Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1992-08-11 12209 MINUTES OF THE 647th REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, August 11, 1992, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 647th Regular Meeting 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. Members present: Gniewek, LaPine*, Alanskas, Fandrei, Engebretson, Tent, McCann*, Morrow 4 JP Members absent: None Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director; Ralph H. 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. Mrs. Fandrei, Acting Secretary, announced the first 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. Engebretson: This is an item that was discussed at great length at a public hearing back in July and discussed again in a study meeting. Tonight we will need a motion to remove it from the table. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #8-425-92 RESOLVED that, 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 be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 12210 Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, is there any new information on this? Mr. Nagy: As we pointed out in our staff notes, we have received a letter from the President of Ladbroke Racing of Michigan, Dr. David J. fir. Goodwill. He addresses this to the Planning Commission and it is referencing the 15 acres of property located at the southeast corner of Middlebelt and Schoolcraft Road. He indicates this letter is to confirm to the City Planning Commission that: 1. To the best of my knowledge, during the last three years the undersigned has not received any proposals for the development of any industrial facilities on the referenced property. 2. The Detroit Race Course is located on property that is leased to the undersigned (which property does not include the approximately 15 acres of property that is owned by the undersigned and which property is the subject of the present application for rezoning). As lessee, the undersigned may not sell any portion of the property that is leased to the undersigned and that is the location of the Detroit Race Course. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I believe that was the result of a request for additional information? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, there already is some C-2 at that particular corner? Approximately how much is that area of C-2 at that corner? Mr. Nagy: Approximately a half acre. Mr. Engebretson: Back to the letter from Ladbroke. Is it correct to characterize the property under petition here as being owned by Ladbroke but the property occupied by Ladbroke is owned by someone else and leased by them. Is that correct? Mr. Nagy: That is a fair calculation. *7:40 - Mr. LaPine entered the meeting at this time. Mr. Tent: I have a question but we would have to open up the meeting to the petitioner. Mr. Engebretson: The rules provide for the necessity for unanimous approval for opening the meeting up at this level for further discussion with the petitioner. Are there any objections? Hearing none, I will let you ask your question. Mr. Tent: I would like to ask a question of Mr. Walkon. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Walkon, for the record, would you please give us your name and address. Marvin Walkon: I am from Southfield on Evergreen Road. Mr. Tent: The thing I am concerned about is the C-2 zoning and I understand that all we are talking about is zoning at this particular point. 12211 I drove up and down Middlebelt Road just to see what C-2 zoning we have. I understand you are the principal in this particular petition, and you also have a business on Middlebelt Road. Is that true, the Auto Village? Mr. Walkon: I am a very, very small partner in that and I am a partner in this entity, again in a small way, although basically I am the attorney on this matter along with Chuck Tangora. My relationship with the owners, at this point, is that of attorney on this site. Mr. Tent: The reason I bring this up is I am only concerned with the C-2 zoning and I notice at the Auto Village on Middlebelt, that place is about three quarters vacant and there is a big lease sign there. I realize the fact that you are not here on that particular item but we are talking zoning here at this point and if we were to grant the C-2 zoning and this particular project wouldn't materialize because of economics, etc. , we would have another C-2 zoning strip. I was wondering how you felt about what you have over there. Are you going to lease that place? Do we have enough C-2 on Middlebelt? Mr. Walkon: We discussed that at the study session and as you are aware of, there is one user that is proposed for this site so it wouldn't be a leasing problem because it would be totally leased. As you know, from the representative of the company, this is a stock exchange company and well known throughout the United States. Mr. Tent: Things can happen just like this Phar-Mor. They got the zoning and that is not going to materialize for a while. We hope it does. That is my concern. Once we grant the zoning for this, then that is it forever until they petition to change it to something else. I have no quarrel as to what is going to go there but I have some concern with the C-2 zoning and the vacancies. That