Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1992-05-05 12019 MINUTES OF THE 642nd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA 'ow. On Tuesday, May 5, 1992, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 642nd 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 70 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jack Engebretson Conrad Gniewek Brenda Lee Fandrei William LaPine Raymond W. Tent Donald Vyhnalek R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann Members absent: Herman Kluver Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director and Ralph Bakewell, Planner IV were also present. Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and `.► have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 92-3-1-5 by Landmark for Richard Gergis requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Clarita Avenue and Seven Mile Road from C-1 to C-2. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and give us your name and address and tell us why you are making this request. Michael Lippitt, Landmark Commercial Real Estate Services, 805 East Maple, Suite 320, Birmingham 48009: Thank you for allowing us to appear before the Planning Commission for the purpose of rezoning what is currently known as the Livonia Foods property from its current zoning of C-1, local business, to C-2, general business. I have with me Bruce Simon, my 12020 partner in Landmark Commercial Real Estate, and Fred Denny, Vice President of Discount Tire. We are here on behalf of Discount Tire in order to rezone this property. We wanted to give you a little background first about Discount Tire. Discount Tire is the largest and fastest growing tire chain in the world. Currently they have `tom over 240 stores operating in 12 states. We currently have 10 stores in the Detroit metropolitan area including Ann Arbor. They were founded in Ann Arbor, Michigan 25 years ago and still have headquarters there. They are a wholly owned company by the two original partners that started them with one store in Ann Arbor. They have been very successful obviously throughout the years and they have been successful for a number of reasons. There are two main reasons. One is that they find and retain and promote within the best quality people in the business and as a result of their professional and courteous staff they currently boast the highest female customer counts in the tire sale industry. More importantly, Discount Tire is a specialist. They are not an automotive repair user. They are a retailer. A tire store. They specialize only in the sale of tires and wheels. That is all they do. They don't do any under the hood or under the car work whatsoever. They don't do brakes or oil changes. They don't do anything that isn't directly related to either tires or wheels on a car. They don't even do wheel alignments. They now have stores currently in many of Detroit's upscale communities including Troy, Novi, Sterling Heights, Ann Arbor, Farmington Hills, Clinton Township, Taylor and Waterford. This property is on the northwest corner of Clarita and Middlebelt Road, just south of Seven Mile Road. It is currently Livonia Foods property and is under the C-1 zoning district. Livonia Foods has Sklar been vacant for sometime now since Livonia Foods has expanded and moved up the street north of Seven Mile Road next to Kids Are Us. The property is 135 feet wide on Middlebelt Road by 270 feet deep, which is .8 of an acre and it has a 10,400 square foot retail building on it. Discount Tire intends to rezone this property, purchase it once it is rezoned and between the sale price and the amount of money they intend to use to renovate the building, they will have well over one million dollars in the property. It will look brand new. It will be a very attractive building. In order to operate as a Discount Tire under Livonia's present zoning classifications and ordinances, we would require a C-2, although in other cities such as Novi, Troy and Farmington Hills we have been able to fall into a C-1 classification and the reason is they do not do any automotive work whatsoever that isn't directly related to putting a tire on a car. They wouldn't even do that if it weren't for the fact of a convenience to their customers. They sell tires. That is what they are into. We must rezone to C-2 in order to use this building. Again, Discount Tire does not do any other work. I am going to keep on stressing that. A lot of people forget that. They consider themselves a retailer not far different from Waldenbooks or Aco Hardware. Furthermore, to bolster this argument that they don't do any other traditional automotive works, Discount Tire has very strict policies across the country as to how they do business. They do not allow any outdoor storage of 12021 merchandise or display of any tires or wheels outdoors. Everything they do is self contained inside the facility. In fact, no vehicles are ever allowed to be left on the property after business hours. All the work is done inside the building and then the car leaves. Discount Tire is a very limited hour user. `r. General business hours are from 8:00 in the morning until 6:00 at night whereas under the general C-1, local business, that lends itself to retail uses, many of which could be much later than 6:00 at night, for example Livonia Foods which was located here before. There was a lot more in and out traffic when they were there. Discount Tire has high ticket items. They don't require a lot of customers at any given time in order to turn a profit. If you look at the material we passed out, I have noted a number of vacancies in the Livonia mall general area. By coming in here we intend to at least get rid of one of the vacancies and put a lot of money into the building and improve it. We think this is a good opportunity for you to have another quality business neighbor to purchase one of your buildings. In summary, Discount Tire has been a great member of the business community in Detroit's upscale suburbs. They know Livonia. They are very interested in becoming part of the business community in Livonia. They will be a good neighbor and Livonia will be proud to have them. Accomodations have been made in other cities to allow Discount Tire to fit under a C-1 or similar zoning because of the way they do business. If that is not possible here, then we submit to you that a C-2 zoning would be appropriate and will not harm the neighborhood. It will only help the area, improve the building's look, and limit the amount of traffic that could potentially be in that building. They are a first class, clean, professionally run retailer that has just incidental amounts of work that need to be done on cars in order to ''14ft• sell their product. No automotive repairs, limited hours, low density traffic, a renovated and occupied building and hopefully a few new jobs to the area. We hope you will consider our proposal in its favorable light. I am going to pass it on to Fred Denny now. He is Vice President for Discount Tire. Fred Denny, Vice President for Discount Tire, 903 Airport Dr. , Ann Arbor, 48108: I think Michael did a real good job and everything he told you was the truth. He mentioned something about we boast the highest number of female customers. We say that. I don't know if we can substantiate that. We do have records that in 1990 over 52% of our paying customers were ladies and in 1991 it was almost 56%. I guess the point behind that is we do run a very, very clean, very attractive operation. It is not your normal mom and pop tire store where there is grease and overflowing ashtrays and intertubes piled around. We are not like that at all. The reason that we are different from a lot of tire companies, the number one reason is we have no franchises, absolutely not one franchise out of 240 stores. It is completely owned and controlled by the two owners that started it. We are going on our 32nd year. The same two gentlemen own the company and there is no stock available and there are no franchises available so we can control what our buildings look like, we can control what our employees look like. We control everything and I think that is what makes us a step ahead of a lot of other competitors. 