Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1991-11-19 11818 MINUTES OF THE 633rd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA less. On Tuesday, November 19, 1991, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 633rd Regular Meeting and 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 12 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jack Engebretson Herman Kluver Brenda Lee Fandrei William LaPine Raymond W. Tent Conrad Gniewek R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann Donald Vyhnalek Members absent: None Messrs. John J. Nagy*, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, 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 `taw 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. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 91-9-1-18 by Michael Giordano requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Hubbell Avenue south of Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35 from C-2 to RUF. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to the rezoning proposal. They note, however, that there is currently no protective wall between the RUF and C2 zoning areas. They ask whether this will become an issue if the zoning limits are revised to a point between the existing home and the bank located at the corner of Hubbell and Plymouth Roads? Our office also received a telephone call from Tom Klebba of 11060 Garden stating he was unable to attend the public hearing but would like to state that he is in favor of this rezoning. Mr. Engebretson: Will the petitioner please come down to the podium and tell us why you are making this request. 11819 Michael Giordano, 11425 Hubbell: I am selling my home and to open the market up a little bit, instead of having a commercial property, the realtor explained that it would be better to have it RUF because of what the banks want to loan. They don't want to loan money on commercial property as opposed to residential property and that is basically the reason. I have lived there ten years as a homeowner. Mr. Engebretson: You are the occupant/owner of that home? Mr. Giordano: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane I would like to ask you a question regarding the issue of the protective wall between the commercial and the residential zoning that would result if this petition were successful. Is it your opinion that the wall would be an issue and that there would be some relief needed from the ZBA or that someone, either the property owner on the residential side or the property owner on the commercial side, would be required to construct a wall? Mr. Shane: No. The rezoning of this property to the RUF district would not require a protective wall to be constructed along those two property lines. What would require a wall to be constructed would be if either of the two abutting commercial users were to expand or somehow have some additional work done to their property, it would then trigger a requirement for the protective wall to be built but the mere fact that this property may be rezoned to RUF would not trigger that requirement. Mr. Giordano: As far as the other properties expanding. I know the bank just redid their whole building so I doubt very much if there would be an expansion there. As far as behind me on the Elks Club, that is a parking lot and I know they put up a redwood fence about four years ago on their side and a cyclone fence is on my side. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-9-1-18 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously approved, it was #11-175-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 19, 1991 on Petition 91-9-1-18 by Michael Giordano requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Hubbell Avenue south of Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35 from C-2 to RUF, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 91-9-1-18 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a zoning classification which is compatible to the existing residential use of the subject property. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the adjacent residential uses in the area. 11820 3) That while the current residential use of the property is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan, it is highly unlikely that it will be developed for commercial purposes because of its location and because of the present use of the property. `ur 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. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 91-10-1-19 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #672-91, proposing to rezone property located on the northeast corner of Bretton Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1 from OS to R-2. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to the rezoning proposal. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane, would you take a moment and review for the audience and the folks at home a brief history on what has been going on with this property over the recent past. There have been a number of petitions and if you would just put that all in perspective for us we would appreciate that. Mr. Shane: Earlier this year, on behalf of the property owner, a petition was `r► filed on this particular property, which consists of three lots, to rezone from OS, office service classification, to C-1, local commercial classification. When it had the public hearing before the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission made a recommendation to deny that request to the City Council. After their public hearing, the Council also denied the rezoning. After the denial of the rezoning, the Council passed a resolution asking the Planning Commission to consider some more appropriate residential classification for this particular parcel. In other words, they were asking the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to rezone it, if not to C-1 to some other residential classification. The Planning Commission did hold a hearing on the proposal to rezone the property from OS to the RUF classification, which is a minimum one-half acre lot size residential classification and it is the classification that occurs on property just to the east of this area under petition and also along Bretton Road to the south. Following their public hearing the Planning Commission rejected that rezoning as well and recommended that the OS classification be kept on the property for the reason they felt the Future Land Use Plan, which recommends office use for this property, was proper. While the City Council concurred in not rezoning to RUF, they subsequently passed another resolution requesting the Planning Commission to hold this particular hearing 11821 tonight, which the Council specifically requested that the hearing be held on a proposal to rezone the OS to an R-2 classification, which is another residential classification, but this time the lot size minimum is 70 feet wide by 120 feet in depth or 8400 square feet. The Planning Commission now is holding their hearing and they will again make a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Engebretson: It is the staff's position that the Future Land Use Plan, which designates this as office, is indeed the appropriate classification serving as a buffer between the residential and the high school. Mr. Shane: That is correct. Mr. Tent: Mr. Shane, at our previous public hearing when we were discussing this item, it was brought up that there was poor housekeeping on the existing homes on this property. We indicated, at that time, for Inspection to go out there and check it out and see what they could do about it. Just to bring me up to date, has anything ever been done? Mr. Shane: The only information is that an inspection was made and the property owner has agreed to and may, even in fact, have done some work to take care of those problems. Mr. Tent: So that has been corrected? Mr. Shane: That is my information. I can't tell you exactly what has been corrected or how much but I do know some action has been taken. Mr. Engebretson: The Planning Commission is the petitioner in this case, so we will go to the audience and start with the landowner, if the `. landowner or his representative is here. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-10-1-19 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was #11-176-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 19, 1991 on Petition 91-10-1-19 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #672-91, proposing to rezone property located on the northeast corner of Bretton Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1 from OS to R-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 91-10-1-19 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That there is no need for additional office service uses in the area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will reflect the existing uses of the subject property because two out of the three subject lots contain occupied single family residences. 3) That single family residential zoning and uses occur immediately south and east of the subject property. 11822 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. LaPine: I wish to expound on the reason I am making the approving resolution. The other two times it came before me I was with the majority of the members who voted to keep it OS but after I went out there today in my inspection, it seems to me the best use for this property is residential. Just north of here there is an OS building, which has a sign on it "space available". Across the street there is a C-1 and C-2 zoning that has signs on it "for lease. There is another OS building which has a sign on it "for lease" so I came to the conclusion from Bretton all the way up to Eight Mile Road, there is more than enough C-1, C-2 and OS zoning to serve that area and, therefore, I think it is in the best interest of the City to keep it in the residential classification than to go ahead and have any more OS zoning in that immediate area. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to add my support to Mr. LaPine's comments. I think it is the right decision. I think RUF would have been the more suitable zoning district given the fact it is more compatible with the adjacent lots but the R-2, I think, is more suitable than the office service so in spite of the fact that the Master Plan calls for this to be office, we all know that these kinds of changes occur from time to time and that the updating of the Master Plan is something that follows as a housekeeping procedure when something like this occurs. Mrs. Secretary would you please call the role on the approving resolution. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, McCann, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei, Engebretson NAYS: Gniewek, Kluver, Morrow ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 91-10-2-26 by J & M's Party Store requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD license for an existing party store located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Cardwell and Cavell Avenues in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to the waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Division of Fire stating their office has no objection to this proposal. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Shane, are there any rules as far as the distance from any particular kind of facility in this particular case as far as being able to grant a license of this sort? 11823 Mr. Shane: The City Zoning Ordinance waiver use section, C-2 zoning district, has some standards relative to SDD licenses. One of the standards is it cannot be within 400 feet of an existing church. There is an existing church within 400 feet along Arcola Avenue. With respect to the other regulations, the State Liquor Control Commission rules ;` also have a distance requirement for the distance between an SDD licensed facility and a church but their distance requirement is 500 feet and, furthermore, they have a different way of measuring that 500 feet. While the Zoning Ordinance measures it in a straight line from building to building, the LCC line is circuitous, which results in at least a 600 feet distance so the petitioner would be within the requirements of the LCC for distance. Mr. Morrow: Ralph, where is the church located on the map? Mr. Bakewell pointed out the church on the map. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Shane, there is no masonry wall up there. Is that because of the 20 foot public alley? Mr. Shane: Yes. Mr. LaPine: The other question I have, there is a fence up there that has barbed wire on it. Is the barbed wire permitted in that area? Mr. Shane: No it is not but I can't tell you why it is there. It may have been a special grant from the Zoning Board of Appeals or may not. I would have to research it to tell you why it is there. Mr. LaPine: I noticed in our remarks they are talking about the landscaping, especially the landscaping in the right-of-way. There is nothing there. It is all dirt. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Shane, has there been any contact with the Police Department as far as this particular facility is concerned? Mr. Shane: We have not received a report although they were requested to send a report as we always do with a waiver request. So far they have not responded. *Mr. Nagy entered the meeting at this time. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Marque Bourdic, 27600 Plymouth Road: With me is my wife Jane Bourdic. We have been there about four years. We are strictly a beer and wine store. In this day and age it seems like everybody seems to be selling our products as far as pop and bread and milk and stuff like that. We would like to increase our revenue plus increase the property by increasing our revenue. Mr. Engebretson: What do you mean by increasing the property? Mr. Bourdic: As far as landscaping and stuff like that. Mr. Engebretson: Improve the property? 11824 Mr. Bourdic: Yes. We have already been through this a couple of weeks ago in the case of an awning. Mr. LaPine: You don't own the building do you? Sir Mr. Bourdic: No I don't. Mr. LaPine: Any upgrading of the building, is it being done by you or the landlord? Jane Bourdic: Actually both. We are responsible for a certain portion of the upkeep of the property and our lease is just for keeping the trash off the surrounding buildings. Any capital improvement the landlond is responsible for and we have been working on this. Mr. LaPine: You do not operate the ice cream parlor next door? Mrs. Bourdic: That has been vacant for over a year. It is the same landlord. Mr. LaPine: As you probably know, there isn't a lot we can do because you are so close to the church but just from my observation, the chairman and I were out there Saturday, the store is an awful, awful tiny store as we indicated to you. It is jammed to the eyeball and I don't see how you have room for liquor. I am just assuming, most places that I go to that sell liquor have a great variety of liquor and to me you would have to clear out one whole side of that store just to put any kind of liquor in unless you knocked down the back wall and go to the back where you showed us a storage room. It is really a small store and it is jammed with as much as you can get in there now but unfortunately because of the fact you are so close to the church, we don't have the jurisdiction to overrule that. fi.► Mrs. Bourdic: I would like to make a comment regarding the space. We have had somebody come out to go through and see what we could do with the space in the event we would get liquor and we have a drawing here. We feel we would be able to put the liquor in there. If not, we would not go through the expense. We would just look for a bigger store. Mr. Bourdic: One half of our store is nothing more than T shirts and items like this. We could take those down and put shelving back there. We could accommodate the liquor. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Bourdic, you indicated you have certain areas that you are responsible for. Who is responsible for the landscaping? Mr. Bourdic: We are responsible as far as mowing and raking it. Mrs. Fandrei: Seeding it? Mr. Bourdic: No. Mrs. Fandrei: There is not very much in the front. 11825 Mrs. Bourdic: We have seeded two straight years but without a sprinkling system we can't get grass to grow. We actually need sod with a sprinkling system, which we are trying to get the landlord to put in. Mr. Bourdic: We tried to do it the first couple of years but we weren't very Nur successful. Mrs. Fandrei: So you do need to work with your landlord to get a sprinkling system in there. My main concern is the inside of the building and along with what Mr. LaPine was indicating, there isn't any room to have more products. If you got the hard liquor, where would this go? Mr. Bourdic: It would be directly behind the cash register. Mrs. Fandrei: Behind the counter. So everything back there would have to be cleared out? Mr. Tent: Your SDD license, is it a new one or are you buying it from someone? Mr. Bourdic: It is a new one. Mr. Tent: So this is from scratch and it is pending providing this action is positive? Mr. Bourdic: That is correct. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, is there an abundance of SDD licenses? I thought they were quite restricted. fir. Mr. Nagy: They are restricted. There is not an overabundance and when the 1990 census is validated, the City will even lose further of its quota. That is one of the reasons why you will notice they have asked for the seven day waiver. If it is processed in this calendar year, it will come under the old 1980 census. Mrs. Fandrei: Do you know how many there are available right now? Mr. Nagy: Altogether, including those in escrow, I think there is only one remaining. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Bourdic, you indicated you have been there for four years. Was the sale of liquor a long range goal at that time or has it recently come about? Mr. Bourdic: It was a long range goal. Mr. Morrow: Did you do any research prior to signing your lease relating to the City's restrictions relating to the church? Mr. Bourdic: I didn't even know about the church until a few days ago. It was just brought to my attention last week. 11826 Mr. Morrow: I think you understood what Mr. LaPine indicated that one of the duties of the Planning Commission is the ordinances of the City and our ordinance says we cannot approve one within 400 feet of a church. That is subject to appeal by other bodies but not this one. Mr. Bourdic: I do understand that. Mr. Engebretson: Regarding that particular issue, could Mr. Nagy or Mr. Shane comment on the item in our notes relative to the state law having not only a different distance, a somewhat longer distance, but rather than measure point to point, they measure out to the center line of the street, around the corner and back again. Is that basically a correct statement? There is that difference? Mr. Shane: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: So if these properties were one on Plymouth and one on Arcola but adjacent to that corner building with over 200 feet setbacks, then going out 200 feet to the middle of Plymouth Road and around the corner and up just a short distance and another 200 feet back, even though those properties may touch, would they then comply with the state law requirements? Mr. Shane: We measured it from a map along the lines the state requires, that is perpendicular to the center line of Plymouth Road east to the center line of Arcola, north from the center line of Arcola to the nearest point of the church and then perpendicular over to the church. Now that distance appears to be approximately 600 feet, which is 100 feet beyond what the state limit is. The Zoning Ordinance, however, for the City way of measuring is a direct line fir. from the nearest point of the proposed facility to the nearest point of the church. Mr. Engebretson: If these properties were side by side with a ten foot strip in between but with a 300 feet setback, according to state interpretation of this distance separation, they would meet the requirement. Mr. Nagy: That is exactly right and that is why when we drafted this provision of the ordinance, why we took nearest point to nearest point. We felt we couldn't defend that kind of measurement. We felt the easiest most direct way was nearest point to nearest point for the purpose of trying to come to an accurate measurement that we could defend. Mr. Engebretson: I agree with your conclusion. So based on the situation that we face here with the City ordinance being basically our role to enforce and the state having a more liberal interpretation which may permit this use, we still are faced with the reality and the necessity to deny this proposal. Wouldn't that be correct? Mr. Nagy: That would be correct. Mr. Engebretson: Then they could appeal to the City Council. 11827 Mr. Nagy: If this is denied, it terminates unless an appeal is made to the City Council. The City Council can override but they cannot change the standard of the ordinance. That standard can be changed by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Novo, Mr. Engebretson: So what would be the standard procedure. Mr. Nagy: If it were denied, they would appeal to Council and if the Council chooses to approve it, they would still have to try to overcome the defect that they have with regard to that zoning standard for separation between the church and their proposed location. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, unless this has been changed, wasn't there a decision made many years back that when there are two ordinances conflicting, the City versus the state, the one that was the most restrictive would be the one that would be applied. In this case, it would be the City. In other words, the City ordinance would prevail because it is the most restrictive. Mr. Nagy: I am not really in a position to say yes or no to that. I will say the state does allow local units of government, through their zoning ordinance, to set reasonable standards to regulate the uses. Mr. Tent: What I am trying to say is in this particular case our ordinance would prevail because we are the most restrictive. Mr. Nagy: Correct. Mr. Gniewek: John, explain to me if, in fact, this waiver use were approved, do they not still have to apply for an SDD license? L' Mr. Nagy: What we have before us is simply a zoning decision not whether or not they should or should not be awarded a license. They would have to make a separate application for a license. Mr. Gniewek: This is what I wanted to make clear. I don't know if the petitioner is aware of that either. Even if we granted the waiver, you would have to make application to the City Council to gain that license to go into that with that waiver use. It is not just cut and dried here. If we say yes that the waiver use is alright and you get your necessary waivers from the Zoning Board of Appeals, you still have to apply for a license. It just doesn't come automatically. With the limit that we have in the City at this point in time, I don't think it would be likely that would happen. I don't believe the Council would award that license at that point in time. I didn't know if you were aware of that. After this procedure, there is another procedure on top of that and maybe two more procedures. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-10-2-26 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #11-177-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 19, 1991 on Petition 91-10-2-26 by J & M's Party Store requesting waiver 11828 use approval to utilize an SDD license for an existing party store located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Cardwell and Cavell Avenues in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 91-10-2-26 be denied for the following reasons: �.► 1) That the petitioner fails to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject use fails to comply with the standard set forth in Section 11.03(r)(2) which requires at least a 400' separation between a proposed SDD licensed establishment and any church or school building. 3) That the proposed use is incompatible 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. Tent: The reason I voted to deny this petition is, because as Mr. Bourdic stated, everybody is selling their product in the area and this is true. Every restaurant, every grocery store, every party store and deli shop to become profitable, they have to sell liquor and beer. I look around Livonia and I see so many party stores and I think we have to retrench back and see if we need any more liquor stores in the City especially on Plymouth Road. That was my reasoning in making a recommendation of denial. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 91-10-2-27 by Arbor Drugs requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM license for an Arbor Drugs store to be located in an existing building on the north side of Five Mile Road between Levan Road and Williams Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17. Mr. Bakewell 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 waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or problems were found and their office has no objections to the proposal. We have a letter in our file from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the Police Department finds no objection to the site plan. Mr. Engebretson: Will the petitioner please come down to the podium and tell us what you have in mind. 11829 William Beech, 150 W. Jefferson, Detroit: I am with the law firm of Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone. I am here with Chuck Keeler, who is a Vice President with Arbor Drugs and we are both here to answer any questions you may have. We are here to ask for a waiver of use approval for Arbor Drugs to sell beer and wine out of the location `fiw at the northwest corner of Five Mile Road and Levan. They are brand new to this shopping center having opened up on November 7th. If you recall, the shopping center previously had a Frank's Nursery located on the corner, which I think still exists as a Frank's Nursery. The middle use, which is outlined as the use where we are attempting to get the beer and wine license approved, was the former Farmer Jack grocery store and next to that was a drug store called G & W Drugs, which was owned by Farmer Jack. When Farmer Jack went through its reorganization, they closed this particular store and they also closed the drug store. Arbor Drug Store has purchased all the pharmaceutical files from the drug store that was closed by Farmer Jack and they are now located in the new Arbor store. The Farmer Jack owners of G & W have placed the SDM license that was in existence at the G & W Drug Store in escrow and I have a letter from them which indicates that they have no intention of reopening this facility using the SDM license at that location nor do they have any intention, at this point in time, of selling the license at that location for anyone else's use. They are contemplating a use which I guess is very hush hush because they didn't want to reveal it to us, which would not require an SDM license at that location. What we would like is the ability to not only bring the pharmaceutical files over to the Arbor Drugs but also the ability to sell SDM products, beer and wine, from that location. I think it is a convenience that will keep the customers that are used to doing business at that location. We would like to be able to take advantage of the marketing of the former customers `�.. for that use. There are no other SDM uses within 500 feet. There are no churches or schools within 400 feet. It is located on a major road. The use is not different from the prior use in the shopping center of a drug store with an SDM license and, therefore, it would not change the use of the location and would continue to be in harmony with the neighborhood and all the requirements that are necessary under Section 19.06 of your Zoning Code. We would like to be able to actually continue the provision from the location next door of beer and wine carry out products with Arbor Drug Store. If you have any questions, we would be more than happy to answer them. Mr. McCann: Mr. Beech, I am not sure whether you have had the opportunity or not but have you reviewed the lease? Mr. Beech: Yes I have. Mr. McCann: Is there a covenant not to compete or a covenant for similar services in that mall? Mr. Beech: There is a covenant and it says the occupant of that premises can't sell nursery products; trees, flowers, things of that nature. They can't open a restaurant. They can't conduct any activities which are sexually orientated or solicitous but there was nothing in there stating that they could not have another use similar to an SDM use. 11830 Mr. McCann: You didn't request that of your landlord? Mr. Beech: I will have to refer that to Chuck. Chuck Keeler: The landlord in our case is indeed Farmer Jack. Borman's is our Now landlord. We have a sublease with them. We have the restriction as it relates to the sale of pharmaceutical products and certain amounts of health and beauty aid items but very seldom have we been able to negotiate a covenant as it relates to beer and wine in a shopping center. From time to time we will get a covenant as it relates to the possible use of liquor. Very seldom do you run into that with the sale of beer and wine. Mr. McCann: How many square feet is your store going to be? Mr. Keeler: It is 10,800 square feet roughly. Mr. McCann: It is very similar to the G & W that was there. Mr. Keeler: It is slightly larger. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Keeler, how many Arbor Drugs are there in Livonia? Mr. Keeler: This is our third. Mrs. Fandrei: How many in surrounding communities directly abutting Livonia? Mr. Keeler: We have approximately 120 in the metropolitan Detroit area and southeastern Michigan area. Mrs. Fandrei: You don't know what we have abutting Livonia. A dozen or so? *4411. Mr. Keeler: More than that. Mrs. Fandrei: Out of the stores that are in our general area, do any of them have SDD licenses? Mr. Keeler: Yes. Mrs. Fandrei: Is that something that might be in the plan for this store? Mr. Keeler: Simultaneously with an application for beer and wine, we always make an application for liquor. It is simply a procedural thing. If the liquor license happens to come our way, we are very happy to accept it. Of those 120 stores I imagine roughly half of them do have liquor licenses. Half of them do not, of course. Mrs. Fandrei: I would hope that you would not get an SDD license for this store. Mr. Keeler: My only comment to that is we make separate requests and investigations. There are separate procedural requirements by the LCC for that and obviously separate requirements by the City of Livonia as well and this is what is before us now, just beer and wine. 11831 Mrs. Fandrei: I am just indicating that I would prefer and hope that you don't pursue an SDD license. Mr. Beech: Just an additional comment pursuing that. In talking with Mr. Keeler I have learned that all of the Arbor Drug Stores in the area '`y do have SDM licenses. Mr. Tent: On the SDM license, inasmuch as G & W is going to be retaining theirs, are you picking up a license locally or in Lansing? Mr. Beech: This is just a new license application. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, are there any restrictions on the SDM licenses as to numbers? Mr. Nagy: There is no quota. Mr. Morrow: If I follow you correctly, you are saying the store that is vacant now could open and could conceivably have an SDM license granted side by side? Mr. Engebretson: Didn't Mr. Beech's opening comments include reference to a letter that indicated that wasn't going to happen. Mr. Beech presented the letter to the chairman. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to read this very short letter. "As we recently discussed, since we will be closing the above referenced store as of November 7, 1991, the SDM beer and wine license for that location will be placed in escrow with the Michigan Liquor Control Commission as required by law. The licensee has no current plans to again attempt to use that license at that location for its own purposes or to attempt to transfer it to any presently known prospective occupant for its space at this location." Going back to Mr. McCann's question relative to a covenant that would deal with this issue, it would be my opinion that this basically covers it. I wonder what Mr. Beech would say his interpretation of this is relative to this issue. Mr. Beech: It is a letter of indication at this point in time they have no intention of taking that license out of escrow and using it at that particular location. Mr. Engebretson: But it is not a covenant. It is not a committment. It is an indication. Mr. Beech: That is correct. Mr. Morrow: Should they decide to change their mind or say someone else comes in there, could you put two SDM's side by side? Mr. McCann: All over the City it is like that. All the Farmer Jacks have drug stores next to them. Mr. LaPine: What are the hours of Arbor Drugs? Will this be a 24 hour operation? 