is why I asked you if you could define what is happening at this Auto Village because it is three quarters vacant and when it was before the Planning Commission we were going to have a viable business there. I just hate to see this happen. Mr. Walkon: Mr. Tent, I think if we are addressing the racetrack site, what Mr. Nagy read is 15 acres that is owned and the rest is all leased on a very long term lease. We have a tenant as you are aware, Home Quarters, who has many, many stores and does in the billions in business. As you suggested, K-Mart could go bankrupt and any of the large, large companies could go bankrupt. I would like to indicate this is a very, very financially secure company with enormous amounts of cash and I know the Phar-Mor story you are referring to where that man embezzled fifty million dollars. I don't know what to say about that. Mr. Morrow: Do we have a representative from Ladbroke here tonight. Mr. Engebretson: Apparently not. 12212 Mr. Morrow: Maybe the staff can help me or the counsel can help me. On that piece of property, the 15 acres we are talking about, it is my understanding Ladbroke had approached the owner to use that site for parking and the owner had agreed to that provided they paid the `tow taxes. That indicated to me that they needed that site for parking. They subsequently purchased that piece of property from the owner and that is why they are considering selling it. What I am asking is does Ladbroke not currently need that property for parking? Charles Tangora: There isn't a representative of Ladbroke to give the history and the rationale for it Mr. Morrow. From the present operators of Ladbroke they have indicated down through the whole process that it is not an important item, that it is a piece of property that doesn't serve their operation. I can't tell you the past history because we don't have those people here to give you those facts. Mr. Morrow: I guess at one time they needed it and now they don't so that tells me that possibly the attendence is going down or maybe they don't need it until they have a major event. I have also heard rumors that perhaps Northville was going to close down their harness racing and possibly move it to Livonia. Of course, I am coming from a parking standpoint. If that site is reduced 15 acres, will we have adequate parking for that site. I can appreciate where Ladbroke is coming from. They have 15 acres that is probably very valuable and when someone makes an offer, maybe they feel they don't need that parking as bad as they thought they did. It is unfortunate they are not here because I was coming from a parking issue. Say Mr. Tangora: I am sorry I just don't have those facts. I wouldn't even try to guess at the answer. Mr. Morrow: I don't mean to put you on the spot. Those are just the questions I had. Mr. Engebretson: I believe we did have representation from the racetrack at the past two meetings. Was there any flavor of that inquiry at that time? Mr. Morrow: I kind of asked the Ladbroke representative for a history of that parcel. Obviously it was split off at some time and I thought they would be the ones that would be here tonight to address that question because I think if we will recall, Mr. Tangora I don't think you were there, we did request a little bit of history on that parcel and how it did develop as a separate piece and that is what I was going to pursue. Mr. Engebretson: I do recall from those prior meetings that the principal parking use that land serves is the Jaycee Carnival and we were concerned about that in a lighthearted way. But we did talk about that. I think the racetrack has come to a point where that isn't really necessary for their use any more. Do you recall that Mr. Tangora? "` 12213 Mr. Tangora: That is my understanding in talking to the Ladbroke people about three weeks ago when I was here with them. I think it was represented to them that this would just be a regular meeting, it wouldn't be a public hearing, and I think based on that they didn't feel their presence was necessary. Mr. Morrow: I did specifically ask a question for a little history on that parcel as it related to Ladbroke. What I said and what they heard, it was clear in my mind that I had asked them a question. Mr. Gniewek: I believe as Mr. Nagy indicated, as part of that letter, a brief history as far as that parcel was concerned that Ladbroke had bought it after they paid taxes on the property. Would you clarify that again Mr. Nagy? Mr. Nagy: They acquired the property in fee simple, the 15 acres. The major portion of the property, the 180 acres, the balance of the property, is leased. The Haggerty family, from the time they developed it, had this separate parcel set aside under the family ownership and they indicate in their letter, in the last three years, which I think was the request the Commission made at the study meeting was to review any development proposals they may have entertained during that period of time, and they indicate they have not received any within the last three years. Mr. Engebretson: Not to belabor the point but I think they have made it clear in that letter that by taking this action they surely have concluded it is no longer needed for parking. Mr. Nagy: Exactly. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was ##8-426-92 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 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. 12214 Mr. LaPine: I know the question here tonight is strictly zoning and some members of the Commission don't feel we should discuss the fact what is going in there. From time to time there has been discussion on that. In this particular case I think the petitioner should be aware that just because he gets the zoning for that area, if it is successful, that does not necessarily mean the site plan is going to be approved. I take the position that in that particular area to put a structure of this nature on that corner is going to cause tremendous additional traffic problems in that area. When you look at the number of cars that go to the racetrack and you look across the street at Handy Andy's, the amount of traffic that comes from that location, especially in the summertime when they sell flowers and shrubs, etc. , plus the fact that when you come out of Handy Andy's you can either turn left or right, there are no prohobitive signs at that location, it causes more problems. When you take into consideration you have three restaurants across the street. Two of those restaurants are probably two of the biggest money making restaurants in that chain. They bring tremendous traffic to that location. You have a motel there that brings traffic. You have an OS development behind there that is not even finished that causes a lot of traffic. On top of that you have Cadillac and Ford Motor up the street. When they let out in the afternoon you have all the traffic coming out of there going up Middlebelt to get on the expressway. Plus you have the traffic coming from the east and from the west on the expressway getting off at Middlebelt to either go to the racetrack, to go to Wonderland or to go to the Livonia Mall. It is a tremendous amount of traffic that is generated in that area and now you are going to put a building there of approximately 110,000 square feet which is going to generate, I would have to assume, a lot of cars. It is just going to put a tremendous load on that area and I don't think that the area can really handle it. Maybe the property will be zoned to C-2 but this type of development there, to me is going to cause a lot of problems. Secondly, this Commission, since I have been on it, has been very stingy in rezoning additional property in this City to C-1 and C-2 because we felt that we have to stop this building of strip malls in C-2 zoning. We have turned down zoning requests for C-1 and C-2. This isn't the first one that has come before us. We have a number of them and I think we have been supported basically by the Council and by the Mayor's office. Thirdly, we have less M-1 and M-2 property than any other property in the City. We have to hang on to what we have. We can't just look at what we have today. We have to look at the future. What is down the road in ten or fifteen years. Contrary to what everyone says, there is no guarantee the racetrack is going to be there. The racetrack might decide it isn't profitable anymore and they are going to sell out and we would have an opportunity to have some good M-2 property to develop. Back when Livonia 2000 was in operation, one of the ideas they had, I would like to read this to you, "Purchase remaining open property north of Plymouth Road and south of Schoolcraft for industrial park 12215 development". Another idea they had "Buy Ladbroke Race Course for conversion to industrial use". You can see the people that were on this committee, I was, Mr. Gniewek was, Mr. Morrow was, their Say forward thinking was that somewhere down the line we might want to purchase that so we might have additional manufacturing development in the City to help with the tax base. For us now to take one portion of that land and zone it to C-2 I think is doing a disservice to the area, to the City and to our future and, therefore, I would urge the members of this Commission to vote for my motion. Mr. Alanskas: John, did we get a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating there would be no problem with traffic? Mr. Nagy: Not specifically. No, not at this point. Mr. Alanskas: I think the entire parcel is 214 acres and you are only talking 15 acres for C-2. If for any reason the racetrack did close down, you would still have 185 acres of M-2 for general manufacturing and industrial. I just don't believe that this small section would be a hindrance to the City of Livonia. I think it would be an asset because right across the street you do have C-2. I think it would be very compatible. Mr. Tent: I would like to support the comments that Mr. LaPine made. His traffic representation was super great because it is true. The Master Plan that we talked about for M-2 industrial is very true. We are losing a lot of that. The fact is I don't believe a half a loaf is better than a whole loaf. If we give away this portion and in the future plans the M-2 manifests, they are going to want as much as they can of the M-2. We are near the freeways. We are near the railroad crossing. It is a viable area for this type of manufacturing that could be located in this area and for us to give it away and say we still