographic studies starts at a five mile radius and then we graduate to a ten mile radius and then we look, quite frankly we look out at fifteen, although the majority of our traffic would come from a ten mile radius or within. Mr. Piercecchi: I noticed in our notes from the Planning Department that there is no method presented in reference to trash removal. Has that been worked out? Mr. Shane: On the revised plan there is a trash dumpster location. Mr. Piercecchi: Last but not least, as you may know, our Chairman and board is really quite fixed on ten foot parking, double striped. There are a lot of big cars in the Detroit area. At the preliminary meeting when we met with you gentlemen you talked about having for your customers ten foot spaces but for employe nine foot. Can that be worked out? Mr. Spain: We are addressing that right now on the site plan. As a matter of fact, I think the site plan that you are looking at has ten foot parking spaces in the front where we expect the majority of 14036 our customers to park. The area surrounding the building has nine foot parking spaces that we would expect for our employe to use. Mr. Alanskas: You said you are going to have 350 employees there? Mr. Spain: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: What percentage would be full time? Mr. Spain: That is full time. We will have as many as 400. We hire a lot of part-time employees obviously during Christmas season, and I might add to that too, we hire a lot of young people and we offer through the company, through the Incredible Universe division, they have incentives for them to pay their college tuition for working there. We have programs to enhance their educational level. We want to make productive young people out of them. Mr. Alanskas: Your other stores, do they all have small restaurants inside? Mr. Spain: Yes sir. Mr. Alanskas: Are they used that much? Mr. Spain: When we first started the concept of having a small restaurant or eatery in the electronic center itself, if you have customers staying sometimes for two to three hours, they obviously want refreshments. We looked at several concepts to decide what we were going to put in there. We did not start out with McDonalds but McDonalds came into about our third or fourth store, I don't know exactly which. After they had been open for a month inside the store, they came to us and asked us to enter into a national contract so they could be in every store that we put in throughout the country. They are very pleased with what they have. Mr. Alanskas: Do your customers walk through the store eating and drinking? Mr. Spain: I can't sit here Mr. Alanskas and tell you that somebody might not finish their coke but it would be a very small percentage. Mr. raPine: When you say you are going to hire 350 full time local employees, are we talking about Livonia residents or surrounding area? Mr. Spain: I would venture to guess the majority of them would come from Livonia. Again, I can't tell you that if somebody came in from outside in the Detroit area and wanted to work in there, that they couldn't, but it has been our experience that the local city supports the store that is there. Mr. LaPine: Of those 350 full-time employees, haw many of them would be on the day shift coming in at the eleven o'clock hour? 14037 Mr. Spain: Obviously that is not our peak shopping time. That is really more of an operational question Mr. LaPine. I don't want to sit here and give you any misinformation but it just stands to reason `�.. to me that our peak periods are when we are going to have our peak employment. The majority of them I would think would probably come to work later on in the afternoon. Mr. rapine: I guess the point I am making is we don't have public transportation and in the Detroit metropolitan area almost everybody drives to work in their car, one person in a car, which makes me believe if you have 200 employccs there at one time, we have a potential of having 200 cars just for the employccs only. Mr. Spain: The beauty of that is they would come at your off-peak time so we wouldn't be adding 200 cars to your peak traffic period. Mr. LaPine: I am not talking about traffic. I am talking about parking. Mr. Spain: We ask our employees to utilize the back parking area. Mr. LaPine: The parking number I have heard here tonight, 700 and some odd parking, that includes employee parking I assume? Mr. Spain: Yes it does. Mr. LaPine: So if you have 200 employees with 700 parking spaces, that leaves 500. Mr. Spain: It leaves approximately 588, somewhere in that area. Mr. rapine: The next question I have, this is a big building, 184,200 square foot. Mr. Spain: The footprint of the building actually doesn't go that high but in total square footage yes sir we do have our training center on the mezzanine as a separate center within the store. Mr. LaPine: It is a large building? Mr. Spain: Yes sir it is. Mr. LaPine: Basically it is classified as a general commercial building? Mr. Spain: Right. Mr. LaPine: I guess my question is, assuming the worse could happen and this location does not work out, it does not materialize, or after a number of years there the parent company feels the profits they are making on the investment are not there, and the building goes under, could you give me an idea of what could go into a 184,200 square foot building? 14038 Mr. Johnson: One of the things that attracted us originally to the Builders Square concept was the fact that it was the same size footprint of 150,000 feet, that it was a single corporate user, and that ;`r, the building would control, with deed restrictions and other operational restrictions of the controls you can put on one occupant, one tenant. The CBS Fox operation, which is bigger than this, is a good example of what can go into that type of store footage as a high-tech user. This is easily convertible into a high-tech use. We feel it is definitely more compatible with the office and more consistent with the area and our ability to control the design than if we had ten retail tenants in there. Mr. LaPine: If this operation did not make it, can it be converted and you could put ten retail operations in it? Mr. Johnson: It could be converted to ten retail operations today. I think it is important to point out that they came here with the property currently zoned C-2 and did not come and seek rezoning of the property. This has a history that goes along with it as well as a history of Embassy Suites that goes along with it. Mr. TaPine: I agree with you they have the zoning. Quite frankly, I think the City made a big mistake, a big mistake, to rezone it to C-2. We should have held our guns for the original proposal you brought before us. I understand we are going to get something in there that is C-2 but I want to make sure I am going to get the best deal. `�r. Mr. Johnson: I think it is important to point out Mr. TaPine that Tandy came here with the zoning in place. I think it is also important to point out that we submitted a proposal 18 months ago that had a Builders Square where it had a first class exterior, the best Builders Square had done in the United States. Based on input and concerns from residents, we withdrew the proposal to look for a more compatible retail user. The amount of the total retail acreage is consistent with the original master plan. It is just segregated into one spot. We feel this is an excellent use. Over 50% of their business sales are to businesses. They are an ideal office compatible user. They are not a discount, warehouse, retail operation, and we are proud to have them as a proposed user. Mr. LaPine: In our notes it states there is a possibility that the Texas steakhouse will not be built now? Mr. Johnson: It is still going to be built, the Lone Star. Mr. TaPine: The other question I had, when we originally discussed this we talked about ten truck wells, then I saw eight and now it is down to six. Is six going to be the final count? Mr. Johnson: Yes sir. 14039 Mr. Piercecchi: Inasmuch as many questions were directed regarding the employees, can I ask what the wage scale will be for these employees? _tow_ Mr. Spain: Let me answer that by saying we would probably have four and a half million plus payroll annually for total employment. That is pretty much an estimate. I know that to be the current level. It would depend upon the wage scale here versus other parts of the country but that is pretty much the average throughout the country. Mr. Piercecchi: It will be compatible with automobile wages? Mr. Spain: I don't have any further breakdown. That is more operational oriented and I am in the real estate section. Mr. Piercecchi: We are not talking minimum wage? Mr. Spain: No sir. And again we are not talking commission salesmen. We are talking people that are on the payroll. Add to that we have some pretty substantial corporate benefits in the form of insurance, in the form of tuition reimbursements, in the form of vacations, sick pay, etc. We are a very sturdy corporation and I think we operate in all 50 states throughout the country and have been since 1967. Mr. TaPine let me give you a little bit of comfort if I may from the standpoint the stores we have opened already have far exceeded our greatest, grandest expectations as to what they would do. As such we are moving forward to open eight stores in 1985, ten stores in 1996 and we are projecting Niro. even more in 1997. We see this as being a very profitable, good type operation. It is being well received in the communities that we have put in it. Another concern I would like to address, just in case there are some neighborhood residents here, we are a family oriented type of retail operation but all the activities go on inside the confines of the store. We fit well within the community in that we are not doing sales out of the parking lot. We are not having extensions all over the building and what have you. It is a very clean, quiet type operation. We resemble that of a small manufacturer with the exception we don't put the demands on the utilities, we don't create any environmental problems and yet we employ some 350 to 400 of your local citizens. We are very excited about coming here. We will try to do everything we can to make this the type of operation you would like to have and be proud to have in your City, and I can assure you, obviously it is my word, that we have had nothing but accolades from the towns and cities that we currently exist in. Mr. Engebretson: Before we look at the plans I would like to ask you to set the stage by telling us if this were approved, what would your initial investment be in this facility? Mr. Spain: Probably in the total facility we are probably looking at land and building in the neighborhood of twelve to fifteen million. 