HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1993-06-22 12875
MINUTES OF THE 666th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
I ' HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
j LIVONIA
On Tuesday, June 22, 1993, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 666th 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 20 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann
Brenda Lee Fandrei William LaPine Raymond W. Tent
Robert Alanskas
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director,
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
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. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
93-5-1-6 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution
#20-93, proposing to rezone land within the Argonne and the Argonne
Annex Subdivisions, located west of Inkster Road and north of Pembroke
Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1 from RUF 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
their office would have no objections to this rezoning proposal.
We have also received a letter from Gerald Reetz and wife who live
at 19933 St. Francis. They state they are long time residents and
wish their land to stay this way.
Mr. Engebretson: Since this came to us from the City Council for this action, Mr.
Nagy would you please give us a brief description of what they may
have had in mind when they directed us to hold this public hearing.
\..
12876
Mr. Nagy: The City Council had occasion to look at the area in connection
with one or more lot splits and lot combination requests that
occurred within the subject area for additional housing. In
examining those lot splits, of course, they look at the existing
zoning that is established within the area. This zoning
classification being RUF is a rural urban farm classification and
requires minimum lot sizes of 1/2 acre or an area of 21,780 square
feet. Due to the fact that the area is an old plat, platted way
back in township days with the lots being platted at the 40 foot
width classification, none of the lots meet the RUF zoning
classification. I should tell you that the RUF zoning really came
about back in the township days under the predecessor ordinance of
##543. Ordinance i#60 did allow for residential lots less than 1/2
acre in established RUF zoned areas. The Zoning Ordinance #543,
which was adopted in 1965, did not carry forward that exemption so
therefore these lots, upon adoption of #543 in 1965, all became
non-conforming. That is, they were lawfully platted, lawfully
zoned, lawfully built upon back in township days under the
predecessor ordinance but due to the fact we now have a different
zoning classification and a different ordinance in effect, they are
non-conforming. The Council is really asking the Planning
Commission to see whether or not that area should or should not be
rezoned to a zoning classification so as to make the zoning more
commensurate with and more appropriate with the established lot
sizes. That is the purpose for this hearing to hear public comment
whether or not to go forward with that. Due to the fact that the
lots were platted at 40, even under our present Zoning Ordinance
##543, in the R-1 zoning classification, which we are proposing, the
minimum lot size is 60 feet so we cannot make all of the lots
conform even to R-1. That is the best we can do because that is
the smallest that we allow under #543. There will still be a lot
`'m. of non-conforming lots left even if we go forward with this
proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, would you also comment on what would the advantages or
disadvantages be to the homeowners in this area if this proposal
were adopted.
Mr. Nagy: The advantage is to have a zoning classification that is
appropriate for the size of the lots so as to eliminate the
non-conforming status. When you have non-conforming lots, every
time you would want to build or alter your home, whatever would
necessitate an addition or expansion to your dwelling, when you
go in to apply for a building permit the City Inspection Department
would immediately determine that you are a non-conforming lot.
Therefore, you would likely end up having to go to the Zoning Board
of Appeals. With a conforming lot you are saved that step. You
avoid that technical classification of being non-conforming or
non-complying with the established residential zoning of the area.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Nagy. Are there any questions or comments?
Mr. Alanskas: The letter you received, what size is their lot?
Mr. Nagy: They indicated they have two lots with a total of 80 by 136 feet.
12877
Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to
speak for or against this proposed zoning change.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-5-1-6 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-127-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 22,
1993 on Petition 93-5-1-6 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution ##20-93, proposing to rezone land within the Argonne
and the Argonne Annex Subdivisions, located west of Inkster Road and
north of Pembroke Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1 from RUF to
R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 93-5-1-6 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed R-1 zoning district more nearly reflects the
prevailing lot sizes in the area.
2) That the proposedchange of zoning provides a more reasonable and
compatible zoning district for the subject area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
##543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
"wowMr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-5-1-8
by John Carlesimo, Carlesimo Products Inc. , requesting to rezone
property located south of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and
Milburn Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2 from R-3 to R-2.
Mr. Engebretson: We have a letter from the petitioner which reads as follows:
"Carlesimo Products, Inc. wishes to withdraw its petition 93-5-1-8
requesting to rezone property located south of 8 Mile Road between
Merriman Road & Milburn Ave. in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2 from
R-3 zoning to R-2. We apologize for the concern & time spent on
this petition." That was signed by John Carlesimo, President of
Carlesimo Products, Inc.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
X66-128-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 22,
1993 and pursuant to receiving a letter dated June 21, 1993 from John
Carlesimo, Carlesimo Products, Inc. requesting that Petition 93-5-1-8 by
John Carlesimo, Carlesimo Products Inc. , requesting to rezone property
located south of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and Milburn
Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2 from R-3 to R-2 be withdrawn,
the City Planning Commission does hereby concur in that request and
declares that Petition 93-5-1-8 is hereby withdrawn.
12878
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 93-5-2-11
by Dewain A. Diacono requesting waiver use approval to operate an auto
repair and bump shop facility in an existing building located on the
west side of Merriman Road between Plymouth and the C & 0 Railroad
right-of-way in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27.