11832 Mr. Keeler: We operate all of our stores nine o'clock in the morning until ten o'clock at night seven days a week. We may operate shorter hours on Sunday in some locations. No 24-hour stores. Mr. LaPine: As I see it we don't have a big problem here. We have lost a '11411,. license and we are just going to have another one move into the building next door. Did I understand you to say that you understood from the landlord, Farmer Jack/Borman Company, that there is a possibility that the vacant store is going to be leased? Mr. Keeler: The indication that I had was not so much that they intended on keeping it secret but my impression was they are involved in some kind of lease negotiations right now and they were just unwilling to tell me now. Mr. LaPine: We would be happy to see that leased because that was a real eyesore for a long time until Frank's came in and renovated it and it has now turned into a nice shopping center. Knowing Arbor Drugs you do a good job and we hope you will be a good citizen and keep your property up and we welcome you to town. Mr. Kluver: To the question that Mr. Morrow raised. We already have a facility like that at Six Mile Road and Newburgh. We have a Perry Drug Store that sells beer, wine and liquor adjacent to a food store, the Food Emporium, which sells beer and wine so obviously it can be a reality. Mrs. Fandrei: Am I right when I say the beer and wine, at least the wine, is going to be behind the counter? Mr. Keeler: The beer or wine is normally not behind the counter. It is normally located in front of our service counter in the back. It is normally self serve. Mrs. Fandrei: What you are referring to as a future liquor/lotto service counter is where they pay for it? Mr. Keeler: You could pay for beer and wine anywhere in the store. The service counter is always built into our locations and varies in size by virtue of the amount of services we offer. For instance if we were to sell liquor or have a lotto terminal, we would sell liquor from behind the counter and we would have a larger counter to accommodate the lotto. I don't know what type of a plan you have in front of you but there is no anticipated use of liquor in that store. I am sure it will be filled up with something else. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-10-2-27 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was 11833 #11-178-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 19, 1991 on Petition 91-10-2-27 by Arbor Drugs requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM license for an Arbor Drugs store to be located in an existing building on the north side of Five Mile Road between Levan Road and Williams Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 91-10-2-27 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general standards and requirements as set forth in Section 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 4) That the approval of this petition will not mean an increase in the number of SDD licensed facilities 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. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 91-10-2-28 by Dembs Roth-Christopher requesting waiver use approval for outdoor storage of contractor's equipment and materials on property located on the north side of Glendale Avenue between Farmington Road and Westmore Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. LaPine: Ralph, could you indicate up there where the actual area is in the rear that they are going to use as a storage area? What I am getting at, they have a small area of grass from the rear of the building to where the parking lot behind them starts. Jack and I figured approximately 25 feet. Then there is an indentation where parking is. I want to know is the area they are going to use for the proposed storage including the indentation? Mr. Nagy: It is the grassed area in the back of the building. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to the waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no objections to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the storage area in this petition does not fall under the Police Department's purview. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or problems were found, therefore they have no objections to the proposal. 11834 Mark Lipshaw of Dembs-Roth, 27300 W. Eleven Mile, Southfield: As the landlord we are just here to represent the building and the new tenant. Lakewood Landscaping is our tenant and they have been with us for the last couple of years. They came in front of the board about two years ago to ask for the same waiver change for a location about a mile away. They found out they have outgrown the building there and they moved into a new building. This building works much better for their use. I understand you might have a letter of what they want to store back there. It is about 25 feet by about 74 feet, which they want to put about a 6 foot chain link fence around it with gates on the west side and east side. They pretty much want to store their tractors and equipment that they don't use all the time back there, which does not need to be stored inside the building. It is only on the grass. The parking lot just to the north is not our property. If there are any other questions you might have I can answer or Mike from Lakewood Landscaping can answer, we will be happy to do so. Mr. Engebretson: Do you intend to pave that area? Mr. Lipshaw: At the onset they just want to put down gravel just to keep it from turning to mud like they did at the other site. In the future, possibly as their revenues increase, they want to pave it. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, is that permitted on a permanent basis or would there be some restrictions? Mr. Nagy: Only for two years. It would have to be hard surfaced after that. 'No . Mr. Gniewek: You indicated there would be gates on the east and west? Mr. Lipshaw: The thing I am proposing to do is on the west side, which is toward the parking lot, that would be the primary use. If they feel it is needed to get in the other side, they do have an existing drive. It was just recently installed on the west side. Mr. Gniewek: You wouldn't be exiting onto another property? Mr. Lipshaw: No. We are on the perimeter of Westmore and Glendale. Mr. Gniewek: My feeling is when you had indicated a gate on each end, that you would probably have to exit from that particular property onto another property but you do have a drive that you would exit onto? Mr. Lipshaw: Correct. Mr. Gniewek: What about the west side? Mr. Lipshaw: On the west side there is a parking lot. It is a common parking lot. Mr. Gniewek: It is for access to both buildings. Is that owned by you also? Mr. Lipshaw: Yes. 11835 Mr. Morrow: Because outdoor storage is a waiver, I think the petitioner alluded to a list of the things that are going to be stored there. I wonder if they could share that list with me. Mr. Engebretson: This is not necessarily a commitment of what will be stored there on a permanent basis but rather a list that could be stored there occasionally: 1991 Finn Hydroseeder, 1991 Case Tractor/Loader/ Trailer, GEHL Skidsteer Loader/Trailer, 1988 Ford 6 YD Dump Truck, Ford F-600, Ford L-800, Pick-Up Truck and occasionally fertilizer and landscaping materials. Mr. Morrow: Would all of these be parked there at one time? Mike Katulski, Director of Sales and Development for Lakewood Landscaping: This list is just a representative sample. These pieces of equipment are in constant usage. Most of those listed here are summertime oriented equipment so a great percentage of the time they are in transition. Mr. Morrow: Let's say the season is over, where would some of this equipment be for the winter? Would it be inside or at another location? Mr. Katulski: Some of the equipment will be converted into a tanker that becomes a salter. The same is true with the GEHL Skidsteer. It is kept inside the vast majority of the time because it is used to load and unload salt. The other summertime oriented equipment, during the winter months, is stored in a location we have in Salem Township. Most of the equipment is in transition. Mr. Morrow: In addition to the equipment you are talking about, you mentioned `� occasionally fertilizer and landscaping material. What would that be? Particularly the landscape material. Would that be like shrubs or would it be debris brought in from other jobs? Mr. Katulski: All of our debris is contained within dumpsters so there would be no debris. Our softer materials are stored inside. We are talking here about some occasional storage of say some railroad ties. Mr. Morrow: If this does go forward in an approving motion, I want to have some way to tie it down to pretty much what we have here as opposed to very heavy equipment because we have the use running with the land and the next tenant