Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1992-10-27 12359 MINUTES OF THE 652nd REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA Nr On Tuesday, October 27, 1992, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 652nd Regular Meeting & Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with approximately 50 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jack Engebretson R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann Brenda Lee Fandrei Conrad Gniewek Raymond Tent Robert Alanskas William LaPine Members absent: None Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; Ralph Bakewell, Planner IV, and Scott Miller, Planning Technician, were also present. Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and Now have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 92-9-1-21 by DJT Development, Inc. and Arbor Drugs requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Joy Road between Knolson and Norman Avenues in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31 from OS to R-1. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to the rezoning proposal. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present? Don James Treder of Plymouth, Michigan: The reason for the rezoning request is to place three residential lots in a surrounding residential area. As far as office services, the original owner, who was Arbor Drugs, really couldn't find a buyer for a small parcel so I approached them in regards to getting the rezoning request and they concurred. 12360 Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, would it be your opinion that that size parcel could be designed in such a way as to do what the gentleman is proposing to do? Mr. Nagy: Yes, it has something in the order of 210 feet of frontage on the north right of way on Joy Road. With R-1 zoning the minimum lot size is 60 feet. He can easily divide this into three lots well in excess of the minimum lot requirement. Mr. Engebretson: All of which would face Joy Road? Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Mr. Tent: Mr. Treder do you intend to develop this property yourself? Mr. Treder: Yes I do. Mr. Tent: How soon if the zoning is successful? Mr. Treder: Spring of next year. Mr. Tent: The homes would be compatible to what is in there now? Mr. Treder: Yes. They would be set back 50 feet. They would be 195 foot deep lots so they would have about 75 foot backyards. Mr. Alanskas: Would they be ranches? Mr. Treder: I don't know yet. They would be either two stories or ranches. Mr. Alanskas: What price range? Sm.. Mr. Treder: $125,000 to $150,000. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this proposal. Dave Hooper, 8883 Knolson: This is the subdivision just north of the proposal. I have a couple of questions of the developer. We would be interested in knowing how many square foot homes would be built here and also are they going to be brick? All the 42 homes in Regency Circle are brick on all four sides. Mr. Engebretson: The ordinance defines the square footage that is permitted and based on the fact that the surrounding neighborhood is a similar zoning district these homes cannot be significantly smaller or larger. If the gentleman doesn't know yet whether or not they are going to be one or two story houses, I doubt if he can answer that. What I am trying to do is give you assurance that the ordinance protects you from something out of character with the neighborhood. With regard to the brick issue, I don't know if you can comment. Mr. Treder•• I can't comment at this time but they will meet all of the requirements of the City. Mr. Engebretson: What control does the City have in making sure the issues that the gentleman raises are suitable for a neighborhood where we are �.� not going through a full scale plot process? 12361 Mr. Nagy: As part of the building permit process the Building Department will review the plans at the time there is an application for a building permit and they will review those plans to see that the dwelling is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding area. So there will be a review procedure by our Building Department to see what is being applied for is complementary to the neighboring area. Mr. Hooper: Would we be notified, as we were of this meeting tonight, of what type of homes will be built there? Mr. Nagy: No you will not. After the zoning change, there will be a lot split. They will have to divide that parcel into three parcels and there will be a hearing before the City Council and at that time the petitioner should be better prepared and know more specifically what he intends to do and he will post the property. You won't be getting a letter like you did tonight in connection with the zoning change, but under our lot partition ordinance the property will be posted and there will be information on that sign as to when the next meeting will take place. Mr. Engebretson: That will be the time to come back to that City Council meeting and monitor the situation there and give whatever input you have. Tonight we are talking about zoning and not to trivialize any of your concerns but we can't really deal with that tonight. Mr. Morrow: Would you say you are generally in favor of the zoning as opposed to the OS? Mr. Hooper: Generally I would say I am. Mr. Morrow: You understand what we are doing tonight is just talking about ,` whether R-1 zoning is appropriate for that area. As was so eloquently pointed out you have other potentials as far as the City ordinance and your ability to have input. We are just here tonight to see if that is compatible to the surrounding area. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-9-1-21 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #10-489-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 27, 1992 on Petition 92-9-1-21 by DJT Development, Inc. and Arbor Drugs requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Joy Road between Knolson and Norman Avenues in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31 from OS to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-9-1-21 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will remove a spot zone in the area. 12362 3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for development of the subject property consistent with the adjacent residential 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, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-9-2-29 by Timothy Mitchell (Furusato Inc. ) requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Tavern License in connection with an existing limited service restaurant located in the Laurel Commons Shopping Center on the north side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: 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 Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the proposed location is located less than 1000' from an existing Class 'C' establishment. Also in our file is a letter from the Fire Marshal stating they have no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the Laurel Commons parking area is now overburdened with the addition of the petitioner's business. Lot should be over capacity. Timothy Mitchell, 22111 Ridgedale, Oak Park: The reason I am asking for this license is my customers are asking for this and as a business owner we try to give the customer what they want. They want sake and beer. Mr. Tent: I am confused. Is that a bakery or a restaurant? Mr. Mitchell: It is really a bakery but we do have some food items. Mr. Tent: The reason I ask, I pulled the minutes of the meeting conducted on 12/17/91 public hearing and in it we had quite a discussion about the location and you indicated in part that you were going to operate a Japanese bakery and then you went into some detail on it and then I asked the question "You call it a bakery. Will you be serving baked goods? Can you tell me what your menu is?" You indicated "Our main items are Japanese bakery items. We do have a few food items on the menu." Then I said "In addition to the bakery, will there be any beverages dispensed?" and you said "Coffee, tea. No liquor." Mr. Mitchell: That is right. 12363 Mr. Tent: Then Mr. LaPine asked you "Is your main business a bakery business or a restaurant business?" and you indicated "It is a bakery business." Do you have a sign up there now calling it a restaurant? Mr. Mitchell: Yes. Mr. Tent: What changed your mind about selling liquor there now when you came in and said this is strictly going to be a bakery? Mr. Mitchell: It is a bakery. Like I said people have been asking for sake and beer and that is why I am asking. Mr. Tent: That is where I am coming from. You clarified the point that it is a bakery and you indicated at the public hearings that you had no intention of serving any liquor there. It was only going to be coffee and tea. Mr. Mitchell: That is right. Mr. Tent: You are aware of the parking problem we had there? Mr. Mitchell: Like I said before, there is parking in the back. On any given day you can count 20 to 25 open parking spaces. Mr. Tent: I have gone there and I have tried to count those spaces and I can't find them. Of course, we have a new restaurant that has just opened up there. Mr. LaPine: You say your customers are asking for sake but your are not even in operation yet. `r. Mr. Mitchell: That is right. Mr. LaPine: How can they ask for something when you are not even in operation yet? Mr. Mitchell: We had a sign in the window to indicate our bakery there and people stop by every day and they were asking. Mr. LaPine: Let's go back. When it was going to be a bakery, it was strictly people came in, they bought baked goods and they left. Is that correct? Mr. Mitchell: Well we had 20 seats. Mr. LaPine: You haven't even been in operation yet. It seems strange to me. It is hard for me to believe people are walking in and saying you were going to be a bakery and now you are going to be a restaurant but we are not going to come here unless we can buy sake or beer. Mr. Mitchell: They did not say they were not going to come. They are just asking so all I can do is ask. 12364 Mr. LaPine: Our ordinance specifically says no two liquor licenses within 1000 feet. Quite frankly, we waive it all the time, which I think is wrong. If the ordinance is wrong, we should change the ordinance. As Mr. Tent pointed out there is a parking problem there. I have been at that location a number of times and there is a parking problem and by your having a sit-down restaurant, it is just going to compound the problem. Mr. Tent: The license that you are proposing to acquire, will that be a brand new license or are you buying it from someone? Mr. Mitchell: It will probably be a brand new license. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Mitchell, with the 20 seats you now have, would people come in, buy your goods and sit down and eat them right there? Mr. Mitchell: They can. Mr. Alanskas: Have you ever had where your restaurant is full with 20 people? Mr. Mitchell: I have never opened a restaurant before. Mr. Alanskas: Are you looking for a luncheon trade or any time of the day? Mr. Mitchell: Any time of the day. Mr. Alanskas: We have right now seven Class C licenses within a half a mile of that area and for a place so small, I can't see where you need a liquor license. I would have a hard time approving this. ° Mr. Engebretson: I would like to get the record clear as to whether or not you Stir have ever operated that business either as a bakery or a restaurant up to this point. Mr. Mitchell: No, we haven't opened yet. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-9-2-29 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #10-490-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 27, 1992 on Petition 92-9-2-29 by Timothy Mitchell (Furusato Inc. ) requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Tavern License in connection with an existing limited service restaurant located in the Laurel Commons Shopping Center on the north side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-9-2-29 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in violation of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance Section 11.03(h) that provides that a Class C liquor license use shall not be located within 1000 feet of an already licensed facility. 12365 2) That the proposed use will overburden the site as the site lacks capacity to support this expansion of use. The site is already at capacity with off-street parking. 3) That the site and neighboring area is already adequately served with similar uses as is being proposed. \r. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance {543, as amended. Mrs. Fandrei: I just wanted to express why I am going to vote against this. It sounds to me that because you haven't even opened yet and you are not getting any feeling whatsoever from your patrons as to whether it would make any difference in your business whether you have a Class C or not. To have one or two persons stop by and say we want, there is a difference than in actually having your business in operation. Mr. Mitchell: It is not going to affect my business if I don't have it. Mrs. Fandrei: Even if you don't have it? Mr. Mitchell: Correct. Mrs. Fandrei: That is what I wanted to hear Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-9-2-31 by William L. Roskelly requesting waiver use approval to construct a quick oil change addition to an existing car wash located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Yale Avenue and Levan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no problems with this proposal. We have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating their department has no objection to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Fire Marshal stating that department has no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The required protective wall along the south property line has not been installed. 2. Zoning Board approval will be required for any additional signs. 3. City Council Resolution #606-87 requires Council approval of all signs. Mr. Engebretson: Will the petitioner please come forward. 12366 William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft: This car wash was built about five years ago by my company. Shortly after we petitioned to have coin bays in the rear of the existing structure. At that time the Planning Commission and the Council denied that petition feeling that this was encroaching too much into the single family residential to the south. Shortly after that time Mr. Stoyonavich, who has the restaurant to the west, had indicated that per the Council and Planning Commission request, they thought that perhaps the street known as Elmira could be pushed through and the property that is now cross-hatched actually went down below the first tier of lots, so at that time Mr. Peak, the owner, reluctantly allowed that parcel of land to be rezoned and he sold that parcel of land and created a little over two lots, which you see the two existing houses on. This sort of created a better buffer to the homes to the south that have been there for a number of years and if you recall when we got this car wash there was a quite a bit of concern over the commercial use so close. After we were turned down for the coin bays, after the owner was gracious to down zone to R-1 and have the homes constructed, he is now requesting that we add a two-bay oil change to the east and contiguous to the existing car wash as shown on the plan. Several things came up that we were concerned with. Number one was the traffic pattern. I would recall that in Farmington at the Carousel Car Wash on the north side of Eight Mile at Gill Road we had put in an oil change there and originally we tied it into the car wash so that one could go from the car wash to the oil change. The City of Farmington Hills indicated that that was the last thing they wanted. They wanted separate ingress or egress uses and they did not want them running back and forth. As a result we fashioned our ingress and egress so they would be separately used items but certainly serviced by the same ingress and egress. We are adding no approaches to Plymouth Road. The hours of the oil change will be in tandem with the car wash and the only time they would be open when the car wash wasn't would be on certain rainy days. As far as signage, the directional signs that now exist on the car wash, in our opinion, would certainly service the oil change. The only additional sign we would want would be a face sign on the building of the new 34 foot addition. We understand we have to go through Planning Commission and Council for that approval. There will be an attendant on site all the time. As far as traffic, we would anticipate somewere between 20 and 40 oil changes per day. Presently, that car wash on a busy Saturday in the winter will do in excess of 1,000 cars and I suggest at no time would any cars be on Plymouth Road because of the stacking ability. I think number two the landscape that is there now will be altered some but I think if you look at your site plan you will find that the new proposed plan is far in excess of your minimum landscape is and, I am sure you have all seen this car wash, in the last five years I think it has been groomed immaculately and is something fir,.. 12367 Livonia is proud of and I am sure with the same material we are adding with this oil change, it will not detract from the site. It will not cause any problems with health, welfare or safety and I plead with you to give us a favorable decision. Mr. Gniewek: Are you planning on constructing a wall at this time? Mr. Roskelly: I meant to address that. When Mr. Stoyanovich had it rezoned to R-1, I believe at this time and I think Engineering can attest to the fact that there is money in escrow at this time to present that wall. I might point out that when this car wash was built my client, Mr. Peak, had built a wall on the far southerly line. When it was down zoned to R-1, the wall was removed with the understanding and money in escrow with Engineering that that wall would be replaced. That road and the houses have just been built recently and I suggested that wall should be placed at any point but I do understand it is the operation of Mr. Stoyanovich. Mr. Gniewek: Would you please point out on the plan for the people in the audience how far this particular proposal is from the residences and the exact location. (Mr. Roskelly pointed this out on the plan) Mr. Roskelly: The oil change will be placed contiguous to the building on the east side of the existing car wash so it will not be any closer to any residential. (Mr. Roskelly presented the elevation plan) Mr. Morrow: Help me out a little bit. You indicated a wall will be 'Nr. constructed? Mr. Roskelly: When Mr. Stoyanovich got his permit for engineering, sewer, water, etc. I am positive money was placed in escrow and I do not understand why it hasn't been built at this time but I think Engineering still has it in bonds. Mr. Morrow: My question is, in other words it is up to Mr. Stoyanovich to replace the wall? Mr. Roskelly: That is correct. In any event the wall will be replaced. Mr. Tent: Mr. Roskelly do you have a name for the quick oil change? Mr. Roskelly: I don't know as the owner has yet made an agreement with Pennzoil or whatever. It will be one of the franchise oil companies. Mr. Tent: Is the car wash successful? Mr. Roskelly: Absolutely. I would suggest that car wash would do 100,000 to 120,000 cars a year. `rr. 12368 Linda Kovich, 35852 Leon: I live four houses from Yale. As far as the car wash, they do keep the car wash up. I do use the car wash. As far as the two houses that are almost behind me, I am Lot 453, on the end. With those houses there Mr. Roskelly said they do add as a buffer. No they don't. We still get a lot of noise from that. I am here to oppose the quick oil change addition. I feel there is no need firs, for another one because at Plymouth and Levan on the west side about 50 feet away we have Uncle Ed's Oil Change. At Plymouth, one block east of Farmington we have Valvoline on the north side of Plymouth Road. At Wayne Road and Ann Arbor Trail we have a Minute Lube. Along Plymouth Road you have Action Olds that people can get oil changes. There is also the Ford dealer, Bill Brown, and I believe there is a Chevy dealer there. Mr. Engebretson: What is it you object to? The fact that there is lots of them in the area is a small point but what do you find objectionable about the possibility of this business being expanded to have that quick oil change located toward the front of that building right off Plymouth Road? Ms. Kovich: I don't feel there is a need to have another quick oil change right down the road from Uncle Ed's. Mr. Engebretson: Does Uncle Ed's intrude on your peace and tranquility in any way? Mrs. Kovich: No, not at all. } Mr. Engebretson: Do you think this would? Ms. Kovich: I don't think the oil change place would have any noise coming out of it like the car wash does at times but I do feel there are enough oil change places in the area that we don't need another. Mr. Morrow: If we can expand a little bit on the noise. Is it something associated with the use or is the noise emanated from perhaps radios or something that is intrusive. What specific kind of noise are you talking about? Ms. Kovich: You can hear when the vacuums kick on to dry off the cars. You can hear the guys yell "neutral" for people to put their cars in neutral. On Saturday mornings and Sunday mornings the car radios are very loud over there and sometimes late afternoon. I don't know if that is the fault of the people working at the car wash or people using the vacuums with their car doors open and their radios blaring. Mr. Morrow: There is no PA connection with the operation? Ms. Kovich: No none. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Roskelly, I would ask you to talk to your client and see if there is anything they can do about that. i 12369 Mr. Roskelly: I would suggest the noise she hears would be primarily from the blowers. The vacuums, in my opinion, one would have to have quite keen ears that this would become a noise factor approximately 300 feet away and by virtue of that wall not being there, I suggest that certainly would be an added buffer. I think of all of the complaints the lady registered, I don't believe one of them have any direct concern to the addition of the oil change. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, should this pass, we are asking for a waiver use to construct a quick oil change. Should the oil change business fail, we now have a building attached to the car wash. What other use could be put into that particular building? What happens if the oil change fails? Can the car wash expand into a polishing unit? What can happen to that building? Mr. Nagy: The property is zoned C-2 and it could be used for any permitted uses or office uses. It could be used for retail sales or service. Any of the auto oriented uses such auto repair, polishing, refurbishing, installation of radios, any of those kinds of things would constitute another expansion of a waiver use and would have to be petitioned for just as this use is proposed to be. The building would be limited to permitted uses if this should fail. Mr. Gniewek: The reason I asked the question is I wanted for anyone who is interested in that, to know if the oil change did fail, they would be notified and there would be a new request for any other business that would go in there. Mr. Nagy: For any auto service or auto repair, yes. Mr. Gniewek: People in the neighborhood would then be notified and they could come for a hearing much like this one. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Roskelly, when the cars come in on the west side of the building, is there going to be any kind of directional signs so people know where to turn? Mr. Roskelly: Yes, presently there are directional signs but we would add one or two. There is an attendant there but we also found it is very effective to have a couple of small two foot signs to indicate the arrow to the oil change rather than the car wash. Mr. LaPine: The people that will be doing the oil change are going to be separate employees than the ones doing the car wash? Mr. Roskelly: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Where is your dumpster? With the oil change you are going to be getting filters and things of that nature. Mr. Nagy: On the east side of the parking lot. Mr. LaPine: When the oil is changed and with the old oil I assume those drums will fill up fast. How often are those drums hauled away and will those drums be stored on the outside at any time? 12370 Mr. Roskelly: They will not be stored on the outside. They will be taken away no less than once or twice a week as required. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-9-2-31 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was 1110-491-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 27, 1992 on Petition 92-9-2-31 by William L. Roskelly requesting waiver use approval to construct a quick oil change addition to an existing car wash located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Yale Avenue and Levan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-9-2-31 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 9-11-92 prepared by Basney & Smith is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 2) That the Building Elevation Plan stamped Oct. 6, 1992 prepared by Basney & Smith is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 3) That the site landscaping as shown on the approved site plan shall be installed and maintained at all time before the issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy is granted. 4) That the hours shall be from 7:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in full compliance with all of the applicable standards of the zoning ordinance relating to the proposed use. 2) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the existing use being made of the property and the surrounding uses of the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance 11543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-9-2-32 by Gene Jewell, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. requesting waiver use approval to expand an existing building and parking lot located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Bentley Avenue and Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 23. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. 12371 Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their department has no objections to this proposal. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating their department has no objection to this proposal. A letter is also in our file from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. A protective wall will be required along the western property lines where this property abuts residential property. 2. The wall signs indicated on the building elevations would not be permitted and would require a waiver from the Zoning Board of Appeals. This building would be allowed one wall sign on the east elevation not to exceed 1 s.f. , per linear foot of east building wall. Mr. Engebretson: Will the petitioner please come down to the podium. Gene Jewell: I am a Designer with State Farm Mutual from Bloomington, Illinois. To the north of this property we have built a new service center and abandoned the old service center to the south. Since building the new building we have purchased the property that wasn't for sale at the time of building the new building and we want to expand the old service center to become what we call the field office building, which will be a training facility for claims and agencies in the Detroit area since the regional office for State Farm Insurance is in Marshall, Michigan. This will also be a personnel training facility and also an interviewing facility in the Detroit area for agency and claim positions and also regional office positions. Mr. Engebretson: Administration and training. You are not doing any claims processing? Mr. Jewell: No not at all. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this proposal? Brian Harris, 14010 Beatrice: I would like to express my displeasure of what happened with the new center they put in. We didn't have very much cooperation with the utility companies. Being on the corner we were responsible for supporting all the new commercial size utility lines that were going in and Edison, the cable company and Michigan Bell have erected new poles and they ended up putting support wires that went into our backyard and my neighbor's yard and outside of the easement and it took quite a lot of dealing to get them to put them back in the easement. It took a call to the state besides the City of Livonia. I am here to see if they are going to extend the seven foot wall and if so, being on the corner is there going to be more surprises or are they going to encroach my easement again? I want to protect myself against any more encroachment. Another thing, behind Lots 191-196 there is a City easement with drainage back there. There is some water that collects at the back of this lot and I am wondering if they end up raising that lot and making it even, without drainage from Lot 197 to 199 where is that water going to go? I want to make sure they take that into consideration. I tried to purchase part of this 12372 land to round off that corner and the former owner, Mr. Bernstein, refused and in talking with State Farm I wasn't given any satisfaction there either. After numerous proposals they turned me down so I guess what I am asking is if you are going through with it, I would like to have the seven foot wall put in and I would like to have some drainage consideration. Behind the C-1 property, the old structure, there is only a five foot wall. I would like a new seven foot wall continued onto that five foot wall. Mr. Engebretson: Let me try to comment on one of your concerns and then seek counsel from Mr. Nagy on the other. Regarding the drainage and potential drainage problems that you have there, I think all we can really tell you here tonight is the Engineering Department would pay special attention to those kinds of issues and I think if there were drainage problems, that they would require that they be mitigated before this proposal would be allowed to go forward. I think that in general that works and things like this tend to bring out corrections to existing problems more than creating or adding to problems. I don't know if that is reassuring or not but the Engineering Department would be very much on top of that. Regarding the other question on the wall, I will turn to Mr. Nagy. T do know that the last time we had a lot of controversy among the neighbors as to whether or not it should be a five foot, six foot or seven foot wall or no wall and I guess the question is what your interpretation would be relative to this gentleman's desires. Mr. Nagy: The ordinance says where non-residential zoning abuts residential property, there will be a solid masonry wall and that issue was visited when the new center was constructed to the north. At that time the agreement was for a seven foot wall and the proposal that you have before you tonight, the site plans provides for an extension of that wall along the north/south line or the west property line seven feet to the corner. At that point they would step it down at that break at the corner and go across your Lot 198, Lot 199 and tie in with the existing five foot wall. It would be seven foot where there is already a seven foot wall along the west property line and then where it turns to go towards Middlebelt Road then it will drop down to five feet to tie in with the existing five foot wall. Mr. Harris: That is where I would prefer the seven foot to continue behind myself and Lot 199 because right now people are cutting across there now and in addition they also hop the five foot wall and come across there. I would prefer to have the seven foot wall continued. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, if the petitioner were willing, is there any reason that could be done? Mr. Nagy: They are already nodding affirmatively on going with the neighbor's wishes for a seven foot wall. There is no problem. Mr. Engebretson: Last time around they appeared to be very accommodating. How do you feel about this request. 12373 Mr. Jewell: We wouldn't oppose a seven foot wall by his property and step down to five foot or seven foot all the way down. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Harris, how does the property owner of Lot 199 feel about this? Mr. Harris: I believe she is here tonight and I believe she feels the same way I do. Robert Ewald: I am representing my mother, Mrs. Ewald, which is Lot 199. I am here about the height of the wall. She has been there 30 years and she is in her 80's and with this becoming a parking lot she felt a five foot wall is not that secure. People can come up and look into the yard. This wall was seven foot the whole length. It is seven foot running east to west along the side of American Home. My request is she and the third house, Mrs. Santella, also want a seven foot wall. They are not asking for anything more or less than anybody else got along there. Mr. Engebretson: You have Lots 197, 198 and 199 here all wanting a seven foot wall. Mr. Jewell, how do you respond to this request to make this wall seven feet in its entirety? Mr. Jewell: We can make it seven foot all the way to the five foot existing wall. It would be no problem. Mr. Morrow: Looking at the site plan, is there any proposed lighting for the site because of the close proximity of the residential area? Mr. Jewell: The last set I sent in had parking lights on it. Mr. Morrow: What is the height of the standards? Mr. Jewell: Twenty foot. Mr. Morrow: No mechanical equipment on top of the building physical to the community? Mr. Jewell: There shouldn't be. Mr. Morrow: Is there a possibility there might be some mechanical equipment. If so, we would expect it to be screened. Mr. Jewell: The mechanical will be an enclosure shown with a brick fence around it on the ground. Mrs. Fandrei: If I am reading this correctly, we are putting a two-story building in addition to the existing one-story building? Mr. Jewell: The existing building is two story with a one-story extension area on it and then we are going to add a two-story addition and a one story stock room. Mrs. Fandrei: Do you have any materials with you? 12374 Mr. Jewell: Our intention is to match the existing brick. This building was built twenty years ago so an exact match would be very difficult. I do have samples. (He displayed the samples to the Commission) Mrs. Fandrei: It sounds like you are making an effort to match it. '04r There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-9-2-32 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #10-492-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 27, 1992 on Petition 92-9-2-32 by Gene Jewell, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. requesting waiver use approval to expand an existing building and parking lot located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Bentley Avenue and Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 23, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-9-2-32 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan number C-5 dated 8/7/92, prepared by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; 2) That the landscaping shown on the approved site plan shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 3) That the Building Elevation Plan number A-5 dated 9/2/92 prepared by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. 4) That the wall to be constructed along the property line shall be a seven foot wall. for the following reasons: 1) That the subject use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 9.03 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 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. 12375 Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-9-2-33 by Dr. Kulwinder Singh requesting waiver use approval to operate a veterinary clinic in an existing building located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Seven Mile Road and Dardenella Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: 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 stating they have no objections to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the following is submitted for our consideration: (1) The site plan as submitted does not meet the requirements of Ordinance #19.06 et al. (2) Until a proper site plan is submitted, I am unable to make a report on this petition. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The parking is shared between the two uses on the subject property and Video Liquidators to the north at 19050 Middlebelt. There are 13 spaces available for the three uses and a total of 18 are required, deficient 5 spaces. 2. There is zero onsite landscaping. 3. There are no provisions for a "dog walk" area. 4. There is nothing on the site plan indicating outdoor storage of refuse or medical waste. 5. The upper portion of the non-conforming ground sign identifying the previous tenant may not be used and must be removed. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, what was the part regarding the site plan from the `a► Traffic Bureau? Mr. Nagy: The Traffic Bureau indicated that the site plan, the way it was drafted, did not meet their requirements of a plan pursuant to the applicable section of the Zoning Ordinance 19.06. Mr. Engebretson: What did they request? Mr. Nagy: They wanted a new site plan drawn to scale. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward. Dr. Kulwinder Singh: I want to operate a veterinary clinic at the site mentioned. I want to make a point about the Traffic Bureau report. I got a call from your office indicating that the site plan did not show where exactly the car parking would be in the parking lot. I did submit a new site plan to the Traffic Bureau but I haven't heard from them. I submitted a plan ten days ago. At that time Mr. Cheney wasn't there. I think he was on vacation. He was supposed to come back last Tuesday but I haven't heard from him. I did submit a new plan. I want to operate a veterinary clinic at this place. You are right. There is not enough paths outside but if we do put in paths, we will be more deficient in parking. We are already deficient five parking spaces. I have a parking agreement 12376 with the store next door, which is a video store. Basically I am thinking of a one doctor practice where I would not be doing any boarding. I am not going to have a lot of staff either, one receptionist and one technician. That is why I think there should be plenty of parking. If I thought there wasn't enough parking, I wouldn't have started this project. Mr. Tent: Dr. Singh, where are you from? Are you from Livonia? Dr. Singh: I live in Canton. Mr. Tent: Do you own this piece of property? Dr. Singh: No I am going to lease it. Mr. Tent: You are aware of the deficiency the Inspection Department indicated about the dog walk and the absence of landscaping? In other words, there are other areas in the City which would be larger where you could probably establish your type of operation. I am familiar with that location and really the shared parking doesn't work. As one Commissioner, I say this has to be self-contained. The deficiencies you have should be addressed and they can't be at this location. I thought perhaps you might have purchased this property. Dr. Singh: I don't think I will be buying it. I just want to lease it. I looked at quite a few other places. I think this place is far enough away from any other veterinary business. I don't want to spoil anybody else's business. I also want to be where people will benefit from it because they don't have to drive a long way. Mr. Tent: I am familiar with the area. It is really my opinion the site is inadequate and I hope you will address yourself to another location. Dr. Singh: If you compare it to other veterinary clinics in Livonia, it is much smaller. Other ones have four to five doctors and I am proposing a one doctor practice. Mr. Alanskas: By looking at what you have, you will have a reception area of 19'x 28. If these people come in and bring four or five animals, how would you control the animals? Dr. Singh: They are supposed to be on a leash when they come in and they will be on an appointment basis and I don't think more than three people will be there at one time. I don't think a lot of people will come in at one time. Mr. Alanskas: I don't think for what you are doing that this is the proper location. You don't have the room for taking care of animals. Dr. Singh: The type of practice I am proposing, there is enough space there, but it is up to you. This is 1,050 square feet and this is going to be a one doctor practice. Mr. LaPine: Are you a veterinarian? 12377 Dr. Singh: Yes sir. Mr. LaPine: Are you going to be the doctor that will operate there? Dr. Singh: Yes. ``r. Mr. LaPine: What kind of practice? Is this a full service veterinary clinic. Can people bring in dogs to be operated on? Dr. Singh: People will bring in their dogs and I will do the routine surgery, not advanced surgery, which would require hospitalization. I would do routine types of surgery. I cannot survive without that. I would have to do that. I would not be doing any specialized type of surgery. Mr. LaPine: If someone brings a dog in that needs specialized surgery, you can't handle that? Dr. Singh: I would refer them to somebody who can. Mr. LaPine: The surgery you would do there, would that require the dogs or cats to stay overnight? Dr. Singh: Sometimes it does. Mr. LaPine: How do you make provisions for staying overnight? Dr. Singh: Somebody will be there. Mr. LaPine: What happens if two or three people are there and their dogs have to go outside? Where do they relieve themselves? Dr. Singh: On the north side of the building there is an area where there is some landscaping but this does not belong to the person I am leasing this property from but it does belong to the other person who has signed an agreement with the building owner and I think I will be able to use that. Mr. LaPine: Is that the apartment complex? Dr. Singh: It is the video store. Mr. LaPine: I have to agree with some of the other commissioners I think this is a bad location for this type of operation. I don't think the size is there. I don't see anywhere where you have a dumpster and you are going to have bandages and things of this nature. Where will you dispose of them? I don't think it is a complete plan. It doesn't show us everything we need to know. Mrs. Fandrei: Do you realize that the sign that is there now is not for your use. What type of sign were you proposing. Dr. Singh: I think I could put a ground sign there. Mrs. Fandrei: Your parking is deficient. We don't have a site plan for your parking, for your outdoor storage, for your sign. We don't have �,.,, anything. You have five deficiencies. 12378 Dr. Singh: I understand what you are talking about but I can't put a sign in unless I talk to someone who makes the sign. This is going to be my first business and I don't know how to proceed with that. Mrs. Fandrei: The way it sounds now, if we were to approve this, you would be encroaching on all of your neighbors in one way or another, whether it be the dog walk area, the refuse, signs, the parking, etc. As my fellow Commissioners have indicated, it doesn't sound like the proper size property for your operation. Dr. Singh: I just have one comment. You said I would be encroaching on all the neighbors, which would be alright, because it only concerns my next door neighbor, which is the video store. This person who I am renting this from already has an agreement with them, which is attached with the site plan. Mr. Engebretson: I have that sir and I don't see any agreement that includes the privilege of using it for a dog walk. Dr. Singh: It was signed before that. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition? Munir Kazaleh: I don't know if you are going to approve or disapprove this business but I have been at that location for 22 years. I own Hillcrest TV. My concern is not so much approving tonight's problem. I lost a half a dozen potential tenants because of the parking and what have you. I have been there for 22 years and we never have had a full parking lot. We shared this same area the last 22 years and the only time we had a full parking lot is when we had that parade coming through. I am pleading not so much for the doctor. I am pleading for my future. The sign we have kept it up very nicely. It is a well maintained sign. The difficulty of putting a sign on the ground as Mr. MacDonald recommended, first of all we would lose some of the parking and we would be open to vandalism. We need that out there so people coming up and down Middlebelt can see there is a business there. Mr. Engebretson: I am going to suggest for those items that don't pertain to this particular item, I am going to recommend that you call the Planning Department and make an appointment to come in and talk to them about some of the things you could do that would help you with that property. The Planning Department would be glad to talk to you. Mr. Kazaleh: Who do I talk to? Mr. Engebretson: Call Mr. Nagy. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-9-2-33 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was 12379 #10-493-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 27, 1992 on Petition 92-9-2-33 by Dr. Kulwinder Singh requesting waiver use approval to operate a veterinary clinic in an existing building located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Seven Mile Road and Dardenella Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, the City Planning `.. Commission does hereby deny Petition 92-9-2-33 for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the proposed use fails to comply with the standards and requirements as set forth in Section 18.37 and 18.38 with respect to off-street parking and Section 19.06(j) with respect to area devoted to landscaping. 3) That the subject site lacks the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 4) That the proposed use is detrimental to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: You have ten days to appeal this to Council. Let me suggest sir that you find several locations and we would like to see you come in to Livonia. Don't take any of this personally. There are many, many deficiencies here and I think if you did go to the Council on appeal, you would realize that we only touched the surface. That is your choice if you choose to do it. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-9-2-34 by Chili's of Michigan, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant on property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Buckingham and Perth Avenues in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: 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 Traffic Bureau stating the following is submitted for our consideration: (1) Parking in the back of the restaurant is not sufficient to support the type of business the restaurant would bring in. (2) Per the site plan, several other businesses are to give up spaces to Chili's. However, if business 23SO that location continues as it has, the lots will be full of lunch and dinner customers, and persons needing to park at the office buildings will not be able to find a space. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Fire Marshal' s office stating their office has no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. There is already one permanent ground sign on this property (Comfort Inn) which was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Any additional signage proposed for this site will require Board approval. 2. The landscape plan does not indicate that all lawn areas will be sodded or serviced with underground sprinklers. 3. There is no public sidewalk shown on the site plan adjacent to Buckingham Drive. 4. The 63 parking spaces around the perimeter of the site are proposed to be 18 ft_ in length instead of the required 20 ft. length. The concept of relying on a 2 ft. overhang into the abutting landscaping is not permitted by the parking regulations contained within the Zoning Ordinance. This practice results in a reduction of the landscape area by the amount of the overhang due to salt, engine oil, transmission fluid and the like, dripping from cars, or the heat of the engine killing any landscaping lying under the vehicle. In this particular case, the landscaped area lost does not cause a deficiency with respect to the 15% landscape requirement. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and tell us why you are making this request. Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road: I represent Chili's of Michigan. I don't think I have to introduce you to Chili' s. We have presented it to you before and 1 think at that time most of you indicated that you were well aware of the restaurant. Most of you have visited other locations and the only comment I have is I have done the same thing and it is a very fine restaurant. Tonight we are here for a waiver use to utilize the restaurant in this area and also a waiver use for a Class C liquor license. Mark. Drane of Rogvoy & Company will go into the site plan. Just to refresh your memory, we were here at the rezoning. The petition has gone on to the Council and they approved the preparation of the ordinance and gave it first reading. It is now waiting for the site plan and waiver use before the second reading and roll call. This is a development in excess of $2,000,000. The Brinker International, which is the parent company, owns complete stock in Chili's. They have approximately 230 restaurants around the country. They operate in 39 states. Their hours of operation, they operate on a seven-day week and they close at eleven o'clock and twelve o'clock on the weekends. They employ approximately 1.20 people and there are three managers. We have tried to take as much space to put on the greenbelt that adjoins the residents to the north of the property and the greenbelt there was increased from about three feet to ten feet, which allows them to put in more plantings, trees, evergreens, etc. that would back the planned wall that separates the residential property from this property. Unless you have some questions I will turn this over. to Mark Drane who will review the site plan with you. 2381 Mark Drane: I am the Consulting Architect for Chili' s of Michigan. 1 would like to address some of the issues. The first is the sidewalk issue. It wasn't our intent to eliminate the sidewalk. We only intended to go along with what was already out there in regards to Buckingham Drive. We would like to put a sidewalk up to Buckingham Drive and it would stop where the public right-of-way ends. We will put a five foot sidewalk in. In regard to the sign, it is our ini.ent to ask for a variance on the signs. We are negotiating with the owner of the property to either have one sign removed and our sign put up or not put up our sign at all.. That is something Mr. Taiigora can address. In regard to parking, we believe that the building to the east of us has an excess of 37 spaces as required by ordinance. We feel a restaurant is a good use for shared parking with office buildings because the hours of the restaurant are different than the office buildings. We don't think we will have a conflict of parking. Regarding the overhang, the green space we thought it was right within the zoning ordinance to overhang the green space to accommodate the additional percentage of overall landscaping on site. I think 25% of the land is landscaped. We could probably eliminate two feet of overhang. We aid change the site plan since that letter was written to eliminate the two foot overhang on the sidewalk area. We originally came in with a minimal greenbelt along the property line where the residences are. We have increased that by sliding the building down ten feet. (He pointed out the landscaping) We have also changed the loading area to keep the doors away from the residences. The building elevations, as you know we have gone to great extent to screen our roof top equipment so there will be no roof top equipment visible. Our service area completely encloses the dumpster. `. Mr. McCann: You stated something that surprised me. You said your peak hours would not be normal business hours as the business next to you is? Mr. Drane: The dinner hours are 5:30 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. and the office hours are between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Mr. McCann: You don't look for a lunch trade? Mr. Drane: We believe 98 spaces will service our lunch trade. Mr. McCann: What about the 37 extra spaces you were referring to? As I recall, there are two buildings to the east of you right now and they are the buildings with 37 additional spaces. Mr. Drane: Mr. Shane gave me information that the building here is required to have 115 spaces and on that site there are 159 spaces. Mr. McCann: What are the hours of operation? Mr. Drane: Eleven o'clock until two o'clock in the morning, seven days a week. We close earlier on Sunday. Mr. Engebretson: Repeat the hours of operation Mark. I want the public record clear on this. 12382 John Carlin: I represent the company. The normal hours presently in most of our restaurants, we close during the week at 11:00 p.m. and on weekends midnight, some until 1:00 a.m. Rarely do we stay open later than those hours. The permit that we get from the Liquor Commission does allow us to stay open until those hours so we don't like `r saying to residents that we will close at midnight and then we stay open on Saturday night until 1:00 a.m. because then we violated a trust. Mr. Engebretson: Trust as in commitment. Is that what you meant? Mr. Carlin: Yes. Mr. McCann: What is the distance between the restaurant and the wall? Mr. Drane: Seventy-eight feet. Mr. McCann: You have 98 parking spaces? Mr. Drane: Yes. Mr. McCann: What is the seating capacity? Mr. Drane: 217. Mr. McCann: Do you think 98 spaces is sufficient? Mr. Drane: We have shared 29 shared parking spaces. The parking required is 124 spaces. Mr. McCann: That is the minimum standard. Your entrance is going to be where? Mr. Drane: On the west side of the building. Mr. McCann: How many spaces in the front? Most of the people are going to walk from behind the building. Is that correct? Mr. Drane: That is correct. There are 15 spaces along Middlebelt Road. The handicap spaces are on the north side of the building. Mr. McCann: Is there sidewalk in front of the building? Mr. Drane: There is sidewalk around the entire front of the building. Mr. McCann: What type of lighting are you proposing to use? Mr. Drane: Twenty foot light standards. They will be shielded from the adjacent residences. We are proposing to shield the light. Mr. McCann: Where are you going to be putting them? They will be fairly close to the backyards. (Mr. Drane pointed this out on the plans Mr. McCann: Would you be able to shield it so the light does not go into the family rooms? Y%"383 Mr. Drane: That light fixture is designed to shield the light away from the residences and on to our site. Mr. Tent: Mr. Drane, you are the architect? Mr. Drane: Consulting Architect. Mr. Tent: Are you the Corporate Consulting Architect for all the Chili' s? Mr. Drane: Yes. Mr. Tent: As far as that site plan is concerned, do you have any that are smaller than this particular site? Mr. Drane: Chili's typically likes to have about 120 parking spaces. Mr. Tent: As compared to the others, is this the smallest site or is this the average site? Mr. Drane: This site is probably an average size. Mr. Tent: Do you always share parking? Mr. Drane: Not at. all of them. We have shared parking in Detroit. Southfield Road and Ford Road, we share parking with a hotel. Mr. Tent: This is what I don't like. If you had a bigger piece of property you could show your talent by developing everything on site. This site here, 18 foot is riot the ordinance, 10 x 20 is. You are going around the perimeter of the building so the majority of your parking would be two foot. short for the length of the automobiles. The parking for the facility is not on site. You are sharing it with the hotel, the office buildings. I am sure you are capable of doing a beautiful site plan in a good location. To me, I look at this and I say this is almost like five pounds in a two pound can. It is too small. If you had something bigger to work with I am sure you would have done a better job. Mr. Drane: As an architect I hate to see developments that put too much parking in or don't use all the parking. Mr. Carlin: We would prefer to share. in Warren we share with a hotel. We like to share with office buildings. A lot of our restaurants are adjacent to office buildings because of the meshing of the hours. Our peak hours are dinner time when nobody is there. It looks better to have less asphalt and more green space so if we can share, we prefer to do that. A lot of the ordinances of the cities are designed to accommodate the maximum number of people that are there at any one time. That. is not going to happen very often. If you can share, it cuts down on asphalt and the whole site looks better. Mrs. Fandrei: Each of my colleagues that have spoken has touched on what I wanted to talk about. I want to go a little further. The shared parking. \r. :2384 If you drove by Chili's, if I remember the times I have been there, they have been quite full at lunch time. Your office buildings are not vacant. They don't have vacancies during the lunch hours. It sounds to me like we are trying to accommodate the deficiencies by `0111. using what sounds good. I am having major trouble with that. I don't understand why your handicap parking spaces are on the side of the building when the purpose of handicap spaces is to make accessibility more comfortable and easier for the handicap. You have 15 spaces in front and you have the four handicap on the side 9f the building. The best location would be the front where they have access with fewer steps. That to me is the major one. Mr. Drane: Everyone is familiar with A.D.A. law. That is the American Disabilities Act. They put out in the Federal Register a guideline and in that they ask us to provide an accessible route to the door as close as possible and most convenient. It has been found when handicap spaces are across driveways it is inconvenient for people who have limited sight and limited mobility to cross that driveway. We have found if we put the spaces in the building paths and with the ramps, it is very easy to get to the front door. As far as the Novi parking situation, our restaurant was designed with an office building for the back half. That office building was never built so we have unshared parking there. Mrs. Fandrei: That is my point. You have unshared parking there. Mr. Carlin: If we had our druthers, we would rather put the handicap out in front where you want it because it opens up visibility from the street.. They won't let us do that. Mrs. Fandrei: Who won't let you do that.: Mr. Carlin: The state - the A.D.A. So someone who is slow walking doesn't have to walk across this driveway with all the traffic. Mr. Engebretson: I think they are saying they are complying with the law. Mr. Carlin: The Novi restaurant when we originally built that it was going to be a shared parking with an office building. That is what we like. You see a lot of restaurants are adjacent to office buildings. They never built the office building or the parking lot. We had to go in and expand part of the parking lot. That is our problem there in Novi. At that location because there are no office buildings around., everyone drives. At this location there are office buildings there so not as many people are going to drive to our restaurant for lunch. They will walk. Mrs. Fandrei: I guess one of the ones we are concerned about we compare with is Cooker's. Cooker's has shared parking and it is an absolute disaster at lunchtime. That is one of the shared parkings that we are aware of. Mr. Carlin: We have call ahead seating where you call ahead and say when you are going to be there at a certain time and we will have your table ready. That avoids corning in and sitting in the lobby waiting for a table. 12385 Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Carlin, what is your position with Chili's? Mr. Carlin: I am the attorney for Chili's. My office is located at 900 Marquette Building, Detroit. 'Ne.. Mr. Engebretson: I am going to have some questions for you but before I address my questions to you I would like to ask Mr. Tangora to come back to the podium. During the public hearings dealing with the zoning issues at both the Planning Commission and the City Council almost all of the dialogue had to do with site plan. As you know Mr. Tangora, tonight's issue is that of a waiver use which is a form of a zoning issue and it carries with it the site plan. As you mentioned, the zoning issue isn't a settled thing. It is still open and waiting for second reading, waiting for this issue to catch up with it so the City Council can make an informed decision when they deal with that roll call. I want to focus attention for a while tonight on the zoning issue and I would like to set the ground work for my line of discussion here by sharing with all of you that as I reviewed the public hearing minutes of both the Planning Commission and Council I discovered there were brief references in both of those meetings to previous commitments that were made to the residents in that area, to the City Council and Planning Commission and so I decided that since there was no way to deal with those things in real time as those issues were brought up, that while waiting for this issue I decided to research the public records and found some very pertinent information. One of the things I found in the City Council minutes was a statement made by you that was basically quite similar to your introductory statement here tonight and you concluded by saying that the site err is especially enticing to Chili's because of the expressway, because of the businesses that are there and the fact of it being in the City of Livonia. It is a place they would like to be because of the type of people that would come in. It is similar to residential that backs up to the site on Haggerty Road. Can you tell me what you meant by that? Mr. Tangora: That is a demographic analysis that is done so that they know this is a very important intersection from a marketing standpoint. That both the Chi Chi's Restaurant and the Olive Garden are two of the top restaurants in the State of Michigan, if not in the entire country, so the traffic is there. It is also in a very well middle class neighborhood. There are a number of homes, there are a number of businesses and I think that is the reason that Chili's selected a location like that because they feel a store or restaurant there will be successful. Mr. Engebretson: I understand Mr. Tangora and I tend to agree with your position but I am particularly interested in the point that while referring to this site you say it is similar to residential that backs up to the site on Haggerty Road. Were you referring to the similarity of that site to this one? Mr. Tangora: That it is a very important intersection, Haggerty Road and Eight Mile Road. It backs up to office buildings like this one does. It also has a number of other restaurants on that particular corner. \.1. 1-236 Mr. Engebretson: I don' t want to belabor the point: but you just referred to backing up to offices. Here you say it backs up to residential. Mr. Tangora: This one does obviously. The other one on Haggerty Road doesn't `' but its backs up to a similar type of businesses and offices that the Haggerty and Eight Mile Road does. Mr. Engebretson: I guess my point is, it starts to break down when you take this in isolation and you read it is similar to the residential that backs up to the site on Haggerty Road and taking into consideration the fact that there is opposition from the neighbors there and this is going to be very close. I went out there with the expectation of knocking on some doors and talking to some residents to see what kind of affect it would have and I couldn't find any. That site is surrounded by gas stations, fast food restaurants and banks and hotels. There are no residences there. Mr. Tangora: Not close by. Mr. Engebretson: Not anywhere close by. I think you could shoot a shotgun in any direction and you would not reach a residential use in that property in any direction. I was just curious about this because as I was going through I then found that as a matter of public record that the landowner, Mr. Guastello, while in the process of obtaining other favorable zoning decisions to support other developments, he has indeed made previous commitments to the residents, to the Planning Commission, to the City Council that a restaurant would never be constructed on that site and I think Mr. Guastello just shook his head and denied that was said. Did you Mr. Guastello? Thomas Guastello: What exactly are you referring to Mr. Chairman? Mr. Engebretson: I am referring to the commitment Mr. Guastello that you made to the City and to the residents that you stated unilaterally that there would never be a restaurant built on this site and now we are listening to a proposal for a restaurant to be built on this site. Mr. Guastello: Do you have a copy of that Mr. Chairman? Mr. Engebretson: Yes sir. Mr. Guastello: Do you want to bring it here? Mr. Engebretson: I am not going to bring it there. Mr. Guastello: Can I pick it up or would you rather read it? It would be much more theatrics if you do. Mr. Engebretson: I don't have any need at this stage of my life to be theatrical but. I want to be cooperative with you. Mr. Guastello: And I with you. While you are going through your notes let me share with you the context in which you are talking about. At the 12387 time we went to develop Mike Kelly's restaurant, Kelly Johnston, a publicly held company, had indicated a desire to buy the property. Based on their desire, they required a deed restriction. I agreed to give Kelly Johnston a deed restriction. The restriction reads `, as follows: "The exhibit shall inure to the benefit and be binding upon the purchaser himself." That is the only commitment that was made with this property. In fact, Kelly Johnston did not buy the property. The property was never sold to Kelly Johnston. As a result of that a deed restriction was never entered into. If there is anything else, I am unaware of that. In addition to that Mr. Chairman, I know that you and the rest of your colleagues take your role very seriously and in doing that I think you have to look at what has happened to this area in the City of Livonia since 1984, some eight years ago. Middlebelt has become one of the busiest cross streets, number one. Number two, I have personally, without cost to this City, spent close to over $50,000 expanding Middlebelt Road at that intersection. Number three, this City has rezoned the property across the street from residential to office. Number four, the development that I brought in to this City after the Kelly Johnston restaurant was able to support eight office buildings. As a concession to the neighbors, as a concession to the City, I reduced that number of office buildings from eight to six to put in an extraordinary amount of greenbelt for that project, to put in an extraordinary amount of parking for that project. I think those all qualify as material things that affected that development. The final thing is that we had proposed and looked at a bank branch to go in where we are now proposing Chili's Restaurant to go in. I don't think there have been a lot of branches that have gone in and we have been frankly 1011.0 unable to get that. We think Chili's is a very harmonious use for the community. We are pleased that the Council has supported the use of the Chili's. We have some 90,000 square feet of office space. The developments that are there now employ, with the hotel and restaurant segment, over 300 people. The 90,000 square foot of office buildings that are there will round up and together they employ close to 1,000 people. We think it is a major development for the community. It is a major part of this community's tax base and one of the things that makes the office attractive, that fits into the community, is for them to have places to eat. We have no problem with the parking for Chili's because we know a number of the people in the office buildings will go to other restaurants. We know that a number of the people in the office buildings will go to that restaurant. We know, for example, at noon that the hotel is virtually deserted and those spaces are all within a very close proximity of the building and we know that the Olive Garden next door exceeds the quota by 20 spaces that is required by the City so we are very comfortable with that use. I hope I have answered any questions you might have and the only representation, and that was part of an offer to purchase, didn't involve the City, it didn't involve the community and the City had 12388 the ability if they felt they wanted to to get a restriction but that was a restriction between myself and a proposed purchaser and the purchaser never purchased the property. I think there has been a very material change in that property since 1984. I know Mr. 