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
due to the grading and right-of-way requirements associated with
the impending Merriman Road grade separation, it appears that
driveway access will be required off Enterprise Drive rather than
Merriman Road. This matter is currently being studied in
conjunction with the preparation of the construction plans for the
grade separation program. We have also received a letter from the
Fire Marshal's office stating their office has no objection to this
proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau
stating the police department has no objection to the site plan as
submitted. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance
Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems
were found: 1. There is a severe deterioration of the parking lot
at the south side of the building. 2. There is some peeling paint
` ow on the shop area walls. 3. A large amount of trash and debris in
the parking lot. 4. When the railroad grade separation is
completed, there will not be access through the existing driveway
and gate. The applicant should submit a revised site plan
indicating ingress, parking layout, traffic patterns, etc. If
there are plans for additional bay doors, they should be included
on the revised plan.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and make whatever
comments you wish to make.
Dewain Diacono, 12375 Merriman: There was a little fine line I was curious on,
which entrance they wanted to use the Merriman or the Enterprise?
Mr. Engebretson: The Enterprise. It is our understanding when that construction
occurs regarding the railroad tracks there, it is going to be
difficult, if not impossible, for you to take access to Merriman
Road but we think you would be well served by taking access by the
drive to the south.
Mr. Diacono: I don't see that being a problem. I was in the City Engineering
Department this afternoon talking with a gentleman. If you put a
5% grade on the curb side going from Merriman, he said there would
be no problem. They had it written on paper. I do not have a copy
of that or plans here tonight.
\r.
12879
Mr. Engebretson: We have the same problem. We don't know the details of that and
we are not saying that we want you to move it around to the side
but it looks like you may have to until we can make a
determination.
`'a' Mr. Diacono: That is no problem.
Mr. Morrow: That was pretty much the point where I was coming from. They had
the opportunity to submit a revised site plan based on the input
from Engineering. Obviously they haven't.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Diacono, would you have any problem in regards to painting that
building on the outside?
Mr. Diacono: No I would definitely like to put another coat of paint on it.
Mr. Alanskas: How about the parking lot situation referred to. It is just gravel
in the back?
Mr. Diacono: It is going to be cleaned up back there. It will be asphalt.
Mr. LaPine: I noticed on the site plan you have room inside your building for a
number of cars. Are you going to have any outside storage of
vehicles that are damaged or are all of your vehicles that are
damaged going to be parked inside?
Mr. Diacono: The building is surrounded with brick walls. There is an entry
gate and a cyclone fence. I have five employees currently. That
is about all I am going to be putting in the shop. Sometimes there
may be a vehicle outside.
Nos.
Mr. LaPine: It will be at the north end so it cannot be seen?
Mr. Diacono: Definitely.
Mr. LaPine: Where is your dumpster going to be?
Mr. Diacono: I am looking at it more on the northwest corner. The brick wall
covers the north, west and south side of the property and there is
a cyclone fence on the east side.
Mr. LaPine: It is not indicated on your plans.
Mr. Diacono: No it is not.
Mr. LaPine: We wanted to get that on here so we know exactly where it will be.
How often would you haul that stuff away?
Mr. Diacono: The debris itself, I will be using most likely Waste Management for
regular debris and paper products, etc. Scrap metal would most
likely be three to four weeks.
Mr. LaPine: Are you in this type of business right now?
Mr. Diacono: Yes in Redford Township.
12880
Mr. LaPine: Are you going to keep the one in Redford?
Mr. Diacono: No I am not.
There was no one present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. Engebretson,
r4411. Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-5-2-11 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-129-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 22,
1993 on Petition 93-5-2-11 by Dewain A. Diacono requesting waiver use
approval to operate an auto repair and bump shop facility in an existing
building located on the west side of Merriman Road between Plymouth and
the C&O Railroad right-of-way in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the
City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition
93-5-2-11 until receipt of a revised site plan.
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 93-5-2-12
by Justin A. Kincaid requesting waiver use approval for outdoor storage
and rental of U-Haul trucks and trailers on property located on the
south side of Ann Arbor Road between Knolson Avenue and Hix Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 31.
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
their office has .no objections to this waiver use petition. We
have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the
police department has no objections to the site plan as submitted.
Also in our file is a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating
they have 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. See attached
violation notice of 4/27/93 to cease and desist parking and/or
storing and/or renting U-Haul trailers and trucks anywhere on this
property (Waiver use approval required). 2. Rental vehicles are
currently being stored in the front 20' of the property. This is
prohibited by Ordinance. 3. Three boats, a private utility
trailer, several disabled vehicles and a semi tractor are being
stored on the property. 4. Only the area in front of the building
is paved. The balance of the side and rear yards are a mix of
gravel, dirt and weeds. 5. Fifteen percent of the site is required
to be landscaped. There is virtually no on-site landscape
materials. 6. There are illegal wall signs on both the east and
west building elevations. 7. The existing pole sign does not
12881
conform to the new Sign Ordinance and cannot be altered to reflect
the proposed use of the property. 8. There is a long history of
complaints about the use and the condition of this property.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here this evening?
'Nor
The petitioner was not present.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this proposal.
Clyde Holcomb, 9386 Knolson: My lot is the pie shaped one. There is a walkway and
another lot between my property and the property being talked
about. I think it is too small for what the guy wants. He doesn't
have enough parking there to begin with. It looks like a junk
yard. We were sitting in the backyard today and the fumes from a
semi truck was choking us. It might affect me more than anyone
else but I don't want it there.
