The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLANNING MINUTES 1992-07-21 12171 MINUTES OF THE 646th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, July 21, 1992, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 646th 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 25 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jack Engebretson Conrad Gniewek Brenda Lee Fandrei William LaPine Raymond W. Tent R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director; Ralph Bakewell, Planner IV, and Scott Miller, Planning Technician, were also present. Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 92-6-1-11 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #1398-92, proposing to rezone a portion of Lot 8, Horton's Subdivision located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Ann Arbor Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 from R-1 to C-1. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Engebretson: This petition was filed by the Planning Commission at the direction of the City Council. The property in question is owned by the City. The lot that was depicted there as Lot 8a previously was a residential lot that fit the R-1 zoning district. The City, however, sold off a portion of that property to the homeowner to the north leaving a small parcel that would not fit any residential zoning district so the Council then directed the Planning Commission to hold this public hearing to see if there was a more suitable designation for that piece of property. Mr. Shane, do we have any correspondence regarding this petition? Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. v` 12172 Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience who cares to speak for or against the granting of this zoning? Kimberly Chendes, 9820 Horton: I oppose the rezoning of this lot. My husband New and I have lived on Horton about three years now and as you can see there is a lot of commercial property surrounding our street. We have noticed an increase in traffic. We have a lot of small children on our street now. We are concerned about, not only the traffic, but being basically forced out of our homes in that small section there due to all the commercial. Not many people want to live near such a highly populated commercial area. Also, if I may add, under Lot 11, I believe that was just recently rezoned about a year ago and construction has started there and has not finished. I have pictures I have taken over the week that I would like for you to look at just to see what an eyesore we have of construction that has already started and has not finished and we are concerned about all these eyesores in our area. (She passed the pictures around to the Commissioners) Mr. Engebretson: You are referring specifically to the building that is under construction? Mrs. Chendes: Exactly. I would like them to take into consideration the fact that those of us that do live there would like to keep the value of our homes. I am not saying that commercial is all that bad but it is important to us because young families don't have too many areas in Livonia to be first time home buyers. My husband and I were raised here and we would like to stay here and raise our own children here. Mr. Engebretson: I would just like to ask you madam, are you aware that the area in question is merely the 44 feet on the southern most end of that Lot 8a? All the property adjoining that property is commercial. Mrs. Chendes: Where the homes are, that is commercial? Mr. Engebretson: Yes that is already commercial. This is a very small slice of property that is being considered here tonight but you are already looking at that entire corner being commercial. Mrs. Chendes: I am just concerned because we only have ten houses on our street and if you look at that general area it is basically on all the corners commercial and I am just concerned about that. Mr. Engebretson: Is the construction just at a standstill or moving slowly? Mrs. Chendes: Yes, it has been at a standstill for at least two months. When you look at the pictures, you will see these weeds are growing very high. There is garbage piled up, etc. On Sunday when I walked down to take those pictures, there were some kids playing inside that shell of that building and I am concerned about that. Mr. Engebretson: Well we are too and we thank you for bringing it to our attention. H, I would like to ask you to ask the Inspection Department to look into a possible violation. 12173 Mr. Shane: I already have a note down. Pat Chendes, 9820 Horton: We are in, I believe, it is Lot 19. My concern is sure that corner where 2, 3, and 4 are is all commercial right now and `. it seems as if they are slowly weeding it back. We border up to the IRS parking lot. There is a wall that borders our backyard. Next to that I think is City owned property. We are concerned that we are going to get forced right out of the neighborhood. All of these commercial buildings going in. Our big concern is the property value and the feeling that we are getting boxed in. If you drive down Newburgh and look at that area there is a lot of open space, then you have residences and then you have more open space. To me, we are messing up that area putting in another building. My feeling is, and I know it is your feeling too, I would like to preserve the residential areas in Livonia as best we can and this is the way I feel. I oppose it. Mr. Morrow: What we are faced with here tonight is the City has seen fit to sell off 22 feet to the resident to the north so we are left with a 44 foot non-conforming lot. I don't know all the detail as to how it was brought to the sales stage but what we are trying to do is find something that land can be used for, which I, as one Commissioner, feel will finish off that particular area because it cannot be developed as residential. We think the property should be zoned in a C-1 classification because when they come before us with a site plan, we can use that property not for commercial but as a buffer to the residential to the north. As far as the dilemma you are faced with as far as the stop of construction, as one Commissioner, I recommend that the weeds be cut immediately by the City and the bill sent to whoever the developer is so at least we get rid of that eyesore, and to get up to speed as to why the construction has stopped and how that dovetails with our ordinance. What we are trying to do is fit that 44 feet into something that can be used probably as a buffer to residential so it doesn't have to develop right up to the lot line. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane, you will take note of Mr. Morrow's request. Dale Foreman, 9724 Horton: I just want to make a quick comment on what the lady said about the construction. They have been working on this for over a year and you can see what condition it is in now. It is an eyesore for us. I would like for you to take that into consideration. Mr. Tent: H, I would like to go one step further. Can you follow up and let us know whether the developer has any financial problems so he can't continue on because there is property throughout the City where they have come to a complete stop because of finances. Mr. Shane: I would be happy to check into it. Scott Baker, 9728 Horton: We also have small children on the street. I guess as far as opposing what you have on the agenda tonight doesn't really concern me. What I wanted to ask is the two lots that are for sale now with the houses on that have already been rezoned commercial. Was that sent out to residents as far as that was going to be rezoned? 12174 Mr. Engebretson: That is not a recent event. That has been commercial for years. The homes that exist there are basically non-conforming uses. If they happen to have some kind of a problem, they could not be re-developed as homes. Mr. Gniewek: I want to make a point to the residents that part of the reasoning the City has sold off the 22 feet is so the commercial would not extend behind Lot No. 12 and they are recognizing the fact that the residents are in a situation where they don't want the commercial to extend any further into their subdivision. I don't see anything in our Master Plan that would indicate that commercial would extend any further than what is presently proposed. There is only 44 feet. We can't put a house on it. We can't put a professional office building on it. The only thing it could go to would be parking. I think the City realizes that this particular subdivision is being pressed by commercial and by stopping it at this point, it is going to guarantee that it will not go any further than that. I don't think the City is not aware of what the situation is in that area and we are looking for areas that young families can come into and purchase homes. The best thing that could happen is to stop the commercial at that point. There was no one else in the audience present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-6-1-11 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #7-412-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 21, 1992 on Petition 92-6-1-11 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #398-92, proposing to rezone a portion of Lot 8, Horton's Subdivision located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Ann Arbor Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 from R-1 to C-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-6-1-11 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the adjacent zoning in the area to the south and to the west. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will allow the subject lot to be used in conjunction with other C-1 zoned lands in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning represents only a minor extension of commercial zoning in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson: I would just like to add one point for the benefit of the residents. Should this rezoning be concluded by the Planning Commission and City Council, that in addition to the things that Mr. Gniewek said, this could also serve as a greenbelt for ``r.. landscaping that would form the final buffer between the commercial zoning that already exists and the residents to the north. 12175 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-6-2-20 `w by Robert C. Allen for John Allen Architects, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for the outdoor storage and rental of moving vans on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Tech Center Drive and Sears Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating they have no objection to the plan as submitted. Also in our file is a letter from the Division of Fire stating as long as the number of parked rental vans does not increase, they would have no objections. They further state their decision is based upon the vans being parked in a secured and supervised area and that the location shown should not impair ingress or egress of apparatus in the event of an emergency. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. This proposal has been before the Zoning Board of Appeals twice and has been denied both times. The ZBA condition #1 referred to was a Zoning Board of Appeals action back in 1984 and again in 1987 and the condition reads as follows: "Condition #1 prohibits on-site external storage of any type of truck, equipment or automobile for rent or otherwise be upheld for the following reasons:" What these actions are all about is the former owner of the rental facility did seek a waiver of the height on the protective wall and fence and in conducting those actions the Zoning Board of Appeals placed the condition which was read on him. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Robert Allen: I am an architect for John Allen Architects representing our client, Shurguard, which is the present owner of this facility and has been the owner of this facility for approximately three years. Shurguard is coming before the Commission this evening to request a waiver for approval of limited rental of two moving vans from this Livonia store. The reason for Shurguard's request is to provide a limited amenity to its existing customers. It is located in an M-1 district. It was built and opened sometime around 1985 and at that time it was built in accordance with the requirements of site plan approval for that structure. This site was acquired by Shurguard approximately three years ago. It has been a well run and well maintained operation. One of the keys to the success of the operation has been the service orientation of Shurguard and I think it can be noted by the overall excellent appearance of that site that it is a well maintained facility. 12176 The basis for our request for granting a waiver use consists of four main points. The first one is the proposed waiver use is consistent with waiver uses granted to other facilities in M-1 and C-2 zones. In discussing our situation with the Code Enforcement v.. Officer, our understanding is that there is a Ryder Truck Rental nearby in an M-1 zone that has received a waiver use. Also, there is a Budget Rental facility that is in a C-2 zone. Both of these facilities were requesting substantially more rental than what we have in mind. In fact, we are completely different types of operations in that their primary business was, in fact, to rent vehicles. Secondly, the granting of the proposed waiver will not have a detrimental effect on the neighboring properties. As shown on our plan, we are proposing to park only two vehicles and rent only two vehicles from the site. The intent of the rental is not to compete with the larger operations but to provide an amenity to our customers who need trucks on occasion and bring them in from other sites and it allows them to do it in house. The trucks will be parked completely out of sight. If you have seen the property, you are aware of the existing ten foot masonry wall as indicated on the drawing here. The two vehicles will be parked behind that wall. It is in Shurgard's interest and the City's interest to keep that site looking as attractive as possible. We have gone to great efforts to keep it that way and our intent would be to continue to do so. The site is already designed for truck circulation. Two spaces would not interfere with the circulation or add at all to vehicle volume or traffic circulation along Plymouth Road. With respect to this point, we have made provisions with the nearby Saw Ryder Agency to take care of any possible excess vehicles so if an excess vehicle arrives in addition to the two already there, we have made provision to deliver that vehicle to the dealerships so there will not be a vehicle parked for any length of time in front of the property. The third reason that we feel the waiver should be granted is we would be preserving the appearance of the site, which is presently in harmony with the surrounding commercial development. That particular site has a very pleasant residential commercial character and the nature of the original site plan approved has been successful in keeping that character consistent with the nearby commercial development. This waiver use would not cause any change in that overall appearance and would be virtually unnoticeable to the neighbors. The attractive landscaping existing on the site would not be modified in any way and would continue to flourish and be an asset to the City. Finally, relating to the observation by the Code Enforcement Office, our proposed request is substantially different from the request by the previous owner. I spent some time reviewing the minutes from the previous request. In particular our request is different significantly in that we really are intending to limit this rental to only two vehicles. This is not our main business nor even a minor part of our business. It is an accessory use, a convenience to our customers that is consistent with our intent to 12177 be a service oriented organization. Secondly, our proposal clearly indicates where these vehicles are to be parked. They are parked in an area that will not cause any physical problems or any traffic circulation problems. Thirdly, we are coming before you without a nrr, history of violations. Since Shurguard has been at this site for the last three years, there has not been any violations. If there are ever any problems that have been discussed, Shurguard takes immediate action to remedy them. Finally, the provisions we have made for removing any excess vehicles. In summary, we are respectfully requesting granting of the waiver use for the following reasons: a) That the right has been granted to other sites in an M-1 district. b) It preserves the character of the site. c) It does not have a detrimental effect on the area with respect to appearance and traffic flow and d) That the application is substantially different than previous applications because of its specific limitations. I have brought Mr. Ray Jonnas, who is the Shurguard District Manager for this area together with the Shurguard Manager, Kathleen Whittaker, with me if you have any questions. Mr. Morrow: First of all Mr. Allen I want to compliment you on a fine presentation. To the staff, the use that we have there now, which originally was Your Attic, that came to us through the appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Is that correct? Mr. Nagy: It never did come to the Planning Commission. It went to the Zoning Board of Appeals because of the M-1 zone. Sm. Mr. Morrow: Was part of that granting of that use, was the precluding vehicles like trucks, was that part of the approval process or was it because of the waiver of the height of the wall? Mr. Nagy: The wall was one issue but the Zoning Board in granting approval of the waiver and the prohibition to allow the use, established certain conditions, one of which was the prohibition of the storage of trucks. Mr. Morrow: The reason Your Attic exists at this point was based on one of the conditions that we would not have the rental trucks. Mr. Allen: In reviewing the minutes of that meeting when this site plan was presented, the developer at that time period, represented that they were interested in renting trucks. They were more than a little bit vague with respect to how many trucks were going to be rented there. In fact, one of the questions was what would the developer do if a contractor requested nine trucks? Would he make them available. He indicated he would. Clearly, that is more than a minimal use of this type of truck rental. I think the Zoning Board was responding to their concern that they did not want a substantial trucking operation on this site because of the adjacent commercial property. The second thing that will probably come up, when we first brought this petition before the Planning Department they indicated the Zoning Board had, in fact, indicated a `. 12178 restriction on the original site plan when the project was first realized. In discussions with the Zoning Board they indicated as far as they were concerned the original restriction was based on their understanding of how that plan was represented at the time, v` that they were not in a position to reconsider that, subject to review by the Planning Commission and Council with regard to the waiver use, and informally my understanding is if the Planning Commission and Council view this waiver use as being consistent with the character of the development and not detrimental, that the Zoning Board would consider it but they would not prior to first coming to this board here. Mr. Morrow: Had they chosen to run through the Planning Commission, as one Commissioner, I would not have voted in favor of the storage. I would have maintained the intent of the M-1 zone. So, therefore, I am comfortable with their decision to place this restriction in order to give them this use and because that restriction exists today, I would not vote contrary to that unless they were to change it. I know where you are coming from but I am trying to get this thing in chronological order. Mr. Allen: My understanding is even if the Commission were to indicate that they were for this, that approval would be conditioned upon review by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Since the Zoning Board of Appeals indicates they don't want to review this until it goes before this board, we are sort of in a position that we would like to start discussion here. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Allen, why two trucks? Mr. Allen: We really do want to have a limited service with respect to our clients. We want to be able to say we have trucks available and on occasion can schedule something in advance for a client. We understand the sensitive nature of that development and we also value the attractive nature of the site. We have room to park two trucks on this site in a very unobtrusive manner. Parking additional trucks might cause some other visible problems. We are not in the truck rental business so we felt two trucks was a reasonable amount and would address our customers immediate needs. Mrs. Fandrei: Would one truck do? Mr. Allen: It would be better than no trucks. Two trucks would certainly be more convenient. Mrs. Fandrei: It might be adequate? Mr. Allen: I am sure they might consider that. Mrs. Fandrei: How high would these trucks be? Ray Jonnas, 21790 Independence, Southfield: I am the District Manager for Shurguard Store Centers of Michigan. We have 22 storage facilities in Michigan. The trucks probably would barely be visible over the wall. I can't tell you exactly. 12179 Mr. Allen: From my experience I think ten and a half feet tall. Mrs. Fandrei: It would be visible. There is a van on the property now that has been there for a while. How long? *or Kathleen Whittaker, 30300 Plymouth: It is a landscape trailer. It has been there about a week and a half but it is gone. A customer needed to leave it there because it was broken. Mrs. Fandrei: One of the concerns, Mr. Allen mentioned the waiver that has been given to Budget, because of their misuse of their property and what they have been allowed, we are concerned about the same type of thing. Ms. Whittaker: I understand that. I personally don't like to rent trucks. One truck would be fine, more than adequate. I would like to offer my customers the service because that is how I like to operate. I am very, very picky about this. It is where I live. My customers are pretty much my family. That is why I let them leave that trailer there. I didn't know it was going to be a problem. If I had known, I would have told them absolutely not. Mrs. Fandrei: I toured your property and it is in outstanding condition. The gentleman that let me go through saw a piece of paper and he picked it up. You do keep a very nice clean piece of proeprty. I was impressed. If you are saying one truck would be adequate, then I personally don't have a problem with one truck. I am not as comfortable having two. Ms. Whittaker: That is fine. lotrir Mrs. Fandrei: I can understand why you would like to have that service available. That I can appreciate but if one is adequate, I think that is important for us to know. Ms. Whittaker: One is fine. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Allen, I was on the Zoning Board of Appeals when this particular site came before us. One of the reasons we did not allow any trucks on that particular site was because our review of other Your Attic storage facilities throughout the area. It was not only the storage of trucks on the particular site, it was also the excessive signage that they were asking for. They didn't want just "Your Attic" there, they wanted to have "Ryder Trucks For Rent". We also found they weren't limited to the number of trucks at that particular time. They were looking at any number of trucks that happened to be in the area at that time. It was very objectionable as far as the area and as far as our feelings of what the aesthetic value at that particular site would be at that point in time. You have mentioned a couple of things tonight that I have some questions on. You mentioned that excess trucks would be removed from the site and parked someplace else. You first asked for two trucks. We are talking of one truck possibly but you said excess trucks would be someplace else. Are you planning on renting more than one or two trucks at that particular site. 12180 Mr. Allen: We do have a lot of customers who come in with Ryder trucks. Our intent is to indicate to everyone to return their trucks if they weren't rented from that facility. However, Ryder does have one-way delivery on occasion. While we would not expect them to `r. end up on our site if someone did come in and our parking spaces were full, we would immediately direct them to be removed. The reason I brought that question up is I am aware of the Planning Commission's concern with respect to what is considered abuse of a waiver granted at the Budget property. In reviewing the minutes of the original application, it seemed clear that there was not a commitment by the petitioner to limit the volume of traffic that was going to be on that site. With an open-ended proposal understandably the Planning Commission and Zoning Board were very concerned. Mr. Gniewek: These trucks are not your trucks? They will be rented from another facility and then stored on your property? Mr. Jonnas: Ryder does own those trucks. Mr. Gniewek: So what you are doing is storing Ryder trucks on your property that is available for rental if somebody wants them? Mr. Jonnas: Yes sir. Mr. Gniewek: It is not a Shurguard truck? Mr. Jonnas: No sir it is not. Mr. Gniewek: This is from the local facility that you are obtaining these trucks? Mr. Jonnas: It can be depending upon where Ryder sends the trucks from to us. Ryder has many dealerships and what they would do is they would give us one truck or two trucks depending upon how far we get here, and it would be called a dedicated truck. It would give us that one truck for Shurguard's use. Mr. Gniewek: You are entering into a contractual arrangement with Ryder Trucks to make available to you a truck that would be stored on your site for rental? Mr. Jonnas: Yes sir. Mr. Gniewek: There is a possibility you would have other trucks that you would rent also that would not be stored on that site. So you would have basically a truck rental facility with only one truck stored at that particular area. In other words if you had two customers come in the same day and you had one truck on the site, you would contact Ryder Trucks and say I need another truck? Mr. Jonnas: No sir. Two reasons for that. Ryder does not deliver trucks to us. They would expect the staff to go and get a truck. At this location Kathy is all by herself with one associate at times and she is not allowed to leave the property and go get a truck. That is out of the question. 12181 Mr. Gniewek: So if there happened to be two trucks in the general area at any one point in time, one could remain but one would be off the site as soon as possible. 't"" Mr. Jonnas: Yes that is possible and there is another answer to that. We would call another dealership somewhere else and send a customer to that dealership to pick up the truck. Mr. LaPine: I just want to get this clear in my mind. You have two trucks at that location. Let's assume that two people come in to rent those two trucks and they are going to use them for a day. If any other customers come in there you wouldn't have any rentals? You don't call any local Ryder distributor and say send us two more trucks? Mr. Jonnas: No sir. If we wanted to and we could, they wouldn't do it. Mr. LaPine: If the two trucks are rented out, there is no way they can rent one. Wouldn't it be better to make an arrangement with Budget, and have a sign in your office that rental trucks are available and you can arrange it and then if somebody comes in the office, you just call Budget and they will deliver the trucks there? Mr. Jonnas: What we do is this. Many of our locations have Ryder trucks and we recommend them. Mr. LaPine: Ryder is right over here on Schoolcraft and I would assume they would want the business if you could make some kind of an arrangement with them. The next thing you are going to want, which makes sense, if I was renting Ryder trucks there, I would want a "Ryder Trucks Available" sign so the public would know. It seems to me there is another way to do this instead of having the trucks parked physically there. Ms. Whittaker: If we did something like that we would probably end up with a truck there because they would drop it off the day before. Mr. LaPine: Maybe we could arrange to let you have the trucks there for a 24-hour period. The thing that worries me more than anything else is once you allow it, the next thing you are going to be in here and say can we have two more trucks. Our business has increased. Before you know it, we are going to have ten trucks there. It can happen. I didn't think we were going to have 50 trucks at Budget. Mr. Jonnas: Mr. LaPine, I am relatively new at this so maybe you could help me out. Is there some way that we can convince you that we want one or two trucks and you write somewhere that is the cap and we wouldn't be allowed to come back? I am not looking for a truck dealership. Some of our larger dealerships do have three or four trucks on site. Mr. LaPine: The problem you have you are asking for a waiver use. The waiver use goes with the land. If you sell the business or something happend, they have a waiver use there now for truck rental and maybe down the line this whole operation could turn into a truck rental. If it wasn't a waiver use, it probably could be. Maybe we N"' could hold them to that. 12182 Mr. Allen: One of the reasons we went to the efforts to make sure our application was quite clear is precisely the question of enforceability. I sit on a public board as well in the City of Farmington and I am familiar with those types of issues as well. 'or. The intent of locating those trucks behind that wall is, in fact, to keep them out of sight. It is not that Shurguard intends to be a truck rental. Shurguard is a national storage company. It is a very large company. It is very, very conscious of its image. It has built its success on being service oriented and on taking very good care of its property as you can attest to by this particular site or if you were to make a survey now of the former Your Attic properties in the area, many of which Shurguard has acquired, you will find they are, in fact, in far superior condition than they were when they were acquired. I guess we understand the City's concern and wish to address it as well by very strictly limiting the number of vehicles to be stored and rented from that site. We intend to be quite clear in terms of our wording so it is not ambiguous and later down the road there will not be any misunderstanding. Mr. Alanskas: I am confused in regards to how you are going to lease these trucks from Ryder. Are you going to have a yearly contract where you have the same two trucks constantly or would they be different trucks? Ms. Whittaker: I will have one or two trucks whatever you decide. Those are the only trucks I will take. The only time I will have other trucks on the property are one-ways that come in. I will turn away people that come in with trucks larger than 15 feet. %lim. Mr. Alanskas: Are you signing a yearly lease or is it day-by-day? Ms. Whittaker: Each time the customer fills out a contract. I can send out one of my 15 foot trucks to California, because that is what we do, but when they replace it, I will only take a 15 foot truck. Mr. Alanskas: You show on the site plan 25 feet as the length of the vehicle. My question is could it sometimes be a 30 or 34 foot truck? Mr. Jonnas: They are either 15 or 24 foot. Mr. Allen: We do not intend on having 24 foot trucks on that site and we would not allow those to be parked on that site. Twenty-five foot is an oversize parking space and we indicated that to indicate there is plenty of room to park a 15 foot truck. Mr. Jonnas: To answer your other question, Ryder does have a national contract with Shurguard throughout the country. Both parties look upon it on a yearly basis. Mr. Alanskas: Would these be new vehicles? Mr. Jonnas: Yes. 12183 Mr. Tent: I am comfortable with Mr. Allen's presentation. I thought you did an excellent job. I have two questions. Number one is signage as Mr. LaPine has indicated. Is there any thought in the back of your mind that you are going to put any additional signs up there to \r. advertise what you are doing? Mr. Jonnas: No Mr. Tent there is not. You have probably been by the property and it looks awfully good and to be very honest with you, the Ryder sign is not too beautiful. We are not going to put it up. Mr. Tent: That is one of my concerns. The second question that storage trailer that you had parked in the area, you say that was just an overnight deal? Ms. Whittaker: It is gone. It was just bad timing. Mr. Tent: I want to compliment you on how you are making the property look very nice. Mrs. Fandrei: I just want to address my fellow Commissioner's concern. I think, Bill, we are looking at two different issues. This company is strictly in the moving furniture and belongings in and out where Budget is business like vans and trucks. I don't have the concerns with this company. I agree with you, this is our concern. A waiver goes with the land and I understand what you are concerned about. It doesn't mean you can't come back another time for another petition requesting more. That is his concern. We give an inch, sometimes a petitioner wants six inches. I understand where you are coming from but at the same time I think we are looking at a moving and storage location. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Allen, do all of your Shurguard locations offer this service? Mr. Allen: Many of them do. I don't believe all of them do in the state. Out of my 22 stores, I believe 16 of them offer this service. Mr. Gniewek: What is your history of requests for rental vehicles from your facility at this point in time? Is this why you are here because you are getting continuous requests or is this something new you are going to offer and hope you will gain something from it? Mr. Jonnas: Since we have taken over that property the revenues have increased almost 30%. We are running about 18% over a year ago. It is a tribute to Kathy. We are doing extremely well there. We have gotten requests for some other services. Trucks is one of them. A couple of other services which maybe you don't know about but maybe you should is we have increased our inventory sales in our retail center where we sell boxes and packaging material. Also to service our customers, we have a great deal of pharmaceutical people that store with us because we have a climate control and we accept deliveries from UPS, which is nice and we also ship them out for one company. We have been getting a lot of requests. As the business is growing there, people would like more services so we try to accomodate them. 12184 Mr. Allen: Fart of the issue as well is Shurguard likes to offer similar amenities at its sites. Whenever they can they like to offer a consistency of service so a client moving from one location to another if they see a Shurguard they understand they will be in a well-run, first-class facility. Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if anyone wishes to speak for or against the granting of this waiver use. Seeing none, Mr. Jonnas anything to add? Mr. Jonnas: Being my first time, thank you very much for being very patient and I enjoyed this experience. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask you one question. I would like to preface the question with a comment. You are a victim here having followed another operator that is in the truck rental business on your street who came in here and almost casually acknowledged there might be some trucks on the site when, in fact, the site is overrun with trucks of all sizes. I don't want to say we are paranoid about this but that is never going to happen again. If you say there are going to be two trucks there, if there is a third one on that property, I think you can feel very confident that you will be ticketed and you should. You need to give us, and have given us, repeated assurance that is your plan to have two trucks there and if a third one shows up, it will be removed, as I understood it immediately. Understand while we think highly of the business that is operated there, this concern is not directed towards you, it is because we have been through a very unsatisfactory experience in the past and that may enable you to better understand where we are coming from with this line of questioning we have put you through here. Mr. Jonnas: One of the problems we have faced here in Michigan was people always had some negative connotations with storage. It is almost next to waste management and garbage. What I have tried to do is enhance the image. That is probably why Your Attics have been painted and the landscaping has been good and we try to keep the property clean and hire the caliber of manager that we have in Kathy. That is what we are trying to do. It is going to take us a while to change the image. Mr. Morrow: I want to make one more comment. Mr. Jonnas you said earlier if there is some way we could condition you so you could never have more than two trucks. I just want to let you know that this body cannot subjugate your ability to petition for more trucks. We can limit you now but in the future you can come for more. We cannot condition. We don't have the authority to not let you have you the right to petition. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-6-2-20 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was 12185 #7-413-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 21, 1992 on Petition 92-6-2-20 by Robert C. Allen for John Allen Architects, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for the outdoor storage and rental of moving vans on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road ``r. between Tech Center Drive and Sears Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-6-2-20 be approved subject to action by the Zoning Board of Appeals to remove an existing condition contained in the Resolution in connection with Appeal Case No. 8408-130 dated September 11, 1984 which prohibits the external storage of any type of trucks, large equipment or automobile vehicles, either rental or otherwise, allowed on the site and to the following additional conditions: 1) That there shall be no more than one (1) such moving van stored or parked on the subject site, the truck length not to exceed a 15 foot box. 2) That the vans shall be stored or parked north of and adjacent to the existing east-west masonry wall at all times. 3) That no additional signage be allowed on the external portion of the property that would be advertising the rental of these vehicles. 4) That there shall never be any trucks stored outside the entrance of the property. In the event of an excess truck being stored there for a short period of time, it shall be stored behind the wall. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Fandrei, Alanskas, Engebretson NAYS: Morrow, LaPine, McCann ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 12186 Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-5-3-3 by Walter and Shirley Gladowski requesting to vacate a 12' wide public utilities easement on the north side of Lot 22, Arbor Park View Subdivision, located on the southeast corner of Ann Arbor Trail and Hanlon Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33. 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 since there are no City-maintained utilities within the easement area in question, their office would have no objections to the vacating request. We also received a telephone call from Walt Gordon of Detroit Edison this morning informing us that there are no utilities in this easement. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, is it true there has been a petition to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a fence on this particular easement area? Mr. Nagy: That is true. Mr. Gniewek: Just for clarification and so the petitioner does understand, whether this is vacated or not, the restrictions that have been put on by the Zoning Board of Appeals as far as the distance from the edge of the property to where this particular fence would exist, would still remain the same. Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Mr. Gniewek: Whether the petition is upheld and the vacating does take place, the fence still has to be ten feet setback that the Zoning Board of Appeals has restricted the petitioner to. Mr. Nagy: That is stated correctly. Mr. LaPine: John, when we give approval to a vacating easement, right now it is not being used for public utilities, what happens if in the future a public utility needs that easement? Mr. Nagy: They will have to negotiate with the property owner. Mr. Engebretson: Will the petitioner please come forward and tell us why you are making this request. Walter Gladkowski, 8964 Hanlon: After investigating the utilities, you have a 12 foot easement all the way around the property. The utilities end in the yard about ten feet. Beyond that they can extend as far as they want. Mr. Engebretson: We understand the area under petition does not infringe on any utilities. Mr. Gladkowski: When they put up the streetlights, they went in between Lots 21 and 22 and ran their wires between private property, which I didn't 12187 object to. From what I understand it was a greenbelt area. All the utilities run through the back of the property. If they put any lights on Ann Arbor Road, it would be on City property. ``r.. Mr. Engebretson: Are you saying something was installed in that area? Mr. Gladkowski: Yes. When they put the street lights in they ran a cable between Lots 21 and 22. I couldn't understand why they had that listed as public utilities. They said the reason it was a greenbelt area was the City could plant what they wanted and I couldn't. I figured if it is my property, I would put up a fence and I would have ten feet to put in evergreen trees to my liking. Mr. Tent: Mr. Gladkowski, what is your purpose for asking for that vacation? Mr. Gladkowski: I feel I bought an 85 foot lot, I should have an 85 foot lot. If the City wants me to put the fence back ten feet, that is fine. In the 10 feet I should be able to plant evergreen trees or whatever I want. I had the Mayor there. I had the man from the Zoning Board there. They looked over the area. This predicting what is going to happen in the future as far as this area behind me, it could be zoned residential, it could be zoned for a park, it could be zoned for anything. Mr. Tent: That is the only purpose? Mr. Gladkowski: I would like to be able to put up a fence and I would like to put in evergreen trees or shrubs, whatever I like. Mr. Engebretson: Can't he do that now Mr. Nagy? Mr. Nagy: Yes he can. There is no prohibition except for the height of the shrubs so there is a clear view of the intersection. As far as type and variety, it is his property. He has that property right to plant what he chooses. Mr. Tent: That was my point. I thought you had some other purpose. Mr. Gladkowski: I just don't see having property and paying taxes on that I can't consider mine for resale value or anything else. Mr. Engebretson: It is yours. Mr. Gladkowski: As long as you have a greenbelt restriction on me, I don't like it. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-5-3-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was #7-414-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 21, 1992 on Petition 92-5-3-3 by Walter and Shirley Gladowski requesting to vacate a 12' wide public utilities easement on the north side of Lot 22, 12188 Arbor Park View Subdivision, located on the southeast corner of Ann Arbor Trail and Hanlon Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-5-3-3 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the subject easement is not needed to protect any City or public utility company equipment or utilities. 2) That no City department or public utility company have objected to the proposed vacating. 3) That the subject easement serves no useful purpose. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, Engebretson NAYS: 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 92-6-1-12 by Brashear, Tangora and Spence for TFG Realty Corp. requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, south of Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25 from M-2 to C-2. 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 department has no objections to the rezoning proposal. Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile: I represent TFG Realty Corp. , who is a local realty firm and who has been involved in lengthy negotiations with the Ladbroke Racetrack, which has finally come to fruition, and we have now filed a petition for the rezoning of this property, which the racetrack has made a decision that it is surplus property which they do not need and will not need in the future. As the petition so states and the Planning Department has indicated, the corner requires an expansion of the C-2 that is on the corner to the outlined area to accomodate the proposed use. I think it is a known fact that the proposed use is a Home Quarters type of operation, which is similar to a Builders Square. That is the only known user of this particular property right now. We do not expect any other users in the particular building that would be used by Home Quarters or any adjoining properties. There may be from what I understand, and I just learned this from one of the Planning Commissioners last night, there may be an outlot that would accommodate a restaurant at some future date. We have no definite 12189 plans on that and there is no contracts or known negotiations going on in regard to that particular subject and I have no idea whether that is true. We have people from Home Quarters, from the realty company and from the racetrack here tonight. If you do have any 410, questions, I may have to ask for some of their assistance. Mr. Tent: Mr. Tangora, can you tell me who is TFG? Mr. Tangora: TFG stands for Thomas F. Goldberg. Mr. Goldberg was also involved with a similar type of rezoning on Middlebelt north of Plymouth Road. It was the parcel that Mr. Walkon represented TFG at, at that time. That part of the property was later developed as a McDonalds Restaurant. Mr. Tent: You mentioned a warehouse facility at this location. Are you considering something like a Pace Warehouse? Mr. Tangora: No, I mentioned it is a similar type of an operation as Builders Square. Mr. Tent: You will be directly across the street from Handy Andy? Mr. Tangora: Absolutely. Mr. Tent: The restaurant, is that anywhere down the line because it is a big piece of property and the way it would be zoned would be conducive to that type of operation. Mr. Tangora: As I indicated, I understood in talking to one of your Planning Commissioners that there are rumors that somewhere along the line if they did have a user, they would come back for a waiver use for a restaurant. Mr. Tent: The property presently is zoned M-2. Would that M-2 manufacturing be conducive to this type of property? Mr. Tangora: I don't think that warehouse is a good term. It is not a warehouse like a Pace and I think that issue was litigated over at Haggerty and Seven Mile Road when Jonna took the position that their warehouse club would come under M-2 zoning but obviously our operation, the Home Quarters, very definitely would come under a C-2 and has to be under a C-2 zoning. Mr. Tent: If you were successful with your zoning, how soon would you be back before us with a site plan? Mr. Tangora: What we have to do, after the zoning has been completed, then we would have to come back with a waiver use petition for the development of a commercial piece of property in excess of five acres. We would also simultaneously bring in a site plan. Mr. Tent: Then you would go forth with it almost immediately? Mr. Tangora: Absolutely. The user is very, very interested in having an operation on that particular site as soon as possible. 12190 Mr. Tent: Are there similar facilities in the Metropolitan area? Mr. Tangora: There are other facilities but nothing open yet. The information I had and I read it out of Crain's Business Week, I think there was something like 4, 5 or 6 facilities planned by Home Quarters in the metropolitan Detroit area. Mr. Tent: It couldn't be Sams could it? Mr. Engebretson: Ray, I think there is some confusion here. Mr. Tangora has mentioned several times now, while we are dealing with a zoning issue here, that the proposed user of this land is a company named Home Quarters. It is a company that we are not familiar with but it is similar to the Builders Square type of operation. Not a warehouse, not a membership type club and not an unknown entity. A company named Home Quarters. Mr. Tent: Mr. Chairman, many times a company may have three or four different names. Mr. Alanskas: We are talking 900 feet frontage on Middlebelt. How many feet would this Home Quarters be taking? Mr. Tangora: It would be set back obviously. I don't think the final plans have been considered yet but typically they would be in the southern part of the property and further on to the southeast to allow the parking out in front from there up to Middlebelt and over to the service drive of the Jeffries. Mr. McCann: Mr. Tangora, this is really a zoning question. I have a little problem. We are going to rezone this to commercial. But with the intent of putting in this home improvement depot like Builders Square or Handy Andy, we have one 100 yards away and one a mile away. Is the intent to put the others out of business? Mr. Tangora: I don't think that is the intent at all. I think they see the demographics of Livonia as being a very desirable place to have that type of operation. The same thing was true of Builders Square. The demographics were desirable for that particular company. It proved to be true. It is one of the best stores they do have. Forest City, which was the predecessor of Handy Andy, stayed in business. Finally Handy Andy took over and they are still in business. I am sure when Forest City came in there were hardware stores that were worried that are still in business. Mr. McCann: I know if McDonalds builds on one corner, they say it helps Burger King on the other corner but do you have demographics to show that there is sufficient business to support all three businesses? Mr. Tangora: All I can tell you is Home Quarters has done a very intensive investigation and they feel the demographics in this City support the type of facility they would like to have. Mr. McCann: Is there any talk of buying any more land later on from the racetrack? Now.- 12191 Mr. Tangora: From this particular petitioner? Mr. McCann: Yes. vim,, Mr. Tangora: As far as I know, no. Mr. McCann: With this property, besides the outlot and the one main building that is being proposed, would there be room for additional mall space? Mr. Tangora: No. It is my understanding that Home Quarters wants to have the sole single standing building. It does not need any support. The outlot is obviously for a restaurant eating type of facility, which would also serve the racetrack customers as well as the Home Quarters customers. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Tangora, to expound a little bit on Mr. Alanskas' question. Approximately how many acres do you anticipate this user, Home Quarters, to be using including parking? Mr. Tangora: I think they would use the great majority. I am not really sure. I am going to guess 15 acres and the outlot would be approximately an acre. Mrs. Fandrei: That is an awfully lot of acreage. It sounds like it will be a large building. Mr. Tangora: I think if you look at Builders Square and that is the type of facility that these people are marketing and obviously parking is very important to them. I think they have looked over the facility and I think they have a certain amount of space they need and that is what they have bargained here to accomodate their needs. Mrs. Fandrei: You mentioned Home Quarters has done intensive demographics. We hear this quite often from petitioners that they do very intensive demographics. Of course, Schoolcraft Road and the expressway is very appealing and the railroad on the other end of the property is very appealing. We hear the demographics and before long the petitioner is out of business or their competition is. One of my largest concerns is what Mr. McCann expressed in that three of these facilities would be within one mile. It just doesn't compute. We are experiencing this time and again throughout our community when we have too many of a similar type operation so close to one another, somebody goes out of business and with a 15-acre parcel being utilized for one user, I am really concerned that this large facility is going to put one of the other facilities out and we are going to have a blight in the area. We had a large user at Seven Mile and Middlebelt. That sat vacant for years and as it sat vacant and as Farmer Jacks sat vacant at Five Mile and Levan, it definitely blighted the area. The properties weren't kept up. We have negative feelings. We have so much of the commercial around Livonia that I am not really comfortable. Somebody is going to have to help me with the demographics to feel a little more secure about this. Right now I am not feeling very positive about it. I am also concerned about Ladbroke selling off 'two. 12192 this section and then possibly selling off another section without us having an opportunity to look at the overall property. If they are beginning to sell off, I would like to know why? I understand it is not being used. There is a lot of overflow traffic but is this something that we have coming? Mr. Tangora: I think you all know Mr. Walkon and he is involved with the petitioner and he would like to make a couple of comments and if you would like to hear from the racetrack people, we have a representative from the racetrack. We also have a representative from Home Quarters that may be able to give you a little more expertise than I can. The only comment I have is we heard the same thing when Builders Square came in that Forest City was going to be put out of business. The only thing I can say is our country is built on competition. It makes all of us better workers, better business people and the American public benefits because of better services, better prices. Yes there are people that do go out of business, and competition that is what we are built on. When competition plays in a free market, I think sometimes you do have vacant buildings. Five Mile and Levan, it was vacant for a while and we had to suffer through that but you have a very nice development there now. That is what happens in this country. You have some failures and you have a lot of successes. Mrs. Fandrei: I am in a business that is probably more competitive than most. I am very familiar with competition. We here are commissioned to address good planning. That is our concern, good planning for our community. Marvon Walkon: I am a practicing attorney and my office is in the City of Southfield. I would like to address a couple of questions that have been mentioned. Let me tell you about the three companies as long as they have been mentioned. Handy Andy does approximately two billion dollars a year gross sales. Builders Square is a wholly-owned subsidiary of K Mart. They do approximately forty-five billion dollars a year. The company we are concerned with today, Home Quarters, has in excess of 100 stores nationwide. It is owned by Heckingers. It is on the stock exchange. They consider it the Cadillac of that industry. Why did they chose Livonia? Because they felt this market is under served and that there is a tremendous amount of opportunity in this market. They are coming into this market with at least four and up to seven new stores. This is a multi, multi, million dollar company. They have done their homework and they felt the City of Livonia, as well as some of the other neighboring cities, they would do extremely well in. You say why Livonia? Because Livonia for the most part, the people in Livonia own their own homes and the population of Livonia, the citizens of Livonia, will be well served by competition. Why? Because competition creates two things. It creates service and prices. Therefore, if you look at one store and you see one price and the other store has another price, the citizens of Livonia have the opportunity to make a choice. 