14040 Mr. Engebretson: How much inventory would you carry in the store? Mr. Spain: That is a difficult thing to say. Approximately eight to ten gin. million. Mr. Engebretson: What would the average sales be at this type of store on an annual basis? Mr. Spain: We annually figure our sales to run between sixty and eighty million, shaded to the eighty million, which obviously brings a lot of tax revenue into the City. Mr. Engebretson: With that the developer will get into the elevation presentation and landscape plan. Mr. Johnson: I would like to introduce Charles Hodges of Hodges & Associates. He is going to go through the elevations, site lines from 275 and the landscape plan. Charles Hodges, 13642 Omega, Dallas, Texas: (He presented the site plan, elevations plans and landscaping.) Mr. Alanskas: What is the height of the building? Mr. Hodges: Overall height including the parapet screening is approximately 31 feet. Mr. Alanskas: Haw wide is the color striping? `�.. Mr. Hodges: It has been reduced in this case to an 8 foot strip. Mrs. Blomberg: Will there be any type of installation done at this location like for stereos for cars? Mr. Hodges: We have a small area where car cellular phones, mobile phones, can be installed and upscale car stereos. We have the capability for them to pull entirely within the building and do the installation at that point. We also have technical services within another sector of the building which when you mention installation, for reconfiguration of a computer system, as you select your computer system it actually customizes it as to how much RAM or what software packages you want loaded, and that is a technical services area, which is a separate function. Mr. Morrow: On the subject of the service doors for the stereo systems, one of the things we request be part of the record, whether it is Tandy Corporation or your local tire store, we let the record show that we like those doors kept closed particularly if they are in the front yard of a particular site. I don't know if you could do that Mr. Hodges but we would like some kind of concurrence either from Mr. Spain or Mr. Johnson if we could. Also, I think on one elevation you showed there was a reduction in the number of doors shown on the drawing. 14041 Mr. Hodges: Yes sir. Mr. Morrow: Is our staff in possession of the completed plan? `r. Mr. Shane: Yes. Mr. Morrow: So we have the technical correct plan? Mr. Shane: Yes we do. Mr. TaPine: The east elevation, that is just a stark wall and that would face Victor Parkway? Is that correct? Mr. Hodges: Actually it has an approximate 25 foot break in the wall. Mr. LaPine: No windows and no doors along there? Mr. Hodges: There are several doors located within this but there are no glass areas. Mr. TaPine: Are those doors entries? Mr. Hodges: No sir. Exit doors only. Mr. TaPine: That stark wall faces Victor Parkway? Mr. Hodges: That is correct, behind two levels of landscaping. ‘41111N. Mr. LaPine: The north elevation, another stark wall, faces Embassy Suites? Mr. Hodges: There is about a 35 foot offset. Mr. TaPine: But basically it is a wall. Mr. Hodges: Yes sir. I might point out that the landscaping area, which we incorporated in this particular area, is 45 feet of landscape buffer. It tapers down but it is 45 feet. Mr. LaPine: So the entrance into the establishment is from the south? Mr. Hodges: Correct. Mr. Morrow: One of the questions we normally get into when we have a large roofed area like this as far as any type of mountings on the roof of the building, how they would interact as far as being screened from the community. Mr. Hodges: We have a site line study which we have incorporated in our package and has been reviewed by staff from both the I-96 and Victor Parkway. Our parapet extends above the building in some places as high as seven feet. The distance that you would have to be out to have one of those visible would be several hundred 14042 feet. Of course, there are tree coverings and a lot of other things that would permit that from occurring. We come up to at least the top of the units themselves so there is no chance from Victor Parkway or anywhere adjacent to the building, including the Embassy Suites, where you would be able to see them. In this particular case we show visibility distance from Victor Parkway of approximately 620 lineal feet before that unit would be visible. From the interstate side it is approximately 950 feet. Mr. LaPine: I noticed in the notes we have that the utility poles for lights in the park are 40 feet high. We normally don't have anything over 20 feet. Why are they 40 feet high? Haw many of those 40 foot high poles will you have and how long will those lights stay on? Mr. Hodges: I guess the best answer to why they are 40 feet is because we can have a lot fewer poles by virtue of that. Secondly, the philosophy of Incredible Universe is certainly customer safety. Approximately two months ago there was an article in USA Today where 63% of the people polled said they would no longer go out shopping at night because of the fear of crime. We do illuminate our central parking area with a good lighting distribution, and a simple answer to your question Mr. LaPine is the taller the poles, the fewer the poles. Forty feet is not an excessive height when you consider that the distribution for this particular area, we try to keep that a good intensity without a sea of light poles out there. Mr. LaPine: Do you know how many of those light poles you will have? Mr. Hodges: Yes sir. We have identified them. In the front field of parking I believe there are five. Let me just check. Mr. Johnson: The lights around Victor Parkway are 30 foot high. Mr. Hodges: There are eight poles total. I might want to refer back, I believe Mr. Morrow asked the question, our site plan does incorporate from this line forward all ten foot wide parking spaces. I drive a Suburban so I certainly understand. In other cities we have not had a problem with that but in this particular case, per your request, we will have the ten foot wide spaces. Mr. Engebretson: We will now go to the audience to see if anyone wishes to speak for or against this proposal. Stephen Bromberg: I am with the law firm of Butzel Long. My address is 32270 Telegraph Road, Southfield. I appear on behalf of the Embassy Suites Hotel. You will recall that I appeared on behalf of the Embassy Suites on January 11, 1994 in front of this body. That evening we opposed vehemently the rezoning of this property, and we went into great detail giving both practical and legal arguments as to the reasoning, so I am not going to repeat what I 14043 did then. However, I should inform you that we are carrying forward with our position that the C-2 zoning was unconstitutional. Litigation is now pending before Judge Cynthia Stevens in the Wayne County Circuit Court in which we are challenging that zoning. We intend to pursue that challenge. We believe we have a legitimate position. We detailed the reasons for you then, everything fLom the unreasonability to the violation of your own master plan. We cited the case law which indicated, for example, that doing something in terms of rezoning simply for the benefit of economics of the owner at a particular time is not a basis for rezoning. We believe we have a sound basis. That is pending. Assuming that we are successful, while this has been a very nice presentation, the building, if they were to go ahead with it, would be in a position of being on a property for which it is not properly zoned and in that instance would be torn down, so there is great risk for that to proceed, and I emphasize that because that is our concern. We are not concerned about anything other than getting what we believed we had in the initial instance, which is an office park, which would supply the base for the Embassy Suites Hotel, which also was a very substantial expenditure in the range of ten million dollars, as you will recall. In 1994 when we were looking at this with the Builders Square, the number of square feet in that retail operation, as I *11.. understood it, was approximately 110,000 square feet. We are now talking about a prototype store, and indeed in the 10K filed by the Tandy Corporation with the FCC, they say that this is a standard store of some 184,000 feet and they also say that it is a standard practice that they will have some 85,000 different stock keeping units, so I am assuming that phrase means there will be 85,000 types of consumer electronics and appliances. I will just read this so it is clear. "Incredible Universe, which is an assumed name for a division of Tandy Corporation, is a new concept in the retailing and name brand consumer electronics and appliances. These stores are approximately 184,000 square feet in size. They carry over 85,000 stock keeping units, which provide the customers with a 'universe' of choices." My point is that we are being faced again tonight with exactly the same kind of wolf, maybe in sheep's clothing, but it is the same wolf. We still have a retail store. We have a retail store which is going to draw a great number of people. We have a sea of concrete for parking lot. We have a very different situation than the office park that was originally presented and structured and it is a situation where we have comparable sales people coming in, making retail purchases, and going out. It is going to be that kind of a situation. We believe that this is not compatible with the office park concept and we also believe strongly that to put this building in this location will render it very difficult, if not 14044 impossible, to go forward with construction of office buildings in the rest of the park at a time when we are now able to establish, without any doubt whatever, that the office market has NIMBIchanged dramatically, that the office market is such that, particularly along the I-275 corridor, there is no open office space. We will be able to present in the litigation the testimony that Mr. Joe Feldman, who produces a semi-annual report for the benefit of the entire city in which he states that this is a remarkable area in terms of what has happened and believes there will be speculative office building along this area. He finds it, however, incredible that the "hodge podge" as he put it, those are his words not mine, of what is happening in this area is being permitted to occur. The standards which you are dealing with tonight are in Section 19.06 of your ordinance. These are the waiver use approval standards and it says that the waiver use approval must comply with all the following general standards: Subparagraph (a) The proposed use must be of such location, size and character that it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the surrounding neighborhood. Subparagraph (b) similarly the traffic to and fium the use and uses, and the assembly of persons in connection therewith, will not be hazardous or inconvenient to the neighborhood nor unduly conflict with the normal traffic of the neighborhood. Then Subparagraph (c) this use will not have a detrimental effect upon the neighboring property nor interfere with or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land or buildings or unreasonably affect their value. I 1.1111.