12022 Michael mentioned we have absolutely no outside display of merchandise. The other part is the tires that customers leave behind. Those tires are stored inside the building under lock and key out of the weather and they are hauled away from each and every store once a week and in some locations, twice a week, by a �., registered Michigan recycler. That is very important in this day and age. You will never see them outside the building. Again, we do no under the hood services. We do tires and wheels. We only work on passenger vehicles and light trucks. When I say light trucks, I mean pick up trucks, and an occasional motor home. No vehicles have to remain on our lot waiting for parts. If we don't have the tires in stock, the customer will come back the following day or when the inventory is available. Every store is visited by an officer of the company once every ten business days. There are exceptions but 90% of the time every one of our stores is visited by an officer of the company within ten business days. We like to be there to help them with problems. We like to be there to make sure they are doing the best they can to be the kind of business neighbor we want to be. We obviously think Livonia is a great place to do business or we wouldn't be here tonight. Mr. Tent: Mr. Denny, the presentation that both you and Mr. Lippitt made were quite thorough and you answered a lot of questions I was thinking of asking. You state in your operation you strictly deal in tires. There is no wheel alignment? Mr. Denny: That is exactly right. "tow Mr. Tent: If someone came in and they wanted tires from you and they had an alightment problem and they came back, what would you do? Mr. Denny: Normally we would have a business that we would trust and recommend to handle our customers. Normally there is an alignment place within five or ten miles and we would recommend the customer go there. Normally, if you are in the tire business, you can look at a tire and see if the car is out of alignment. If you bought tires from us today and you came back tomorrow and your car was pulling terribly one way or the other, the first thing we would do is change those tires to see if there was a mechanical problem. Then we would recommend you took it to an alignment place. We honestly do not do any alignments. Mr. Tent: Do you have any extra work that you do in other areas? This is your entire operation? Mr. Denny: Yes sir. We do not have a Discount Tire store, out of 240, that does any mechanical work other than put a tire on a wheel, balance it and maybe a new valve stem and put it on the car. We do rotate them but we do not work on the automobile itself. ti.. 12023 Mr. Vyhnalek: This building was a drug store. You say it is going to cost how much to redo this building? Mr. Denny: I believe that with the total amount of capital that we will have in the building, purchasing the property, dressing up the outside, Slow putting in all the equipment that we will need, putting in a new showroom, we believe we will be spending over a million dollars. Mr. Vyhnalek: Is that cheaper than starting from scratch? Mr. Denny: I want to say it is cheaper. Yes we do sometimes build buildings that cost more than that and the land costs more than that but for that particular location in a strong city in a high visible area like Livonia with the thousands and thousands of people living in the area, it is pretty much average. Mr. Vyhnalek: So you are going after location? Mr. Denny: Yes definitely. Mr. Vyhnalek: Like any typical discount tire store you have three or four bays? Mr. Denny: Yes. Mr. Vyhnalek: In the summertime are those bay doors kept open? Mr. Denny: Yes normally the bay doors are kept open in the warm months. Mr. Vyhnalek: Right across the street from the C-1 there are four houses in a row and then there are some more. You use air hammers? rn. Mr. Denny: We use an air wrench with a muffler. Mr. Vyhnalek: How much noise does that make? Mr. Denny: It would be hard to explain how much noise it makes. We don't think it is a loud noise. We don't think it is bothersome. We are in Troy next to a professional business. Our buildings are abutting and he has a ladies fingernail operation that he leases, and an accountant's office and some tax counselling and we are not obtrusive to him in the City of Troy. I don't think you would be able to hear our air wrenches over the normal day to day traffic that goes up and down the street. Mr. Vyhnalek: We have had some other bump shops in town where they had bays like this and some of the people continue to have their radios real loud and the neighbors have complained in the past. What is your policy on your employees with their radios? Mr. Denny: If I ever walked into one of our stores, after we spent a million dollars to attract customers, if I hear loud music playing, someone is going to be looking for another job. Mr. Vyhnalek: That has been a major concern. 12024 Mr. Denny: I can understand that. Our business is to attract customers. Our business is all by repeat customers. In my office in Ann Arbor I get stacks and stacks of testimonial letters. Mr. Vyhnalek: From a daily operation you say business trickles in. Approximately No.,,, how many automobiles would you work on if you have three bays and you have a good business in a good area? Mr. Denny: At our average store we would handle 40 to 50 vehicles per day. Mr. Vyhnalek: A car comes in and wants four tires, how long will it take? Mr. Denny: Normally one-half an hour. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Vyhnalek brought up some of the points I had. You are asking us to rezone a parcel from C-1 to C-2, which is a more intense classification. You will abut residential which to me is not the right way to go especially have you looked into the possibility that we have some available C-2 property? We have a tire store that has gone out of business, General Tire down the street. There is no residential around it. I can't see why we should rezone a parcel here to C-2 when there is a parcel there that has the overhead doors. Have you looked at that parcel? Mr. Denny: Yes sir we have. There are a couple of reasons we would prefer not to have that property. One, it is not quite big enough for us. Mr. LaPine: I understand you said you were going to have three bays. There are seven bays up there. How can you say it is not large enough? Mr. Denny: For the inventory storage. They operated out of a truck that Now brought them in tires almost on a daily basis. They don't have a lot of room for storage. We stock most of our tires at each location. We don't have a central warehousing type distribution center. Also, our business is so much unlike the business that was there before, we would like to come in as a brand new tire place and not have to deal with problems lingering from years back. Mr. LaPine: I assume you sell all lines of tires? Mr. Denny: We are direct with 90%. We are not factory direct with Firestone and we are not factory direct with Goodyear but yes we do handle and can supply all types of tires. Mr. LaPine: How many tires are you going to be able to store there? Mr. Denny: We hope to be able to store between 4,000 to 5,000 tires. Mr. LaPine: Then I assume you will be adding to this building. Mr. Denny: No sir. We have a very high tech rack system that we have developed and designed and our average store holds between 4,000 and 5,000 tires. We are not set up with a distribution center where we have trucks running in and out of there. We have very few truck drop offs. 12025 Mr. LaPine: How do they run, by semi? Mr. Denny: Yes about one a week. Mr. LaPine: This building is 10,416 square feet. How much does each bay take up approximately? yrr► Mr. Denny: Our showroom takes up about 30 x 30 and the bays are say 12 x 20. We should possibly have 6,000 to 7,000 feet of tire storage. Our normal prototypical store is between 7,000 and 8,000 feet but it is also taller. I would like to add one more thing. I think the outside loud speakers where you order hamburgers at lunch at Wendy's would be a lot louder than any radio or air wrench which you would hear from us. Mrs. Fandrei: John, what is the name of the tire store across the street from Sears? Mr. Nagy: Goodyear. Mrs. Fandrei: That is still active. We have Goodyear, Sears, Metro 25 and General Tire is going to be Tireman, so we have four stores in the direct vicinity. That seems like a lot of competition for a store and our concern is the vacancies in the area. Mr. Denny: I can go on record saying that Discount Tire Company has never closed a store that it has built from the ground up. We hope that there is room for everyone there. Our goal is not to put anyone else out of business. We think the City of Livonia can support our business even with the competition that is there. We only sell tires. Mrs. Fandrei: Tell me what factory direct means. Mr. Denny: We buy our tires direct from the factory. We don't go through a middle man unless it is a special order tire. Mrs. Fandrei: This product isn't second grade? Mr. Denny: It is all new factory first. We don't sell seconds. Mrs. Fandrei: They are all basic name brands? Mr. Denny: 50-50. We have in the tire business the opportunity to sell private brands where Goodyear will make a brand like Kelly Springfield. We buy some tires that they call private brands that are made by Goodyear or Firestone and they are brand new first line, exactly the same with a different name. Mrs. Fandrei: John, is there a drive to the side street? Mr. Nagy: Yes there is at Middlebelt and Clarita. Mrs. Fandrei: That is what I thought. Your semi's would be going into the side street which is right next door to homes. 