12193 As to service, they hire retired plumbers, people that have been in the industry and have long experience. They are able then to go to the homemaker and service that person based on a history of skills rather than sales. They are in the service business not the sales `„ business. I think this company would be an added bonus to the City of Livonia. I think it is going to be one user. Besides the outlot, one user. Not a strip center. Not a commercial center. One user taking up the complete site. We are asking for a zoning change from industrial to commercial. All of you people have gone to that site and you are all familiar with the racetrack. We all know that is really not a factory type site any longer. A factory would be a disservice to that immediate area. You build a General Motors plant on that site, you don't serve the neighbors very well. They don't want the smoke and have to enhale fumes. That has become a commercial district. The racetrack has a long-term lease on the balance of the property in excess of 50 years. They cannot sell off any more parcels so any belief or opinion that the racetrack is going under, it is owned by Ladbroke. They are a huge company out of England. This is the only parcel that is not on a long-term lease so they couldn't sell it off. As to competition, as Mr. McCann knows, we would all like to be one lawyer in town and have all the business but when the second lawyer moves in town, it becomes a competitive thing and both serve the community well. Mrs. Fandrei: You are saying then that the racetrack is on a 50-year lease? The Sow total property? Mr. Walkon: Other than this 15 acres. Mr. Tent: Mr. Walkon, this is where my concern is. I would appreciate seeing a complete package. My reasoning for that would be C-2 zoning is a very important change in this location. All we are talking about today is the zoning. If that were granted, your proposal could be changed overnight. You could sell that property off. They could put a shopping center in that location. What you are telling us today is not cast in stone. This is only what you are proposing but the zoning you are asking for is C-2 and I have seen this happen in other parts of the City. Because this is a very expensive piece of property, even though it is contrary to what we are trying to do here tonight, I would like to see a package. Mr. Walkon: I am going to ask Mr. Tangora to respond to that. Mr. Engebretson: We would really like to confine the discussion here tonight to the zoning issue. Mr. Tent raises a valid point that in the past there have been instances where we needed to get a good understanding of the use of the land before dealing with the zoning issue but I think you have given us that. There will be other opportunities and yes once the zoning is successful the petitioner could strike a deal with another user. �•• Mr. Tent: As one Commissioner this is my one vote and this is what my opinion would be on it. 12194 Mr. Tangora: We all know that the Planning Commission and City Council, even after this property was rezoned, still has to grant a waiver use petition. We have to come in and show you how this property is going to be developed. Any development over five acres requires *Ir.• the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the affirmative vote of the City Council. Obviously, there is a great deal of work and a great deal of money spent at that time and most petitioners want to know that they are not spending that money in vain so typically rezoning is first and then we come back with waiver use and site plan approval. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to say a couple of things. I agree with Mr. Tangora that competition is good and serves the community well. I view this as something similar to a General Motors, Chrysler and Ford dealer all operating in close proximity to each other. I don't think large companies would make these types of investments if there wasn't a valid business opportunity there. As a former resident of Washington D.C. , I remember Hechingers as being a first class operation and I think the service is something we need to see in this City. I think while this isn't a zoning type of comment, I think if we are going to be concerned about competition and quality of operator, I just wanted to make it clear to those that are not familiar with Hechingers that it is a real first class operation, and I think competition is good. Mrs. Fandrei: Not being familiar with Hechingers, maybe somebody could give us a better idea of this company. What do they do? Ken Moffert, 1616 McCormick Drive, Landover, Maryland: I am a representative of Home Quarters. Home Quarters is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Hechinger Company, a Landover based corporation. The company was founded in 1912. Of course, we have a long history of retail experience. We own and operate some 126 stores up and down the east coast. Again, we are in the home improvement business. You mentioned earlier about the size of our stores. Our store is approximately 111,000 square feet with a garden shop of about 25,000 square feet. You talk about a 15 acre site. The majority of that is used up by the required parking as well as the greenbelt. It is a little bit misleading to say we are occupying 15 acres. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Moffert, how many employees would you have in this facility? Mr. Moffert: Generally we would hire somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 employees. Mr. LaPine: The question here is if this is good to rezone this from M-2 to C-2. I don't care if Neiman Marcus goes there. Do we need additional C-2 zoning in that area? I think the overriding factor there is how much C-2 and C-1 do we have in that area? To me we have tried, throughout the City, to hold down rezoning any more property to C-1 or C-2. I don't agree with Mr. Walkon that this could not be used as an industrial plant at some future date. I don't believe that this is good zoning at this time to rezone this `o1. 12195 property to C-2 when we have adequate C-2 in the area and C-1. We have to draw the line somewhere and now to extend C-2 to that area I think is wrong. I think we are doing a disservice to the City. �.. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition? Since there aren't any, would the petitioner like the last word? Mr. Tangora: I think the subject has been pretty well discussed and we don't have anything more. We would certainly appreciate your consideration on the petition. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-6-1-12 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 21, 1992 on Petition 92-6-1-12 by Brashear, Tangora and Spence for TFG Realty Corp. requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, south of Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25 from M-2 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-6-1-12 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan which designates the area for industrial land use. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which will firw cause additional traffic congestion in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible with the City's policy of promoting the use of land within the industrial corridor for industrial purposes. 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. McCann: I have a question regarding the overpopulation of home people stores. It concerns me. It goes back to the classic example when we used to say competition is good, we will put four gas stations on each corner and it ended up just being bad planning. In this case, though it is good zoning to have Hudsons next to Sears so people have the choice, I don't know enough about this proposal to know if this is good or bad but from a zoning point of view I am looking at that corner. If it is not part of the racetrack, what can we use it for? Industrial would be ok but its location to the highway, location to the residents, I don't think commercial zoning is bad zoning for this property. I think it may have some potential. I would have to be convinced of that. I do look at that property and I say it is on the corner. It does have the potential as being used in the commercial zone properly. 12196 Mr. Tent: The presentation was fine. It didn't give me the feeling that this would be bad zoning at this location at this particular time. I would like to know a little more about what is being proposed and a little more about the company. This is a big decision to make at ,` this particular time without getting all the facts. I would like to refer this to a study session and table it to get more facts and get with the petitioner and let him show us his demographics and why they feel this is a good location. Then we could take it off the table and take some action on it. At this point I would support the denying resolution but on the other hand I would support a tabling resolution so we can get a little more facts because this is a very ambitious zoning in this area and it would have a terrific effect on the entire city. We are running out of manufacturing property. We have a lot of C-2 property. I would like to look at it a little further. That would be my recommendation to refer this to a study session and go through all the questions and answers and then bring it back for final action. Mrs. Fandrei: I am comfortable with what I have heard about Ladbroke, that this is a 50-year lease. This is the only piece that they can sell off for the next 50 years. I feel more comfortable with Heckingers knowing they have been in business since 1912 and the proposed development Home Quarters sounds like the type of operation that we would be proud to have. I am not comfortable with rezoning this without more of a study ourself. I support Mr. Tent in that. I would feel more comfortable determining with our staff whether the M-2 is something we want to start piecing off with this property. We are commissioned in 1992 but we have to think about the future. It is something that we have to think about. We have a large older development on the west side of the street. It has been not a comfortable, well-kept property. I have lived in this City almost 33 years and that hasn't been there that long but it looks like it. This is just something that at this point I am not ready to support as strong as you have presented it. Mr. Morrow: The petitioner is here tonight, Mr. Tangora, and Mr. Walkon, whom we have seen a number of times before. I certainly have nothing against what they propose given the fact that they currently have the C-2 zoning. The industrial corridor that we have running in the east/west direction of Livonia is the backbone of Livonia. This is one of the reasons Livonia is a great community from that standpoint as far as its tax base. To rezone a portion of the industrial corridor to me is moving a little too quickly. One of the reasons we have a public hearing is to bring out certain facts for not only the public to hear but for the Planning Commission to hear. If there hasn't been a motion to table, I would like to make a tabling motion to August 18 so we can take under advisement what we have heard tonight. Mr. Alanskas: My closing comments in regard to the property, nothing has been done on that vacant parking lot. I think it is an eyesore and I think any time you get a chance to get a company here that would hire 150 people plus a possible restaurant, I think it is a good thing. I have no problem with it being C-2. 