• point out to you that on January 11, 1994 this Planning Commission, in discussing this, unanimously approved a resolution rejecting the rezoning and in subparagraph (3) of that resolution said that the Victor Corporate road system was not designed to accommodate the commercial traffic generated by uses permitted in the C-2 zoning district. That is your finding within the last year. Subparagraph (4) That the proposed changed of zoning is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding, existing and proposed uses and zoning districts in the area. So therefore, in these resolutions passed on January 11, 1994 this body found that the first three standards for the waiver of use approval were not met. I submit that they are still not met. I am finding difficulty understanding the parking provisions in your ordinance. I looked at Section 11.03 (p)(2), it refers me back to 18.38(25) . I looked at 18.38(25) and it tells me that there is one parking space for each 125 square feet of space in buildings which are of this nature, over 30,000 square feet. I divide that into 184,200 and I come up with 1473 spaces. Clearly I do not understand your ordinance in this area because I am hearing all kinds of different figures for parking. I got a copy of what I thought was a site plan from the Planning Department. That documents shows 945 spaces. I am hearing tonight figures ti.► 14045 going down into the 700s. Apparently there are certain variations for certain types of uses. I think it should be examined, at least, and determined what is correct in this regard. Regardless, it is a hell of a lot of parking spaces. The plan which I got from the Planning Department contains a reference at the southeast corner of this area to a restaurant of 5700 square feet. Do I assume correctly that this is no longer a part of the plan, that this has been replaced by something that provides for a restaurant within the premises? Mr. Shane: The Lone Star Steakhouse restaurant, which shows on the plan, is still a part of the plan. In addition to that, the Incredible Universe also has a restaurant operation as part of their internal operation. Mr. Bromberg: I point out to you, with all due respect, a provision in 11.03(p)(4) of your ordinance which talks about buildings of over 30,000 square feet of this type and I read to you under subparagraph (4) Restaurant uses as defined in Section 2.08 of this ordinance shall be permitted as an accessory use to a single unit building only; provided, however, that the number of customer seats in the restaurant shall not exceed 30. Mr. Shane: That is right. Mr. Bromberg: Then my question, I guess is, is that with reference to the restaurant within the building? �..r Mr. Shane: Yes. Mr. Bromberg: Then you have a continuation of the restaurant outside the building? Mr. Shane: The restaurant outside the building is a separate distinct use from this Incredible Universe. Mr. Bromberg: According to what I read in the Detroit Free Press in the past two days, the City Council of the City of Livonia is questioning the validity of more restaurants within the City and the whole question of restaurants is now being raised and reviewed at the City Council, and I point that out as well. I have a question also, because I do not understand how in the application form, it can say that since the subject area includes the site of the proposed Champps Americana Restaurant, we presume that the Champps petition will be withdrawn. What does that mean? Who presumes? Is it being withdrawn? Is it not being withdrawn? Are we dealing with two restaurants, three restaurants? We have no idea do we? We are not being told that. Mr. Engebretson: I think logic answers the question Mr. Bromberg because this proposal consumes the property that Champps was to be located on so logic would conclude that Champps will be withdrawn. 14046 Mr. Bromberg: But what they are saying here is that they are not withdrawn. Mr. Johnson: It has been withdrawn and Lone Star Steakhouse is fully approved. '*ar` Mr. Bromberg: I point out from page five of the 10K filed on March 31, 1995 by the Tandy Corporation that it is a corporation in transit. As we have heard, they are changing their merchandising approach, and, in fact, in December, and I am now reading from the third paragraph on page 5 of the 10K form "On December 30, 1994 the company adopted a business restructuring plan to close or convert 233 stores" and it continues "the stores will be closed during the first quarter of 1995. Of the 233 stores, 33 sit will be converted to Radio Shack or Computer City Express Stores." In all fairness I point out that there is another portion of the same 10K which indicates they are going forward with this universal concept, the same kind of concept that you heard tonight, and apparently it is now about to replace the other, but the point is the entity is making major changes, and in 1993 in the next paragraph they closed 110 Tandy name brand stores. I guess what I am pointing out to you is yes we have a substantial entity but the substantial entity can change its merchandising approach, can change its concepts, and can decide, at some point, that this particular piece of property is not something for which they are finding a profitable situation and can leave you with a very difficult situation with a 184,000 square foot building located in the middle of what should have been an office park. It is for all of these reasons, and I am not going to belabor this for you, you have been listening for a long time, that we `.w oppose the approval tonight of the application for the use waiver. We will indicate to you that we will definitely and without question be continuing our litigation, and as I said all litigation is uncertain and the outcome is never sure. We believe we have a legitimate basis for proceeding and a sound basis for doing so. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Bromberg, I can't really address each point that you raised but I would like to clarify one that dealt with the number of parking places. I can understand how you could be confused. The confusion undoubtedly stems from the fact that the staff in calculating the parking requirements of any building, this building or any other, excludes large areas such as warehouse and such frum the parking calculation. If you would be interested in specific details as to how those calculations were arrived at, if you would call Mr. Shane tomorrow I am certain he would be glad to explain it to you. Mr. Bromberg: I believe that I am under prohibition from your counsel, Cathy White, not to speak to people in your Planning Department, and that applies to the attorneys in my office. I would not want to violate that. Mr. Engehretson: Well then perhaps you could ask Mrs. White to make that inquiry on your behalf. 14047 Mr. Bromberg: I am sure we can do it that way. Mr. Engebretson: That information is a matter of public information. If that doesn't work, I suggest you call the Mayor's office. Mr. Bromberg: I will talk to Cathy White. It is not a problem from that standpoint. I wanted to make it clear to you that it isn't ethical for me to speak to someone else's client directly. Mr. Engebretson: I was not aware of that. I am not an attorney so I am at somewhat of a disadvantage here but that particular point was one that stood out as having the possibility of some clarification here tonight, albeit it not absolutely complete. Mr. Bromberg: There is one other point I should make, I guess. Looking at the Plan I have, while it is true there is a 100 foot setback from the northern property line, evidently it should be clear there is really only a 30 foot setback because beyond the 30 feet you have parking, so it isn't a 100 foot buffer strip between any development on this property and the property to the north that we are dealing with. There is only a 30 foot strip. Mr. Piercecchi: Would you inquire what phase the litigation is in? Mr. Engebretson: I don't know if that is appropriate but is it scheduled for trial or is that an inappropriate question Mr. Bromberg? Mr. Bromberg: The litigation is at what I would consider the initial stages. ti.. All pleadings are not completed. There are motions pending. The usual kinds of motions, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Motion to Dismiss, these are standard types of motions. I would suggest it will take a matter of some weeks before there is even a clarification as to how the litigation will be proceeding. I answered your question the best way I can. Mr. Engebretson: Yes I think you have. Finally, I would like to add it is my understanding that our mission here tonight is to proceed on the basis that the property is zoned C-2, and all the risks you mentioned I am sure are very real but that is between you and others. I believe that the Planning Commission has been charged with determining whether or not this waiver use is appropriate for the C-2 zoning that we believe to be in place. Mr. Bromberg: That is why I directed my remarks to the standards under which you should be operating. That is why I directed myself to that portion of Section 19 of the ordinance. Mr. Engebretson: I understand, and while you were reading those particular issues, I can show you in my book I have highlighted exactly those same issues, things that pertain to a lot of these issues, not necessarily this one. The interesting thing though is there is a lot of room for interpretation as to what those particular 14048 standards are and how they are measured and while I don't want to indicate to you at this time how I interpret them, I think you would agree that they do leave some room for interpretation. The '... Planning Commission a year ago did indeed unanimously recommend against that zoning change, but as far as we know the zoning has occurred. We appreciate the comments you made on it. Denise McHenry, 38149 Vista, Villas Condos: This is my first appearance in front of the Planning Commission. I apologize in advance if I do not follow proper protocol and please excuse me if I am nervous. I just want to say one thing before I begin my concerns. Mr. Johnson touched on residents' resistance to the Builders Square project. Because I was active in that resistance, along with my neighbors, many of them are here tonight, I wish to restate the reasons for the strong resistance to the Commission. The many homeowners associations involved were consistent in their feelings. We did not then, and we still do not feel, that a 110,000 square foot commercial building at that time was compatible with Victor Parkway and the overall image of Livonia and the golden corridor. We are now faced with a proposal for a 184,000 square foot structure. Our feelings have not changed. We still feel this usage is not compatible with the golden corridor property. There are perhaps other areas for this facility not Victor Parkway. Now, if I may, share with you questions I would like answered or studied further, if possible. I just wonder why do we want to give away such a prime piece of property, such a prime area, such a prime piece of land? Number two, who is the business marketing to? We have heard from some of the experts. Who are they marketing to from this facility? What geographic area? What population would be drawn to this particular property? We heard the property opens at eleven in the morning. I did not hear what time the property closes. Does it close at midnight because it is opening later? I did not hear that answer. We are concerned about delivery trucks. You indicated that they would be limited to the Seven Mile Road entrance to the property. We are still concerned. Victor Parkway is not situated for C-2. I understand it is already zoned that way but for a structure like this even if limited to Seven Mile? Would what be attracted to the rest of the Victor Parkway after this building is approved and constructed, if it is indeed approved? What else would want to move in to the rest of that vacant prime land that is there? We have Greerunead. We have condominiums. What is wrong with protecting our golden area. It is precious to us. What is wrong with keeping it for prime 14049 development and not selling out to big commercial big-box buildings? What does the Economic Development Council say about the mixed use of land in Livonia? Can we get this opinion for �a.. the operation of this parcel of land? I sometimes think when I drive out to Utica and Shelby Downship, and I am not picking on them, but there is a house, a factory, a house, a shoe store. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't look good. Is that what the City of Livonia is going to? Are you willing to sacrifice other established businesses located within the City that will surely decay as a result of this occupancy and this competition. The overall health of City business and existing tax base must be considered in this decision. The present infrastructure must be considered and reviewed. I am not telling you anything, but these are things I have been thinking about. Why doesn't the Planning Commission look at the future land use of the entire area? We have the Greenmead site. A few months ago that was up for sale. Somebody made a dirt cheap offer and thank goodness that didn't go through. We have other property being developed. We have other Newburgh land next to dwellings. Is there a future plan? Is there any short-term plan? Look at the use of all the land in our area, all the land that is left. Can the Planning Commission recommend a town meeting, a public meeting to allow other residents to participate and maybe brainstorm? We have an awful lot of energy in our City, very capable energy. Why can't we pull on that? May I suggest no more development and no more rezoning until we look at the mixed zoning that is going on and impacting our areas. We want to review the land use and the quality of life to make sure that there is harmony within the City. It appears that Tandy has raised a number of issues that must be studied, parking spaces, and all these kinds of things that I heard tonight. Perhaps this should be put off. Perhaps more involvement should be studied. Another thing that was raised earlier, I might raise quickly once again. What if this facility were not successful. What can come become of a building 184,000 square feet? In closing, I respectfully submit that we must cherish our prime property, our golden corridor. We must cherish its use or its misuse will determine the future of Livonia. Thank you so much for your time and patience. Mr. Engebretson: We will see if we can get an answer relative to the closing time. Mr. Spain: We will close at 10:00 p.m. except on Sunday it closes at 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. 14050 Mr. Engebretson: You raised many good issues Mrs. McHenry. I would like to comment on one or two of them. I don't know if you are aware but let's assume the property is zoned C-2 for the purposes of this ,` discussion here tonight. We really have to do that. Are you aware that the reason we are here is because this building exceeds 30,000 square feet. If this building were 29,950 square feet, the developer has the right right now, without any City involvement, other than pulling proper building permits, etc. to build that building. He can make it a concrete block building with landscaping that meets the 15% standard but to follow that logic a step further, I don't know if that property would accommodate six of those 29,950 square foot buildings, but it may, and they have that right to do that right now. So the real question then, is what is best for the community, and this is the question you have raised, and I want you to know there was a time ten years ago I was standing at that podium raising many of these same questions. The issue considering a substantial Lnsiness with a single use in a large box versus a half a dozen small boxes, helter-skelter, I don't think a developer would do that to diminish the value of what they have there, I am just trying to point out extremes of what could happen. I am not saying it would, but let's say he decided to put in six very nicely done brick buildings that were designed by a professional architectural firm. They could do that right now and you would have a variety of different kinds of businesses that are eligible to go into the C-2 zoning district of which there are many that are much more intense than the use that is being proposed here. That is a subjective opinion on my part but the zoning ordinance lists very clearly what the permitted uses are and some of them would be most inappropriate for this area, but it could happen. In matters like this, we find that the City sometimes can exercise substantially more control, or some control. This particular proposal has had a number of working sessions between the staff and developer before it came here where some things that were unsuitable, f um the City's point of view, have been changed so what you are seeing is the by-product of a cooperative effort between the City and the developer, and user, to make this proposal as palatable as possible. It may not be palatable at all to you or to others, but it is really important that I convey the thought to you that if this fails, you may get something a lot worse. I am not saying this is bad, and I am not saying it is good, but you oppose what is being presented. Coming from that standpoint if this is bad, what could go in there could be considerably worse. Mrs. McHenry: Sir, with all due respect, when I attended the City Council meeting December 21st when the C-2 zoning was approved, the developer, Mr. Johnson, presented a plan of three restaurants, two of which had been locked in, and a 40,000 square foot book store. The C-2 zoning was approved on the basis of that plan. Although, again, it got away from the master plan of office, it was a little more palatable to the residents versus this giant 14051 square building. I understand your point but I think if this were nixed and the developer came up with six different usage type buildings, I think there would be some kind of review committee, I am just guessing. There would be some control over the look of it? Mr. Shane: It would require site plan approval. Mr. Engebretson: We couldn't stop the development though. Mrs. McHenry: Then why don't we go back and rezone it office. There seems like there is a need for that. Mr. Engebretson: Another issue, what we are doing here tonight is the first step. This is the first step in the process that would ultimately be determined by the City Council. They are the ultimate decision makers here. When it leaves here, whether it is approved or not, it goes on to the City Council, assuming the developer appeals the decision, and I am sure he would, if it was denied. Either way, it is going to go to City Council. They will have another hearing. That would be another opportunity for you to participate in the process, and as far as a town hall type of meeting is concerned, these issues unfortunately aren't determined by referendum. They are determined by interpretation of the ordinance and the general impact on the community, etc. So this is the beginning. We can't really hold a town hall meeting to get a referendum from the citizens but we are glad that you are here. There will be another hearing by the City Council. I know several are probably home watching this meeting tonight, and so you will be able to school yourself, if you care to, more in what these C-2 uses are and be perhaps even more prepared than you were tonight, and you did a fine job. Thank you very much for coming. Mr. Morrow: Could I respond to one area. I think you were concerned about the truck traffic. If I followed Mr. Johnson earlier today, he said this has been reduced to this store from a 750,000 square foot office building with 2500 parking spaces. He said that was a reduction of about one-third of the parking places. The tradeoff there is obviously you don't get the big trucks in the morning, big trucks in the evening. The traffic that was coming before was throughout the course of the day. At least in my experience, and most of my experiences are in an office environment, that to service a 75,000 office space multi-tenants, chances are you would have much greater truck traffic servicing all those various offices than what you are getting here, four or five trucks a day bringing in merchandise. They also indicated there would be some deliveries to customers if you require it. My experience would tell me to service that size office, you would have a lot more truck traffic during the course of the day possibly, so perhaps we would have a net gain as far as reducing the amount of traffic. As the Chairman indicated, we are trying 14052 to find out, it is C-2, is this the best use for it because we don't know what is coming tomorrow and this is what we are looking at. i"'— Mrs. McHenry: Sir, with all due respect, at least with office construction, office people leave at five o'clock. They mentioned that their peak periods are in the evening when people are done with their dinner and they want to spend three hours at an electronic store so we have a lot of evening traffic generated. I don't know if that is compatible with that area. When I bought in that particular area four years, my husband and I we looked at the master plan. The master plan promised us that was zoned as high-quality, top-notch, wonderful office space, landscaped, just the garden park of Livonia, and truthfully we feel it should be. It still looks like it should be. Mr. Morrow: I was trying to comment on the flow of traffic. It changes during the course of the day but it is probably about the same. My biggest concern was obviously the truck traffic. My view is it is not as big an impact as I think office would create. Mrs. McHenry: I appreciate your trying to make me feel better. Mr. Morrow: I am not trying to make you feel better. I am trying to give you my thoughts on it. Mr. LaPine: I take exception to what Mr. Morrow is saying. 