12026 Mr. Denny: I think we could put a stop to that as far as signing it "One Way Only". We would be glad to commit to you that we wouldn't have any semi's on the side street. They would have to enter from Middlebelt. Mrs. Fandrei: But turning around and exiting could be another thing. tics Mr. Denny: I think in this particular lot there is plenty of room. Mr. Lippitt: Again, this being C-i right now, two points come out. One point is we would even commit to not doing any other work besides the tire work we described. Also, I mentioned before when it was asked how many customers on an average day we bring in, my company does a lot of work with a lot of different retailers. Blockbuster Video, which is across the street, will bring in 600 to 700 people a day. Again, that would create a lot of traffic in a particular site like this one. Depending on what retailer ends up buying or renting this building, if it were not for us likely you would have more noise, more traffic, and more activity around this building than you would have with Discount Tire. Mr. LaPine: What would your hours be? Mr. Lippitt: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. We are not open at any location on Sunday. There was no one in the audience present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-3-1-5 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was '44111. RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 5, 1992 on Petition 92-3-1-5 by Landmark for Richard Gergis requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Clarita Avenue and Seven Mile Road from C-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-3-1-5 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning represents only a minor extension of an adjacent zoning district. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible with the Future Land Use Plan designation of Commercial for the subject site. Mr. Tent: A question to the staff. Will we get a chance to look over the site plan, the building elevations, etc. before this takes effect or will this action tonight, if they are successful in getting the zoning, will it automatically go through without us having any input? Mr. Nagy: It is a control zone and you will have site plan approval with regard to alteration of the building and it is very likely that you 12027 will also have waiver use approval in addition. In addition to not only the change of zoning, it is likely that the use itself because of the service aspect will require a waiver use. In any event, they will have to come back. fir► Mr. Tent: So we can interject any of our conditions? I heard information here that I hadn't heard at the study meeting and I feel this is not your normal type of operation that I had anticipated so for this reason I am supporting this petition. Mr. Morrow: I am going to vote not in favor of the motion and I would like to explain why. I am convinced that if Discount Tire does come to Livonia, from a zoning standpoint, as one commissioner, I don't find that the appropriate location to intensify the zoning from C-1 to C-2 because of its close proximity to the residential and because we do have a great deal of C-2 classification already in Livonia. One vacancy is too many and certainly the number we see around the City is certainly too much. It is purely from a zoning standpoint not from the type of operation they run. They have done a good job saying they are on top of this endeavor. It is for that reason I can't support it. Mr. McCann: I would like to join Mr. Morrow's comments. In addition, by changing it to C-2 the zoning does run with the land. If for some reason they should need a bigger space, etc. and need to move on, whoever moved in would be allowed to put whatever they wanted in there. I would hope you would come to Livonia and find a more appropriate location. Mrs. Fandrei: We have so many vacancies in Livonia with the C-2 zoning and I would have to support my two fellow commissioners as far as not supporting this rezoning as it goes with the land. We are finding that we are upzoning from C-1 to C-2 so many times. I am wondering if you have checked out other vacancies that are already C-2. I would encourage you to do that. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to also say that I conclude you are a first class and outstanding business operator. However, this C-1 zoning was put there for a reason to serve as a buffer between the residential community and the C-2 commercial operations nearby. I guess my only comment is I think it is the wrong location. I hope you come to Livonia. If this petition fails and if the Council upholds the denial, I am hoping you would work with the City to find a suitable location. The material you brought with you tonight is overwhelmingly supportive of your business. However, as Mr. Morrow said it does appear to be the wrong location. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Vyhnalek NAYS: McCann, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Fandrei, Engebretson ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support. 12028 On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was ##5-362-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 5, 1992 on Petition 92-3-1-5 by Landmark for Richard Gergis requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Clarita Avenue and Seven Mile Road from C-1 to C-2, the City Planning 't"' Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-3-1-5 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is detrimental to and not in harmony with the adjacent residential uses and zoning in the area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to good planning and zoning practice in that it will not provide for a buffer or transition zone between more intense, less restrictive commercial zoning and residential uses in the area. 3) That there is no demonstrated need for additional C-2 zoning in the subject area. 4) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which are incompatible with adjacent residential uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance ##543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: McCann, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Fandrei, Engebretson NAYS: Tent, Vyhnalek ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Denny: Mr. Nagy, is it possible to get a C-1 special use approval? Mr. Nagy: We do not enter into contract zoning. C-1 zoning is not appropriate for tire sales. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-3-1-6 by Lidia Veri for Livonia Builders, Inc. requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Henry Ruff and Merriman Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14 from RUFC to R-2. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. They further state according to their records the southeasterly portion of Parcel H1 could be encumbered with a flood plain for all areas below elevation 628.5 (approximately). 12029 A letter has also been received from Russell and Celeste Chenenkoff of 30830 Greenland stating their opposition to this rezoning. They state the rezoning to R-2 will destroy the rural surroundings of this neighborhood and the construction of high-density housing will lead to the demise of the wildlife and country-within-a-city atmosphere, the basis for which they bought their home in this `. area. They further state it would also lead to a severe increase of traffic on West Munger. They end by asking the Planning Commission to please recommend to the City Council that this property remain zoned as RUFC. We have also received a petition signed by 122 residents opposing this rezoning petition. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present? John Mahn, Southeastern Management Company, 34393 Plymouth Road, Livonia: I am also a Livonia resident. I am here on behalf of my client, Livonia Builders, Inc. What we have in mind here is I think a lot of people know me and know the type of business we are in. We are in land development. We have been in Livonia since 1978 and we have numerous developments that Livonia Builders have been involved in. We have done market studies in Livonia because we all live here and we like it and we like to do things for the community as each development that we are involved in indicates that. Subdivisions in Livonia either range in the neighborhood of $120,000 or the other subdivisions are $200,000 plus. Livonia, we all know is a wonderful City, has a wonderful school system and people in the Planning Commission as well as the Council have done a good job here. We all agree with that. We looked into the situation in regards to the marketability and there is nothing between $120,000 `r. and $200,000 plus homes. There isn't any new construction between those two price ranges so what we are doing here, we call this affordable housing. Livonia does have the $100,000 to $120,000 people that can afford those homes and they do have the $200,000 people that can afford those homes, but the people who want to move up the ladder in housing, they don't have a place to stay in Livonia for $160,000. We are targeting this area for that price home. We have known people that do want to sell their homes and move up that ladder and they want to go into that price range because they cannot afford $200,000 homes. This