12197 Mr. Gniewek: It is true this is zoned M-2. The parcel that we are talking about, the 15 acres, would no way affect any future development of industrial in that particular site should it eventually go that way if Ladbroke left. If we review some of the sites throughout the `, City as far as industrial is concerned, you will find that most industrial sites do have parcels that are already zoned C-2 that are used as an ancillary use and a particular enhancement to the manufacturing zone. For example we have the Seven Mile Road, Haggerty Road area where we have the commercial property on the corner of that particular section just down the street from Meijers, etc. We have the Mountain Jacks, the gas station is on the corner of Merriman and Schoolcraft, which is commercial zoning, which is ancillary to the manufacturing that is behind it. The site that is being developed here is ideal, I believe, for C-2 development. We are only talking 15 acres. Although it is not included as far as Future Land Use is concerned, I think this is not spot zoning. The other three corners are already zoned C-2. In fact, this particular small corner of this particular property is already zoned C-2 and we would be extending what already exists there into a 15-acre site. I think the proposed competition for the area is healthy. I think we are looking for a little higher class as far as home improvement is concerned. Perhaps we are looking at a median between Builders Square and Forest City. Perhaps this is a step above either one of these two. I do think competition is healthy. I think as Mr. Engebretson pointed out competition is healthy. This is a community that is based on competition, whether it be lawyers or whether it be commercial. We are all here to do the best we can. I think the C-2 is a good compromise for that particular corner and I think the proposal, we Niro. to have a lot of opportunities to review it, to do it over again, to tell them what we want, whether it be this petitioner or they sell the property to another petitioner. It all has to come back before us. Mr. Tent: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Alanskas and Mr. Gniewek. I am leaning towards the approval of this petition. I look at it this way, why the hurry? We just looked at it today. Why can't we postpone it until the 18th and do some research work on it and come up with our answer. To me, whenever you have a public hearing, you gather the facts. I am impressed with what they said. I am not saying I am against the proposal. When the developer comes before us and says he is going to hurry up and build, I want to get more information. I think tabling would be in order until the 18th and I am leaning towards the approval of this and I agree with everything my two fellow Commissioners have said. I just don't want to railroad this through too quickly. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 21, 1992 on Petition 92-6-1-12 by Brashear, Tangora and Spence for TFG Realty Corp. requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, south of Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25 from M-2 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 92-6-1-12 until the Study Meeting of August ` _ 18, 1992. 12198 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. \nom A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Fandrei, Morrow NAYS: Gniewek, LaPine, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed. Mr. Engebretson: Now we will go back to the original resolution to deny. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 21, 1992 on Petition 92-6-1-12 by Brashear, Tangora and Spence for TFG Realty Corp. requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, south of Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25 from M-2 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-6-1-12 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan which designates the area for industrial land use. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which will cause additional traffic congestion in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible with the City's policy of promoting the use of land within the industrial corridor for industrial purposes. 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow NAYS: Gniewek, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 21, 1992 on Petition 92-6-1-12 by Brashear, Tangora and Spence for TFG Realty Corp. requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, south of Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25 from M-2 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-6-1-12 be approved for the following reasons: 12199 1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the use of a parcel of land not needed to serve the adjacent DRC facility. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony New with the surrounding zoning in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which are a reasonable and logical adjunct to the surrounding uses in the area. 4) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for additional commercial services to serve the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Gniewek, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: Morrow, LaPine, Fandrei, Tent ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 21, 1992 on Petition 92-6-1-12 by Brashear, Tangora and Spence for TFG Realty Corp. requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, south of Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25 from M-2 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 92-6-1-12 until the Study Meeting of August 18, 1992. 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Fandrei, Morrow, Alanskas NAYS: LaPine, McCann, Engebretson ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Gniewek: Being on the prevailing side of the motion, is it possible to ask that we move this to a study session at an earlier date? Is that possible Mr. Nagy? Mr. Nagy: Yes there are other options. You have a study scheduled for July 28. You have a regular meeting scheduled for the 11th of August and, of course, you are already aware of your study meeting of No.... August 18th. 12200 Mr. Gniewek: The only reason I am asking, Mr. Chairman, is I know in procedures of this type and nature, it is contingent upon the people that are involved to proceed as quickly as they can to make their deals as far as interest rates, etc. I would think they would be looking at something a little quicker than the 18th. That is quite a distance away. In the interest of accommodating the petitioner and looking for a situation to ease them or give them an opportunity to do more, we might be able to move that up. Maybe the petitioner could answer that question? Mr. Walkon: Mr. Gniewek has it exactly correct. We have an absolute time crunch here and we respectfully ask that as soon as possible that this matter be heard. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 21, 1992 on Petition 92-6-1-12 by Brashear, Tangora and Spence for TFG Realty Corp. requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, south of Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25 from M-2 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to rescind the previous resolution tabling Petition 92-6-1-12 to August 18, 1992. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Fandrei, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was #7-415-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 21, 1992 on Petition 92-6-1-12 by Brashear, Tangora and Spence for TFG Realty Corp. requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, south of Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25 from M-2 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 92-6-1-12 until the Study Meeting of July 28, 1992. 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Fandrei, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 12201 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. Mrs. Fandrei left the meeting at this time. `. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-4-1-9 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #214-92, proposing to rezone property located on the east side of Hubbell Avenue, south of Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35 from C-2 to R-3. Mr. Engebretson: This is a petition that we held a public hearing on June 16th and there were some questions at that time regarding whether or not this property had been taxed at the commercial rate, which is the zoning, or whether it had been taxed at the residential rate, which is the use. City records have indicated that the taxes on this property clearly indicate the assessment is based on use not zoning. I don't recall any other items outstanding. I don't see the property owner here tonight. A motion is in order. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #7-416-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition 92-4-1-9 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #214-92, proposing to rezone property located on the east side of Hubbell Avenue, south of Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35 from C-2 to R-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to withdraw Petition 92-4-1-9 and the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #214-92, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended 'Nifty does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property located on the east side of Hubbell Avenue, south of Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35 from C-2 to R-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. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance x/543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSENT: Fandrei Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 12202 Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-3-2-13 by Steve Kaplantzes requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant within an existing shopping center located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Blue Skies Avenue and Newburgh Road "4411. in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 19. Mr. Engebretson: This petition was heard at an earlier public hearing on May 5, 1992 and it was tabled because the petitioner was not present. We continued with the public hearing because it was an advertised item but we did not hear from the petitioner. We would like to hear from him at this time. He is not here again. I read from the staff notes that he has been informed by letter and several times by telephone and he has not responded. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was #7-417-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 5, 1992 on Petition 92-3-2-13 by Steve Kaplantzes requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant within an existing shopping center located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Blue Skies Avenue and Newburgh Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 19, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition 92-3-2-13 for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 3) That there is no demonstrated need for additional sit-down eating establishments in the area of the City. 4) There there was a lack of interest on the part of the petitioner. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSENT: Fandrei Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the 644th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on June 16, 1992. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #7-418-92 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 644th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on June 16, 1992 are approved. 12203 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the ',`„ minutes of the 645th Regular Meeting held on June 30, 1992. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was #7-419-92 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 645th Regular Meeting held on June 30, 1992 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Gniewek, LaPine, Alanskas, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Tent, Fandrei, Morrow, 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 approval of the minutes of the 370th Special Meeting held on July 14, 1992. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #7-420-92 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 370th Special Meeting held on July 14, 1992 are approved. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Perry Drugs requesting approval to erect three wall and one ground sign at 29350 Plymouth Road. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #7-421-92 RESOLVED that, Sign Permit Application by Perry Drugs requesting approval to erect three wall and one ground sign at 29350 Plymouth Road be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Miller presented the plans for the signs. Mr. Miller: This is for Perry Drugs located on the northeast corner of Plymouth Road and Middlebelt. They are requesting three wall signs and a freestanding sign. Right now the existing signage is two wall signs at 265 square feet and an existing ground sign that is 109 square feet. The freestanding sign out front, they are now proposing it to be about 9 feet 6 inches high. They are requesting 12204 a wall sign on the front of the building, which would be 105 square feet. They are also requesting a sign on the west facing Middlebelt and another wall sign in the rear or north elevation. Now Mr. Engebretson: Have they discussed some of the issues such as new trees that will be planted? Mr. Millers: Yes. Mr. Gniewek: The ground sign itself is going to be 9 feet 6 inches high. What is the actual height of the sign itself? Mr. Miller: Seven feet. Two feet above grade. Mrs. Fandrei re-entered the meeting at this time. Mr. Engebretson: If there is no objection, I would like to ask Mr. Pollard to step forward and tell us the outcome of your visit with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Pollard: I did not go to the Zoning Board of Appeals tonight. It has been postponed until next Tuesday. Mr. Engebretson: Postponed by whom? Mr. Pollard: Postponed by the administration. Mr. Nagy: It has to do with the Mayor's memo with regard to the sequence in which signs that are in violation of the ordinance are to be dealt �► with. Even though this got out of sync and went to the Zoning Board first, in order to get it back to being consistent with the accepted policy for the City, the Department of the Administrative Section of the ZBA advised ZBA that it was consistent with City policy to have the Planning Commission hear this matter first. Mr. Engebretson: I have a copy of the Mayor's letter in my briefcase and I recall that as being specifically how he wanted things handled. However, this one seemed to be getting special treatment, but it is your impression this is to follow the normal procedure. Mr. Gniewek: I would make a comment that I can understand why Perrys would like to have two additional wall signs other than the one on the front of the building. However, I would like to suggest we allow only one additional wall sign. There is the one at the rear of the building that they think is necessary. They also think the one on the side of the building is necessary. I happen to think personally that they don't need two. I would be willing to give them one of those signs. Give them their choice of where to put it whether it be on the rear of the building or some place on the side to give them the visibility they need. I would not be supporting the two signs. I would be supporting only one sign but allowing them to place it either on the rear of the building or the side of the building. 12205 Mr. Morrow: Going along with what Mr. Gniewek said, I felt all along that, at least in my opinion, a small sign on the north wall is almost redundant with the main sign on Middlebelt Road. Nor rather Tent: I would support my two fellow Commissioners on this. I would rather see one sign there than two and I think one is sufficient so I would give you my support on that. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #7-422-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Perry Drugs requesting approval to erect three wall and one ground sign at 29350 Plymouth Road be approved in part subject to the following conditions: 1) That the ground sign be lowered to 8' above the existing grade of the berm; 2) That any plants taken in the utilization of the ground sign will be replaced in conjunction with the existing landscaping plan; 3) That in addition to the sign on the front of the building, they be allowed one additional wall sign to be utilized either on the side or the rear of the building, their choice and position. 4) That any interior window signage be limited to 20% of the total glass area. 5) That Sign Plan #S-2978 for Perry Drugs at 29350 Plymouth Road 1418. prepared by SignArt, Inc. , dated April 22, 1992 and revised July 16, 1992, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Warren Sign Systems on behalf of Art Van Furniture requesting approval to increase the size of an existing wall sign at 29905 Seven Mile Road. Mr. Miller: There is a page in your book showing how the sign has been changed. We didn't get a color rendition. They still might be making changes. They are talking right now with Ordinance Enforcement to see if they can cut the square footage back. The last one we had they wanted "Art Van Furniture" with "And Clearance Center" next to it. Right now they have 378 square feet. Maybe someone is here from Art Van to say what they wish to have now. Mr. Engebretson: If this is still an open issue and if this isn't the sign they want, I don't see any point in wasting our time discussing this tonight. I think we should table this to the next study meeting On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was 12206 #7-423-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table the Sign Permit Application by Warren Sign Systems on behalf of Art Van Furniture requesting approval to increase the size of an existing wall sign at 29905 Seven Mile Road until the study meeting of August 18, 1992. 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 James S. Heffernan for a Satellite Disc Antenna on property located at 11029 Arden in Section 34. Mr. Miller: This satellite dish is up right now. It is full mounted. It is located in the southwest corner in back of the house. It is approximately an eight foot diameter satellite dish. The petitioner was not present. Mr. Nagy: I have some correspondence. First of all we do have a petition protesting the satellite dish dated July 19, 1992 stating: This is a petition to protest the satellite dish at 11029 Arden. This is a very unpleasant and ugly addition to Old Rosedale Gardens. Also installed without permit or contacting neighbors. There has been some T.V. interference since installation. It has been signed by 22 residents who all give their address on Arden Avenue. We have also received a letter from Christine and Bruce Johnson protesting the satellite dish installed at 11029 Arden. They state the dish is completely visible from the street, is large and unsightly and takes away from the character and attractiveness of the neighborhood. We have also received a letter from Arthur R. Cole, President of Old Rosedale Gardens Homeowners Association stating the Board of Directors had been approached by a couple of their neighbors who have concerns about the satellite dish located at the home of 11029 Arden. He states it has been their view in the past and continues to be that zoning laws were put into effect with much thought and deliberation and such laws should be waived in the most rarest of circumstances. They further state they acknowledge that individual homeowners have certain rights but hopefully, when you review this particular case, you will be cognizant of the neighbors abutting the home in question. They end by saying they appreciate the difficult responsibilities that go along with your job and thank you for your efforts. Mr. Engebretson: There is no question in your mind that in view of the fact that this petitioner received a violation from the City for having installed an illegal satellite dish and that he was given notice of this process here, there is no doubt in your mind that he was given proper notice? Mr. Nagy: That is true. He was notified of the meeting. 12207 Mr. Engebretson: I see in the audience a couple of ladies that live next to this and I would like to ask them to come down and share your thoughts with us. *tow Elsa Johnston, 11033 Arden: Considering the size of our lots and that anything like this cannot be camouflaged, and it isn't very attractive, we really don't appreciate it being there. Our street is only three blocks long and Sunday I did cover about half of that area. The people that were home, one person didn't sign because she is new in the neighborhood. A wife signed at one house. The husband didn't sign simply because he thought we shouldn't have to do this, the City should just simply take care of it. It is something you expect to see on top of a bar or a restaurant and not on a private home as close together as our homes are. Mr. Engebretson: You live next door right? Ms. Johnston: I live next door. Catherine Callahan, 11027 Arden: I feel very much the same as Elsa. I think if we have one, what is to prevent others from putting up these? To me they don't look good. I am the neighbor on the other side. Mr. Engebretson: Were you the person that indicated that it is your impression that you have had some interference with your television reception? Ms. Callahan: I did at first. Now I can't say that within the last week or two but what is to say it won't happen again. Mr. Morrow: Do you view the impact of this dish from an aesthetic standpoint as either positively or negatively affecting your neighborhood? Ms. Callahan: Negatively. Mr. Morrow: I want to amplify that because one of the reasons we enacted this ordinance was to preclude this type of thing, to go through the process, as this particular homeowner has not done, is this very reason. You are a fine example as to why this ordinance exists, somebody impacting their neighbors and the City negatively from an aesthetic standpoint as your neighbors on all sides of the street have concurred with you, even though they are further removed. We try to co-exist with this knowing people can petition for this but there are cases where, from my standpoint, they shouldn't be existing. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, the ordinance in the City now requires any satellite installation to come for a City permit. Is that correct? In other words, no one can install a satellite dish without applying for a permit? Mr. Nagy: In a residential area. Mr. Tent: I want to make that part of the record. We are on television. `, 12208 There are people watching. This here was done illegally. No permit was even acquired and the antenna was put up. The only reason it is before us now is because Inspection issued a violation against the installation. Is that correct? Now Mr. Nagy: Yes it is. Mr. Tent: So anyone listening in the audience that has any desire to put up a satellite dish in a residential neighborhood, be sure to apply for a permit. Another thing Mr. Nagy, will you send the complete file to the City Council in case this is appealed? Mr. Nagy: Of course we will. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was ##7-424-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Permit Application by James S. Heffernan for a Satellite Disc Antenna on property located at 11029 Arden for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that this proposal is in compliance with the general standards set forth in Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance 11543; 2) That the petitioner has failed to comply with Section 18.42 of Zoning Ordinance ##543; 3) That due to its size and location, this disc antenna would be detrimental to the aesthetic quality and beauty of the Nifty neighborhood, in addition to people traveling the abutting thoroughfare, by presenting a visual blight that could jeopardize the property values in the area as set forth in the comprehensive plan of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 646th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on July 21, 1992 was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Ii I James C. McCann, Secretary ATTEST: .1 A/ API :, . Jack Engebret on, Chairman jg