Dave Cisco, President of Dover/Arbor Neighborhood Association: You have seen me
here before. I was asked to represent a couple of the homeowners
that could not make it and present their side of it. I agree with
the previous gentleman. My personal reaction is it would be very
nice to have a truck/trailer rental agency within a close distance
of my home. It would be good for me. It would be good for
Livonia, but this place is a junkyard. I went over there last
night. I listened to the violations that you gentlemen reported.
What I found was miscellaneous cars and trucks, both in the front
and the back. There is what appears to be an abandoned boat in the
back, a pile of dirt, plywood, weeds, etc. I will say someone
planted pansies in front of the place but other than that, the
bushes are untrimmed. Maybe that is good because it hides some of
the stuff. I think the people in the area are afraid of a U-Haul
graveyard going in right there. I guess the reaction I have from a
neighborhood association perspective is we have not called special
meetings on this yet but we are more than happy to do so if this
issue continues. I would be more than happy to lobby for
endorsement of this if the situation is turned around 180 degrees.
If this does indeed become a well-kept industrious looking
business we would like to have that kind of thing in the
neighborhood, but the way it is today, it is a combination
junkyard and RV storage place. Unless there is significant
improvement, we will be very much against it.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-5-2-12 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#t6-130-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition
93-5-2-12 by Justin A. Kincaid requesting waiver use approval for
outdoor storage and rental of U-Haul trucks and trailers on property
12882
located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Knolson Avenue and
Hix Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
93-5-2-12 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with the special and general waiver
use standards as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance #543.
2) That the proposed use fails to comply with Section 11.03(k) of the
Zoning Ordinance which prohibits the parking or display of utility
trailers within twenty (20) feet of the front lot line.
3) That the subject use fails to comply with Section 19.06(j) of the
Zoning Ordinance which requires that at least 15% of the total area
of the parcel or lot shall be landscaped.
4) That the subject site lacks the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use.
5) That the proposed use is detrimental to and not in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
6) That this petitioner has failed to comply with at least 4 of the 7
conditions of approval as set forth in the Planning Commission and
City Council resolutions in connection with Petition 72-5-2-12
which established the present auto repair use currently being
operated on the subject site.
'�.► 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. Morrow: To the staff, has the Inspection Department got any type of a
history on trying to resolve anything with this petitioner because
regardless of what we do with this petition tonight, the problem
still exists? I am just wondering what the track record is in
trying to bring them into compliance.
Mr. Shane: Yes they do have a rather involved track record. They have been
working with this petitioner since the use was established on the
property and for a long time now they have tried to get him to
comply with the original conditions and they have been
unsuccessful.
Mr. Morrow: Does the staff have any idea why the petitioner did not favor us
with his presence?
Mr. Shane: No. He received notification so I can't explain his absence.
Mr. Tent: To the staff, I see the violation notice should have been complied
with by May 11, 1993. This is already June. Was there any
disposition of the case at all?
12883
Mr. Shane: The violation was stayed to give him time to seek this waiver use
process. If they were successful, then that would have removed
that particular violation of having those U-Haul trucks and
trailers parked on the site. If this is denied by yourselves and
it is not appealed to the Council, then they will resurrect that
L. particular violation.
Mr. Tent: How long will that take? Let's say he doesn't appeal it and it
doesn't go to Council, what length of time?
Mr. Nagy: The Ordinance Enforcement Division would have sought compliance
with a cease and desist order by the date specified on the
violation notice had the applicant not filed a waiver use. If he
had made no attempt to obtain the waiver use approval, the cease
and desist order would have immediately gone into effect and the
Inspection Department would have sought compliance through Court
action or whatever. Due to the fact he filed a waiver, now it will
run its course. The Planning Commission denied it. The applicant
now has ten days to seek relief. If he files and seeks relief,
then it will continue on until the Council disposes of the matter
through the appeal process. However, if he doesn't, after ten days
the Inspection Department will be back out there seeking
enforcement.
Mr. Tent: That is the number I am looking for. Ten days based on our action
if nothing else takes place.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, since the petitioner is not here nor does he have a
representative here, what burden do we have to inform him of
whatever action we take tonight giving him the opportunity to file
Nifty this appeal to the City Council? Do we have an obligation?
Mr. Nagy: I don't know if we have a legal obligation but I certainly think it
is good practice on our part to advise the applicant. We will make
a phone call to advise him though he failed to appear or send a
representative, the Planning Commission did deal with the matter
after having given proper notice and did dispose of the matter and
then let him decide his own fate.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I would like to suggest we also send this file on to
the Mayor's office for possible consideration for tracking this
case with the Roads Beautification Committee. Even though it is
not a major mile road, it is approximately a mile road and I think
this is the kind of case that committee is interested in.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that 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 approval of the
minutes of the 665th Regular Meeting held on June 8, 1993.
12884
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
#6-131-93 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 665th Regular Meeting of the City
Planning Commission held on June 8, 1993 are hereby approved.
Near A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: McCann
ABSENT: None
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 93-6-8-8
by Microwave Communications, Inc. requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.42 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a
proposal to install a satellite dish antenna on the roof of a building
located at 14147 Farmington Road in Section 21.