'taw. Engebretson you are a fair man and I think you have to admit there has been a a very big change in that intersection. Mr. Engebretson: Well perhaps but I want to go back to the issue. It is my belief that in the 1984 public hearing that was held by the City Council to deal with that zoning request , at that time you said that there is one other thing that does have a direct bearing on this project. A restriction was placed on the remainder of the property that it would not be used for the construction of a restaurant and then Councilman Bennett, now Mayor Bennett, inquired about that deed restriction, and you said the covenant is binding on the remaining twelve acres. It. is a deed restriction. It was a precedent to a purchase agreement entered into with Jim Kelly's and then when the City Council granted that zoning, before the public hearing Mr. Bennett asked the Legal Department if that restrictive covenant would be suitable to be included in the approving resolution, assuming it was approved, in order to call attention to that action, and Mr. Kirby said it would be appropriate and at that time Councilman Ventura said that he understands that the restrictive covenant had to be recorded in the office of the County Clerk and then the minutes indicated that you questioned this and implied that it questioned your integrity. Ventura said your intention might be in good faith but we don't know what will happen to you, and you said it is binding on the heirs and Ventura said it must be recorded with the County Clerk. Several weeks later the City Council rejected the recommendation of the City Planning Coimnission and indeed approved your zoning request and the approving resolution closes with this terminology "further, the Council takes this means to indicate that it recognizes the existence of a restrictive covenant to be voluntarily entered into between Kelly Johnston Enterprises and the owner of the remaining R-7 parcel, (Thomas Guastello) providing that the balance of the R-7 parcel shall not be used for the construction of any future restaurant" and then I have a copy of that Declaration of the Restrictive Covenant that you just. read from and you did say it would be binding on the purchaser and the seller and it goes on to say their heirs, administrators, grantees, assigns and successors. You have me at somewhat of a disadvantage dealing with the legal issue because we all know you are an attorney and you know I am not but I can read and I see this document was signed on the 22nd day of June, 1984. It was witnessed and it was notarized and signed by you. At the bottom of that document it said it was drafted by Thomas Guastello with your address and it says when recorded return to you. It is my belief, as I read these records, that the City was relying on your covenant, and I am glad to hear Mr. Carlin does think there is something about trust that is important because I think you were trusted when that zoning issue occurred. Later on, there was another hearing where that issue came up. I am having a bit of trouble at the moment finding the quote and I may 12389 yield to someone else and come back to it as I look for it but I do know when the City Planning Commission made a recommendation of approving the change of zoning from R-7, which was the remaining parcel once Jim Kelly' s was out of it, that the Planning Commission 4kimy recommended approval of that proposal and, among other things, the Planning Commission felt that it was important to grant that approval because that proposed change of zoning would provide for a transition of buffer zone between the existing residences in the area,a, the traffic that was generated by the freeway and from the commercial uses in the area. The City Council, as you know, adopted an approving resolution that, to the best of my knowledge, included all of the recommendations of the Planning Commission and it was given first and second reading and all the appropriate site plans were conducted and approved, etc. I guess my point is Mr. Guastello, you did make a commitment. You signed this deed restriction, that never got defined later as a period of 20 years, and I am just having trouble understanding how we can go from that position to where we would modify it and say well for 20 years we are never going to build a restaurant on that site and here we are now proposing a restaurant on that site. How did we get here from there? Mr. Guastello: I will try and answer that if you care for an answer. First of all, there was a proposed restrictive covenant that was requested by Kelly Johnston. It was for the benefit of Kelly Johnston, their heirs, their assigns. Because Kelly Johnston never purchased the property and later wound up in bankruptcy, and because of the events that unfurled, the restrictive covenant was never recorded. As a result I do not feel that the property has a covenant on it. L. Further, I have a numbered title commitment, 82268472, that indicates there is no covenant on the property. There were a number of things discussed at the time of the Kelly Johnston rezoning. That was one of but a number of things. Since that time I think there have been a number of changes that have occurred in the community and occurred at that area. There has been an increase in traffic, a widening of the road, a change in the surrounding neighborhood, as well as a change in the area behind the development, the addition of 90,000 square foot of offices, and a change in zoning for the motel. As far as I am concerned, I sincerely feel that both legally and morally the only issue is if the addition of Chili' s is a good use or a bad use and that is the issue that this Commission has to face. That is the issue the Council has to face. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Guastello, I don't want to belabor the point but at another meeting you said when there was some opposition to the C-2 zoning that they were referring to, you said "I will state unilaterally that we will not develop that (that meaning the property to the north of Mike Kellys, the property under consideration here) for any other use than the current rezoning". At that time it was R-7. It is now office and now you want. to change it again. That looks to me like a commitment but I guess it doesn't to you. "I will state unilaterally that we will not develop that for any other use than the current rezoning". Later on, at the same meeting, you 12330 said one other thing that has a. direct bearing which was "the construction of a restaurant would never be allowed". It was pretty clear. 'to" Mr. Guastello: Again, Mr. Chairman, at the time we were under an offer to purchase with Kelly Johnston. They did not purchase the property. I think I have done quite a bit in terms of this community. We sacrificed two office buildings to meet this community's desire. In addition to that, when Mike Kelly' s went out we sat with a vacant building for a long time. W3 brought a quality tenant in that has employed a. number of local people. I think this is a reasonable use. I think it is a valid use. I think it is a permitted use. I think many of us, in all positions, realize that things do change and it is proper when things do change, at that time to proceed. I think there were things that were unforeseeable at that time. We legitimately felt that area could get a drive-thru bank. We tried to market the site to every bank in the area and couldn't do that. We sat with that property for eight years having nothing but political signs. We have been in this community. I feel it is a reasonable request. I think if this City wanted to proceed in any way or go with a planned unit or development they could but even in a planned development things change and it requires a new and fresh look. At the time when this property was here, the whole area across the street was residential. It is no longer residential. The City allowed a major office complex, State Farm Insurance, to go in there. A restaurant was allowed across the street, the French Epi. There has been a lot of changes at that area. In addition to that, I, at my own expense not the municipal expense, put a whole deceleration lane from Chi Chi' s to this property and I think those are very material changes and I am very comfortable with my position in front of this Commission. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Guastello you have done some good things and we are not questioning that. However, this proposal is a very, very intense use that literally sits in someone's backyard and while you certainly do deserve credit and praise for the good things you have done for the community, I don't think you would take the position it gives you a license to destroy the peace and tranquility of the people who happened to be there before you. Mr. Guastello: Can we talk about that. Part of it is you want peace and tranquility. The other part of it is you want a job. There are 100 jobs there. When we opened the Comfort Inn we had over 1,000 people apply for less than 50 jobs. This City is laying off people because there isn't a sufficient tax base. I think that is important too. Yes it is close to residential but yes that is a major intersection. I don't think you. can deny that if we were starting from a clean slate, and Livonia isn't a farm community that has a clean slate, that if we were starting from a clean slate and were going to track the development of that major intersection, we would probably put things in a little different than they are now. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Guastello, at the risk of belaboring the point regarding 12391 these commitments, it is not as if you did it once or twice or casually or with intensity .in those meetings of 1984, but you made the commitment again in 1986 when the zoning was changed from R-7 to PS. You said you wanted to clarify that regarding someone's comment that they understood that you were going to set that land aside, which we understand that you never intended to do. You wanted to clarify that when you said "I would like to clarify that we said we would stop with restaurant or food development and at no time did we say that we would give away three or five acres for a preserve" and then later on something was mentioned about a covenant by my colleague, Mr. Morrow, and you responded "The only thing we agreed to is that we would not come in with a commercial ase. We agreed that we would not. put in another restaurant." Now here we are having a public hearing as to whether or not to change the zoning from residential to office and again you, in my mind, made a commitment. To me, you agreeing to not put in another restaurant, is a commitment. You even said we have a long term commitment to Livonia. Mr. Guastello: We do have a commitment to the City. We went in both in 1984 and 1985 with what we thought was the best plan that would work. There have been ups and downs in that plan. We sat with office buildings vacant For a long period of time. We have tried to weather these things. At this time we sincerely feel that this is a proper use that is legally permitted and a use that will work. It is up to this Commission. Mr, Engebretson: It is riot legally permitted based upon the current zoning, as you know. if the C-2 zoning is granted, then it is permitted as a `ny waiver use. This issue is still open. I am just concerned about the fact that what I perceive to be commitments on past occasions, on multiple occasions, in your mind are conversations that while it may have a great impact on accomplishing the end result at that particular point in time, that in the future whether things change or for whatever reason, they don't mean anything. Mr. Guastello: I think they do though but as you pointed out there can be no change without the City' s approval and that is what we are asking. Mr. Engebretson: Why don't you build an office building? Why does it have to be a restaurant? That is a permitted use. Mr. Guastello: I think there are a few reasons for that. Mr. Engebretson: Well then give me three. Mr. Guastello: One, it is not economically feasible. Two is the existing office buildings in order to be marketable and attractive require amenities. We have to look at the infrastructure of the entire community and see what it takes to make that work. One of the things that we think is important. for marketing the office buildings is that those people in the buildings have places to eat that are convenient, that would work. We think this would do that. Another reason that we like the Chili's is that if we put in an `.. 12392 office building there given the location, chances are we would put a two-story building in, in order to support that site and if we did that, even a one-story building, it would block the other buildings. The advantage of Chili's is that it gives view of a Su, relatively small building area that would help. I think those are the reasons we would like to see it there. We think Chili's is very good and viable for the other entities that I own there. I am the sole owner of that property, i.e. the Chili's would be an asset to the Comfort Inn, i.e. the Chili's would be an asset to both Chi Chi's and Olive Garden, i.e. the Chili's would be an asset for the 90,000 square foot of office that exists there. I don't know Mr. Engebretson how much you have done in terms of office buildings but believe me office buildings are a very tough market now and I think Livonia, while not the worse community in terms of overbuilding of office buildings, certainly has a number of vacant office buildings. We are certainly not as big as Victor and some of the other people but we have all experienced the problems. We have sat for over three years with two vacant office buildings. Do I want to build another office building there? No thank you. Mr. Engebretson: When were the two buildings at the extreme east end of the property that are being leased now, when were they started? Mr. Guastello: In the spring. Mr. Engebretson: Has the economy collapsed? You said it was an economic consideration. Has there been, in your mind, an oversaturation of office space to occur since then or has the economy changed from that point to this point to discourage you from building another office? Slaw Mr. Guastello: Before I went to Livonia I never built an office building in my life. When we started building office buildings we started over five years ago. Rents were 20% higher than they are now. In addition to that when we first started office buildings we would get paid for improvements. When we first started office buildings we didn't need to give away free rent. I almost went after the veterinarian that you fellows chased out of the City to see if he wanted to rent space from me. Mr. Engebretson: We didn't chase him out of the City. Tom, don't make statements like that. We didn't chase him out of the City. We encouraged him to find another location. We told him we would welcome him to the City. I don't want the record to say that we chased him out of the City. Mr. Guastello: You denied his request for that spot Mr. Chairman. I think those things have all changed. I built the last two buildings there to finish the development because nothing else could go in that far east spot because we were able to negotiate a lease with the HMO there. Mr. Engebretson: I am going to yield the floor to Mr. Morrow and come back later. 12393 Mr. Morrow: I do have a couple of statements that I do want to make. Mr. Guastello said we want to come from the zoning standpoint. I feel like I have been a party to this particular site because I have been through it from the change from the multiple residential into the office classification. At that time, as you indicated earlier, `r. I honestly felt that moving from a multiple family situation to the office situation was a step down as far as it related to intensity of use. I felt the office was less intense to the neighborhood to the north. Notwithstanding what we heard tonight about commitments or lack of commitments or whatever, from a planning standpoint and from a zoning standpoint, I see we have now pending before the City Council an escalation of that zoning to C-2, which is intensifying, reversing the trend which I thought we were establishing when it went to that office use. It has had its first reading and is now pending awaiting another further escalation to affect the neighborhood to the north. That is why I am troubled with having to support this request for a waiver use with that neighborhood having been through a number of public hearings as it related to zoning. I think I supported a lot of the issues if not all of the issues because I firmly felt it was a good planned development for that area. In good conscience I can't go for the hat trick on Middlebelt Road as it relates to three restaurants in a row in that close proximity to the neighbors that were there long before the development. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Guastello, did I understand you to say there would be 100 employees at this restaurant? Mr. Guastello: I am not sure of the exact number. '44116, Mr. LaPine: What is the distance from the rear of the building to the nearest parking space off sites? Mr. Drane: 140 feet. Mr. LaPine: You are telling me people are going to park 140 feet from the restaurant and walk, which I don't believe because people are lazy. What is going to happen they will drive in and take the closest parking place available, whether it is on Olive Garden's property or whatever. Another question I have, across the parking there is a berm. What are you going to do cut a walk through there? Mr. Drane: Yes to encourage pedestrian traffic through there. Mr. LaPine: How do you get into this site? Is all the traffic going to come in off the one driveway off Middlebelt that handles the office complex plus the hotel plus the Olive Garden? Mr. Drane: Buckingham Drive runs into the service drive of Schoolcraft on Middlebelt. We expect that is where most of the traffic will come from. Mr. LaPine: When you pull off Middlebelt where is the cut-off to get into the center? How many feet? 12394 Mr. Drane: We have one that is directly across from the Olive Garden. I would say that is about 80 feet. Then we have another one 200 feet to the east of that. Mr. LaPine: You don't think that is going to cause any problems with all that Se" traffic? Mr. Drane: I think it is a standard situation. You are going to have it at any intersection. Mr. LaPine: I have to disagree with that. I think this is a bad location because I don't believe we should have three restaurants that close together with three liquor licenses. Mr. Nagy, according to the notes I have it says there is seating capacity of 217 and 109 customer spaces plus 15 employee spaces. If there are 100 employees, it seems to me they are going to need more than 15 parking spaces. Mr. Nagy: We take the greatest number per shift. We have to rely on the integrity of the applicant to ask them what is your highest employee count for shift and that is the off-street parking component. Mr. LaPine: It still leaves us a lot of parking that is not accounted for. Mr. Drane: A lot of our employees are part-time employees. Mr. LaPine: I don't care if they are part-time or not when they come to work they have to have a place to park. 