is what we are trying to do here. I did attend a meeting with the neighborhood people because we are concerned with the community and they were concerned about the density, they were concerned about the traffic on Munger and what type of construction we were involved in. I tried to supply all the information I could at that time and I even went ahead and talked to the gentleman who formed the petition last Friday and said this is a great country and we would like to get together and work something out. I said I would like to have a list of these petitioners and invite them to a meeting and see if we could work out something and he said it is a little late and they would wait until this meeting and then we would get together. That is where we are at. 12030 Mr. Tent: Mr. Mahn, we are talking about zoning only. I want to turn the clock back to 1960. We ran into the same conditions and had the developer stand in front of us as you are now and he said Livonia is not an affordable community. This was at Hubbard and Six Mile. So they proposed smaller size lots with smaller size homes. By the City not caving in we ended up with 1/2 acre development. That 'tor became Nottingham Woods. Nottingham Woods became a very affordable subdivision. They had 93 homes in there as opposed to the 300 plus they were proposing. That is a real success story. This is in the same general area. That subdivision sold out very rapidly. So the question came up where else can they build affordable homes with those size lots so they tried Levan and Six Mile Road and that became Nottingham West. We are talking about the early part of the 1960's. Now you are coming before us saying we are looking for more affordable homes and we want smaller lots. Could you have the foresight of going into the larger size lots to accommodate the neighborhood. We are in a location where we could have bigger homes and it would be compatible to what we are trying to accomplish in this area? Mr. Mahn: Mr. Tent, like I said we did a marketability study in Livonia. There is a saturation of $200,000 plus homes and there are existing homes at $100,000 to $120,000 homes. $200,000 homes are not selling today. There are people in between those two areas that want to live in Livonia and they have nowhere to go. I have existing Livonia residents who want to buy homes in this area for that kind of money because they own $120,000 homes, they have children, they want to stay in Livonia and they have no place to go. A couple of those people are at this meeting. They might want to speak out. We are just trying to accomodate a situation. Sur Mr. Tent: What we do now is what we are going to live with. The market is soft. People like our community. They like Livonia for what it is. There is no reason why we have to be in such a hurry to downsize our zoning to accomodate some of the developers who want to build smaller homes because the market isn't right for it. I say what is our hurry? For me to hurry up and say we are downsizing, I can't support that. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Mahn, Livonia Builders have they acquired the property? Mr. Mahn: Yes subject to the rezoning. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Mahn, you had mentioned the density within the area. Do you have any idea what number of homes might fit into that area? Mr. Mahn: The research we came up with is approximately 50 residential homes. Mr. Morrow: Under the R-2 classification? Mr. Mahn: Yes sir. Mrs. Fandrei: For a point of information Mr. Mahn, we have approved two locations for the price range you are referring to, the $120,000 plus or 12031 minus. They are located at Joy Road and Inkster, Joy Road and Newburgh. They are sizable projects so we do have two that have been approved. Mr. Mahn: The sales price of the homes I am talking about is $160,000. Mr. Engebretson: Just so there is no confusion here, I also heard at one point $200,000 but what you are proposing is $160,000 homes. Mr. Mahn: We went over the square feet at this meeting with the neighbors and the term down-sizing, the homes are not down-sized. Mr. Gniewek: One more time for clarification. You do not own the property. It is contingent upon rezoning the property before you purchase the property. Is that correct? Mr. Mahn: It is an offer to purchase subject to rezoning. Mr. Gniewek: You are really not the owner of the property now then. Mr. LaPine: When you negotiated to buy this property did you try to buy the other three parcels to the east? Mr. Mahn: Lot G1 yes,but the people did not want to sell. The rest of that, no sir. Mr. LaPine: Let's assume the subdivision was approved and down the line four or five years the individuals that didn't want to sell to you sold to someone else, would you make provisions so they could hook on to your road so they could develop those three parcels? Mr. Mahn: No. Mr. Engebretson: We will now go to the audience. Roy Puckett, 31642 Grove Dr. : I have lived here 33 years and our location is RUF and I would like to see the zoning remain that way. Our Master Plan, I think, calls for RUF and we spent all this money on Master Plans and then we start changing every time we get a petitioner and I don't think we should. I would like to go on record saying the Merri-Six Civic Association is against the rezoning of this property. We do not think it is in the best interest of the City. You have prime land here. I do not think it should be rezoned down just because the builder wants it. I know Lidia builds excellent homes. She has a very good reputation but it seems like she is getting like a lot of the builders, build as many home on there as you can. We used to have 40 and 50 foot lots in Livonia. We finally got it up to a minimum of 75. I think in this area RUF is what it should stay. Mr. Morrow: I just want to clarify with the Chairman and the staff, I think the Master Plan shows low density residential as opposed to zoning. Is that correct John? Mr. Nagy: Yes, low density. 12032 Mr. Morrow: Both of those classifications would fall within that? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Puckett, does your civic association oppose the development of that land in any form? Mr. Puckett: We would like to see it stay as RUFC. John Bartus, 30069 Munger: I have resided there for 21 years and I represent the North Livrance Estates Housing Association. A little clarification. The blue and white tags are to reflect the support that we have in the audience. We are asking for a rejection of this rezoning petition. I did present to Mr. Nagy a copy of a presentation that I would like to give to the Commission just to state some of the issues that we are concerned with regarding this rezoning petition. "TO: THE MEMBERS OF THE LIVONIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION "REFERENCE PETITION 92-3-1-6 "THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF BELL CREEK ESTATES AND LIVRANCE ESTATES SUBDIVISIONS ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED IN PETITION 92-3-1-6 FROM RUFC TO R2. "A PETITION STATING THIS OPPOSITION HAS BEEN SIGNED BY 122 PROPERTY OWNERS AND WAS FILED WITH THE LIVONIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1992. "IN REVIEWING THIS PETITION WE BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING ISSUES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION: "1. OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY ".WE BELIEVE THERE IS A MISREPRESENTATION ON THE PETITION REGARDING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY ."THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT LIVONIA BUILDERS, INC. AS STATED IN THE PETITION. ".THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE STATED THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY TO LIVONIA BUILDERS, INC. IS CONTINGENT ON OBTAINING THE APPROVAL OF THIS REZONING PETITION. ".THE PETITION SHOULD BE CORRECTED TO INDICATE THE TRUE RELATIONSHIP OF THE PETITIONER TO THE PROPERTY. "2. SPOT ZONING ".THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE CENTER OF AN AREA THAT IS ZONED RUF AND IT IS SURROUNDED BY RUF PROPERTY THAT EXTENDS FROM INKSTER ROAD WEST TO NEAR FARMINGTON, AND NORTH OF 6-MILE TO SOUTH OF PURITAN. 