have some left, I can't buy that. I either want to give the whole thing away or hang on to what we have. I can't see any need immediately to go ahead and develop all this vacant land. There is going to be a time when this could become a viable piece of property. All I would say is I urge my fellow Commissioners to listen to what Mr. LaPine said because I think he hit the nail right on the head. Mr. Engebretson: It is not often that I disagree with my friend Bill LaPine but tonight we see this issue a little differently and I would just like to take a moment not to rebut his points one by one because I agree with some of what he said and I think there is room for interpretation of some of the other points. Regarding the intensity of the use in that area, it hasn't been too long since we approved Builders Square, an operation competitive to the proposed tenant at this location, one mile down the road at what I understand is the busiest intersection in the City of Livonia, that being Plymouth and Middlebelt Road, and the traffic generated by that business, which has been eminently successful, is substantial. However, the roads in that area are built to take substantial 12216 traffic and on the occasions that I had to visit there, traffic in the streets hasn't been the problem, traffic in the parking lot has been the problem. The parking lot, at times, has been filled to ‘44111. near overflowing, and that brings up a point that the representative from Heckingers, the parent company of the proposed tenant, indicated, in great detail, the demographic study they did before making this proposal and she made a point that this area is presently under served for this type of market. As a lay person and as a consumer, it is my impression that she had it all very accurate. I have visited Builders Square several times on a Saturday or a Sunday and it is a nightmare. There is a great demand for that type of product. The concern about the competitive impact this could have on either Handy Andy or Builders Square, I think while it is a valid point of concern, the fact that the area is under served, I agree with that. Now that I am retired I have the privilege of going to Builders Square on Tuesday or Wednesday. I don't have to wait until Saturday or Sunday. I am thankful for that. At the public hearing I mentioned that prior to coming to Livonia in the middle 60's, I was a long-time resident of Washington, D.C. and I am very familiar with the Heckinger Company. It is a first class operator and I would expect that based upon what I have heard that this subsidiary is an equally first class operation and I think it will serve the City well once you get past the traffic issues and the sanctity of that industrial zoning on that small parcel at that intersection. I feel Livonia will be well served by another operator who is very, very service oriented and will bring many jobs to the City and substantial tax dollars too. Taxes were brought up as an objection to this proposal but this operator would pay very, very substantial taxes as contrasted to very minimal taxes that the City is presently collecting. The reference was made to strip malls and the vacancy rates and the general problem that the community has with that phenomenon and I would like to remind my colleagues that this is not a strip mall. This is one very substantial user. A billion dollar company coming to our town to provide a new service. One tenant in this location, which is a far cry from a strip mall. Strip malls do bring many problems and we do have many vacancies. It is a valid point. This is not a strip mall. Those are a couple of points that I wanted to speak in favor of defeating the denying resolution. Finally, I will close with a reference to the Master Plan. This is, in fact, in conflict with the Master Plan. This is not the first time in the history of Livonia that this has happened. What happens is as times change, the City adapts and occasionally creates zoning districts that are in conflict with the Master Plan and then, from time to time, we look back on those acts and clean up the Master Plan so it properly reflects the use. Don't interpret my comments as faulting either of my colleagues that have spoken eloquently in support of the denying resolution. 12217 I respect their opinions. I respect them as individuals. I would simply ask that you take these points into consideration in casting your vote. �•► A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow NAYS: Gniewek, Alanskas, Engebretson ABSENT: McCann Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, turned the gavel over to to Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, so he could return to a Commitee of the Whole meeting being held by the City Council. Mrs. Fandrei, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a Motion by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #419-92, to hold a public hearing on adopting suitable regulations with respect to the installation of canopies and awning signs relating to size, color, lighting and illumination, aesthetics, etc. ; and with regard to establishing a procedure requiring specific approval of such signs. Mr. Morrow: As indicated, we are looking for a motion to hold a public hearing. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was #8-427-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #419-92, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Sections 18.50H of Zoning Ordinance #543 to provide additional regulations regarding illuminated canopies and awnings with attached signage. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be 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, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas NAYS: None ABSENT: Engebretson, McCann Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. *8:02 - Mr. McCann entered the meeting at this time. Mrs. Fandrei, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the minutes of the 646th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on July 21, 1992. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was `". #8-428-92 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 646th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on July 21, 1992 are hereby approved. 12218 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: Engebretson Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Fandrei, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-7-8-11 by Midwest Management & Realty requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a decorative parapet on a portion of the front roof of the building at 19711 Middlebelt Road in Section 2. Mr. Miller: This business is located on the west side of Middlebelt just north of the Livonia Mall. They are requesting a decorative parapet on the front end of their roof. (Mr. Miller presented plans showing the parapet). The length of the extension is 60 feet. The total square footage of the whole thing is 170 square feet. Mr. Morrow: Does the petitioner have anything to add? David Dal Pian of Midwest Management: About the only thing I can is it is a 40 year old company. This is a new image that they are trying to create to soften the commercial look. It has no signage and it is all done in vinyl and it looks very becoming. It just gives that softer touch. We really think it adds to the merchandise that we 4111a., are selling. Mr. LaPine: Your new sign on the building is up and you painted the mansard. Are you going to tear that mansard down? Mr. Dal Pian: No. Mr. LaPine: You are just going to cover it? Mr. Dal Pian: No. This will sit actually on the top. Mr. LaPine: You have two window signs in the window. One is on the south side of the building, which doesn't bother me. The one in the front has the same wording that your sign you have up there now. Is that sign coming down? Mr. Dal Pian: They were just there temporarily until we got the main signs. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was #8-429-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-7-8-11 by Midwest Management & Realty requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a decorative parapet on a portion of the front roof of the building at 19711 Middlebelt Road in Section 2, be approved subject to the following ``r condition: 12219 1) That Architectural Project Plan 9213, Sheet A-1 dated July 27, 1992 prepared by Peter Tzilos, Architect Planner, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: Engebretson Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Belle Isle Awning Co. on behalf of S.G.S. requesting approval to recover the existing awning on the building at 29217 Seven Mile Road. Mr. Miller: This business is located on the southeast corner of Seven Mile Road and Middlebelt. This is a two-unit building. This is on the east unit. There is an existing awning skeleton now and they want to recover the existing awning and put in a sign along the north and east elevation of the building. The sign will be green. It will say S.G.S. Each sign is 19 1/2 square feet for a total of 39 square feet. Mr. Gniewek: Scott, there was some discussion as far as the conflict of colors. 'to. The staff was to review this. What did the staff come up with as far as their perusal of the area? Mr. Miller: I personally went out there. They gave me a piece of the material. I looked it over. I didn't see anything that clashed. The travel agent, which is next door, is a red, white and green color awning. The green is almost the same. Mr. Gniewek: This would in no way be aesthetically displeasing as far as the eye is concerned? Mr. Miller: I don't think so. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was #8-430-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Belle Isle Awning Co. on behalf of S.G.S. requesting approval to recover the existing awning on the building at 29217 Seven Mile Road be approved subject to the following condition: 1) That the Sign Plan dated 6/23/92 by Belle Isle Awning Co. , submitted on behalf of Superior Growers Supply at 29217 Seven Mile Road, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing °jm. resolution adopted. 