'tow Mr. McCann: Mr. Guastello, I am trying to remember back. I think it was during the Triple A proposal when they were going to put in their operation center there, were you the owner of the property at that point? Mr. Guastello: Correct. Mr. McCann: My understanding was that you weren't at the time because you couldn't put a wall up there. I thought at the time you said you didn't have any interest. Mr. Guastello: The property was originally bought by myself from Wilson Dairy. Jeffrey Anderson and I originally bought that property. We did not plan to be with it a very long time. Jeffrey is from Cincinnati. At the time we brought in a number of multiple users for the remaining parcel after we sold Mike Kelly's. We decided to develop the property in an office mode. Jeff kept the front piece and I had the back piece and then we owned the front piece together although Jeff had an agreement with me that he would have the major part of the front piece. Then after the offices were developed, Jeff wanted to sell the front piece and I bought that from him after the first two office buildings were developed. Before that time he was the fee title owner of the property. '`. 12395 Mr.. McCann: During the Triple A proposal he was the owner of the front piece. Did Mike Kelly' s ever own that piece? Mr. Guastello: No. Again, I really have been thankful to the City and I apologize rte,, if I seem ungrateful but I intended Mike Kelly's to buy the property. They couldn't buy the property after we got the rezoning. It is nothing that I had premeditatedly done. They did not buy the property. Mr. McCann: Did. they own the property that is right now the Olive Garden? Mr. Guastello: No. They came in and told us they were going to buy it and in -,rder for them to buy it we needed to do all these things. They made that representation to me. Mr. McCann: Was that piece of property that we are discussing tonight, part of the purchase agreement? We are talking about Kelly's Landing that actually opened for a while. Mr. Guastello: it started out as Mike Kelly and then it went to Kelly's Landing and we just had an awful time. They didn't pay rent for over a year. They ended up in bankruptcy. Mr. McCann: Did they have a lease to purchase then? Mr. Guastello: They didn't have a lease to purchase. We went through the whole zoning process and. then they wound up in financial trouble and we • didn't realize .:Lt. Then we got to a situation to what do you do and we went through and allowed the property to be used for Mike Kelly' s restaurant on basically a land lease type of arrangement and we actually wound up funding portions of the restaurant to be built in the hope it would succeed. Mr. McCann: You never had a sale on the property? Mr. Guastello: They never bought the property from us. At that time it was Jeff Anderson and myself that owned the property. Mr. McCann: This property, the whole area when you bought it was R-7 property? Mr. Guastello: It was multiple at that time. Mr. McCann: Since then we have changed some of the area to C-2 for two restaurants, a hotel and then the other part for office. Correct? Mr. Guastello: Yes sir. Mr. McCann: I appreciate that you put in the deceleration lane but isn't that partly because we are using a heavier use for the development? It was necessary for that development? Mr. Guastello: I feel it was necessary because of increased traffic that has occurred on Middlebelt Road. That lane was requested when I put the additional offices in but I think it is a lane that was required because of increased traffic on Middlebelt Road. 12390 Mr. McCann: You don't think it was from the increased use of the property? Mr. Guastello: One thing we thought was good was offices have certain hours, restaurants have certain hours and motels have certain hours and Slow those hours by and large don't overlap so that kind of decreases the concentrated use during a specific period. Mr. McCann: There is one thing, I know you said it out of haste, but I have to respond to it, and that was that we chased the veterinarian out of he City. Mr. Guastello: You are totally correct. I wanted to make the point that I thought he would be a good tenant. I apologize. Mr. McCann: We have to look at what is good for those residents as a whole. There are a lot more issues. I realize you are coming in with a different point of view but we have a job to do. Mr. Guastello: I enjoyed watching it but I still thought I was going to ask Mr. Nagy if a veterinarian would fit in our use. I'm sorry. Mr. Tent: I want to compliment the Chairman on his research because that limited my questioning because a lot of those questions were brought up. Mr. Guastello, there is a bulldozer on that site. Is that intimidation to the neighbors that you are ready to plow through? What is the bulldozer doing there? Mr. Guastello: In the balancing of the land we didn't quite get a level and there was a little water on the east end of the property that prevented us from cutting that property. We had a few yards of dirt put `"' there and I thought the dozer was gone. I assure you what it was used for was to take out about six inches of water. Mr. Tent: You ticked off three assets to you why you wanted the Chili's restaurant. Can you just tick off one asset to the neighbors who abut that property? Mr. Guastello: Absolutely. The asset is that their property, I sincerely feel abuts one of the nicest developments in the City of Livonia. That facility provides jobs for the area, tax base for the area. When we look at that entire area, we have a combined tax base well in excess of $14,000,000 to $15,000,000. We have taxes that are paid to this community approaching a half a million dollars. Mr. Tent.: I am talking about the neighbors. What is the asset to them? Mr. Guastello: I think it helps members of the community, when a business comes into the community and pays taxes that helps provide services to the community. In addition to that, I think when a business comes into a community and provides jobs, that helps provide stability to the community. I. think those are a number of excellent issues and I am really remiss that I didn't bring the Observer editorial in. 12.397 Mr. Tent: Ii you are going to do all that for the people and they are driven out of the neighborhood because of the complexity of the restaurant, that is not helping the tax base. Mr. Guastello: I live next to a hospital and it is not driving me out of the area. My father lived next to a bowling alley and it didn't drive him out. I think business and communities can be harmonious. Mr. Tent: My third point is, and I have to say this Mr. LaPine, this is a typical case of "Promise them anything but give them Arpege". Mr. Engebretson: I would like to follow up on Mr. Tent's point that I made a note also when you were ticking off the various assets and values to the City and as I was listening to that I was wondering what it would be like to be in the backyard on a deck or a patio of one of those three, four or five houses that are really literally a soft pitching wedge shot from this restaurant, and you are going to have a picnic, and you are going to have a half a dozen friends over and you are going to grill out and have some conversation and you have odors from three restaurants dropping on you for openers, continuous doors slamming and as you go into the evening as people have more and more to drink, they tend to get louder and louder in those parking lots as they go on their way, and I am just wondering how this becomes an asset to them. I don't understand it. I don't think any of them are likely to apply for a job over there. I am having a real tough time understanding how that would be an asset to them. Maybe to the community as a whole it. would be. Mr. Guastello: Livonia really didn't start out in terms of a clean slate where you can say this is the way things are going to be. Livonia has to 011111. work with the hand it is dealt. Part of the hand it is dealt is there are homes there. I think a number of people in that subdivision can in fact and do in fact work in the development that is there now. I can think of a person that works in the hospital. I can think. of a person that works in the Olive Garden. I think people work in the Comfort Inn and the other developments there. Having a job is an integral part of being able to own a home. In addition to that I think the fact that a quality development is in there with a generous amount of landscaping with reasonable uses helps assure the viability of the City. When you have a development, can it work a hardship on one family or two families? Certainly it can. But I think everyone is charged with looking at what it does not only in my backyard but for the area, the community and the state and nation. I think this is the type thing that can be beneficial in terms of this community. I think it brings people here. I. think it brings a tax base here. It is a national chain with an impeccable reputation founded by one of the greats in the restaurant industry, which I think will be a credit to this community and make it an attractive place. One of the things in an older community, and I live in an older community, is that they don't have enough room to have the national places there that you can take a family to and be able to eat and have it not cost you too much money when both the husband and wife are working, as many people now find it necessary to do. They can go out some place quick, some place convenient and get a real nice meal for their money. 12398 Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Guastello, there is no mistake about it the record will show that at the public hearing on the zoning that I was very direct in my comments in recognition of all those things you said about Chili's. It is a nice restaurant. The question is, is this the right location for it? I did find one more point I feel a need to `ow bring to your attention because it comes back to this issue of trust again. You pointed out in one of the previous public hearings that you have learned as good as your word and five sentences later you said "I will state unilaterally not to develop that corner" etc. That is what I mentioned before. I just have to keep coming back to those things. I realize things change and I am also one of those that believes a deals a deal and these things were influential in the development of that parcel and I would think that you could find a suitable use there that would be in harmony with the neighborhood, that would be in harmony with the development and it would be enthusiastically supported by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Guastello, now you are going to hear from the new kid on the block. I have only been on this Commission since June and I have been learning a lot. It is my job to get all the material before me, listen to it, read them, study them and then listen to the petitioner. I want to thank you tonight because I think you have made my decision. You said yourself that Middlebelt and Schoolcraft area has really changed. It is the highest traffic area you said almost in Michigan. That is exactly my point as a Commissioner. We have three restaurants there. I have nothing against Chili's. I have nothing against you but I believe that a Chili's restaurant or any other restaurant does not belong on that site. I just think it is wrong. **or. Mr. Guastello: Thank you very much for hearing our request. We appreciate the points you have made. I would be remiss if I didn't say I am trying to respond to them accurately. I want to apologize again on the unfair characterization I made and I certainly hope anything I said wouldn't be held against the fine company, Chili's. I just got a call this afternoon from a prominent local attorney asking me to come to the meeting. Little did I know I would have so many questions put upon me. I hope I have been able to provide the answers. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Guastello, on this parcel here are you selling this parcel to Chili's? Mr. Guastello: No. Mr. LaPine: You are going to lease it. Mr. Guastello: Correct. John Fleischer, 29313 Perth: My property is Lot 32. My backyard abuts this vacant lot for the waiver request. I would like to say the land developer has had other opportunities to develop this piece of property with alternatives other than restaurants. For instance, at the last 12399 Council meeting I brought up the point that other than the rehab clinic, in particular the ane at Levan and Schoolcraft, that I requested to use those facilities for their changing of the office location and At was brought to my attention, because a friend of �.. mine does rehab clinics, and the developer had told the people from HAP that he already had usage for that property. That is just one instance that I am aware of. I am sure there are many others. Also, regards to the other buildings that he is putting up currently, like you had mentioned on the east side of the property. What would be the harm in using the property currently designated for his request for Chili 's, to use that for the offices he is c:urrer,tly building in the back of the property? Also the other issue that. is of some concern is the issue of the sharing of parking. Like you mentioned for Dr. Singh, you didn't feel it was right for him to use shared parking. I also feel that is a very strong point that he should not be allowed to use that for shared parking. Another point of interest, I would wish Mr. Chairman that maybe you could bring the facts that you have brought out in this meeting, which are very much appreciated, to the City Council people. I am not sure with their schedules whether they have had the opportunity to look into the information that you presented tonight. I think it might shed some light on their decision and maybe help set the record straight. Mr. Engebretson: John, they get verbatim minutes of these meetings, word for word. Jim Paison, 29321 Perth: I am lot 33. I would like to talk about what Mr. LaPine brought up about the parking. It averages out to roughly 40 to 45 people per shift. Those shifts overlap. One doesn't leave before '11111. they other one gets there. So you are talking double that because they can't leave. They have to overlap a half hour or so. It isn't going to leave much parking for the people that want to go to that restaurant and Chili' s is a successful operation. That is why it shouldn't be there. They are going to be parking on Buckingham Drive. They are going to park wherever they can. They are not going to walk all the way down from the offices to get to this restaurant. I would like for you to deny this and I would like for you to strongly deny it and hopefully wake up our voted officials on how bad it is and how it is not an appropriate place for it. Annette Sivori, 29289 Perth: I am appalled by the way I feel my family, everything my husband and I have worked for is a piece on a monopoly board to some people. I don't like it. I have small children. The traffic is ridiculous. I am totally, totally, against this and I thank you for your support and I hope you can get this through to Council. They are not thinking of the residents like they should be. We have our lives there. I don't want to have to pick up and leave because of greediness. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to give you the encouragement that the members of our Council have more understanding of your position that you may currently think and I think you will see that in the near future. Karen Paison, 29321 Perth: I am here for my support in denying this whole situation because of the promises that have been made by Mr. 12400 Cuastello. As Annette said we do have a lot of small children. There are nine children on the court. That court is used for a turnaround because people can't get. through. When I go bowling on Monday it takes me 35 minutes to get. two and a half miles down \.- M.iddlebelt.. We really appreciate all your support. Mary Toovalian, 29305 Perth: I want to thank you. It is the first time in the 13 years I have fought with Mr. Guastello that you have given us some support. To be honest 1 really am against this. A third restaurant is not needed. The property is overdeveloped. I have been told by Council that what is the difference if another restaurant is there. It is a mess anyway. We did not make the mess. Council made the mess. I was at the meeting when he made that promise. Doesn't that promise mean anything to him. I was there. I remember you were there.. I remember Mayor Bennett there. I remember Joe Taylor and he did make that promise. Now seven years later it doesn't mean anything. He has been telling us for months he can't: build offices. He can't rent them. He has put two or three of them in the back end. Why can't he put them in the front end if he can't rent them. I am sorry. I really oppose this. it is just too many restaurants. Chili's is not a restaurant. IL is a grille and bar. It is a hangout after nine o'clock at night until two o'clock in the morning. You expect us as residents to try and sleep. We are going to have the lights in our backyards. He doesn't care what he does to us. He never has. Sharon Fleischer, 29313 Perth: I want to make a couple of comments concerning some statements Mr. Guastello made. He said that he feels bad because in his neighborhood he doesn't have a. restaurant to take his family to. I wish I could put this in his backyard. I feel if someone `r. does not think that this is going to have a detrimental affect on my living environment, I don't understand why a month or so ago he would have called me at work and offered to help relocate me in a better living situation. He asked what my house was worth. Would I consider moving? We are not dealing with an honest man here. I would like to get to the main points. We have all mainly come here to show support for ourselves and many people who signed the original petition who have not come because they have unfortunately lost faith in City government and City Council. It is very difficult when you go to 50 to 70 homes and knock on doors and every time you ask them to sign a petition and you tell them what it is about they laugh and put their head down and say "Good Luck" because they all thought we were swimming in an empty pond here. We keep hearing that this property has sat empty too long. I find that a very unacceptable solution especially when you are considering putting a place of such nature in my backyard. Many, including Councilmen, have agreed it is not the ideal or proper situation. We ask then why consider it? We are intelligent people here. We are not talking about putting something that is an 8 or 9 hour operation. We are talking about people's lives. We live there 24 hours a day. I feel I deserve more than this. We are talking about an approximate 19-hour a day operation starting at 7:00 a.m. with the first employees and closing at 1:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. with closing cashiers and last minute guests that have come in 12401 to eat. All of this combined does not provide us with a good living environment. Another main concern is the potential of people having one too many drinks. Any time you have an establishment that has a bar that is extended past the restaurant hours, that is not a family restaurant. Not to speak of the parking inadequacy and the noise factor. I don't want to lose faith in City government and lose faith in my City Council so I hope there is great significance to the meeting of May 21, 1984 where it was stated that a proposal such as this would never be brought before us again because the zoning of that property to OS would provide us with a fair and deserving barrier. Many of you know this is true from looking up the minutes. Now we are being faced with losing something that was given to us in good faith and with morals. I just cannot comprehend this. I have a real hard time with this. I go to bed thinking about this and I wake up thinking about this. We hope everyone is using a great deal of consideration on this. We are asking that this property sit until something better suited comes along. We have been told that it will not devastate Livonia to let it sit a little longer. Taking that into consideration, there are other areas for Chili's to be put where residents do not back up to the restaurant. It seems pretty simple to us. If you want Chili's to come to Livonia then fine but realize this is not the proper location. For once keep to Livonia's motto that residents come first. I will close that we all hope promises that were made to us by Councilmen coming out to our homes and others will be kept. The promises I am talking about are the ones that says if you will look up the history of this entire property and the statements that were made between the developer and residents, we are sure if this is done, many of you would have to agree this is not a responsible or intelligent '04 . consideration. With all the history being known to ourselves and the Planning Commission and the Council, we don't see how anyone in good faith or judgment can vote in any way but no on this. Al Bsharah, 29297 Perth: My backyard is directly north of the proposed site. I would like to start with I was also present at the previous meetings where Mr. Guastello promised word for word that he would never put another restaurant in there if he could get Kelly's Landing in. They approved it and here he is again. He speaks of his compassion for the residents. I think he showed his compassion for the residents with his arrogance to the Chairman of the Commission. That is exactly the way he treats and feels everyone should be treated. He stepped up to the podium and immediately attacked the Chairman of the Commission until you very nicely put him in his place and then he backs off. He says what he thinks will please everybody until he gets what he wants. I am opposed to this. It is a young kids' hangout after nine o'clock. I think if any of you have been to Chili's you will know this is true. I can picture the young kids sitting on the wall in my backyard or in my backyard. I can picture beer cans in my backyard. I can picture all of this until one or two in the morning. It is undersized. It doesn't have the parking. Those people are going to park any place they can. They are going to be up on the berms. I own a restaurant. I know what I am talking about. I know this will happen. It is a big problem with young kids and this is a young 12402 kids' hangout. I strongly urge you to reject this and turn him down. He just comes in and feels he is going to get it. I think the promises the Council made the last should be upheld and I hope you do. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-9-2-34 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #10-494-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 27, 1992 on Petition 92-9-2-34 by Chili's of Michigan, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant on property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Buckingham and Perth Avenues in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition 92-9-2-34 for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in violation of Zoning Ordinance #543 Section 19.06 General Waiver Use Requirements and General Standards. 2) That the proposed use is in violation of the off-street parking requirements of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, Section 18.37 Off Street Parking and 18.38 Off Street Parking Schedule. 3) That the proposed use, being a waiver use not otherwise permitted within the C-2 zoning district, is by definition more intense in use thereby requiring special standards and requirements, all of which are inappropriate to and incompatible with residential uses that adjoin this site on the north. 4) That the nature of the proposed use, its hours of operation, the traffic flow to and from the proposed use will unduly conflict with the established and normal use of the neighboring area particularly with respect to the residential neighborhood to the north including the significant detrimental impact on the peace and tranquility of those residential uses. 5) That the proposed use is contrary to the goals, objectives and policies of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Livonia as adopted by the City Planning Commission, which plans are to insure compatibility and appropriateness of uses so as to promote property values, enhance neighborhood use and enjoyment. 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: I think that it is important to point out that we have discussed a great many issues here tonight that are very pertinent by most reasonable people's standards. Most reasonable people do believe that a deal is a deal whether there is a contract or not. I would \.. 12403 just like to say that the underlying zoning for this proposal has been supported by the petitioner and related parties and by the friendly Livonia Observer and while it is not fair to bring that point. up, Mr. Guastello did. I would simply say that the Observer editorial focused almost exclusively on the one issue of traffic and in that regard I think the Observer was correct. However, you can' t take that one particular issue in isolation. There are a number of other issues and I think if that editorial writer had the fall deck of information available that that editorial would have been written with a very different flavor. Most importantly is this underlying zoning that is required for this proposal has been opposed publicly by the Mayor of Livonia, who not only is acting as our Chief Executive Officer but he provides continuity with that Council. that goes back to 1.984 when some of these commitments were made. The professional planning staff, people that make their living examining uses such as this and making judgments as to the _impact on the community and more particularly the impact as it is defined by the ordinance, opposes this proposal. The most significantly impacted neighbors clearly unanimously oppose this proposal and I am reasonably sure that we are going to discover soon that the Planning Commission opposes this proposal. We have mentioned several times tonight references to people's character and their integrity and their commitments and whether they mean anything or riot and that was even started early in the meeting by Mr. Carlin. I am aware there are some highly placed people in our nation there days that think that an individual's character and integrity is not very important. I disagree with that premise and I submit in this particular matter Mr. Guastello's integrity is on the line, the Mayor' s integrity is on the line and the Planning Commission' s integrity is on the line and last, but not least, the City Council's integrity is on the line. I urge that we move this on to the City Council with a successful denying resolution. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-1-2-3 by Chili's of Michigan, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license in connection with a proposed restaurant to be located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Buckingham and Perth Avenues in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. Ordinance 543 Sec. 11.03(h) requires a 1000 foot separation between Class 'C' establishments. A waiver of this requirement must be obtained from the City Council. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against the granting of a Class C liquor license in connection with Chili's? John Fleischer, 29313 Perth: I am just going to speak on behalf of the other neighbors that are here saying we oppose this basically for the same reasons we already stated. I don' t want to reiterate `..- everything but just. let you know I am speaking on behalf of everybody and we oppose it. 12404 Mr. LaPine: Even if I were for the restaurant at that location, I would still vote against the liquor license because I feel very strongly that we have an ordinance that says no liquor licenses within 1,000 feet of each other and that is wrong. I think we should change the ordinance. Why should we have three restaurants within less than a '�•� 1,000 feet. I think it is wrong and therefore I am opposed to the liquor license. There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-1-2-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #10-495-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 27, 1992 on Petition 92-1-2-3 by Chili's of Michigan, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license in connection with a proposed restaurant to be located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Buckingham and Perth Avenues in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition 92-1-2-3 for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in violation of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543 Section 11.03(h) that requires that there shall not be located a Class C liquor license use within 1000 feet of an already licensed facility. On adjoining property to the south there are two such licensed facilities. 2) That the proposed use, being a waiver use not otherwise permitted within the C-2 zoning district, is by definition more intense in use thereby requiring special standards and requirements, all of which are inappropriate to and incompatible with residential uses that adjoin this site on the north. 3) That the nature of the proposed use, its hours of operation, the traffic flow to and from the proposed use will unduly conflict with the established and normal use of the neighboring area particularly with respect to the residential neighborhood to the north including the significant detrimental impact on the peace and tranquility of those residential uses. 4) That the proposed use is contrary to the goals, objectives and policies of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Livonia as adopted by the City Planning Commission, which plans are to insure compatibility and appropriateness of uses so as to promote property values, enhance neighborhood use and enjoyment. 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. 12405 Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-9-2-35 by David Michael Neme requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant on property located south of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Blue Skies Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19. `fir. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We also have received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating their office has no objections to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating their office has no objections to this proposal. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? David Michael Neme, 37805 Woodridge Dr. , Westland: The reason I am here tonight is to submit for approval for a Subway shop which I will own and operate at the Five Mile and Newburgh Center. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Neme, do you really need 30 seats? Mr. Neme: Basically the reason I put 30 seats in there is because we do have quite a large space available for the seating. It is a 1400 square foot facility and basically most of operations are similar, between 1200 and 1400 square feet. Since we are on a larger scale, we feel since we do have the space we should utilize it appropriately to provide enough seating for our customers who like to come in and Now sit down and eat. Mr. Alanskas: I have been to a lot of Subways and I have never seen more than five or six seats, ten max. I was wondering why you wanted so many. Michael Southers, 18555 Bainbridge, Livonia: I am a Development Agent for Subway for the Wayne County area. Typical Subway stores seat an average of 20 to 30 people. We usually base the seating on the square footage of the building. I felt it was more appropriate to utilize more of the building with seating versus just having empty space. We are prepared to back down on the number of seats if you would prefer. Mr. Alanskas: Subway is a very nice company and they have good food. Roy Neme: I am David's father. I went through and surveyed a number of sites. The amount of carry out is not as high as you would think in this operation and frankly for this to work, in our calculations, would have to have a minimal of 24 seats. That is why we are pushing for 30 to have a safety margin. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Neme, there aren't any other lunch or sandwich type places in that shopping center are there? 12406 Mr. Nerve: Actually there is a Domino's Pizza, which is of course carry-out, and there is another carry-out establishment called Mr. Muster. There is no other seating facility there. Mr. Morrow: Have you signed a lease with the establishment or is it contingent upon your getting your waiver? Mr. Neme: Exactly. We have already discussed the lease and as a matter of fact it is based on what happens tonight if we are approved or not. Mr. Tent: This Subway sandwich place is a large operation. It is a good location. Are you planning on serving anything else? Mr. Nerve: That is the beauty of the operation. It is a very simple operation because we deal only with subs and salads. All the salads are components of the subs. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Neme would you tell us about your signage. Are you planning on utilizing any window space as far as signage is concerned. We generally limit that amount and what about the signage on the building? Mr. Southers: If I may answer that, as far as windows, the only thing we normally put in a window is a neon "Open" sign other than a hanging poster that would be in a plexiglass frame. As far as outdoor signage just our standard channeled letters, typically they run 18 to 24 inches. Mr. Gniewek: There would be no problem with us limiting the window signage to no more than 20% of the window? L. Mr. Southers: No problem. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-9-2-35 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #10-496-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition 92-9-2-35 by David Michael Neme requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant on property located south of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Blue Skies Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-9-2-35 be approved, subject to the condition that the maximum number of seats in the restaurant shall not exceed 30, and subject to the following condition: 1) That the window signage shall not exceed 20% of the window area. and for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all special and general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. \r► 12407 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 adjacent uses in the area. `r. 4) That the proposed use is typical of the services provided by shopping centers. 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: I have a feeling we are going to be welcoming this young man into the City and he has picked a very excellent location to put a restaurant. It is a commercial area. It is as suitable as the previous one was unsuitable. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-9-2-36 by Robert E. Rashid requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant (Major Magic) in an existing building located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington and Norwich Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Engebretson passed the gavel to Mr. Morrow. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has 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, however, their decision is contingent upon further review of an underground water main with adequate volume to supply the required automatic fire suppression system. We have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating this petition meets the requirements of Planning ordinance with relation to the Police Department's input. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. Under the current provision of Ordinance 543 Section 18.59, a licensed Class 'C' establishment is permitted a maximum of 8 mechanical amusement devices as an accessory use. The floor plan indicates 64 amusement devices including the skeeball machines. A variance would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals for all devices in excess of the 8 permitted. 2. Exterior signs will require Control Zone Approval. Mr. Morrow: Could we have the petitioner step up to the podium and give us your name and address. 12408 Steve Duczynski, 26913 Northwestern Hwy. , Southfield: I am Vice President and Director of Development for Schostak Bros. Schostak Bros. is the managing agent for Seven Mile Farmington Venture Limited Partnership. We are also the general partner of that particular '141.. partnership. Tonight I am representing both the owner of the property and the tenant, Major Magic. We plan on presentations all for this particular development by myself, Robert Rashid, who is President of Major Magic and Bob's architect, Frank Coletta, who will speak on the design of the project. Getting to the issue, we ask for approval on this particular matter for several reasons. My job would be to give you the facts and figures and the idea of why it is good for the City and why it is good for the shopping center. We have a lease which was signed on September 16, 1992 between the landlord and the tenant. In these recessionary times that is very good. The lease is for ten years, which is also good for the shopping center and the City. We believe that these tenants here will stay and be a good neighbor. The lease requires the tenant to put a large sum of money and investment into the project. From the ownership standpoint, looking at the highest and best use of the space and the project and the development and in today's leasing climate, we think this particular tenant is also the highest and best use. To that extent the owner is also going to make a financial contribution to the construction of this particular project. In doing so, we are sure that everything is done properly for all parties. We also are prepared, once all the approvals are granted, to begin construction immediately. I suspect early next year to commence and I would say late spring or early summer you will see the construction of this particular space and its grand opening. From a shopping center standpoint and what has taken place at Seven Mile and Farmington, it seems like such a long time ago that the shopping center was remodeled, and the question has come up rather often in talking to various people as to leasing achievement. Today there exists the Perry's store, the BoRics store, the Winkelman's store, approximately 18,418 square feet of a total of 44,755 square feet of rentable area. The area shown on the board to my left encompasses 41% leased and occupied space. The addition of this particular tenant is a plus to the shopping center of 16,229 square feet, 36% of total area, would provide a leasing achievement of 77%, which in today's time is very good for shopping centers if you can do that kind of volume. Not to overshadow this but to provide additional consideration, in several meetings I have been in with City fathers, I promised that by the end of the year there will be other developments that will be brought to you and provided you with that information. I didn't want to overshadow that but that would provide a leasing achievement of about 86% of the shopping center. What we have done in the last ten months is to go from 41% and hopefully with your approvals and other approvals that are necessary to bring the shopping center to 86% leaseability. That is good for the economy. It is good for the neighborhood. There are some other pluses both for the City and the developer in this particular program that we are proposing to you. The space that is there now has been 12409 occupied by three tenants, 16,000 square feet. If you remember the Perry store, which vacated and moved to the end of the center near Seven Mile Road took in 6,000 square feet of that space. Bonanza was the middle tenant and it too had been vacant for a very long time. At the end was a health spa and that too has been vacant. This particular tenant will encompass all three spaces. One tenant will take over three spaces, which we think is also positive for the shopping center. It is also located in an area where the parking is under utilized. Actually it is not used at all. That parking then complements this particular tenant. Having the parking directly adjacent to it is very important to a tenant and to us. It is a good complement. It is a good mix. It is taking a large user and putting it where it really fits instead of me trying to tell a tenant where it should be. That is a plus for all of us. I think if you walked out today, you would look at that particular area and you see three unsightly storefronts. What this tenant proposes to do and what his architect will tell us tonight is that those three storefronts will be fixed, it will be renovated, it will be made clean, it will be made unified, which again is a plus for the shopping center. When the spaces were occupied, for instance from a signage standpoint, I am prepared to talk about signs but I don't understand if this is the proper area for the signs because the signs are going to conform to the ordinance, but nevertheless we are proposed to tell you tonight and show you tonight what the sign is going to be. In the old situation there existed four signs and two logos. We then renovated the shopping center and when we got that approval, assuming one leased it as three spaces, we then would have been allowed three signs. Assuming in today's economy the three spaces would have turned into four, we would have been allowed four signs. What we are proposing tonight is one sign for the development and the architect will show you that, and the sign, rather than being placed on Seven Mile Road, will be placed at the back of the site, which I think is a plus for those who are very much concerned with signs and how they read and what they say. To that extent I should turn this over to Bob Rashid who will explain what Major Magic is, in our sense it is a family restaurant, followed by the architect and I will pick up the balance of it and be ready for questions you may have. Mr. Morrow: You indicated you have signed a lease. Is there any contingency on that lease? Mr. Duczynski: The only contingency, if there is one, is that the lease is cancellable by both parties if the various approvals are not granted. Mr. Morrow: My second question is to the staff. Is there any waiver of the restaurant that used to be there remaining or is that use abandoned? Mr. Nagy: It is an abandoned site. 'r.r 12410 Bob Rashid, 1251 North Oxford, Grosse Pointe: I am President of Major Magic. I just want to give you a little background on Major Magic. They have been in business for 11 years now. We are a Michigan company. We have a total of nine stores of which four are in the Detroit ,` area. The others are in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. We employ approximately 60 part time people at our establishments. We typically have 16,000 square feet. Our hours of operation are 10:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. , Sunday through Thursday and 10:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday. I am here to answer any questions you may have about the operation. Seventy percent of our sales are from pizza sales and the other 30% is from the amusement games. Mr. Alanskas: I can tell by your advertising it all goes towards family orientation. I have to ask you if having beer and wine is a necessity? You said 70% was pizza and the other percentage from games. What percentage is towards liquor? Mr. Rashid: Seventy percent is food and beverage. Mr. Alanskas: I go to quite a few functions and people nowadays are not drinking like they used to be. The consumption is really coming down, in restaurants and private homes. I am wondering if you could do this without having beer and wine to be successful? Mr. Rashid: You could be successful I guess. Frankly, it usually represents about $50,000 in profit. Mr. Alanskas: I can't see going to a place for children to play games and have fun and their parents are there having beer and wine, especially Sur the way consumption is coming down. Mr. Tent: Mr. Duczynski brought up the fact that for this to continue all the things would have to fall in place. Something that is very important to me is the ordinance says you can only operate with eight mechanical devices and you are asking for 64, which is eight times the normal amount, which is quite contrary to the ordinance. If for any reason you couldn't get 64 games, would that nullify the operation? Mr. Rashid: It would normally, yes. Mr. Tent: Do all of your establishments have this same amount of games? Mr. Rashid: It may vary by five to ten games but typically there are at least 55 to 85. Mr. Tent: If you can't get your 64 games, if you are limited to the eight by the ordinance, then this would be a done issue. Is that correct? Mr. Rashid: Yes. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Rashid, you say you are President of Major Magic. This is a franchise? "%oft., Mr. Rashid: No I started the company. 12411 Mr. Gniewek: Is there a Board of Directors? Mr. Rashid: I am the majority stockholder. Mr. McCann: You say you have nine of these currently? How many have liquor ''► licenses? Mr. Rashid: All of them have beer and wine. We don't serve liquor. Mr. McCann: I have been to both with or without. Is that a stumbling block to your moving to this location? Mr. Rashid: It would be, yes. Mr. LaPine: To the representative from Schostak. I guess I have a problem with how you feel that this operation is going to enhance the shopping center. By that I mean you have Winkelman's, you have the furniture store, K-Mart plus the Perry drug store. To me, to enhance the shopping center you want stores in so that when people come in they are going to go to the other stores. I have never been to a Major Magic. I have been to Chuck E Cheese's when my son played hockey. People coming out of this operation are not going to be going to K-Mart to look through the store, they are not going to be going to Star Furniture looking at furniture, they are not going to go to Winkelman's looking at clothing. How does this enhance the other stores? Mr. Duczynski: I think it enhances the stores because with Major Magic it brings more people to the area. It exposes the area to more people. It exposes those people that do not know there is a Winkelman's store fi. there. They will be exposed to it. Those people that do not know that BoRic's is there, they will be exposed to it. Not only this shopping center but there are tenants across the street that people do not know. It will enhance that particular area. We think that with children you do not go to the Winkelman's store. We also think with children, as ma and pa and two kids come there, ma having a bad day, pa having the kids on Saturday, we believe ma deserves a half hour to go to Winkelman's. There is some cross traffic. There will not be a lot but something is better than what is there now. We also think it is good because it gives us a large space. It uses 16,000 square feet. That is not to say if you filled it in with three other tenants, those tenants in themselves will fill space but they may not enhance it depending on the tenant mix. At this point in time, with the economy the way it is and with tenants so far and few, this is a very good choice for this particular shopping center and the community. Frank Klaetke, Klaetke & Marino, Architects: I have done several of these restaurants for Mr. Rashid. (He displayed the plans for the Commission and audience) Mr. LaPine: This center has just been renovated in the last year and a half. These three stores that sit in the back end of the shopping center are going to be renovated again. When we were sold on the '44111. 12412 renovation of this building before, we were sold on the basis the buildings were going to be compatible. Now you are saying these three stores are going to look different than the rest of the center? Mr. Klaetke: No, actually what is happening here, we are using the same type of material that we used for the rest of the center. We are taking out the dilapidated restaurant front completely. Mr. LaPine: I understand. You are going to take out the front of the restaurant. Mr. Klaetke: Right, so there will be uniformity now. The integrity of the recent remodeling is going to be enhanced. Mr. Duczynski: The entire space will be gutted and they will rebuild it with compatible material. Mr. LaPine: I understand what you are saying. Basically with pizza there and salads, etc. so there is no emission of any smells because it is so close to the residents. Where the pizza is to be made, is that closer to the residents to the north or is it closer down to where Bonanza was? Mr. Duczynski: If you could picture for a minute, I didn't know what a Major Magic was until three weeks ago when I saw one. When I walked into the kitchen area Bob was kind enough to show me. I said Bob where is your hood? Where is the exhaust tube? If I can use a competitor's store for a minute, if you have ever been to Little Caeser's Pizza and you saw the oven, picture this big space with the size of that oven and that hood that is there. This is a large space but it doesn't take much to make the food. The only thing that is exhausted is the heat from the ovens. Mr. LaPine: I know K-Mart has a lot of pull in that center because when you were here before they had veto powers over the way that center was going to be. They have a Little Caeser's within the K-Mart store. Do they have any power about having another pizza place coming into that center? Mr. Duczynski: They have no rights of approval. I understand Little Caeser's is a salad type Little Caeser's. It is a special design. Mr. LaPine: When that building was renovated, they had approval. Mr. Duczynski: In this case, they have nothing to say. There is a lease signed and the approvals are all there. Mr. Morrow: I did have the occasion to visit your store on Washtenaw Avenue and I was favorably impressed. I did have some concern but when I first walked in the store there was a young man standing there. What was his capacity? Mr. Rashid: I am not sure what young man you are talking about. 12413 Mr. Morrow: He greeted me as I came in and I got the feeling he was watching who was coming in to make sure they were escorted. Mr. Rashid: That would have been one of our internal security fellows. He is just there to make sure nobody gets carried away and we don't allow anyone under 18 to enter the establishment. Mr. Morrow: I am trying to see if this is open to anyone that wanted to walk in regardless of whether or not they are there for a family type of outing. Do you have any regulations that preclude those types of people coming in. Mr. Rashid: : Yes we do. We have a regulation that no one under 18 is allowed without a parent. He is there for that purpose. Mr. Morrow: So if they are under 18, they have to be with a parent? Mr. Rashid: That is correct, every store, all the time. Mr. Morrow: Bob you had mentioned about the beer and wine. You don't have a bar there. You are serving it in a glass or draft. I will say this, there were some families in there that had come up for the evening with their children to eat pizza and enjoy themselves. My concern is with what Mr. Tent raised about the 64 machines and with that I want to raise the question what are the age groups that normally play your higher tech video machines? Mr. Rashid: The store is basically designed for 2 year olds to 12 year olds and it just so happens they have to bring their parents. That is the person that plays those games the best. A 12 year old can play much better than you and I can. We don't allow them in without their parents. Forty percent of our business is birthday parties. So you can imagine who comes. It is grandparents, parents and kids. Teenagers don't like our place. It is not a place for teenagers. Mr. Morrow: I was generally impressed. I was worried because our ordinance allows for eight and you want to go with 64, so it is a concern. It is a self-contained operation. I stood outside and the ingress and egress was self-contained and I couldn't hear anything that was going on inside. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this item? Joe Ceru, 33895 Gable: Before I begin with myself, I have a letter from a neighbor who was going to come. He was at the Planning Department yesterday talking to people. He couldn't make it and he gave me a letter. Should I read it? Mr Morrow: Certainly. Mr. Ceru: This is from John Garback. His address is 33919 Gable and he owns Lot #87. To Livonia Planning Commission concerning proposal numbers 92-9-2-36 and 92-9-2-37. "I would like to recommend that the Planning Commission reject the above named proposals. I believe there are many reasons that a Major Magic should not be allowed to open at this location. There is great potential for increased noise, traffic, littering, vandalism, and under-age drinking. 12414 "I know there is discussion to build a wall separating the homes in Windridge Village Subdivision from the restaurant, but we already have minors walking on and climbing over the walls behind the other stores in the same area. This 'solution' is weak at best. "Please take my recommendation to heart, as you will not be forced to live with the consequences, but I will. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, John M. Garback, Homeowner, Windridge Village, Lot x/87." Also, another neighbor was here, Rick Martin, 19332 Pollyanna, Lot 90. He had to work tonight. He was here from 7:30 until 9:30 and he had to leave. He asked me to give his message. He is against the proposal. There are actually two propsals. Mr. Morrow: It is kind of hard to separate the two but we will having a hearing on both of them. Mr. Ceru: When I spoke for John Garback he was against both and Rick Martin is also against both proposals. His main concerns are, one lighting. Rick Martin backs right up to the commercial area as I do and we were looking at it last night and it is dark there, which is fine. We like that but we expect if there is another restaurant there, they are going to put in more lighting because it is not safe for people to go out in back there right now so lighting would be 30 to 40 feet from our bedroom window. I hope you have all looked at that and seen how close our homes are to these stores. Another concern is crowd control. When there is drinking, there is drinking to excess. He is afraid there is going to be noise and problems in the parking lot as there often is outside bars. Another one is noise from the trash dumpsters in the back. Right now there is a privacy wall that extends 3/4ths of the length of that building. It does not go the length of the building because there isn't room and you can't extend that wall any further and have room for large size trucks to get through. When the Bonanza Restaurant was there they had one dumpster totally exposed and they would put trash in. Sometimes they would put the top down, sometimes not. Birds would go in and grab garbage. I never saw rodents but you have to wonder if they are there. That is another concern because this restaurant is three times the size of the Bonanza that was there. I have no idea where we are going to have room for three dumpsters there. It is three times the size so I assume there will be three times the trash. Liquor, that is the last concern. He was afraid if there is beer and wine, there is also the tendency to drink to excess and Rick has two small boys and he doesn't like the idea of beer and wine with small children there. Those were Rick Martin's concerns. Now for my concerns. Those are pretty much a lot of the same problems I have with it. I am against both proposals. I moved in there 12 years ago and I knew I was moving behind a small shopping center but I walked the shopping center before I moved in and checked every store and nothing was open after 9:00 p.m. The only problem I did have was with Bonanza. They were open until 9:00 12415 p.m. and their workers, mostly teenagers, would leave at 9:30 p.m. and when teenagers leave, they drove fast behind the stores and turned their radios on very loud. There was noise and now we are going to have another store there that is open until 11:00 p.m. and more workers. I am really afraid of the noise because the workers used to park behind the store, right along my lot line and two and three other people's lot line, and that was a problem. I called the manager several times. Trash area, I already mentioned. I agree with Rick. I don't know how they are going to get trash picked up back there. There is not much room at all. They had one completely exposed dumpster and we are going to get more. They cannot extend the wall. If it is open until ten or eleven on weekends, you are going to have employees leaving at 11:30 p.m. or twelve and the noise of people driving away and, of course, the customers who may have have been drinking too much. You are going to have a sportmen's bar for a sportsmen's room in there. I can picture that being a big screen football on TV with everyone drinking pitchers of beer. I have never been to a Major Magic but every time I have seen a sportmen's room or sportmen's bar, that is the way it is on football night. I wonder what is the purpose of this video waiver. It is supposed to be limited to 8 video games and now you want 64. That is an 800% increase. I can just picture video games there and an 8 year old boy playing games with a man next to him drinking beer and playing games. That combination seems strange. I don't know what the reason for that law was but I think it is a good one. I guess it is to avoid problems like that. I don't think it mixes and I don't think the liquor license and the 64 video games are compatible at all. Parking has been allowed behind those stores, which is right along my lot line. The employees would park there and leave. We could hear it through our bedroom window. If any business at all opens there, I am requesting that no parking be set up along the wall behind us. I wonder about the adequate parking. There is parking but not real close. There are about 25 spots out in front and the rest are out to the side and I know they are going to drive behind looking for spots. People are lazy. They are going to put their cars in the nearest space whether it is legal or not. Those are my concerns. I am really concerned about it. I have been there for 12 years and have literally no problems and I am really concerned about having a liquor license that close to my residence. I hope all of you are residents of Livonia and will take that into consideration. I don't think it is fair to put a liquor license there. When I chose that lot I had absolutely no idea that you could put a restaurant that served beer and wine in a shopping center that small. I am amazed. Mr. McCann: Have you ever been to Chuck E Cheese's? Mr. Ceru: Several years ago. My kids are older now. Mr. McCann: I have gone with younger kids. They serve alcohol although I don't \.- 12416 think I have ordered it for many years, but I haven't noticed much consumption of alcohol and that is why I asked the petitioner if it is necessary to have the alcohol. He seems to think it is and I know Chuck E Cheese's has it too. I assumed you had been there and wondered if you had seen any problems when you had attended it. Mr. Ceru: My kids are college age now so I haven't been there. John Katrick, 33871 Gable: I own Lot 89 directly behind the proposed establishment. In all due respect to the Schostak Company, I can appreciate that they need to put tenants into their place of business but I have the same problems as my neighbors with this selection process we are going through and the waiver restriction seems awfully extreme and I don't think we have had any experience in Livonia with this type of operation and it should be checked out from every angle because it has never happened before. As Joe said we didn't expect to see this kind of thing in a strip mall. We have had a lot of trouble with Bonanza, which would be probably 1/5th the size of this establishment. We had an extremely large amount of trash blown out of that area. The property was not being kept up to the standard that I think they are going to try for now. I am worried it could go back downhill. If they do get a Class C license, what happens if this particular business would pull out? Would we just have a drinking establishment come in and buy that license? Also, I don't feel it is compatible with the furniture store there now. I feel there are enough pizza outlets in that vicinity now although I realize this is a dining in type of thing. It seems like it is getting a little bit excess. We would like to see more of an up-scale fashion center going in there and not a dining establishment that doesn't fit the bill from our experience. '*411r• We have just had back luck with that all the way. I will leave it at that. Mike Coughlin, 19430 Stamford: I own Lot 96. All the neighbors turned out tonight. The main reason is we all back up in very close proximity. We all have the same concerns, noise, litter, parking, lights. One question to Schostak Bros, is the wall going to be modified? My last concern is the liquor license. My understanding is that Major Magic is not a bad thing to move in there. A lot of kids in the subdivision would probably look forward to it. I am surprised they need an adult to show up to get kids under 18 to come in. It doesn't seem compatible with my interpretation of Major Magic. I don't think a liquor license is, first of all required from what I understand tonight. I don't think it is compatible with the subdivision, with the residences being so close by nor with the shopping center. That is my big concern the liquor license. Earl Young, 19356 Pollyanna: I own Lot 92. I was in one of these places the first of the year. Beer was being served quite a bit. A few adults were pretty tipsy. I can imagine how these people were driving when they left. Sure, it is a reasonable place for a kid to have fun but by the same token he is going to spend a lot of money. I saw kids spending money like no recession or anything was happening. I 12417 don't think a lot of these parents could afford this. The real problem with this is the drinking. Someone said about the traffic. You try to get out of that parking lot and turn left when you enter Seven Mile from Perry's, you try to get into the normal flow of traffic and a person who has had a few beers, it is going to be worse. That is the major reason why I am against it. The structure itself is well kept. Schostak has done a good job. It is cleaned every morning. It is excellent but I hate to say this to Schostak but the other stores are going to lose a good customer if this place does move in. I won't patronize the shopping center. I will go to Meijers rather than K-Mart. I am against this because of the drinking. Mr. Morrow: I will give the petitioner the chance to respond to some of the concerns the neighbors have. Mr. Rashid: The main thing to address is the beer and wine. We don't have one violation with nine stores in 11 years of operation. We have never been cited for a drunk or a problem. It is nothing like you think. They haven't been to one of our stores. It is basically a complement to the people. Parents want to drink beer with pizza. It is not a bar. It is not a Chili's. As far as garbage, I don't see a problem with garbage. I have been doing this for 11 years. This is our tenth store, hopefully. Mr. Morrow: How do you handle the volume? Mr. Rashid: All of our things are paper goods. You get a masher. It takes care of your problem versus three dumpsters. I didn't see a lighting problem anywhere. I would see the lighting to remain the same in the back. We have ample parking from what I saw. You could park a circus from what I saw. I don't know why anyone would want to park behind the building when there is all that parking in front. Mr. Morrow: There are certain things you can control as far as your staff is concerned as far as where they park and the noise they make, etc. Mr. Rashid: I don't think they would want to park there. I am trying to think of the other issues. Mr. Duczynski: Let me help him out a little. I can assure you that there is no additional lighting in my budget. If it is required, it is because someone has asked us to do that, not because we are going to do that. We think the lighting is adequate. The tenant feels the lighting is adequate. From the standpoint of parking, roughly in front of the store are 54 spaces. Also, there is additional parking near the front that can be used, which is presently not utilized. There is parking in the rear and yes the cars do park there and they park there because the City ordinance says we have to have X amount of spaces. The cars back there are also parking because they are employee cars for the K-Mart. The customers park in the front. The employees park in the rear. Yes you can restrict the employees from parking there and if one can do that, '`. 12418 that is fine and one can try and do that. At times that is not exactly manageable. From the standpoint of the fence, I didn't know the fence was an issue. I have been involved in this issue since January 9th of this year and it has never come up. I don't have an answer for you on the fence. The restaurant is three times the size but it is the seating area that grew. The kitchen area actually reduced so the kitchen area isn't three times the size and the garbage of the paper products is handled through a compactor through the crushing of materials. You don't need three times the size of the dumpsters. There isn't one there now. We haven't decided yet whether a dumpster is required or a compactor will be in its place. If it becomes a issue, rather than removing it once a week, one would remove it several times a week. If that becomes a problem and you would have wet garbage or dry garbage, then that is handled also by separate dumpsters so the problem can be handled. Yes, it is possible that it wasn't handled by Bonanza but this gentleman is not Bonanza. Mr. McCann: If the wall does become an issue and it is too low, would Schostak be willing to increase the height of the wall? Mr. Duczynski: I think Schostak's position is we are willing to be good neighbors. We are willing to address the problem. I suspect the ultimate solution would be to put up a wall that would go for all the parties. We are willing to address it. I didn't know it was an issue. Mr. McCann: What about the dumpster enclosure. If there were problems in the past, a dumpster enclosure might be more appropriate. 