12033 ".AN R2 ZONING OF 70 X 120 LOTS WOULD NOT BE REMOTELY IN KEEPING WITH THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREA WHICH MAINTAINS MINIMUM 1/2 ACRE LOT SIZES. IT WOULD CREATE A CROWDED APPEARANCE IN THE MIDST OF A SPACIOUS ENVIRONMENT. o`, ".APPROVAL OF AN R2 ZONING WOULD SET A PRECEDENT FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND FOREVER ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE REGION BY ALLOWING HIGH DENSITY HOUSING TO BE DEVELOPED IN AN URBAN RURAL ZONE. "3. TRAFFIC .THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT ROADS FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WOULD BE LINKED TO 6-MILE IN THE NORTH AND MUNGER IN THE SOUTH. THE CONCENTRATION OF PEOPLE LIVING ON 70 X 120 FOOT LOTS WOULD RESULT IN A MAJOR INCREASE IN TRAFFIC ON MUNGER, AS IT WOULD BE THE NATURAL ACCESS ROAD TO MERRIMAN WHICH LEADS TO SHOPPING CENTERS AND THE EXPRESSWAY. .THE RESIDENTS OF AREA WILL SUFFER A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE QUALITY OF THEIR LIVES AS THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC WILL DECREASE THE SAFETY OF THEIR STREETS, CREATE NOISE POLLUTION, AND ADD TO THE TIME DELAYS ALREADY EXPERIENCED IN EXITING AND ENTERING THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS OFF THE MAIN ROADS OF MERRIMAN AND 6-MILE. "4. STORM SEWERS ". THE CURRENT STORM SEWER SYSTEM IS NOT CAPABLE OF HANDLING ADDITIONAL HOOKUPS IN THIS AREA. MR. RANSOM POSH OF 31249 6-MILE SAYS HE HAS BEEN RECENTLY DENIED A PERMIT TO CONNECT HIS NEW HOME TO THE WAYNE COUNTY STORM SEWER SYSTEM BECAUSE IT IS OVERLOADED. — WHAT IMPACT WOULD A NEW SUBDIVISION HAVE ON THE SAME AREA. BELL CREEK IS ALREADY AN OPEN SEWER DURING HEAVY RAIN STORMS. "5. WETLANDS ".PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY DESIGNATED IN THIS PETITION INCLUDE AN AREA THAT IS PART OF THE BELLE CREEK FLOOD PLAIN AND MAY INCLUDE AREAS THAT COULD BE DESIGNATED AS WETLANDS. THE HIGH DENSITY HOUSING PROPOSED IN THIS PETITION WOULD INFRINGE ON THOSE AREAS. "THE RESIDENTS OF THIS AREA MOVED HERE BECAUSE OF THE SPACIOUS LOTS, AND WOODED AREAS THAT CREATE A RURAL TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT. THE AREA NUTURES A LARGE VARIETY OF WILDLIFE WHICH CANNOT EXIST IN THE PRESENCE OF HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. "THIS PETITION TO REZONE PROPERTY TO ALLOW HIGH DENSITY CONSTRUCTION THREATENS THE EXISTENCE OF THIS ENVIRONMENT. WE THERFORE URGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO VOTE FOR REJECTION OF THIS PETITION." Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Bartus, at the risk of appearing argumentative towards your points, which I don't want to do, I would like to clarify the point regarding the ownership of the property. It is a common practice for developers to acquire option rights subject to rezoning and I think based on the reputation of individuals involved here, there was no misrepresentation involved here. It is a common practice. 12034 Mr. Bartus: We are aware of that. We just think the petition should be stated as what it is supposed to be, which is there is a contingency that the sale is based upon the rezoning. Mr. Engebretson: It is a common practice. There is no attempt to hide anything. Niro. John Hejka, 30885 Six Mile: My property is adjacent to and west of the property we are discussing here. My wife Mary and I do not support this rezoning request for two reasons. We believe it would have a negative impact on the economic investment we have in our home and property. Secondly, we believe it will change and detract from what we have chosen as rural living in an urban setting. Economically, at least Livonia's assessors tell us, we have a value of $200,000 in our home and with this change the property will be changing to much smaller lots compared to our 2.2 acres. We will be 11 times larger than their property. If I had the minimum 1/2 acre, I would be 2 1/2 times larger. My home is about 2700 square feet. Located 40 feet away from my front door would be a number of homes 1500 to 1800 square feet. The ruralness which I believe was very much a part of the market value of our property would be lost. We lived earlier in another home in Livonia at Curtis and Farmington, which was R-3 and we decided we wanted to upgrade and move to a larger house with more space and we could have purchased anywhere in Livonia. We wanted to continue to live in Livonia, in fact we looked in Nottingham Woods, but we chose our home here because of the rural setting. It is mostly RUF in most of the directions from our house. Now this is somewhat being compounded by a transaction that is currently in process. I am in the process of acquiring the acre behind me from a Mr. Munro and now I have three acres that are going to be next to the development that we are talking about. On the other factor about detracting from the rural issue, I am going to have the loss of not only wildlife and the woods but also the privacy and space. Forty feet from my front door instead of there being 4 homes on 15 acres, there is going to be 50 homes on 15 acres. Forty feet away from my front door there will be at least the backs of 5 homes looking out onto my property. With the additional acre, there will be 8 homes. Overall, the way we look at these things both economically and from the rural setting that we are trying to acquire in this area, this change would go counter to both of those issues. John Asquini, 29628 Munger: We have owned our home for 7 years. I am the Director of the North Livrance Housing Association. I would like to urge you to reject this petition because of the way it would interrupt our "country in the city" setting. Barry Puckett, 31642 Grove Dr. : If it is still possible to be shocked in this day and age, I was when I heard 50 houses. Fifty houses across the street and down the way from me. I am just here to urge the Commission to say no to this petition. You might say because of where I live, I would not be affected but I know traffic will be worse and I can only imagine what it will be like for people around there. I also want to say I take it as an insult when I hear the term "affordable housing" tossed over by developers who only have a 12035 monetary gain to make. That is not true. Again, I don't appreciate that term "affordable housing". You will be making a profit. You are not giving it away. I would urge you please do not rezone it at all. It is getting harder and harder in this area of Livonia. I have been here over 30 years and I can see fewer and fewer lots and trees and now I find out another section is going to be developed and be rezoned so they can squeeze as many houses as they can on that property. Please, please do not rezone that. Lisa Asquini, 29628 Munger: We enjoy the rural atmosphere of that neighborhood and that is the reason we bought our house seven years ago. I would just like to say I am also opposed to the rezoning of the property. We feel it would undermine the integrity of the neighborhood and it just sets a precedent we would not like to see happen. There aren't a lot of areas in Livonia any more that are zoned like this. Susan Maze, 30410 Munger: We moved in here one year ago from Westland. We looked all over. What we were looking for was space, privacy and wildlife. We hadn't really thought much about Livonia because we thought it was all suburbs but as we drove out there, there were pheasants, rabbits and birds everywhere. It was just beautiful. So we bought it because we had to have it. It was the fact that there were so many trees and so much wildlife. There are deers, foxes, geese, etc. We would not have paid as much for the house as we did except for the fact there was so much wildlife, so many trees, etc. so that is what gave the house its value to us. If it had been a smaller neighborhood, we wouldn't have moved in because it would not have been as valuable. The fact that there was so much wildlife that is what raised its value to us. I feel if you put a whole bunch of houses there, the first thing to go will be the animals. I would like to desperately plead with you to reject `w this petition. Hubert Maze, 30410 Munger: I too oppose this development. As you can see we are three properties over from this development and that area currently is woods and fields. That would most likely be cleared out to put the houses in. My concern is the future. There is enough woods in in Fl and G1 that we would probably not see it but the wildlife would certainly be affected. My question was raised before, what is going to happen when these other properties come up for sale. Mr. Mahn said that would not be purchased for the development. I find that hard to believe and therefore I have a fear the development will come right to our backyard in the near future. I urge you to please reject this petition. Carol Mahalak, 30542 Greenland: I am a resident of Bell Creek Estates. I would like someone to pay attention to that last word "Estates". The connotation I get from that word is large, stately, not postage stamp, cyclone and symmetrical. My plea is an emotional plea to the committee to understand why we chose this lot. We chose it because of its size and because of the size of the house. We bought it in 1977. We have 3100 square feet. Our lot is 100 x 1000 ft deep, 2.2 acres. We have abounding wildlife, some of which is a nuisance, but we chose to have that nuisance because it was different. We took great pride in saving our dollars and moving 12036 from one of the tiny little city lots and saved to buy this big spread. We were glad that Livonia had done such a good job of separating their industrial, commercial and residential areas. The residential areas have a lot of small lots for people like us when we first started out but we chose to leave that area when our `, finances allowed us to do so. I would like very much to have everybody here sitting before all of us to take a ride through