might have something that might not be as desirable. Mr. Engebretson: I am sure the petitioner is aware that outside storage is a permitted use in a manufacturing district. However, the permitted uses for outdoor storage does not include landscaping and contractor's equipment and materials and that is what this is all about. That is why Mr. Morrow did make that recommendation to have some limitation to what could be stored out there. Mr. McCann: Would you object if we limited it? We can put certain restrictions in. In the past when we have had problems with outdoor storage, it ends up becoming like the garage out back. We start putting things in and they never get out. What I see is you 11836 will have left over railroad ties built up back there but feel you will need them on the job pretty soon and you end up piling up stuff. I might consider making a recommendation that you would be allowed only movable equipment such as trucks, tractors, lawnmowers, etc. I would leave it to the staff to find the proper �`. verbage but something that would limit you from storing outside all your storage materials and items that you keep inside for a short time. You would just keep your heavy equipment in the yard. Mr. Katulski: Mr. McCann, our equipment is really not that heavy. The only thing you might think of in terms of soft contract material, what comes to mind when I say railroad ties, we are talking about a relatively few in number. However, they are difficult because of the unloading process and handling to keep inside. The only other product that we would store there occasionally, of necessity, would be some nursery stock that would be purchased one day and was to be installed within the next several days. What comes to mind would be flowers. Mr. McCann: Could we limit it to those three items, nursery stock, railroad ties and flowers? Mr. Katulski: Certainly. Mr. Tent: I am concerned about the fertilizer. Is that going to be raw fertilizer back there or will it be in bags? Mr. Katulski: All of our product is contained within bags. Again, we are building some interior shelving for the fertilizer. Our anticipation would be merely storing it there until we can move it into the building. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Katulski, the area you are going to use for the outside storage is 24 feet by 74 feet. Am I correct? Under our ordinance a parking spot is 10 feet by 20 feet. I look at some of these items. You can't get some of these items parked the 24 foot way. Everything is going to be parked back to back. How are you going to maneuver this stuff back there? Mr. Katulski: There is a bit of jockeying to be employed. That is the situation we have in our current building, which we have the same type of waiver use on. To help alleviate that, we have requested gates at both ends. Mr. LaPine: Are you talking about a gate on the east side where you have installed a concrete driveway and an overhead door. Are you talking about a gate there and a gate on the west side? Mr. Katulski: We would anticipate putting a gate there at some point. We wouldn't put it in initially. Mr. LaPine: Would you have to have another drive next to the drive you have there? 11837 Mr. Katulski: No. We would just branch off that existing drive. Mr. LaPine: You would have nothing stored outside on the west side of the building, which I assume is your parking? �► Mr. Katulski: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: In the final summation of your letter you say this is not a list of what will be stored on a continual permanent basis but rather a list of items that could occasionally be stored. As I understand it, these items will be there not on a continuous basis, just coming and going. What will you have stored out there on a continuous permanent basis? Mr. Katulski: During the summertime the only two items that would be there continually, and I use that term rather loosely because again these items are on the job sites, would be the Finn Hydroseeder. Mr. Kluver: I am just curious. To the petitioner, what is the current size of the existing building you are going to vacate? Mr. Lipshaw: About 2800 square feet. Mr. Kluver: How large was the storage area? Mr. Lipshaw: A little larger than what it is here. It was a long thin situation so they were backing in and out. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-10-2-28 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #11-179-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 19, 1991 on Petition 91-10-2-28 by Dembs Roth-Christopher requesting waiver use approval for outdoor storage of contractor's equipment and materials on property located on the north side of Glendale Avenue between Farmington Road and Westmore Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does herey recommend to the City Council that Petition 91-10-2-28 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 10-28-91 which illustrates the proposed storage yard which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the storage of equipment and material shall not include top soil, fertilizer, wood chips or similar material except as is kept on a truck for subsequent transport to another location. 3) That the outdoor storage area shall be paved within a two-year period and that initially it shall comply with the standards of the Engineering Department for a hard surface base. 11838 4) That the outside storage of landscape materials shall be limited to nursery stock, railroad ties and flowers. 5) That equipment items to be stored shall be limited to: 1991 Finn Hydroseeder, 1991 Case Tractor/Loader/Trailer, GEHL Skidsteer �.. Loader/Trailer, 1988 Ford 6 Yd. Dump Truck, Ford F-600, Ford L-800 and Pick-Up Truck. 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. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 91-10-2-29 by Marcy Trudeau requesting waiver use approval to construct an indoor playland addition at an existing restaurant on the east side of Ann Arbor Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Butwell Street in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31. Mr. Bakewell 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 Fire Marshal's office stating they have no objection to this proposal. We also have a letter in our file from the Traffic Bureau stating they have no objection to the addition. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The proposed roof overhang, which protrudes into the front yard setback, will require a waiver from the Zoning Board of Appeals. 2. The seating plan is not specific but we calculate that there will be 126 seats. This is an increase of 28 seats over the current seating for 98 and will require 63 parking spaces. The site currently has 67 spaces which leaves 4 spaces for employee parking. It is anticipated that during peak hours, this establishment will have many times that number of employees, thus causing a parking deficiency which must be appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 3. Any additional signs will require ZBA approval. 4. The required landscaping was never installed on the south property line where this property abuts the strip center. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, getting back to the parking deficiencies, you indicated that during peak hours there will be deficiencies with the employees at this location. Are we talking more than six spaces? Mr. Nagy: It is likely there would be. Mr. Tent: How many more? How many spaces are we talking during peak hours? Mr. Nagy: There are four surplus spaces now and when the petitioner comes forward and tells us what their employee count is, it is my understanding that during peak hours there might be as many as 15 employees, so there could be likely a shortfall of 10 to 11 parking spaces. 11839 Mr. Tent: That is significant and the way they operate at McDonalds they do have a lot of employees and they are continuous with their operation. Mr. Nagy: I should just simply tell you that this report was given to the petitioner and with that information they were going to go back and look at their seating and try to overcome these deficiencies. I don't want to prejudice their case. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come down and give us your name and address and tell us about your plans. Tom Radcliffe, McDonald's Corporation, 2000 Town Center, Southfield: Also with me tonight is the owner/operator of the restaurant, Marcy Trudeau, 38015 Ann Arbor Road. The restaurant opened in 1989 and at that time we had approximately 4590 square feet of restaurant. What we are proposing tonight is to add approximately 900 square feet on the front portion of the building for an indoor play place. We presently are looking at that and looking at our plans. The addition will take this right to the setback line. I think you have site plans in front of you that will indicate that. We presently have 67 parking spaces. The addition will not cause us to lose any parking places. In addition, I would like to comment that we have submitted a preliminary landscape plan. In the front area we still will be maintaining a very adequate landscape area. I would like to discuss a few of the comments that were mentioned. First of all regarding the seat layout. Although we have attached a sketch of what it will look like we have not finalized the actual seat layout although I would indicate that the seating that would be around the play place, the majority of that seating is of the `ow character variety where they are very small for the kids to sit on. They are not really our typical big seats. Mrs. Trudeau: We have many customers. Most of our customers have children and this is why they come to the restaurant. They have often requested that I should have a playland. They ask why I don't have a playland because their children enjoy the play place. What we are proposing is one side being a play place. On the other side we will have a room for birthday parties, which is also something we do quite often, and this is basically for children. The character seats you see are for the young children and they will not be driving. Mr. LaPine: The store at Joy and Merriman. Is this location going to be basically like that location? Mrs. Trudeau: Mine is going to be of a circular nature and it is going to be enclosed like that one so it doesn't disturb my regular customers eating lunch. It is going to be soundproof. Mr. LaPine: At this location at Joy and Merriman they don't have any smaller seats. 11840 Mrs. Trudeau: No they don't. This is my idea. Mr. LaPine: Will this be a separate room for the kids? There happened to be a birthday party going on when we were there but it was out in the main restaurant. Yours is going to be a separate room? Mrs. Trudeau: Right. Mr. LaPine: Will that be enclosed too? Mrs. Trudeau: That will be enclosed also. I have studied various restaurants that have the playland and determined this is the best solution so I would not be disturbing the regular customers. The kids could enjoy their party privately and also have a play area without making too much noise for anyone else. Mr. LaPine: How often do you have birthday parties? Mrs. Trudeau: Presently I don't have that many. Typically they are in the evening or on weekends. Two or three on a Saturday and perhaps one or two during the week. Mr. LaPine: So what you are saying is the additional seating that we are talking about is not for grownups. It is for kids so, therefore, they would not be increasing any cars because these kids will be coming with their parents. Mrs. Trudeau: Yes that is true. Mr. Radcliffe: If I may, I would also like to comment, in addition, that the fir. average group size in our restaurants is 2.4 customers per visit so what we are saying is this is what we average per car. You can work backwards and that is more than we would ever handle in that whole parking lot. Mrs. Trudeau: I would like to address the question of the employees. I am not a very high volume restaurant. At the present time, at my highest peak, we only have 12 employees at one time during lunch hour and if sales increase at all, I would anticipate 15 employees. I might add that many of them are very close in the area and young so many of them walk so I would say there are ten employees that actually drive. Obviously, if I ever found the need to increase the parking, I would do so. Mr. Vyhnalek: Has the parking area ever been completely filled? Mrs. Trudeau: No. Mr. Vyhnalek: I was there Saturday and that is a large parking area. What percentage of your business is drive-in? Mrs. Trudeau: My drive-in percentage is 67 per cent. Mr. Vyhnalek: My obervation on Saturday when it was pretty much full, parking was no problem. `.. 11841 Mr. Morrow: I have no reason to not agree with what you said as far as that being a problem but it would still have to be appealed to the Zoning Board. Mrs. Trudeau: Yes, I understand. Mr. Morrow: There was also an overhang that would also have to be appealed. Were you aware of that? Mrs. Trudeau: Oh yes that is true but we have decided we do not need that overhang for protection of the sun. Presently I don't have an overhang. That will be deleted. Mr. LaPine: To the representative from McDonald's, I am curious is this a new trend that McDonald's is going to have with these play areas inside and if so, on the newer ones that are being built, how come they are not incorporated at the time of construction? Mr. Radcliffe: In answer to your question, the playlands themselves have been with McDonald's for quite a little while. The majority of them have been outdoor playlands. What we are seeing now is the need, especially in the winter climates, to provide the indoor playlands. In the Michigan area we have added quite a few in the last year. I wouldn't say it is a total trend. We look at the demographics in the area and the ability to meet the capacity. In answer to your question why don't we put them in when the restaurant opens, in some cases we do. However, we usually like to leave it up to our operators to get a feel for their particular clientele before the playlands are added as opposed to opening them up with playlands. 'NNW Mr. LaPine: Mrs. Trudeau, when I was out there Saturday looking at the one on Joy Road, I didn't see any supervision. The kids were having a great time. How do you control them going in there with food and beverages? Mrs. Trudeau: All children are accompanied by their parents and it is stated that they should be accompanied by their parents. I believe the Joy Road store has seats on the outside. We could not allow parents to just drop them off and leave them unsupervised. Personally, I do want to have a particular person within that room for supervising and my idea is we are going to have story hour and different events where children can come in and it is going to require someone watching. Mr. Engebretson: First of all, I want you to know I think this is a really good idea. I think what we have seen at other locations would cause me to believe this is a very good business idea and a safe place for the children to play. I am concerned about the comment made earlier that you haven't necessarily made the final determination relative to seating in this area. The problem is, we have to deal with the facts as they have been presented and you definitely show seating in the dining area, seating around the play area and I guess the point is, according to the information we have, you do have a deficiency in parking as it pertains to the facts as we deal 11842 with them and you will need to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and we are going to make our decision based on what we have in front of us here tonight. If this doesn't represent your ultimate plan, then obviously it is very important for you to make those decisions and get them committed in writing as this whole process wr., goes through the course. It would have been nice if you would have had them for tonight. Mrs. Trudeau: Yes it would have. I did have another tentative plan but it isn't what I like so I still may want to make some changes. I want it arranged so it is conducive to a story hour. I am also going to have a Ronald that is going to talk and it is going to be somewhat educational as well, so I want the seating just right. I can make sure the seating is limited to the number that is required. However, I have no problem, in fact we have filled out a petition to go in front of the ZBA and I have talked to Mr. Barton and Mr. MacDonald and they seemed to indicate that all that would be required is that I go ahead and fill out the waiver and there should be no problem. Mr. Engebretson: We are not trying to indicate to you otherwise. I am just trying to emphasize the point that it is normally our practice here to deal only with reality and typically we would table an item like this after learning