Mr. Miller: The dish will be located on a building located in the development
called Livonia Metro-Plex. This is located on the north side of
Schoolcraft west of Farmington Road. The development has four
buildings. This is located in one of the rear buildings. They are
proposing to put a 6 foot diameter satellite dish on top of this
unit. The unit is called Ford Motor Company and they are proposing
to put a satellite dish over that unit. It has non-penetrating
roof mounts and it will be approximately 79 feet from the north
elevation and 28 feet from the inside of the H-shaped building
elevation. The site plan shows there are numerous air conditioning
units on top of the roof and this will be located approximately in
the middle of one of the H stands.
Mr. Engebretson: Will the petitioner please come up to the podium.
James Hava, Microwave Communications, Chelsea, Michigan: One of the requests from
the board last time at the study was to get the heights of the air
conditioning units. They are 3 1/2 feet with a 1 foot curve, which
elevates it off the roof 4 1/2 feet. We are going to be
approximately 7 feet to the top of the dish so we are looking at 2
1/2 feet difference.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you for bringing that information to us. Anything else you
can add to Mr. Miller's dissertation?
Mr. Hava: There are some trees there in front of the building facing one of
the main roads. They are in bloom with leaves and I feel it is not
going to be seen at all this time of year and if any of it is going
to be seen in the winter after the leaves have been removed from
the trees, you are going to have to strain to see it and it is
going to be such a small part it is not going to be identifiable.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
12885
#6-132-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
93-6-8-8 by Microwave Communications, Inc. requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.42 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to install a satellite dish antenna on the roof of a
building located at 14147 Farmington Road in Section 21 subject to the
``m. following condition:
1) That the Site Plan by Microwave Communications, received by the
Livonia Planning Commission on 5/5/93, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to.
for the following reason:
1) That the proposed satellite dish 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.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Action Signs, Inc. , on behalf of House of Leon's
Restaurant, requesting approval for one ground sign for the property
located at 29041 Seven Mile Road in Section 12.
Mr. Miller: This is located on the south side of Seven Mile Road. Most people
remember it as the old Sutherlands Restaurant. It is east of
Middlebelt between Middlebelt and Maplewood. They are proposing,
originally it was a 30 square foot sign but now it is a 28 square
foot ground sign. On the site there is an existing 22 foot
non-conforming ground sign. The site plan shows they are going to
remove that and put the new sign, as you drive through the driveway
into the parking lot, it will be on the left hand side. They have
a 10 foot setback, 28 square feet, so everything is conforming to
the sign ordinance.
Mr. Alanskas: Scott, did you say they are going to knock it down from 30 feet to
28 feet?
Mr. Miller: Yes. He just brought this in tonight. It will be 8 feet long and
it was 7 1/2 feet, so it is a half a foot longer. It was 4 feet in
height and it is now 3 feet 6 inches so it is a little bit smaller.
Mr. Alanskas: The colors are the same?
Mr. Miller: Yes.
Mrs. Fandrei: Can you give us your ideas for the property in general? It is not
in real good condition.
Louis Pollen: I am the sign contractor. The owner of the property is here. He
could be more specific.
Wally Leon of Leon's Family Dining, 29041 Seven Mile Road.
Mrs. Fandrei: Can you give us your ideas for your property, upgrading it and the
improvements you plan on making?
12886
Mr. Leon: I would like to put in front something to cover the air
conditioner and I want to put some landscaping in the front of the
building.
Mrs. Fandrei: You don't have any kind of plan to present to us?
Mr. Leon: No. I would like to do some landscaping.
Mrs. Fandrei: To the staff, how does it meet the 15% requirement?
Mr. Nagy: Since this is a sign request and not a site plan request, we have
not made any site calculations.
Mrs. Fandrei: Can you?
Mr. Nagy: Of course we can.
Mr. Morrow: A follow up to Mr. Alanska's question. I think the last time we
looked at that site it had kind of a changeable message board on
it. Does that account for the reason it is a little big shorter?
Mr. Pollen: We did eliminate the changeable copy. He is going to landscape
around where the sign is going to be.
Mr. Tent: What was said here this is strictly a sign request. However, the
petitioner has volunteered in addition to the sign, which we are
looking at, which is favorable, he is also volunteering under the
same petition that he was going to upgrade the area. I happened to
go down there and he mentioned the fact about the air conditioner,
and this is one of our pet peeves about air conditioners on roofs,
`w he wanted to know if he could shield those air conditioning units
as part of this proposal because he wants to improve the property
and I said he certainly could. I was pleased with the fact that he
does want to make some general improvements to the property. This
landscaping plan, if you remember when Sutherlands was before us,
they submitted a copy and they were going to replace some of the
flowers and shrubs in front. It never materialized. Anything here
would be a vast improvement. I would think the type of tenant we
have here now, he wants to volunteer to do this, I think between
him and the staff, he could come up with a landscape plan that
would be favorable. We could also shield the roof air
conditioners, which is something that could be done without having
to go through another petition. I was hoping we could work
something out through this petition. What do you think Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask Mr. Nagy and see what he thinks. Can we do
that?
Mr. Nagy: Yes we can do that. We will be happy to do it either in
conjunction with the sign or we can do it separately. We will give
him all the assistance he needs to come up with an attractive
landscape plan both for the sign as well as for any other portion
of the property that might be advantageous to be landscaped. We
can do it either way.
12887
Mr. Tent: Which would indicate also the parking lot, the cleaning up of that.
He is a business person in the same area and he does have a good
track record and he has been here a while. I think it would be to
his benefit to go ahead and do all these things because it would be
an upgrade to the property that is vacant now. I would certainly
_►' hope we could work with him through our staff to come up with a
workable arrangement.