the area. If you are not familiar with it, go and look at it and you will know why we are emotionally attached to our large trees, our wildlife, our big lots and our big houses. I think the key word to my opening statement was the word "Estate". We are not a subdivision like the typical. I think that is a very key word. At the risk of taking the wrath of the Chairman, I would like to ask everyone in the audience that agrees with me to stand up and applaud for their rejection for any change in this proposal. (Large majority of people in the audience stood up and applauded. ) Mr. Engebretson: I would like to share with you that every member of the Commission has within the past three or four days spent time in that entire area studying the situation. I wanted to assure you that we don't take this lightly. We have spent a considerable portion of our own time trying to understand the situation. Arthur Lewis, 30870 Greenland: I have lived there nine years. I am opposed to Petition 92-3-1-6. My property is the strip of land that is Lot 40 of Bell Creek Estates. It is 2.2 acres. My concern when I went to the meeting last week the developer said he wanted to put 1600 to 1800 square foot ranches and 2000 square foot colonials on 70 x 120 foot lots and there was some discussion that the streets would only �. be 50 feet. My concern is there are no parks or play areas in this whole area other than the large lots the homeowners here own. If you have these size homes on a 70 x 120 foot lot and you are trying to upgrade, if you have kids, there is not a lot of play space for children. I am afraid my backyard would become their park and play area. I am just afraid I could be liable for kids getting hurt on my property plus the traffic. I am opposed to it just because I think whatever you put into that area it is going to spill into the other people's property. Joe Mahalak, 30542 Greenland: My wife spoke earlier. I would just like to say that in the 17 years that I have lived there, the number of large lots has been reduced every year and we have a lot of large trees and we keep losing them because the Commission approves a small lot and the builder comes in and takes the trees out. This is a continuation of what we have seen over the last 17 years and I am opposed to it. Lee Davis, 30556 Greenland: I am opposed for a number of reasons all of which you have heard. Another reason is my lot is a 1,000 square foot lot that abuts up to this development. I think there is going to be a real problem. It is a nature area now. There are no fences. I am afraid people are going to start dumping down there and kids are going to start getting hurt. I am not opposed to a much lower density housing development but I strongly oppose the zoning to 70 x 120 foot lots. 12037 Leonard Dyla: I am owner of one of the lots under consideration. There are only four people selling. I have 5 acres. Mr. Fulton has 5 acres. Mrs. Smalley has about 3 acres and Mr. Sullivan has about 3 acres. I will be 80 years old next year. Mr. Fulton died. He was over 90. He was there 50 years. I have been there about 40 years. Mr. Sullivan is a retired person and Mrs. Smalley is a widow. They would like to sell and so do I. I am not opposed to whatever you decide on size but if they want to make it a wildlife park, we will be glad to sell it to them. If they all pitch in together and buy it, they could make a big park out of it. It is fine with us. We want to get out. Mrs. Smalley is disabled and she wants to get out and Mr. Sullivan is retired and I am retired and Mr. Fulton died. Dale Adams, 31013 Munger: I purchased the lot in 1953 and built on it in 1968. We purchased the property for the reasons that were stated previously. It is rural, lots of trees, lots of room, lots of wildlife. I object to the rezoning and would urge the Commission to not rezone the property and I would further say I don't belive anyone in this room would want to prevent the proper owners from selling their property for a legitimate use but I feel selling the property and having it rezoned to R-2 would diminish the quality of life, not only for the residents, but for the wildlife in the area. Further, I would draw the attention of the Commission to count the number of yellow blocks in that whole area and then imagine 50 yellow blocks in that small area. I think that is a little overkill. (The yellow blocks on the map refer to homes) Mrs. Robert King, 30445 Six Mile: I have lived in the Livonia area probably as long as anyone else, since 1952. We have almost five acres. I am probably the oldest person here and I have been here so many times fighting and fighting to keep Livonia to its Master Plan and for Sow once I hope you do. I don't know what else to say. I have been here so many times to fight battles. Some we have won and some we have lost but this time I hope we will win. Stan Miller, 30810 Greenland: They have already said what I wanted to say. All these plots here. Did anyone ever check them real close? There are no 1/2 acre lots. All these are 5/8 or 7/8 of an acre or 1 1/2 acre. What would we do with 1/2 acre lots? I don't think it should be 1/2 acre lots. It should be bigger than that to keep the area like it is. Mr. Engebretson: Sir, for your information the zoning district RUFC designates a minimum of 1/2 acre. Ken Zajac, 30628 Greenland: I have lived at that residence since 1983 and lived on Greenland since 1976. I grew up in that neighborhood and bought the house across the street from my parents because of the way the neighborhood is designed. I would like to keep the zoning to RUFC so that the ambiance of the neighborhood stays the way it is. Sandra Bartus, 30069 Munger: I have lived there since 1971. I was not going to speak because it was pointed out about the redundancy issue over and over. You know what we want. I strongly oppose 92-3-1-6/Lidia 12038 Veri/Livonia Builders. What I am really up here for is to address an issue that I feel quite concerned with in regard to the Commission's remarks. If these people choose to applaud, I think it might be a matter of frustration. I feel that if a person wishes to speak we should have that freedom to speak and if we wish to applaud, the woman that asked for it and was frustrated, I think we should be able to applaud. I think it is inconsiderate but I think the next time we may be here until three days later. People should not be told they cannot speak or applaud. We don't necessarily pay your salary but somewhere down the line you got there because of people like us. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to point out for the record that no one has been denied the right to speak nor will anyone be denied the right to speak so I take offense to that point. John Monroe, 30883 Six Mile: I have 3 1/2 acres. I am basically very opposed to this petition for basically all the reasons said but I cannot see myself with a bunch of homes facing my home. I have lived in Livonia since 1954 and at the present address for approximately 28 years. The area has stayed very much the same. I think the area should remain with at least 1/2 acre lots. There is much wildlife as everybody has stated. I intend to be there for a lot of years and I just want to see the area remain that way. We have had Terrace, the realtor, trying to sell us on pie in the sky property values as high as $80,000 an acre to put in what, he didn't know, but I would have no problem selling my property. I have had many people come see me if I would sell off. That property will sell very quickly, however, what the value is for small homes on small lots is probably more than they can get for 1/2 acre lots and that *04fty is basically what we are looking at. I just cannot see myself with a bunch of houses with backyards out my side door. Jean Johnson, 31054 Munger: We moved in there in 1985. The reason we bought in that area is we looked out there for quite a few years until something became available. That is part of the problem in that area. They seem to pass this on from generation to generation. It took us quite a while to find a place in there. We own two acres. I am just opposed to it. I am not opposed to 1/2 acre lots. We are rural out there. We have a lot of animals. I like it and I am close to everything. I would like to keep the dirt road out there but they tell me eventually we are going to have a paved road there but I can accept that but I am opposed to this rezoning. Mr. Engebretson: Mrs. Johnson I want to thank you for bringing the information regarding some previous hearings relative to this area and that information was distributed and we have all read that information. Anne Sheppard, 16970 Merriman: I am a little ways from that but I wanted also to speak for the people that have very small unpretentious homes. I am one of them. I have a home that is around 1,000 square feet. It is very small but I have almost an acre. I would really be distressed if this petition were approved. I have lots of wildlife 12039 that come up to my backdoor. I enjoy it very much. We are a very relaxed neighborhood. I