the plans were still in limbo. I think you are close enough so that would be inappropriate here tonight but please do attend to that at your earliest convenience. Mr. Tent: What I am concerned about, again, is incomplete plans. Seating is important and so is the parking situation. I certainly agree with what you said Mr. Chairman about the facts are not complete and for us to go ahead and tell the petitioner to go before the ZBA to finalize the things we should be deciding here in this meeting, I think is wrong. If I was made aware of what the seating was going to be, I could support this petition but if we were to act on it tonight, I would vote against it and I would certainly hope the Commissioners would not reject it at this particular time but to refer it to a study meeting until we get the complete drawings and all the information and then at that point we could proceed. We are only talking about tabling this until next week so we can finalize it because Mrs. Trudeau has several ideas she wants to put together. I would like to see them as part of our resolution. I think her ideas about the kiddie seats are great and I was going to suggest to Mr. Radcliffe that he consider that because I know of several other McDonald's that are going to be coming in with the same idea. So unless we resolve this at a study session, I am going to vote against it. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mrs. Trudeau, is there a time restraint on this? Mrs. Trudeau: Only to myself. I would like to get construction going as soon as possible. Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you going to start construction this winter? 11843 Mrs. Trudeau: There is a financial advantage and it also provides something in the winter time for the folks with children. There aren't too many places, other than the YMCA, that a parent or grandparents can take their children and enjoy some quality time with them. Mr. Vyhnalek: Once this project got started, how long would it take? Mrs. Trudeau: Approximately one month. Mr. Vyhnalek: You have to go before the ZBA. You probably will not go there before the next week or two. Mrs. Trudeau: I believe the next meeting isn't until December 17th. Mr. Vyhnalek: So you have approximately three weeks before you appear before them. Could you come back next Tuesday with all your plans? Mrs. Trudeau: Sure I have no problem with that. Mr. Vyhnalek: If you had everything in order, in two weeks we could have this all cleared up. Mrs. Trudeau: I think the concern is the number of seats not the arrangement, which is what I am having a problem with. If we left it with the same number, 126 seats, then would that satisfy you and I would still be going before the ZBA? Mr. Vyhnalek: You would keep it at 126 but you would arrange it how you wanted to and, of course, it could be less. `. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-10-2-29 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 19, 1991 on Petition 91-10-2-29 by Marcy Trudeau requesting waiver use approval to construct an indoor playland addition at an existing restaurant on the east side of Ann Arbor Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Butwell Street in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 91-10-2-29 until the study meeting of November 26, 1991. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Kluver NAYS: McCann, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei, Engebretson ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was 11844 ##11-180-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 19, 1991 on Petition 91-10-2-29 by Marcy Trudeau requesting waiver use approval to construct an indoor playland addition at an existing restaurant on the east side of Ann Arbor Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Butwell Street in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31, the City Planning ``.• Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 91-10-2-29 be approved for the following reasons: 1) The proposed expansion and use is a minor and complimentary expansion. 2) The site has sufficient capacity to accommodate its proposed expansion. Subject to the following conditions: 1) That this approval is made subject to ZBA approval, if required, with respect to the parking. 2) That any additional wall signage proposed over what is allowed by the C-2 zoning district requirements shall first be approved by the ZBA and thereafter submitted to the Planning Commission for their review and approval. 3) That landscaping shall be installed along the south property line in full compliance with the previously approved landscape plan. 4) That Building Elevation Plan A-2 dated 10-18-91 and Site Plan SP-1 dated 10-18-91 shall be adhered to and all site landscaping as shown thereon shall be installed before issuance of its Certificate of Occupancy for the building addition. 5) That there shall be a maximum of 126 seats. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: McCann, Gniewek, Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei, Engebretson NAYS: Tent ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent: It is not that I don't support the plan. I think it is great and I think you have a good location and a good idea there. I am voting against it merely because it is incomplete at this point and I would like to have all the facts before me before I make my decision. I am not against what you are doing, it is just the way it was presented. 11845 Mrs. Trudeau: I would like to make a comment regarding the landscaping. The only reason it wasn't complete on the one side of the building was that Edison had to do some additional rewiring and wiring right over that area and Edison wouldn't allow me to install certain trees that would grow higher than the electrical wires. I definitely r.. will put in landscaping but it has to be modified slightly. Mr. Engebretson: You have done a very good job and we trust that you will continue to do that. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously approved, it was #11-181-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #802-91, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not the property located at the southeast corner of Newburgh and Five Mile Roads should be rezoned from C-2 to RUF; and FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. *41101. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #11-182-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #803-91, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not certain property located on the northeast corner of Five Mile and Newburgh Roads should be rezoned from C-2 to C-1 and; FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously approved, it was #11-183-91 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 632nd Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on October 15, 1991 are approved. 11846 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously approved, it was ##11-184-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Subdivision Entrance Marker proposed for Caliburn Estates Subdivision proposed to be located south of Seven Mile Road, east of Newburgh Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8 subject to the following conditions: 1) That the plan for the entrance marker for Caliburn Estates Subdivision dated 9-5-91 prepared by Basney and Smith, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the landscaping as shown on the plan shall also be installed at the same time the marker is erected. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was ##11-185-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Subdivision Entrance Marker and Landscape Greenbelt proposed for Caliburn Manor Subdivision proposed to be located west of Newburgh just north of Laurel Park Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7 subject to the following conditions: 1) That the plan for the entrance marker and greenbelt for Caliburn Manor Subdivision dated 9-5-91 prepared by Basney and Smith, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the landscaping as shown on the plan shall also be installed as part of the overall subdivision improvements. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 633rd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on November 19, 1991 was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ✓ / Brenda Lee Fandrei, Secretary ATTEST: fl ` L1(; ; Jack ngebretsdn, Chairman jg