14041. Mr. Duczynski: If a dumpster enclosure is a solution, then yes we want to solve the issue. If a exterior compactor is a better solution, then that is another solution. There are many solutions and we are willing to look at all the solutions. Mr. Morrow: Are you under a time constraint with your tenant? Mr. Duczynski: With the tenant no but with the landlord yes. Mr. Morrow: The reason I asked that question is based on what I have seen I think Major Magic would be a welcome addition to the City of Livonia but the question is, is this the right spot and would it be compatible to the neighborhood. We might want to think about tabling this. That would be up to the Commission to decide for perhaps it would give you some time to have some interplay with the neighbors. Mr. Coughlin: The entire subdivision has a hard time with having a beer and wine establishment so close to its borders. This is a nice place to live. We didn't have beer and wine when we moved there. I think there is a responsibility to keep that out of the area. 12419 Gus Semaan: I live and work in this community . I had the privilege of doing some work for Major Magic and I was very involved in it and I just wanted to say it is a first class operation you can be assured of that. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Vice, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-9-2-36 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 27, 1992 on Petition 92-9-2-36 by Robert E. Rashid requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant (Major Magic) in an existing building located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington and Norwich Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-9-2-36 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in violation of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543 as amended relating to the proposed use. 2) That the proposed use and its size, scale of operation and proposed hours of operation are such that the use is incompatible to a neighborhood shopping center and should more appropriately be located in a regional shopping center or mall. Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 27, 1992 on Petition 92-9-2-36 by Robert E. Rashid requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant (Major Magic) in an existing building located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington and Norwich Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-9-2-36 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That Building Elevation Plans dated 10-19-92 prepared by Klaetke & Marino, Architects and 9-24-92 prepared by Wah Yee Associates are hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 2) That the signs shown on the elevation plans are not part of this approval and shall be submitted pursuant to the vicinity control ordinance. for the following reasons: 1) That the site has ample capacity to support the proposed use. 2) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the established and surrounding uses of the shopping center and neighboring area. 12420 On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was #10-497-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 27, 1992 on Petition 92-9-2-36 by Robert E. Rashid requesting waiver use 'saw approval to operate a full service restaurant (Major Magic) in an existing building located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington and Norwich Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 92-9-2-36 until the study meeting of November 10, 1992. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Gniewek, Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: Tent ABSENT: None Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-9-2-37 by Robert E. Rashid requesting waiver use approval to operate a Class C Liquor License in connection with a proposed Major Magic restaurant to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington and Norwich Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating this petition meets the requirements of the Planning ordinance with relation to the Police Department's input. We have also received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or problems were found therefore their office has no objections to this proposal. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Chairman, is there a possibility since we have heard all the information on this particular site without going through the whole formal public hearing to ask for a tabling motion to go along with the first item? Mr. Morrow: I do have to ask if the petitioner has anything to add. I think we should go forward with the public hearing. Mr. Fandrei: I guess I just don't understand why we can't vote on this and why it should be tabled. We have the input of the neighbors. Why should we bring them back? We have had the input from the petitioner. We have all the information we need to vote on this and I don't see any reason to table it. Mr. Morrow: With the petitioner's request to be tabled and with adequate support and if the majority of the Commissioners want to table it maybe they don't have sufficient information. Do you have anything to add to what we have already discussed? Mr. Rashid: Just to be brief, we just request that this particular petition be granted. Mr. Gniewek: Is it the position of the Schostak Bros. to use a liquor license that they hold in escrow or to apply for a brand new license? 12421 Mr. Rashid: We can buy one or apply for one. I know of no such discussion with the tenant nor am I personally aware of anything. Mr. McCann: I think we are down to four. Is that correct Mr. Nagy? Mr. Nagy: We are down to six. Mr. McCann: We are in a very large shortage and that, to me, is going to make some consideration. I suggest you get together on that because I think it will have a major affect when it gets at Council level. Mr. Morrow: Is there anyone from the neighborhood that wishes to speak for or against this? Mike Coughlin, 19430 Stamford: We would just like to reference something the Chairman said earlier. Picture the residents who live back there sitting out in their back porches or patios cooking out, raising their families and right behind us there is an establishment that now serves beer and wine. It wasn't there when we bought our houses and it shouldn't be there now. That is our feelings. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to make a tabling motion primarily because this issue goes hand in hand with the other issue and I don't feel we should approve or deny this issue without first dealing with the underlying waiver use for the placing of this business there. I think furthermore it gives the petitioner an opportunity to have some dialogue with the Schostak organization regarding the matter of possibly obtaining a liquor license that they have in escrow, which in my recollection, they do have one. Also it is my strong desire to go visit several of these stores and I would like to do that. Last week I was planning to do that and I would like to have a two-week period to visit at least one and especially ones located immediately adjacent to residential areas like this one and I would ask the petitioner to provide the staff with the addresses. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-9-2-37 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was #10-49$-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 27, 1992 on Petition 92-9-2-37 by Robert E. Rashid requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in connection with a proposed Major Magic restaurant to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington and Norwich Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 92-9-2-37 until November 10, 1992. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Gniewek, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: Tent, Fandrei, LaPine ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing ,., resolution adopted. 12422 Mr. Morrow returned the gavel to Mr. Engebretson. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. Mr. McCann Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 9-8-2-23 by Applebee's of Michigan requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #C10-499-92 RESOLVED that, Petition 9-8-2-23 by Applebee's of Michigan requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: The last time we met on this there was a site plan footprint which was going to be modified to take in some zoning changes that were under way at the time. John Carlin: I did bring with me a floor plan that shows 180 seats. The one we had showed two or four too many seats so I will file that with you. There was some discussion about compaction that you had and our commitment to environmental and I have a letter from the Environmental regarding those efforts. The Director of Operations indicates that trash compaction is one of the things that they are involved with. Other than that I did bring some samples of the brick. (He presented the materials to the Commission) Mr. Tent: What about the mechanical equipment on the roof? Mr. Carlin: It is screened by the natural parapet that is prepared and built. It is built in such a manner that it acts as a screen. We have found it is very effective as a screen. Mr. Tent: You are absolutely certain of that because when that goes before the Council they are going to ask the same question. Mr. Carlin: We are certain of that and if it does develop to be a problem, we will work with staff and straighten it out. We want to be cooperative. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, is everything in order here? Mr. Nagy: Everything is in order. You can act on it. 12423 On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #10-500-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August Sift. 25, 1992 on Petition 9-8-2-23 by Applebee's of Michigan requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 9-8-2-23 be approved subject to the property being rezoned from the C-1 to the C-2 zoning classification and also subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 8-10-92, as revised dated 9-23-92 prepared by LandTech is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 2) That the Building Elevation Plan dated 8-3-92 prepared by Applebee's International, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 3) That the Landscape Plan revised as of 9-23-92 prepared by LandTech is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 4) That the signs as shown on Building Elevation Plan A2 are hereby approved and shall be adhered to. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in full compliance with the C-2 zoning district regulations and the applicable standards of the zoning ordinance relating to the proposed use. 2) That the site has the capacity to support the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses of the area. 4) That the proposed use will be complimentary to the planned development of the Jonna properties as part of a corporate park development. 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. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-8-2-25 by Applebee's of Michigan requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license for a proposed restaurant located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was 12424 #10-501-92 RESOLVED that, Petition 92-8-2-25 by Applebee's of Michigan requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license for a proposed restaurant located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: What new information do you have on this? Mr. Carlin: I have nothing new. Mr. Engebretson: This was just basically waiting because of the other item. Mr. Morrow: Would this be a new Class C license? Mr. Carlin: This would be a new Class C. However, if the City is willing to work with us we will go with a Resort License. We will be spending well in excess of $1,000,000. Mr. LaPine: Once again I am going to vote against it because of the 1,000 foot separation. I also have a problem that we can't give a man who has been in our City 21 years a liquor license and I don't think we should give it to someone new. I am opposed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was #10-502-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 25, 1992 on Petition 92-8-2-25 by Applebee's of Michigan requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license for a proposed restaurant located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-8-2-25 be approved subject to waiving the 1D00 foot separation requirement between already existing licensed facilities and the proposed site for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed Class C liquor license usage of the property is a normal and compatible use in association with the restaurant use. 2) That the site and its location to the surrounding uses of the area are such that no detrimental effect will occur as a result of this proposed additional use. 3) That the site has good access to the thoroughfares and the freeway interchange so that any traffic that may be generated by this proposed use can be accommodated. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: `o,,,, AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Fandrei, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: None 12425 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Permit Application by Advanced Satellite, on behalf of Salvador Cid, for the installation *tow of a satellite disc antenna on property located at 29215 Lori Street in Section 24. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #10-503-92 RESOLVED that, Permit Application by Advanced Satellite, on behalf of Salvador Cid, for the installation of a satellite disc antenna on property located at 29215 Lori Street in Section 24, be taken from the table. Gus Semaan: We have the last of the neighbors' signatures. I hope you approve this system. Mr. Morrow: They seem to have done everything humanly possible. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, is that letter in order? Mr. Nagy: Yes it is. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #10-504-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Permit Application by Advanced Satellite, on behalf of Salvador Cid, for the Saw installation of a satellite disc antenna on property located at 29215 Lori Street in Section 24 subject to the following condition: 1) That the site plan and specifications dated 9/22/92 submitted by Advanced Satellite, on behalf of Salvador Cid, for a satellite disc antenna at 29215 Lori Street, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That no footing permit shall be issued until the applicant presents proof that the silver maple tree located in the rear of said property is removed and replaced with two ornamental type trees recommended by the Planning Department. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed disc antenna location is the only available position on the property where a satellite signal can be received; 2) That the proposed satellite antenna location is such that it will have no detrimental aesthetic impact on the neighboring properties. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 12426 Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 650th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on September 29, 1992. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #10-505-92 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 650th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on September 29, 1992 are hereby approved. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 651st Regular Meeting held on October 13, 1992. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #10-506-92 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 651st Regular Meeting held on October 13, 1992 are hereby approved. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-10-8-18 by Livonia One requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to modify the front and rear entranceways of an existing building located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and the I-275 'Ne. Expressway in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18. Mr. Miller presented the plans. Mr. Morrow: The lift, did we determine last time if more than one person could get on the lift? Mr. Ulmer: The lift size is 34 x 54, which is just under 3 ft. by 4 1/2 ft. , which is sufficient for a wheelchair and a companion. Mrs. Fandrei: How will the handicap know the parking is behind the building? Mr. Ulmer: We had intended to put a small sign there. There is one entrance as you come off Six Mile and there will be one sign directing them to the rear of the building. We had tried to work out a number of plans to put it at the front but it is already built out to the curb. Mrs. Fandrei: You are going to have all six behind the building? Mr. Ulmer: Correct. We are trying to spruce it up and get a little more of an open look in the back. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was 12427 #10-507-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the. City Council that Petition 92-10-8-18 by Livonia One requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to modify the front and rear entranceways of an existing building located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and the I-275 Expressway in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18, be approved subject to the following condition: 1) That all plans received on 10/14/92 by Livonia City Planning Commission, for the Livonia One Office Building at 17000 S. Laurel Park Drive, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Jason & Associate Architects, on behalf of Tireman, requesting approval for two wall signs on the building located at 19601 Middlebelt Road in Section 2. Mr. Miller: This is the Tireman Store located on St. Martens and Middlebelt. The two wall signs, which they are permitted, would total 54 square feet. Mr. Carney, 17340 Farmington Road: I am here for the owner of the Tireman Store at Plymouth and Levan. He was responsible for starting the Plymouth Road Improvement in 1977. He has done very well for this community. This building was purchased from General Tire. They have put in $75,000 in renovations and they are going to put in ,'quer another $15,000 to $25,000. (He passed pictures around. ) Mr. Jason is the architect and he will be happy to speak to you. Mr. Jason: This is the corporate image they want so you can readily recognize it in the community. We are not doing much modification to the building itself. They are asking for this one sign on Middlebelt and the second one is on St. Martins. The St. Martins sign is more important to them because that is their front door. They have already taken down the very large pylon sign and this is what they are asking for you to approve. Mr. LaPine: What is the width of that red bar? Mr. Jason: Two foot eight. Mr. LaPine: What is the width of the one up there now now? Mr. Jason: It is about 6 foot. Mr. Engebretson: Any landscaping changes that are going to occur with this proposal? Mr. Jason: They weren't planning any at this point. I do know the Tireman people do heavily landscape their property so they will put in annuals. Mr. Carney: If you have been by the building, there is a big improvement now. 12428 Mr. Alanskas: If they are going to be lit, they are only going until 12:00 a.m. Mr. Jason: Nothing past 12:00 a.m. Mr. Tent: Your mechanical equipment on the roof, will that be completely enclosed? Mr. Carney: Completely. Mr. Jason: This is my opinion. It is a pretty simple piece of equipment. I would prefer to see it painted. Mr. Tent: We are trying to get rid of that image in the City so when any new buildings come in, we want it shielded. Mr. Jason: If it is required, we will put an enclosure on it. Mr. Tent: I would like to see that happen. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #10-508-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Jason & Associate Architects, on behalf of Tireman, requesting approval for two wall signs on the building located at 19601 Middlebelt Road in Section 2, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Building Alteration Plan drawing number 9215 dated 9/28/92 prepared by Jason and Associate Architects, submitted on behalf of `fir. Tireman at 19601 Middlebelt Road, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the signs and lighted fascia shall only be illuminated between the hours of dark until 12:00 a.m. 3) That the mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Permit Application by Clara Filiatraut for the installation of a satellite disc antenna on property located at 14216 Richfield Avenue in Section 19. Mr. Miller: This satellite disc is located on the corner of Perth and Richfield. The satellite disc is up. The petitioner was under the assumption that the installer had gotten all the permits. She wasn't made aware until she called her insurance company to get this insured and they told her she needed a proof of a permit. She called the City for a permit and they said they didn't have one. Now she is in for approval. The disc is pretty well surrounded by trees. Mrs. Filiatraut: I hope you approve this. We have enjoyed having it and there was no intent to bypass the Commission or to circumvent the ordinances of the City. 12429 Mr. Engebretson: I am sure that is true. Who was the installer? Mrs. Filiatraut: Satellite City from Troy. There isn't one in Livonia and we tried different places and we found this one. Mr. Engebretson: We understand. I would just add that the gentleman that walked out of here a few minutes ago, he really plays by the rules. #10-509-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Permit Application by Clara Filiatraut for the installation of a satellite disc antenna on property located at 14216 Richfield Avenue in Section 19 subject to the following conditions: 1) That the site plan and specifications dated 10/13/92 submitted by Clara Filiatraut for a satellite disc antenna at 14216 Richfield Avenue, is hereby approved an shall be adhered to. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed disc antenna location is the only available position on the property where a satellite signal can be received; 2) That the proposed satellite antenna location is such that it will have no detrimental aesthetic impact on the neighboring properties. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 652nd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on October 27, 1992 was adjourned at 12:33 p.m. Sow CITY PLANNING COMMISSION `c //. . aures C. McCann, Secretary C � ATTEST: CitAlkir67.64 Jack Engebretson, Chairman ' jg