750,000 square foot of office building will not generate as much truck traffic as this unless that office building is generating a lot of `�► commercial business. If it is just an office building, the only time you have truck traffic is if they are delivering furniture or printing to a place. I go to the Prudential Center every day, which is a big, big building, and I see very little truck traffic coming out of that building and I bet there is over a million square feet of office space. Mr. Morrow: Mr. LaPine, I just said in my experience. Mr. rapine: I am just saying in my experience it is just the opposite. Bob Gutkowski: I am the General Manager of the Embassy Suites Hotel. My concern is we have a five-story building north of that site. We have a one-story building which is in land that is lower than ours and will drop off lower than ours. We have guests that are facing that southerly direction in a fully windowed hotel, that will be looking on top of the rooftop. My assumption is I guess the rooftop units and the 8 foot parapet is not going to save that site line from our guests. We purchased that hotel, built that hotel and given some history on that hotel with full intent and with good reservations that land would remain zoned as it originally was. Unfortunately, that did not occur. Now we are dealing with uses within that C-2 district that City Council 14053 unfortunately passed over your recommendation to deny. The concern that I have is that there is control zone ordinance legislature before City Council that will permit City Council to dictate architectural control for any buildings within that area be that C-2, be it office, whatever. If this is the best of what may come in the future, it is my understanding that Council does have architectural control, and if I am correct. Mr. Engebretson: You are correct sir and I apologize for stating what I did. The architectural control dog exist. The uses are another matter. Mr. Gutkowski: In respect to parking, again I am addressing the history. I believe that was a parking deck, multiple levels, which I believe the number was 2200 or 2500 cars, and I think to make a fair assessment, if you divide the number of decks into cars, you will get level parking space vs. deck parking. I think that should be taken into consideration. Lee Miller, 38128 Vista: I live in the Villas Condos. My concern is the quality of life that is being affected. It seems like the justification is built on business reasons for coming in and making things profitable and having it work, increasing jobs, and those kinds of things. Those are very admirable and they are good for Livonia. It is just we don't want them in our backyard because it greatly affects the quality of our life. The traffic patterns are an extreme concern. It is not just within the subdivision but it is the entering in and out of our subdivision. There will be back ups. Right now traffic is getting pretty heavy at Seven Mile/Victor Parkway, at Eight Mile/Victor Parkway. That is \.. certainly going to get a lot worse and we will have trucks that take longer to get through the intersections and it is just going to be horrendous. Then if you amplify it by what happens during peak holiday seasons, I think we will all have to move out for at least those periods of time because the quality of our life will be degraded and the tension level will be extremely high. There will be the issue of noise. I think in spite of their attempts to make it the best for us possible, the very best they can do is not going to be good enough for us to continue to enjoy the life we were looking forward to. Right now it is very common to see the residents in the evening strolling up and down, walking, biking, etc. , but they are out enjoying our community. We have a family of deer that we see every now and then. It is really nice to have this and it is a part of Livonia that we treasure. What is going to happen, the bottom line is that there is going to be a lot of traffic in the evenings and weekends that we do not have to contend with now. There is no traffic essentially except the people in our subdivision going in and out or the occasional office worker that gets stuck putting in some overtime. The point is, it is all going to disappear. We will not have that. We will not be able to stroll up and down because there will be traffic, and a lot of traffic and large trucks and it will be too dangerous to do that. This is such a beautiful 14054 section of Livonia . It is a shame to see this disappear too just because it was justified from an economic standpoint. Christopher Roosen, 38222 Bristol Avenue: I have one question that wasn't `o.. answered with regard to the site plan. The 788 spaces, are they shared with the steakhouse? Mr. Shane: They have their own parking. Mr. Roosen: At the beginning of the presentation there was mention of a deficiency in the setback. I am not sure I heard that addressed. Mr. Engebretson: What that is sir, that area of of the building that borders Victor Parkway is required to have 100 foot setback. If I remember correctly, there is approximately 70 foot setback so they will seek relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals who has the authority to grant such relief. Mr. Roosen: I wanted to second what was said by the previous two speakers. One thing that really struck me was the statement the gentleman made that this was like a mall under one roof. That really struck me. I think we have enough malls in Livonia right now. I would like to see them work with you and find a way to redevelop some other property rather than this one. Herbert Gaschler, 38115 Vista: I built the house specially because it faces Greenuead. I can come home at five o'clock from my job all day and I can have a cup of coffee on my porch in quiet. Did you ever hear diesel trucks go by. I know what it sounds like. I `w worked for Ford Motor for 37 years. I lived 22 years in Livonia. I don't know what the actual square footage is of this development but there are 42 units here and we all spent approximately a quarter of a million dollars for our condos. I think that is a real nice prime piece of property in Livonia when you can put ten million dollars in that little piece of land. Now you want to take this big piece of land and put that store there. I was impressed with the light poles. I think they are the same light poles we have on the freeway. It lights it up like a satellite. It is called a satellite. Nobody mentioned what the lighting is going to be on this building. It may be flashing lights or stars. Nobody mentioned it. We have a nice building down there that nobody likes, including the Mayor. The Mayor was against it. How did it happen. We were fighting here. I don't know haw many meetings I attended here on the C-2. It is like a school millage, bring it up, bring it up. It is going to go through. Why don't people look where the real money is coming from? We almost had Builders Square. Kmart was in financial trouble before they even started talking. Why didn't we get another 60-day cooling off period like he wanted last time so we can rethink the whole situation. Don't jump in all those big deals, big money. I wouldn't want to stay at Embassy Suites if I had to look out at the air conditions units. It would be a stab 14055 in the back for Embassy Suites if you look out any of those stories to look out at that space. Larry Kitchens, 38136 Vista: I own a condo in the Villas. I don't have any Now prepared statements. I just have a couple of questions. One is the gentleman here mentioned that this Commission had indicated that the road was not compatible for a Builders Square type of facility. Is that true? Mr. Engebretson: I think the gentleman probably read the resolution as it is. Mr. Kitchens: You still agree with that I presume? Mr. Engebretson: I believe in agreeing that he represented it fairly. Mr. Kitchens: I understand it is already C-2 and it is out of your hands. I am just trying to understand chronologically some events that occurred. I also attended many of the meetings and I sat back and tried to understand Mr. Johnson's position. I tried to appreciate the business factor and what he was up against in trying to accommodate a return on his assets. I also heard him make a somewhat impassioned statement at the end. He said I really did not recognize the intent of the community and the outcry against this. I will rescind my offer, is what he said, and I left the meeting thinking we had a Borders Bookstore and some restaurants. People were grumbling a little about that but in general they felt they won a compromise. Now all of a sudden I find out for all the reasons that Mr. Johnson was saying that he was conceding and he understood the outcry of the community, now he is doing the same thing again, and I would encourage you for any other zoning request on this man's part, you really have to consider the veracity of this individual because I really believe there was a hidden agenda there and I believe his hidden agenda was with certain members of the City government, and I consider myself a reasonable man. I am not on the fringe element of anything, and I am quite disturbed and a little disgusted about it. Mr. Johnson: One of the things we failed to present earlier was what has taken place in the last year with respect to office property in the development. 80% of the park is still zoned office and in place for office. Hillman Properties have purchased the property on the east side of the parkway. This took place consistent with the zoning. They do support the zoning. They have purchased the vacant land. They have now purchased 100% interest in this office building and hold probably the most significant investment in here other than myself. They also bought the vacant land on this site, agreed in the zoning of this to C-2 to downsize the office zoning and then purchased this for office development and have completely purchased that for cash, and also this site too. It was downsized in height and that was also purchased. This parcel has continued to be owned us. In addition to that, for 14056 further new information, we have paid over the past ten years two million dollars in property taxes. We have also, with respect to the Embassy Suites position, I would like to point out for the record that if you put parking decks in there, they would be `` viewing down on parking decks or if you would put a one-two or three story office building, they would be viewing down at the rooftop units. I would also like to file for Embassy Suites' position, this is filed by Deborah Height, Director of Marketing, Embassy Suites Hotel, Williamsburgh, Virginia. "We set directly behind a Kmart store located in the Kingsgate Shopping Center. Guests can walk out our back door across a small field and enter Kmart's parking lot. Guests love the convenience of having Kmart so close. They don't have to rely on transportation to get there. We are the closest hotel in the area to Kmart". Mr. Bromberg: May I object for the record. This is exactly and precisely what we heard before where he contested that before. He is redoing the prior hearing. Mr. Johnson: We would like to say that we feel strongly that Incredible Universe is compatible. It is unique to Livonia, and it is an asset to Livonia and we would urge you to approve it tonight. There was no one else present wishing to e heard relative to this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-3-2-13 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was #4-57-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the ``" City Planning Commission on April 25, 1995 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 95-3-2-13 by Victor Corporate Park Land Investment Partnership requesting waiver use approval to construct a retail building in excess of 30,000 square feet to be located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-3-2-13 be approved subject to a variance being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient parking space sizes, deficient number of parking spaces and a deficient building setback and to the following additional conditions: 1) That the site plan marked SP-9V dated 4-21-95 prepared by Hodges & Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the building elevations sheet A4.0 dated 4-21-95 prepared by Hodges & Associates, Architects, which, except for the wall signs depicted thereon, is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 3) That a fully developed landscape plan which shall include a complete underground irrigation system shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval within 30 days of the date of this resolution. 