Mr. LaPine: I am glad to hear you are going to cover the air conditioner
because that was one of the problems I had. When the Chairman, Mr.
Alanskas and I drove up there Saturday, when you drive in the
parking lot it is the first thing you see. The other thing, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to mention to John, you remember when
Sutherlands moved out and Seros moved in, if I remember right Seros
submitted a landscaping plan. Maybe you can just dig out that plan
and use that as an idea. I commend the gentleman for taking over a
building that has been vacant. Hopefully you will be more
successful than Seros. You have a good operation across the
street. I hope you do a good job here. It will benefit Livonia,
it will benefit you and it will benefit the area. I am ready to
make a motion to approve it.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. LaPine, before you do that I would like to ask Mr. Leon if
this store is going to have a different menu, I understand, than
your one at Ten Mile & Haggerty store?
Mr. Leon: Right.
Mr. Engebretson: What is going to be different at this store?
Mr. Leon: The other one was a very big menu. This menu will be limited. It
will be speciality items. It will be chicken, 6 or 7 kinds of
fish, baked, broiled, etc.
Mr. Engebretson: When do you plan to open?
Mr. Leon: Within 8 to 12 weeks.
Mr. Alanskas What are your hours?
Mr. Leon: It will be from 11:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. including Sundays.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-133-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Action Signs, Inc. , on
behalf of House of Leon's Restaurant, requesting approval for one ground
sign for the property located at 29041 Seven Mile Road in Section 12 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package by Action Signs, Inc. , received by the
Livonia Planning Commission on 5/25/93, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the "changeable copy"
graphic shall be removed;
12888
2) That the applicant shall supply the Planning Commission a landscape
plan within two weeks of the date of this resolution.
3) That the petitioner has agreed to cover all roof top equipment
including the air conditioning unit, so it cannot be seen from
Seven Mile Road.
Mr. Morrow: At the study session Mr. Tent shared with us some information about
Mr. Leon. Would you repeat that?
Mr. Tent: I would like to Mr. Morrow. I would like to commend Walt Leon for
his restaurant operation and what Mr. Morrow is referring to is
that at Thanksgiving time Walt Leon served 2,000 dinners for free
at his Dearborn restaurant and he did that because to quote him
"The Lord was good to him and made him a successful businessman, he
made money and he wanted to share that with the people in the area"
and I think that is commendable. For him to come into our City and
be part of it, I am proud of you and wish you the best of luck.
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 Creative Designs & Signs, on behalf of Realty Executives,
requesting approval for one ground sign for the property located at
18927 Farmington Road in Section 9.
Mr. Miller: This is a petition area that is located on the west side of
Farmington Road south of Seven Mile Road. Right now they are
proposing a ground sign. It will be 30 square feet and it is
84111. is
as you drive in the driveway on the left hand side. There
is no signage now in the area. They are not allowed a ground sign
that has any kind of tenant logo, name. It is only a business
center sign that they are allowed of 12 square feet so this will be
over what they are allowed and a tenant sign so they will have to
go to ZBA to get a variance. This is a new sign they brought in
tonight. (He presented the new sign plan to the Commission) The
Planning Commission didn't like the telephone number at the bottom.
They changed it to just the address. The sign is the same size and
the same color. It is just now the address will be where the
telephone number was.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and make whatever
comments you wish.
Al Dubay, 18927 Farmington Road: The reason we are requesting the sign is we need
to identify our location. We had quite a large problem with people
trying to find us. On Farmington Road the speed limit is 45 mph
and people have to drive by us three and four times to find us.
Even though there is an address sign out there, they haven't been
able to locate it. We have had one minor traffic incident because
of it. What we want to do is to try to identify the site by
putting our sign up. The bigger sign was requested because the
only place we can put it to take care of the setback is right along
12889
the driveway. If a car is parked alongside the sign if we put a
smaller sign in, you won't be able to see it so we wouldn't
accomplish anything. This seems to be, based upon the renderings I
have seen, aesthetically a little bit better than a smaller sign.
There is a large tree right there and if we, like I said, made a
smaller sign, it also couldn't be seen.
Mr. LaPine: I was out there Saturday inspecting the property. Where you are
going to put the sign is fine. I have no objection but you have
two trees lining that driveway. I think you are going to have to
trim those trees down. The other problem you have, at the north
end of your property you have a tall evergreen there. When you put
that sign up, it is not going to be seen. I would recommend that
you move that evergreen because the site line coming from the
north/south, you can't see that sign until you are beyond that
evergreen. That evergreen is quite tall. I don't know if it can
be removed. I think putting a sign where you are proposing to put
the sign, with that evergreen still there it will do you no good
because you are not going to be able to see that sign. If they do
see it at the last minute, they are going to slam on their brakes
and then try to turn in.
Mr. Dubay: We did the same thing last week after the preliminary meeting. We
walked up and down that sidewalk in front of the building to see
what would have to be rearranged. We looked at the possibility of
putting it where the address sign is right now, putting one the
size the ordinance suggests. The thing is it doesn't meet the
setbacks. It is too close to the sidewalk.
Mr. LaPine: You can do what you want to do but I think from what I have seen
and the Chairman has seen and Mr. Alanskas, it would be to your
benefit. I hate to see a tree destroyed but it would be to your
benefit.
Mr. Tent: Are you entertaining any thoughts of having tenant names on your
sign?