just wanted to say there are some of us with small homes and those of us on Merriman are opposed to it also. *fts. Ransom Posh: I would like to say my wife Darlene and I are greatly opposed to this. We had within a very few years ago purchased a piece of property on Six Mile, through Mr. Tent as a matter of fact. When we were purchasing that property we were looking for an area that was just like this. I grew up always wanting to own a house on Six Mile because it was such a pretty environment. When we submitted our plans to the City Building Department they were very strict on what we were going to build so as not to deface the area. We adhered to this. We don't feel this rezoning is going to do that. Another concern is that with the increase of these many homes what this is going to do to our school situation. We are planning on raising a family. Livonia has quality schools. With added children to the degree of this many homes, is it going to start overloading our teachers? Are they going to be able to spend the necessary time with each student? Ray Bihary, 16580 Merriman: We have been living there 3 1/2 years. The reason we bought the property was because of the natural setting. It is a very nice setting. I don't feel I would appreciate a lot of traffic coming down Munger Road. If a development with that many homes were to be built with access to Munger, it would disrupt the flow of traffic there and it wouldn't be near the setting we had thought that we had when we purchased the home so I am opposed to the rezoning to less than 1/2 acre lots also. Marsha Muonio, 16927 Oporto: My dad and mom bought our property in 1946 and all their friends wondered why they were moving out to the boonies. I lived there the first 18 years of my life and my husband and 7 children and I have lived there for the last 18 years. We are not directly affected by this proposed zoning change but we are concerned about it setting a precedent. For example if those next three pieces to the east would go the same way and Munger would go through so Munger east and Munger west would connect, then it would affect us somewhere down the line. Scott Grace, 31007 Munger: Everyone is aware of the fact that putting 50 homes on small lots will create a lot of traffic onto Munger. Disregarding the fact that I feel that will hurt the value of my home, I have a 1, 5 and 7 year old. I would be worried about the safety aspect of having cars from over 50 homes drive through our street every day. We bought the home because it was a dead end street. I was always aware there was property back there and I assumed some day there would be homes back there. I did not assume there would be streets back there. No one is saying the people shouldn't be able to develop their property any way they want as long as it is within the proper zoning. We are asking you not to rezone it to small 70 x 120 foot lots. I have seen a preliminary site plan which showed 50 homes. The property is not large enough for R-2 zoning presently because the plan I have seen shows a 50 foot right-of-way 12040 instead of the normal 60 in order to fit the lots onto the existing property. I would have a problem with that also. If they can't fit the R-2 into this, they should ask for something else or develop it as half acre lots. If they want to develop it, I have no problem with that but I think they should do it to something v` that would fit into the neighborhood. If they can't make a profit on the 1/2 acre original zoning, then they should just look elsewhere to develop. John Sullivan: I am retired and I personally cannot afford to have a playground in my backyard any more. The property was beautiful when we moved in there. I cleaned up a lot of it but the taxes have gone up so high that I really have to get rid of the property and I just feel I have to get rid of it the same as the others have to get rid of theirs because the City has raised the taxes so much it is almost impossible for single families to live there any more. John McElroy, 30091 Munger: My property has about 2 1/2 acres on it. We made a major investment in our house last year, probably doubled the size of our living space. I make the point because we made not just an investment in our home but in our quality of life. The thing that absolutely attracted us to it is what some of the others have said is living in the country in the city. I work in Detroit and do a lot of traveling. I can literally get to my office in 25 minutes. I can get to the airport in 20 minutes. It is an absolutely superb location without having to be in the city. I would like to make sure this stays rural. I can tell you when we first moved in nearly six years ago there were owls and fox in our backyard. They have since disappeared. I have a feeling that some of the chipping away that has taken place has had an effect on the amount of wildlife in our backyard and I just want to make sure we don't see a continuation of the chipping away of this RUF zoning. Paul Scheuher, 31008 Munger: About 27 years ago my wife and I were looking for a spot to build a home. We found a spot at the end of Munger which was a dead end street. Twenty-four years ago we moved in. We had three small children. My children are since grown up. They have extended Munger and made it still dead end about two or three years ago. They cut a lot of forestry down there and I notice a difference in the amount of animals that have disappeared in the area. I just want to go on record saying I am opposed to what they want to build. Faye Goeman, 31020 Six Mile: I am against it. I just don't want to have to look across the street and down and see a lot of homes and cars coming all the time. That is why we moved out there, so we wouldn't have to. Jeffrey Scheuher, 31008 Munger: I have been fortunate enough to live there my whole life of 19 years. I always had the opportunity to walk to the end of the street and I would be in the woods. I could walk around and even get lost. I would hate to see this rezoned and made into smaller lots. I would like to go on the record as being opposed to this proposition. 12041 Mr. Mahn: In regards to what we are trying to do here, when I attended the meeting with the neighbors I answered their questions to the best way I could, and I sat down after the meeting and three or four people that lived on Munger did say to me they would be willing to talk about this situation. That is why I initiated the call to John Bartus. I think it can be worked out because of the situation with Munger. They were concerned with the traffic to Munger. They said if it would empty out onto Six Mile Road, they wouldn't have a problem with that, just so the traffic didn't go onto Munger . That is what we are willing to talk about with the neighbors that are directly affected with the situation. To go a little further with that, again, we are trying to do something to naturally make a profit but also something for the community. There happens to be a void today in Livonia for this. We didn't realize that this was a voting meeting. In the past, the Planning Commission had a study meeting and then a voting meeting. We were a little shocked about that because we wanted to have time to talk to the neighbors to see if we could work this situation out. They realized that Munger was being widened and there would be some development there in the future. They realized that. They know something is going in there. They said the reputation we had was good so I thought there would be a chance there to see if we could work it out with the neighbors that are directly affected. There was some question in regards to this imaginary road that is going to go over the ravine. That is a pipe dream. That will never happen. The DNR would never let that happen. The animals are there and they will stay there. We have some people here that have lived in the community for 40 years and they have to dispose of their property. We are here trying to do that. `„ Mr. Bartus: With respect to Mr. Mahn's statement requesting to meet with the neighbors most directly involved with this rezoning issue, my response to him was as far as I know there is no one that wants to compromise this issue at this point but we are always open for discussion. If anybody here wishes to meet with Mr. Mahn after this meeting out in the lobby, certainly that is their prerogative to do so. I think from the atmosphere that you have seen, most of us here are not in a mood to compromise the RUF zoning. Mr. LaPine: May I ask you one question, if the developer would be willing to develop the property as 1/2 acre lots, would the majority of the neighbors feel that would be a good compromise? Mr. Bartus: I believe 1/2 acre lots would be acceptable. Mr. LaPine: To me 1/2 acre lots based on what the area is now, would be a fair compromise. Mr. Bartus: I would agree with that. John Stead, 30883 Six Mile: I have heard the term flood plain several times. If you look at the map at the shaded area, that particular part has a tendency to fill with water whenever we get a hard rain. These people are obviously going to have to truck in some dirt. If the water doesn't go there, where would that water go? Would we end up with it in our basement? 