12220 Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Royal Management Co. on behalf of Ground Round Restaurant requesting approval to erect a ground sign on the property at 17050 S. __ Laurel Park Drive. Mr. Miller: Ground Round is located on the south side of Six Mile Road. They are requesting a ground sign for their new entrance off Six Mile Road. The ground sign will be green with yellow letters. The total square footage will be six feet of area. Mr. Tent: There was some concern about illumination of the sign. Is it going to be internal? Mr. Miller: Yes. I talked with Ground Round and they said it will be internal. Mr. Gniewek: This is all subject to approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. Is that correct? Mr. Miller: Yes because there are two buildings on the property and both of them have wall signs. Under the ordinance you cannot have a ground sign with two wall signs. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was #8-431-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Royal Management Co. on behalf of Ground Round Restaurant requesting approval to erect a ground sign on the property at 17050 S. Laurel Park Drive be approved subject to the following conditions: lofty 1) That the Sign Plan #12775 and the Site Plan IL-8p by Royal Management Co. , submitted on behalf of Ground Round Restaurant at 17050 S. Laurel Park Drive, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance permitting a ground sign on property with multiple wall signs. 3) That the sign shall be internally illuminated only. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: Engebretson Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Graphic Visions, Inc. on behalf of Horizons Travel II, requesting approval to mount one wall sign on the building and replace a panel on the existing ground sign located at 33600 W. Seven Mile Road. 12221 Mr. Miller: This establishment is located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington and Norwich Avenue. They are requesting a wall sign of 20 square feet of area and a tenant panel in the existing ground sign of 8 square feet. The ground sign conforms to the sign ,` ordinance. Mr. Alanskas: What did they finally decide as a color? Mr. Miller: Magenta. Mr. Morrow: Is there anything the petitioner would like to add? Sue Dillon of Graphic Visions: The coloring was chosen as a corporate identity color. It is on all her printing and on all her advertising as well as other promotional items. It is a very identifiable color for them because it is unique in the business. That is why the magenta was chosen. Mr. LaPine: The panel that is going on the free standing sign, is that going to be all black or will it have magenta in it? Ms. Dillon: It will have magenta as well. Mr. LaPine: Graphic Visions, is that a sign company? Ms. Dillon: We are a sign company with graphic design capabilities so we specialize in helping people with corporate identity graphics. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was Nor #8-432-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Graphic Visions, Inc. on behalf of Horizons Travel II, requesting approval to mount one wall sign on the building and replace a panel on the existing ground sign located at 33600 W. Seven Mile Road, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Sign Plans dated 7/92 by Graphic Visions, Inc. , submitted on behalf of Horizons Travel II at 33600 W. Seven Mile Road, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: Engebretson 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 Nelson Custom Signs on behalf of Seros Family Restaurant requesting approval to mount one wall sign on the building and to utilize an existing ground sign located at 29041 Seven Mile Road. 12222 Mr. Miller: This business is requesting one wall sign and utilizing the existing ground sign. This restaurant is located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt and Maplewood Avenue. Au. Mr. Alanskas: Scott, at our study meeting we discussed that they wanted to make a change and put in "Mr." Where is that going to be on the sign? Mr. Miller: I called them up today and got no response. I was hoping they would be here tonight. Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner here? Rick Moberg, owner of Seros Family Restaurant: My sign company has just given me the plan now. The reason we have to use the "Mr." is we are the original Seros. We just got out of court today and we have that name approval. There are Seros restaurants on the east so we have to put a "Mr." next to our name. Mr. Alanskas: How big is it going to be? Mr. Moberg passed the new sign plan for the Commissioners to view. Mr. LaPine: When I was out there looking at the wall sign, on the building you have all those lights. What is going to happen to all those lights? Will they be removed? Mr. Moberg: Yes they will be removed. Mr. LaPine: Will that sign on the wall be lit? Mr. Moberg: Yes internally. Mrs. Fandrei: At the study meeting we asked the sign man to bring in a sample of the paint. Do you have that with you this evening? Mr. Moberg: No I don't. Mrs. Fandrei: That is something we like to look at before we approve your petition. The other thing, the landscaping on the property is very poor. Do you have a plan for that? Mr. Moberg: I talked to the original owner, which is Sutherlands Fish & Chips and they have told me that the City had removed all the landscaping out in front to put new pipes in and they just threw seed down. I guess I can look at some sod but he said the City said they were going to come back and put sod in the next year and they never came back. Mrs. Fandrei: Any shrubs or any kind or trees? Mr. Moberg: There were shrubs there but somebody took a lawnmower and cut them down. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Shane, what do we do about this if the City removed them? 12223 Mr. Shane: I think the City's obligation is to put landscaping back in some form. Generally speaking what the City does is either seeds or sods. That is putting it back in a manageable condition. low Mrs. Fandrei: I guess what I am concerned about is there aren't any trees. There aren't any shrubs. There is nothing. It looks desolate. Where do we go from here. Mr. Shane: Obviously you can put whatever conditions you feel comfortable with on this petitioner. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Shane, would this petitioner, taking over Sutherlands, have any obligation to the original site plan as far as the landscaping? In other words, we do require a minimum of 15% of the site area. Of course, we want sites to be maintained in a healthy condition. Mr. Shane: The Building Department will make certain demands on them in terms of site maintenance and landscaping and when that building was first built there was no such 15% requirement so I don't know if they met the 15% requirement then. Certainly they would be required to bring it back to a reasonable condition as a point of occupancy. Mrs. Fandrei: If we approve this, I would like to make it subject to a landscape plan approval. Seeing there is nothing there now, we do need to bring it up to our current requirements. Mr. Moberg: That is no problem. Mr. Tent: To the petitioner, are you leasing the property or did you buy it? 'ori. Mr. Moberg: Leasing it with an option to buy. Mr. Tent: You have rights to make improvements? Mr. Mobert: Yes I have a triple net lease, which means I am obligated as far as any maintenance to the building or the land. Mr. Tent: Going in that direction, are you volunteering that you are going to go ahead? Mr. Mobert: I can. That is no problem. Mr. LaPine: On behalf of the petitioner, when Jack and I were out there Saturday we were really amazed how well kept up the property was. It was clean. Right in front of the building he has planted flowers. Mr. Morrow: One comment I would like to make. We will probably be conditioning this on some landscaping coming back to us. On that note I will ask for a motion. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was 12224 #/3-433-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Nelson Custom Signs on behalf of Seros Family Restaurant requesting approval to mount one wall ftimy sign on the building and to utilize an existing ground sign located at 29041 Seven Mile Road, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Revised Sign Plans by Nelson Custom Signs, submitted on behalf of Seros Family Restaurant at 29041 Seven Mile Road, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 2) That the petitioner supply the Planning Commission a landscape plan within two weeks of the date of this resolution. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: Engebretson Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson returned to the meeting at this time. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Permit Application by Chester Winiarski for a Satellite Disc Antenna on property located at 14131 Livonia Crescent in Section 23. Mr. Miller: This is a proposal for a satellite dish in a residential area. The `' proposal is for a satellite dish to be located in the backyard 15 feet from the back of the house, 40 feet from one property line, 50 feet from the other property line. The back of the property is tree lined. The satellite dish will be 10 foot in diameter. It will be full mounted. Mr. Alanskas: To the petitioner, did we get letters from the people on both sides? Gus Simone with Advanced Satellites: Yes I will pass them down to you. I am representing Mr. Winiarski. Mr. Alanskas: Where you wanted to put that I see there is a camper on cement blocks. Is that going to stay there? Mr. Simone: No. Mr. LaPine: We were out there Saturday and there is one house at an angle and we asked him to check with that neighbor to see if he had any objection. Did he check with that neighbor? Mr. Simone: Yes we have a letter from Mr. Camilleri. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was 12225 #8-434-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Permit Application by Chester Winiarski for a Satellite Disc Antenna on property located at 14131 Livonia Crescent in Section 23 subject to the ,m. following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan and Specifications submitted by Chester Winiarski for a Satellite Disc Antenna at 14131 Livonia Crescent are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the proposed disc antenna location is the only available position on the petitioner's property where he can receive the satellite signal. 3) That the proposed disc antenna has no negative aesthetic impact on the neighborhood in general and the immediate neighborhood in particular. Mr. Morrow, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 647th Regular Meeting held on August 11, 1992 was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION S, / ames C. McCann, Secretary ATTEST: ° G y,. ¢(PVC c �� Ja k Engebietson, Chairman jg