Mr. Dubay: No.
Mr. Tent: The original proposal was to expand it to have tenant names on it.
Mr. Dubay: There is one other tenant in the building and they don't have any
business where customers come in, it is all outside business. They
don't even want a sign. That is why their name isn't on it.
Mr. Tent: To the staff, the reason it is going to the ZBA is because of the
additional 15 square feet of sign area? If it weren't for that we
could pass it here and it would go on its way?
Mr. Nagy: That and the fact it has a tenant name.
Mr. Tent: In our ordinance, that is not permitted?
Mr. Shane: The ordinance allows a name of a building itself, not one tenant as
opposed to another or two tenants.
12890
Mr. Tent: A case in point is the Sterling Shopping Center at Newburgh and Six
Mile. At first it was Laurel Park or something like that and then
the bank wanted to come in and have their name on it but to comply
with the ordinance they had to change that to the Sterling Plaza to
indicate all the tenants. In this case here because Realty
Executive is a tenant, it doesn't comply with the ordinance?
Mr. Shane: That is correct.
Mr. Alanskas: At our study meeting you mentioned you might be taking over the
entire building so you would only have one tenant in the building.
Mr. Dubay: I guess part of the discussion also was whether we should go
through that expense. We don't have a need for that space right now
that the other tenants are using. They are on a month-to-month.
The discussion I had with the landlord was as soon as we need the
space, it will be available to us.
Mr. Alanskas: So there will be two tenants in the building?
Mr. Dubay: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: I just want to confirm, I believe that is in a control zone?
Mr. Nagy: That is correct.
Mr. Morrow: If that is the case it means the City Council will also be involved
in this and also it runs a red flag to be cautious as to any type
of recommendation against our ordinance because it is one
designated as a high visibility area.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I would like to ask you two things. One, if this were
approved, could he in fact move that pine tree or cut it down,
whichever he chose to do, to give visibility to this sign or would
that likely have been part of an approved site plan?
Mr. Nagy: We would have to check that out. He certainly would be entitled to
prune it back. He can make ordinary nursery maintenance. As to
total removal, we would have to examine the previously approved
site plan.
Mr. Engebretson: I was going to also inquire about the point Mr. Tent and Mr.
Morrow were pursuing regarding the ordinance. It looks to me that
this situation is very similar to the Real Estate One building at
Five Mile and Farmington where we have a monument sign in front of
that building with the real estate sign on it which may be
interpreted as the Real Estate One building. I guess by the same
token we could consider this to be the Realty Executives building.
This building is set back to a point where it is really invisible
coming from the south. I think the petitioner has a real problem
getting identification there because the numbers are really nothing
and while I don't normally go against the ordinance, I think there
are situations, I cited one at Five Mile and Farmington, that give
me reason to believe there is reason to occasionally go through the
Zoning Board of Appeals process to get relief from those
12891
situations, which then in fact keeps us within the ordinance. I
guess the question is, is there something I am failing to see here
relative to comparing the two situations? They are similar
businesses set back a long ways from the road, etc.
Mr. Nagy: I think you made an accurate assessment. The only thing I would
\r.. say is if Realty Executives owned the building, were the landlord
and therefore having full control over the property and therefore
were to call their building Realty Executives, it would meet the
intent of the ordinance, but by virtue of being a tenant, even
though they may be the only tenant, without the landlord coming
forward and saying yes we acknowledge the fact that this is a
tenant in our building and therefore he is preempting the others,
we sanction that, we know that, then it would be okay but in this
case he is a tenant and he can't take it upon himself to preempt
the others from going on the sign.
Mr. Engebretson: You have also given him a possible solution if he should fail
here or somewhere along the way.
Mrs. Fandrei: Real Estate One is not the owner of the property but they are the
only occupant of that whole building, which is different than this
situation. Also, John if Realty Executives were the tenant as he
is, would he have the ability to trim trees, remove bushes, etc. as
a tenant? I should probably ask him.
Mr. Nagy: That would depend on his lease.
Mr. Dubay: The landlord has already signed something stating that he has
approved this sign. We were supposed to go to the Zoning Board of
Appeals and because of some mix-up we found we were in a control
zone and I had to go back through all of this. At that time he
signed something stating he was aware we were putting a sign up and
he agreed with it.
Mr. Engebretson: Have you submitted that to the City?
Mr. Dubay: We submitted it. As a matter of fact we were supposed to go to the
Zoning Board of Appeals meeting about three weeks ago. We had it
notarized. Jim Barton has that information.
Mrs. Fandrei: To go a step further, he isn't aware I am sure of the discussion of
where this is going to go and what is going to interfere with the
sign and what that may mean as far as trimming shrubs and bushes,
etc. All I wanted to do is make that point that you are a tenant
and you don't necessarily have the ability to go ahead and do some
of the things suggested by this board.
Mr. Tent: This gentleman is a tenant of the building. What happens if he
leaves?
Mr. Nagy: When the Zoning Board grants a variance, they will grant it only
for that tenant and that tenant only. It is always part of their
approving conditions. It is limited to the application before
them.
12892
Mr. Morrow: The gentleman indicated you were supposed to go before the Zoning
Board. What was the problem?
Mr. Dubay: At the eleventh hour they found out we were in a control zone and
called me before the meeting and cancelled it and that set us up
for this. The landlord, what he told me, whatever he needs to do,
he would help me to get it taken care of. We didn't talk about
that tree specifically because at the time it wasn't brought up.