14057 4) That this resolution shall not be construed as an approval for an internal restaurant with more than 30 customer seats. 5) That all roof-top mechanical units which can be seen by the Say public shall be screened or painted a color to match the building. 6) That all customer parking spaces shall be double striped. 7) That the overhead doors shall be closed at all times; 8) That truck deliveries shall be restricted to 9:00 a.m. or later; 9) That all truck traffic will be restricted to enter and exit only from Seven Mile Road. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in `'ft► accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. LaPine: I want to speak in opposition to the proposal. I don't think that this is compatible to the area. I don't think it is a good thing for Livonia. It seems to me that what we are trying to do here, everyone seems to be panicking. We have some nice prime land there. For some reason or other we have to put something on that land. In my opinion, we can hold out here. I think the office buildings are going to come back, and that we can get what we were originally told we were going to get here five or six years ago. I attended the meeting. I was just overwhelmed by what Mr. Johnson proposed there. I think it was a good proposal. I think that proposal would have gone forward. I understand the position Mr. Johnson is in. He awns a large parcel of land. He is paying large taxes on that land. Those are the chances you take when you buy big parcels and you hold onto it and hope some day you are going to be able to get it developed the way you want it. I understand he has the zoning. Something has to go in there in the C-2. As I stated before, the thing that went wrong, this property never, never should have been rezoned to C-2. It was originally meant to be office park. For us now to come 14058 along and allow this type of development, I can foresee in the future, it may not happen in my lifetime, I may be dead and buried before it happens, but if this building goes under, this City is going to be stuck with an 184,000 square foot building that, in my opinion, is not marketable, with that large size. Therefore, for my personal belief I think it is wrong. The zoning is spot zoning in my opinion. I cannot vote for this proposal. Mr. Engebretson: I want to give recognition again to the fact that this property is zoned C-2. This is a permitted use. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, Morrow, Engebretson NAYS: rapine, Piercecchi ABSENT: McCann Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-4-2-14 by Outback Steakhouse requesting waiver use approval to add outdoor seating area to an existing restaurant located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt and Beatrice Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no objection to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Inspection Department stating the proposed outdoor patio dining area is located in a C-2 zoned district and is in compliance with all district regulations. In this particular location, some consideration should be given to pedestrian traffic in the immediate vicinity of the restaurant. Mr. Engehretson: Is the petitioner here? The petitioner was not present. There was no one present wishing to be heard relative to this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-4-2-14 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #4-58-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on April 25, 1995 on Petition 95-4-2-14 by 14059 Outback Steakhouse requesting waiver use approval to add outdoor seating area to an existing restaurant located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt and Beatrice Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 95-4-2-14 until date uncertain. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-3-6-2 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 15.03 of the ML district removing a prohibition of general and professional offices as permitted uscs and Section 14.02 of the RE district to prohibit waiver uses in OS districts. Mr. Engebretson: Any comments from the staff? Mr. Shane: What this particular item refers to is a change in the language amendment to the RE district, which is the Research Engineering district, and also to the ML district. 'Ib the RE district at present time general offices and professional offices are permitted uses but it does not qualify them in any way. What this particular amendment would do would be to qualify it by the statement that this does not include all the waiver uses in office district, which include hospitals, museums, surgical 'fo"' clinics, and that type of thing, and it also goes on to specify that surgical and non-surgical out-patient clinics would not be permitted uses. In the ML district since all the uses now permitted in Research Engineering are permitted now in ML, that same prohibition will occur in the ML district. That is the essence of it. Mr. Engebretson: Since the City is the petitioner, we will go to the audience. There was no one present wishing to be heard relative to this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-3-6-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #4-59-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on April 25, 1995 on Petition 95-3-6-2 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 15.03 of the ML district removing a prohibition of general and professional offices as permitted uses and Section 14.02 of the RE district to prohibit waiver uses in OS districts, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-3-6-2 be approved for the following reasons: 14060 1) That the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will provide for uses in the RE and ML zoning districts which are more compatible with research and industrial type uses normally found `f.. in those districts. 2) That the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will provide the City with more control over the location and nature of office type uses normally not found in industrial zoning districts. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-3-6-3 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.42 of the Zoning Ordinance which would exempt the new smaller satellite dishes from site plan approval. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane would you care to comment on this proposal? Mr. Shane: What this essentially is, currently in residential districts in particular, satellite dish antennas are not permitted unless there is a site plan approved. In the advent of the smaller dishes, particularly those that are three feet in diameter or less, they do not have the same impact as the larger ones, so what this amendment would do is exempt those smaller dishes from site plan approval and make them automatically permitted. Mr. Engebretson: I am wondering why have we selected three feet instead of two feet, since the popular new dish technology is 18 inches? Mr. Shane: We thought that three feet was a reasonable place to cut it off. If they are smaller than that obviously they will be covered so this would be the maximum size. Mr. Engebretson: They will be covered but. Mr. Shane: I have no problem with that being changed. Mr. Engebretson: I think it makes a difference that an 18 inch dish can be hidden versus one that is that size. Mr. Shane: Two feet would be more restrictive so there is no problem changing it. Mr. Engebretson: I am going to propose that, assuming someone makes an approving recommendation, that it be done on the basis of two feet. 14061 Mr. Morrow: A question to the staff. In your opinion, do you think this will strengthen our position when it comes to larger dishes as it relates to aesthetics? If they fit the prescribed size they can `o . go without our approval and it is only those cases that we may deny where they are intrusive on their neighbors and to the City? Mr. Shane: I think it strengthens our position from a law point of view as well because we can say that without restriction we do allow two foot or less antennas so they do have a choice. If they want the bigger one, then they stand to go through the process, but if they were satisfied with the smaller one, they could get a permit without any further approval. Mr. LaPine: Do they still have to get a building permit? Mr. Shane: Yes they do. Mr. LaPine: When they get the building permit, are they going to be given the rules? As I understand it I don't have to worry about seeing one of these in the front yard, side yard? Mr. Shane: This does not allow them in the front yard in any case. The only time they would have to get a building permit, however, is if there had to be an engineering study to attach it to the roof or if it had to be on a base on the ground. Mr. LaPine: Are you telling me they don't have to get a building permit? Mr. Shane: I doubt it. Saw Mr. TaPine: What guarantee do I have that someone is not going to stick it in their front yard? If a person doesn't know where he is allowed to put it, he is going to put it where he thinks it is best and where he wants to put it. Mr. Shane: I am not really sure whether it would require a building permit or not to be honest with you. Mr. TaPine: I would like to find out how they are going to control it because I can see anyone buying one of these dishes and they don't know where to put it. It is like people that buy a swimming pool. They don't know the ordinance, but they have to be ten feet away from the side yard, they have to have a fence, etc. I think the same thing could happen to us here if we don't have some kind of control. At least if they are required to get a building permit, they can be issued a set of rules and regulations as to where they are allowed to put these dishes. If they are not, then I can't vote for this as it stands tonight. Mr. Engebretson: I tend to agree with Mr. LaPine. I think he raises an excellent point and I think when we are finished with the public hcaring 14062 here tonight that we should possible table this item for further review by the law department to deal with that question and to also consult with the building department to have their input as 'tow to the validity of requiring a building permit for these dishes and haw they might enforce these things. Mr. Morrow: The only thing, I have no problem studying it further, but we begin to drift to preceding these dishes were television antennas and we never got involved where people put their television antenna whether it was on their chimney or I suppose if they wanted to put it in the middle of their backyard, they could put it in the middle of their backyard. I think the important thing here is if it is a three to four foot dish sticking in the middle of their backyard, is it going to impact their neighbor or impact their pocketbook because some day the same people might want to have an antenna. I am coming from the standpoint, I guess there is a point in time where do we draw a line, how much is it going to impact their neighbor, because without aesthetics impacting their neighbor, we really don't have any reason to deny putting that in. I don't have any problem studying it further but those are my thoughts. Mr. Piercecchi: I believe this should be tabled. In the study meeting we talked about front yards and terminology and I asked if it was defined in our dictionary and it was not defined and I think the point is well taken. If we are going to have an ordinance, it should have some explanation behind it. I agree with Mr. Shane that having one on three foot, would force people to come for six foot. There was no one present wishing to be heard relative to this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-3-6-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #4-60-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on April 25, 1995 on Petition 95-3-6-3 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.42 of the Zoning Ordinance which would exempt the new smaller satellite dishes from site plan approval, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 95-3-6-3 until date uncertain. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. 14063 Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-2-2-10 by Gary Wright requesting waiver use approval to add outdoor patio dining to an existing restaurant (Olive Garden) located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft Road and Buckingham Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24. Mr. Engebretson: This item was tabled at our last regular meeting because the petitioner was not present. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #4-61-95 RESOLVED that, Petition 95-2-2-10 by Gary Wright requesting waiver use approval to add outdoor patio dining to an existing restaurant (Olive Garden) located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft Road and Buckingham Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Trudy Boston: I am the Licensing Representative for General Mills Restaurant, the parent corporation for the Olive Garden Restaurant. I want to apologize for our failure to appear last month. We had some internal changes and the ball was dropped and I do apologize. I am here on behalf of the Olive Garden for approval for the waiver use for the existing patio area for additional outdoor dining. I will limit my comments to any questions you may have. Mr. LaPine: The area you are going to use for the outside, which is there already, is that going to be controlled as far as who sits there by your main dining room? Ms. Boston: Yes it is. Mr. TaPine: Because you abut some residents not too far f vm there, what are the hours that would be open? Would it be open at night? Ms. Boston: I would imagine our regular operating hours which would be 11:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. on Monday through Thursday, and then 11:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. Mr. LaPine: How many months a year would that be operating? Ms. Boston: Weather permitting. Mr. LaPine: After September when it gets cold, you won't be using it any more? Ms. Boston: They only intend to use it for seasonal purposes, warm weather. Mr. LaPine: How many seats will that hold out there? 14064 Mr. LaPine: Alcohol beverages will be served out there too? Ms. Boston: Yes, in fact concurrent with this plan we also have an application in before the Michigan Liquor Control Commission and we are about two-thirds of the way through that process. We have received tentative verbal approval from the Livonia Police Department and the local LCC enforcement officer. Mr. Alanskas: You are going to have 40 seats? Ms. Boston: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Will that be five tables of eight, or what? Ms. Boston: From what I have been told there will be ten four-seat tables with umbrellas. Mr. Alanskas: Will they be circular tables? Ms. Boston: I don't think that has been determined at this time. Mr. Piercecchi: The prepared resolution that the department put together for us states that all the dumpsters be screened. I would also like to comment on the current enclosure on the east side of the building. I think it had gaps in it. I think it needs to be looked at very closely and my approval also would be contingent on road repairs. That east drive is getting pretty beat up and if we let that continue on, we could have a bad eyesore there for `r.. you and the community. Can you give me assurance that road will be repaired? Ms. Boston: No I don't have that authority. I will certainly pass the word on. Mr. Piercecchi: Can we put that in as a condition? Mr. Engebretson: I guess we can put in any kind of condition. If I may Dan, I bought a new car about a year and a half ago and I went dawn there on another matter on that property on a rainy evening and I fell into about an 8 to 10 inch hole that knocked the front end out of alignment, and when Mr. LaPine and I went over there within the past few weeks, I almost did it again with another new car, so I really can find similar support for your recommendation and I appreciate your bringing it up. I think that you would be doing your customers a service by dealing with this issue. Mr. Morrow: I went out there on a day when it wasn't raining but the water was in the chuckholes and my wash job was spoiled because the car passing by splashed on me. 14065 Mr. LaPine: Does the Olive Garden own that property or do they lease it from Mr. Guastello? Ms. Boston: I understand they own the property. Mr. LaPine: So they would be responsible for the maintenance of that driveway? Ms. Boston: I don't know whether or not that is ours or a common area. Mr. LaPine: I would think Olive Garden is probably responsible for the parking lot that they own but the road in and out is probably Guastello's because that goes all the way back to the office park. I have no objection if we can get it repaired. Mr. Morrow: The one I was referring to is adjacent to your outdoor dining area. It is your service road leading up to your dumpster and your dock and it runs right alongside the building on the east side. Mr. Engebretson: Apparently you have one on site and one that may be off site. I think as a good corporate citizen if you could ask them to bring a full yard of asphalt and fix them both. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #4-62-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 28, 1995 on Petition 95-2-2-10 by Gary Wright requesting waiver use approval to add outdoor patio dining to an existing restaurant (Olive Garden) located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft Road and Buckingham Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-2-2-10 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the modified Site Plan marked Sheet R-1 dated 2-22-95 prepared by Philip Kemery, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the maximum number of customer seats to be located in the patio area is 40. 3) That this approval for additional seats is applicable to the outdoor patio area only and shall not be construed as to permit additional seating inside the building. 4) That all trash containers (dumpsters) shall be screened from public view by means of masonry walls with gates. 5) That the appropriate road repairs be made to parking lot and driveways. 14066 for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and `.., general waiver use standards and requirements a set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the increased seating requested is outdoor seating and therefore seasonal in nature and, consequently, will have a minimal effect on the normal operation of the restaurant and adjacent 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. Engebretson: Just so there is no misunderstanding, we want you to leave here tonight with a crystal clear awareness of one of the points Mr. Piercecchi put in his resolution that the additional seating being granted for the outdoor patio area, in no way increases any seating capacity inside that restaurant in the off season. Ms. Boston: We understand that. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-2-6-1 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Sections 2.10 and 12.03 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding detention facilities for adults and children. Mr. Engebretson: This also was a tabled item so we need to remove it from the table. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #4-66-95 RESOLVED that, Petition 95-2-6-1 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Sections 2.10 and 12.03 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding detention facilities for adults and children be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: This is a very complex zoning ordinance change that deals with the matter of detention facilities as Mr. Morrow indicated, and we had a public hearing on this several weeks ago and we reviewed it in great detail. At that time there were recommendations from 14067 the public and from the Commission to make several changes and we tabled the item in order to give the law department an opportunity to review those changes that were proposed to make 'yw sure we didn't dilute the ordinance by making it so restrictive that we had an ordinance that can be defeated in a court situation if someone would choose to challenge it. The changes that were made deal with several items that whereas the original proposal had a minimum lot size of 20 acres required, we changed that to 25 acres. We changed the language to require that there be experienced professional supervision in sufficient numbers to insure the security of the institution and finally we changed the separation from school or park from 400 feet to 500 feet. All other aspects of the ordinance that was presented several weeks ago are intact and this then becomes the final product. Mr. Piercecchi: The last resolution I made regarding the road repairs, I had difficulty finding the proper adjective to make sure the road repairs are done adequately, and I notice in this particular ordinance it uses the terms "sufficient" supervision. What do we really mean by sufficient? Mr. Shane: Since we do not know the exact operation of any of these facilities to where we can put a number and say you need five or ten supervisors, what it really says is you need to provide the supervision that is going to do the job. We thought the adjective "sufficient" was as detailed as we could make it. Mr. Piercecchi: Would it be more beneficial Mr. Shane if we had it "sufficient Nowsupervision as determined by the Chief of Police or as determined by the Planning Department, as some particular body"? Mr. EngPhretson: I think that is all implied here. As you know, this ordinance would require any such user to file a waiver use and to go through the public hearing process at which time we would seek the input from the various City departments including the Fire Department, Police Department, etc. , and I think the adjective used gives the City considerable latitude in making any determination based upon the kind of use that is being proposed. I think you would agree there is no standard. Mr. Piercecchi: I realize each different operation would require different numbers. I am just wondering if for clarity purposes it was directed, but inasmuch as your comments state it has to come through here and then the Police, Fire, etc. come in and at that particular time we would get a determination on haw much supervision would be required? Mr. Engebretson: Absolutely, based on the testimony at the public hearing. We would form some of our own opinions, I am sure, and could seek outside professional opinions as well. Mr. Piercecchi: Under those circumstances Mr. Chairman I certainly approve the language. 