He is one of the most cooperative landlords I ever had. Like I
said he fust bent over backwards to help me in everything I tried
to do. His comment to me was whatever you need, let him know and
he will help me with it.
Mr. McCann: One of the things we talked about last week, not to do with you,
was the way the City goes we are in a position we have to look at
the variance you are looking for as does the ZBA but the situation
is you are asking for 2 1/2 times your allowable limit of sign
area. I am looking at it tonight and I am thinking that area where
you are at and I looked at the dimensions on your sign and why you
need 7 feet. You have a lot of black area in that sign. If you
went down to 6 foot by 3 foot, you would have an 18 square foot
sign, which would bring you into little over 1 1/2, and it would
probably be a lot easier with me. Is that something you could live
with?
Mr. Dubay: I probably wouldn't have a problem with that. What I did after our
session last week I pulled my car up to where the sign would be. I
used to be the ReMax broker in Farmington Hills and I had signs put
up there and the exposure I had up there was we put a ground sign
not quite as high as this and someone parked right next to it and
you couldn't see the sign. That is what we did. We put my car
right next to it and then we measured the sign to see how high
above the car the sign would be.
Mr. McCann: You understand I am not going to reduce your height at all. If you
go to 36 inches you would still be 4 1/2 feet off the ground. You
would just be over 1 1/2 times depending on how we look at this,
whether it is an office complex or a single use tenant. If a
single use tenant, you would be exactly 1 1/2 times so I might be
able to recommend to the ZBA that we don't have a problem based on
that if you would be willing to say yes you would be willing to go
to a 6 foot by 3 foot.
Mr. Dubay: Obviously, if the choice is between no sign and a smaller sign, I
will take the smaller sign.
Mr. Engebretson: I apologize sir for the way in which you have been diverted here
but unfortunately that is the way it works. When you are in a
control zone the procedure is to go this route. If you were not in
a control zone, you would have been on the right track. This is
just the first step in three. The ZBA is next and the City Council
has the final word. I would recommend to you, that without regards
to what happens here tonight, that on your next step it might not
be a bad idea to have the owner of that building with you to
resolve any questions that might come up at the Zoning Board and/or
Council level.
12893
Mr. Dubay: He said he would help me in any way even come to meetings.
Mr. Engebretson: At the next level I think you might be well served to bring that
person with you.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was
#6-134-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Creative Designs & Signs,
on behalf of Realty Executives, requesting approval for one ground sign
for the property located at 18927 Farmington Road in Section 9, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package by Creative Designs & Signs, received by the
Livonia Planning Commission on 6/21/93, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to with the exception the sign area shall not be
larger than 6 ft. x 3 ft. ;
2) That this approval is subject to the applicant being granted two
variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Tent: I am going to vote against this proposal. The reason I am is
because it is in conflict with the ordinance. I would feel more
comfortable if this had gone to the ZBA first and then come back to
us because we are in no position as planners to go ahead with
hardship cases. We should adhere to the ordinance. Our sign
ordinance has just been approved and if it is being violated so
many, many times, as I have indicated before, then maybe it is time
we revisit it and make a lot of changes. I think this is a double
standard. I look at Six Mile and Newburgh, there is a tenant sign
there and they had to comply with our ordinance and this is no
'4m different. I feel I am here on the board and I am supposed to
follow the ordinance and I am going to stick with it.
Mr. Engebretson: I should make you aware of the fact that as a by-product of last
week's meeting I requested a meeting with the Mayor to discuss the
possibility of having these kind of cases go first to the Zoning
Board of Appeals, then to the Planning Commission and then to the
Council. That meeting initially was set for today but because of
more pressing matters, the Mayor postponed that meeting and, as you
know, he is going on vacation shortly, so that meeting is set for
Tuesday, July 28 at 9:30 a.m. We will be addressing your concern
and I am not taking issue with your point. I want to make you
aware that we have acted on that and you make a valid point and we
are going to search out all the various aspects of those points of
concern.
Mr. Tent: This is where I am coming from. I don't want to be argumentative
about this. I appreciate that you have gone ahead and I am
anxiously awaiting his decision so we can get back on course.
Mr. Engebretson: I just want you to understand that action was taken.
Unfortunately it couldn't be accomplished before we got here
tonight.
12894
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Tent, didn't our petition make mention he was headed in that
direction but he was sent in this direction first because it is in
a control zone? He is here in the right order.
Mr. Tent: I believe he probably is but I still have my vote to say this isn't
Nora. in compliance with the ordinance.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: Tent
ABSENT: None
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 Robert P. Ankiel for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for
property at 20135 Floral Avenue in Section 1.
Robert Ankiel, 20135 Floral: I would like to put up a satellite dish. That is
about it. Anything you would like to know?
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Miller would you put a sketch up there and show us what is
being proposed.
Mr. Miller: This is the property located in Section 1. You have Norfolk Avenue
and Floral. This is on the southwest corner. He is proposing to
put a 7 foot diameter satellite dish on a 10 foot pole and the
whole apparatus will be about 14 feet. The site plan shows it will
be 58 feet from the rear lot line, 55 feet from the north lot line
Nosy
and 25 feet from the south lot line. The site plan also shows
there is a proposed building addition shown on the plan that would
screen it from Norfolk Avenue. There is an 8 foot privacy fence on
the rear lot line and there also is a proposed patio deck that
would screen it from the front. He also submitted consent letters
from the person that lives in the house across Norfolk Avenue, the
rear resident and the south resident.
Mr. Engebretson: Scott, you mentioned the deck would screen the dish from the
front.
Mr. Miller: That is what the petitioner has stated and it shows it on the plan.
Mr. Engebretson: We will let the petitioner speak to that issue. Talk to us about
the screening, sir, that you have in mind to somewhat shield this
apparatus from the neighborhood in general.
Mr. Ankiel: From the front on Floral, I have a two story frame house. I have a
deck on the upstairs story that will be moved down when I add the
addition on and a staircase will be added next to it so it will be
shielded from Floral Avenue up the driveway. The next door
neighbor's house is next to that which blocks it off even more.
From the other side of the street there will be the addition of a
12895
two-story house to block it off from Norfolk. If that doesn't do
it, we will have a privacy fence located along the north side of
Norfolk.
Mr. Engebretson: I understand you are going to have a privacy fence even without
'44r. regard to these other considerations.
Mr. Ankiel: Right.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you have building permits to do all these things?
Mr. Ankiel: I started on the garage so I would have a place to put the
materials.
Mr. Engebretson: Nothing for the house?
Mr. Ankiel: That will be started in the fall. It will be a winter project.
Mrs. Fandrei: I was very impressed by the condition of your property. It is a
very attractive piece of property and a very nice looking home.
How high were you planning your fence?
Mr. Ankiel: Six foot.
Mrs. Fandrei: Is that allowed. John?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mrs. Fandrei: That still wouldn't hide the dish itself.
Mr. Ankiel: Where the position of the fence would be, if somebody was walking
down the street, the fence would be right there and I plan on
putting pine trees on the inside of it.
Mrs. Fandrei: Your notes say you are putting it on a 15 foot pole and our notes
say a 10 foot pole.
Mr. Ankiel: It will be stuck 5 feet in the ground.
Mr. Engebretson: When do you plan on putting that fence up?
Mr. Ankiel: I was waiting until you came by to look at everything. Soon.
Mr. Engebretson: The thing is that the record will show that these dishes tend to
be approved in residential areas where they are well screened and
have no detrimental aesthetic impact on the surrounding
neighborhood. That plus the fact that we have consent letters from
the neighbors and you have done that but you don't have the
screening. My concern is what if you don't proceed? Then we have
this dish out there like a sore thumb. I want to support this
proposal but I can't in good conscience do it without a commitment
on your part that you will proceed to put the privacy fence up
first. I think if you do that first, then you have complied with,
at least in my view, what is aesthetically detrimental or not. I
12896
think the ultimate screening is going to be provided by the
addition to a very nice house and you are going to be the principal
individual to view this addition and obviously it is not going to
bother you. I guess I would be prepared to support this proposal
with that condition that the fence should precede the dish. That
is just one point of view.
Mr. Ankiel: Right now I want to put the garage in. If I had a fence up right
now, I wanted to bring like a cement truck through that way. If
that is what has to be, that is what will happen.
Mr. Engebretson: I don't want to propose any hardship on you maybe it is just a
matter of time. Maybe just hold off on the dish until the cement
trucks have done their work. That way we can satisfy everyone's
rights.
Mr. Morrow: I concur with what you are saying Jack but another tact would be
condition that it be up by a certain period of time. Could it be
possible to condition the approval based on that? Say you would
have 60 days. You would have everything in within 60 days if you
chose to have the dish up before that. At least it will be part of
the condition that within no more than 60 days the privacy fence
would be up.
Mr. Engebretson: I think we could do that but I would recommend that we not move
in that direction because it would certainly break a precedent in a
major way to have that dish completely exposed and there may well
be references to that. We have seen some cases where the privacy
fences have been in place and it is not supposed to be visible and
it is very visible and very annoying to more than a few people. I
guess you survived without the dish these years and if you went a
few more months I get the feeling you are not viewing that as any
particular disruption in your life.
Mr. Ankiel: I could put the fence up first and then the dish.
Mr. LaPine: I want the petitioner to understand what we are saying is go ahead
and put up your garage and then when that is done then you proceed
with the fence and then the dish. We don't want to hinder you as
far as your construction.
Mr. Ankiel: Thank you.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#t6-135-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Permit
Application by Robert P. Ankiel for the installation of a satellite dish
antenna for property at 20135 Floral Avenue in Section 1 subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the Site and Specification Plan by Robert Ankiel, received by
the Livonia Planning Commission on 5/25/93, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
12897
2) The satellite dish will only be installed after the six-foot
privacy fence is in place.
for the following reason:
1) That the proposed satellite antenna location is such that it will
N"' have no detrimental aesthetic impact on the neighboring properties.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is election of
officers for 1993-1994.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, it was
#6-136-93 RESOLVED that, in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of Article
II of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, the following officers
were elected to the Planning Commission for the period commencing July
1993 to June 1994.
Chairman: Jack Engebretson
Vice Chairman: R. Lee Morrow
Secretary: James C. McCann
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared each of the officers duly elected to the
Planning Commission for the period July 1993 to June 1994.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 666th Regular Meeting
& Public Hearings held on June 22, 1993 was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
J. es C. McCann, Secretary
ATTEST: Qz, c,„ ,,,6
Jacc Engebret4on, Chairman
jg