14068 On a motion duly made by Mr. TaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #4-64-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 28, 1995 on Petition 95-2-6-1 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Sections 2.10 and 12.03 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding detention facilities for adults and children, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-2-6-1 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the Zoning Ordinance currently does not contain adequate language to regulate the several uses covered by the proposed language amendment. 2) That the proposed language amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will provide the City with the tools necessary to regulate the several uses which are the subject of the amendment. 3) That the proposed language amendment will serve to further protect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Livonia. 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. fir. Mr. Engehretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 701st Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on March 28, 1995. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was #4-65-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 701st Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on March 28, 1995 are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, TaPine, Piercecchi, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Marrow ABSENT: McCann Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 14069 Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-3-8-6 by Anthony Semaan requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 15530 Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13. Mr. Miller: This is located on the Past side of Middlebelt Road between Five Mile and Roycroft. You have an eye care center to the north and a car wash to the south. They are proposing to construct a 2200 square foot building, which would be utilized as a lawyers' office. Parking on site, they are required to have nine spaces. The site plan shows they have ten so they meet the parking requirement. The landscaping requirement is 15%. The site plan shows 33% so they meet the landscaping. The rear yard setback is required to be 20 feet from a residential area. They only show 15 so prior to coming before the Planning Commission they needed a variance from the Zoning Board. They were granted a variance for the 15 feet so they meet the setback requirements. The building will be constructed out of brick and will have an asphalt shingle roof. Mr. Engebretson: The petitioner has waited patiently and now we will ask him if he has anything to add. Tom Kennedy: I am the builder. I think this is pretty cut and dry. We want to construct a one-story building, fully brick. I think it is going to enhance the neighborhood. There was a 60-year old `r.. house there that was torn down a few weeks ago. If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Mr. Engebretson: Do you own the property sir? Mr. Kennedy: No, I represent a family law practice. Mr. Alanskas: What kind of roof will this have sir? Will it be a pitch roof? Mr. Kennedy: It will be a 6/12 pitch. Mr. Alanskas: Will there be any air conditioning units on the roof? Mr. Kennedy: No, nothing on the roof. Mr. Engebretson: It appears that the setback of that property is approximately the same as the car wash. Am I reading that correctly? Mr. Kennedy: It is exactly the same as the eye doctor. I am not sure about the other building. Do you mean the rear setbacks? Mr. Engebretson: No the front yard. Mr. Kennedy: It is close. 14070 Mr. Engebretson: Isn't that the car wash, the other building on the site plan? Mr. Kennedy: It is two feet further back than the eye doctor. Mr. Engebretson: We could say it conforms with the general vicinity as far as setbacks are concerned? Mr. Kennedy: Yes sir. Mr. Engebretson: We hashed this out pretty thoroughly at the study session. We know you are planning on putting a quality building here. Apparently the law practice which will occupy the building will be an owner/user so it is not a speculative building. This is something that will be occupied the first day it is ready to go. Mr. Kennedy: They are very anxious to get it done. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was #4-66-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 95-3-8-6 by Anthony Semaan requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 15530 Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13 subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan, defined as C-1 dated 12/1/94, as revised, by �.. Architectural Designs Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the parking spaces for the entire site shall be double striped; 3) That the Landscape Plan, defined as C-1 dated 2/7/95 by Architectural Designs Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4) Underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded lawn areas, and all planting materials shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy permit and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 5) That the Elevation Plan, defined as A-3 dated 12/1/94, as revised, by Architectural Designs Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was 14071 #4-67-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period `, concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 95-3-8-6 by Anthony Semaan requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 15530 Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Landscape Plan in connection with Petition 94-12-2-36, which received Planning Commission approval to expand and increase the seating capacity of an existing restaurant located at 30471 Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Miller: This is the Archie's Restaurant that was just approved for waiver use approval. Part of that condition of the waiver use approval was that they submit a landscape plan within 30 days to the Planning Commission for approval. This is the plan they submitted. They show on the new landscape plan a 3-foot high berm will be along the rear protective wall to the rear of the property, and on top of that berm will be 19 white pine trees, which will be about 5 to 6 feet in height. They also show landscape islands in the parking lot where the petitioner wanted to save some existing trccz. The existing trees will be left Nifty in this landscape area. Also some law spreading vegetation will be planted in the island to better landscape it. They also show some landscaping in front of the restaurant to help buffer it from Plymouth Road. Mr. Engebretson: I believe that we excused this petitioner tonight from coming because he made his presentation at the study meeting. He meets all the requirements and this particular issue is in the process of catching up to the underlying proposal to expand the restaurant. This is Archie's and the City Council has this in committee right now waiting for this. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #4-68-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Landscape Plan in connection with Petition 94-12-2-36, which received Planning Commission approval to expand and increase the seating capacity of an existing restaurant (Archie's) located at 30471 Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Landscape Plan received by the Planning Commission on March 17, 1995 by Archie's Restaurant, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 14072 2) Underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded lawn areas, and all planting materials thereafter shall be permanently maintained in a healthy and green condition. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Randall Signs, on behalf of Target, requesting approval for a ground sign for the store located at 20100 Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Miller: This is the Target store that is located on Haggerty Road between I-275 and Haggerty. It also has Home Quarters on the property and the Horizon Health Center. They are proposing a 27 square foot ground sign to be located out towards Haggerty Road on the north drive in from Haggerty Road. This site is only allowed one ground sign at 30 square feet. There is already an existing Home Quarters ground sign and the existing ground sign for Horizon Health Center so this signage is in excess of what they are allowed. Because of that, they had to go to the Zoning Board prior to coming to the Planning Commission for a variance for excessive signage. They were granted a variance for excessive signage for the exact sign they are proposing now so by virtue of the variance, it is a conforming sign. Mr. Piercecchi: This granting through the Zoning Board of Appeals, were they aware it was 71 square feet over? '4111. Mr. Miller: Yes they were aware of what is on there. Mr. Engebretson: Because this has become a conforming sign because of the Zoning Board action, we also excused this petition from appearing tonight, so we will need a motion. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #4-69-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Randall Signs, on behalf of Target, requesting approval for a ground sign for the store located at 20100 Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6 be approved subject to the following condition: 1) That the Sign Package by Randall Sign, received by the Planning Commission on March 24, 1995, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. as well as subject to the following additional condition required by the Zoning Board of Appeals: 14073 1) That the sign shall not exceed 27 sq. ft. in area or 6'4" in height. The monument portion of the signage will be brick to match the existing building. The sign is to be erected at a taw conforming setback of 10 ft. from Haggerty Road and will be internally illuminated and on a timer. Mr. Engehretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 702nd Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on April 25, 1995 was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION r , __<\' . \ , ' ( ) \, ( ( \\ k'' ((,--- R. Ice Morrow, Secretary I ATTEST: 4. t 761/7/ 11 Ja Engebson, Chairman jg N..