12042 Mrs. Shattock, 31032 Munger: I am very concerned about this. I understood, and I would like you to tell me if I am correct, that to build a subdivision of this size you must have access in and access out. Is that correct? Mr. Engebretson: That is correct. Mrs. Shattock: That would mean the road going in would be off of Six Mile and Munger would be the exit? Mr. Engebretson: Not necessarily. It could be a cul-de-sac. Mrs. Shattock: What I am getting at is the traffic flow. We are on a dead end street and I would like to invite you all down on a weekend night to see the flow of traffic we have now. It would be 15 times worse. I am more concerned about the traffic flow. Another question, if you rezone this section, are we going to be included in that or is it just going to be that little section? Mr. Engebretson: It would only be the section under petition. Mrs. Shattock: For how long? Mr. Engebretson: The zoning is forever. Mrs. Shattock: Then why can't it stay the way it is? Mr. Engebretson: The property owner always has the right to seek rezoning of his property. ``Iftp. Mrs. Shattock: We are not against them building on 1/2 acres and I empathize for all four people that want to sell because I am getting near retirement too but we would like to see it remain to a minimum of residents. Mr. Engebretson: I said the zoning is forever. Nothing is forever, of course. The property owner, if it were rezoned, could conceivably not developed it and have it rezoned again. Mrs. Shattock: Eventually we know we would be rezoned. It is just a question of time. Mr. Engebretson: Only if you petition the City to have it rezoned. Mrs. Shattock: Once you set a precedent, then you have a legal option to do what you want. Mr. Engebretson: The property owner does. As long as you own your property, no one can change the zoning of your property unless you initiate it. Mr. Mahn: In regards to the emptying out onto Munger, we were involved in a development called Summer Creek. There was a loop road and no access to Munger. This is one of the things we want to discuss with the neighbors. Mr. Gniewek: John, what is the situation with the moratorium on water hookups in that particular area? 12043 Mr. Nagy: This area is not within that moratorium. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-3-1-6 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously approved, it was #i5-363-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 5, 1992 on Petition 92-3-1-6 by Lidia Veri for Livonia Builders, Inc. requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Henry Ruff and Merriman Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14 from RUFC to R-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-3-1-6 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot sizes which are smaller and therefore incompatible with the existing residential development in the area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will change the character of the subject area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning will encourage the owners of additional lands in the area to seek similar changes of zoning so as to increase the population density in the area to the detriment of existing development. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance 'Igor #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Fandrei: I am going to support this petition for denial because what we are commissioned to do is to look at good planning and, in my opinion, this is not what I consider good planning for this area. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to explain to you what happens after tonight. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council either for a recommendation for approval or denial and that recommendation goes to the City Council. They then schedule another public hearing much like this one. Those of you that were notified of this public hearing will also be notified of that public hearing. After the public hearing is conducted, the Council will make a final decision as to whether this petition is approved or denied. So you don't feel that there is anything other than a crystal clear understanding and that this is all being done completely in the open, the Council would after the public hearing make a resolution to approve or deny. If they approve, it goes to a second reading. That takes several months for all of this to happen. If they deny, that is the end of it. The developer, of course, always has the opportunity to challenge that decision with a lawsuit. That is the process. I don't want to give you the impression that this is the end of it. 12044 Mr. Morrow: We have had a lot of input from the neighbors and they are pretty much unanimous as to their feelings on this rezoning to R-2. We have a few neighbors who were interested in selling but I would like to get some feedback from the petitioner, Mr. Mahn, if they would entertain asking for a larger lot zoning based upon what they `ft. have heard here tonight. Mr. Mahn: This is why we wanted to have the meeting. One of the concerns was the traffic flow. Like I indicated before, some of the people on Munger did say they thought there would be a development there but they didn't want the traffic to empty on Munger. That is why we wanted to meet and that is why I called the gentleman who handled the petition to have this meeting and he said it is too early to do that. For the record I would like to have that meeting. Mr. Morrow: I understand about the traffic flow but that falls outside the realm of zoning. I was specific to your thoughts to zoning as opposed to planning larger lots. Mr. Mahn: That would be open for discussion. I cannot speak for the developers but they would be there to discuss that with them. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-4-1-7 by Rissman Investment Company requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Ann Arbor Trail and W. Chicago in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 from C-1 to C-2. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. —taw Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department recommending that the petitioner connect to the public storm sewer and eliminate the impoundment of water on this property. Alan Helmkamp, 19500 Victor Parkway, Suite 290: With me is Mr. Ron Rissman from Rissman Investment. You will recall him from a couple of weeks ago when the petition for a Chinese restaurant was before you. Incidently, your recommendation of approval in that regard was approved by Council last week. Because of the lateness of the hour I am going to be brief. Mr. Rissman came to my attention when he was one of the commercial developers in town that was invited by Mayor Bennett to appear before the Economic Development Corporation back in 1991 for a round robin symposium dealing with problems they were having in town. It came out during that meeting there were some zoning concerns when potential tenants had to be turned down because while they would fit in the C-2 classification, they didn't fit in the C-l. I wanted to comment briefly on some of the procedural history. Some of you were part of this body in 1989 when this petitioner was before you seeking the same rezoning. You recommended approval but Council denied. Your staff notes don't reflect the reason for that denial. Again, my understanding was there was some breakdown in communication and misunderstanding for whatever reason when petitioner's counsel appeared before City Council and City Council rejected it. It wasn't on the merits and 12045 I wanted you to understand that. We don't want to sell you a pig- in-a-poke. The types of tenants that have been lost in the past because it was C-1 instead of C-2 would be a limited printing type of operation. He has had calls from office equipment and supply sales. He had a ladies resale upscale shop like they have in Birmingham. The types of tenant under C-2 that he is not looking for in his approximate 3,000 vacant square feet would be automotive, motorcycle repair, etc. We don't want anything like that going on in the parking lot. The C-2 is consistent with the adjacent property on both sides of him. I should comment on Mr. Clark's letter about connecting with the public storm system. Speaking with Mr. Clark, it is my understanding there is really no problem with our retention pond. There is never any stagnant water. We have over 100 plus feet of sand base there. There is good drainage there and there is never any water standing so we are hoping we can avoid that recommendation. I will reserve any other time we have to answer any questions. Mr. Engebretson: I have a question having to do with the purpose of making these requests, i.e. to have more flexibility in terms of the types of business that would be permitted. Our notes indicate that approximately 13 percent of that facility is vacant and I guess I am wondering if that is a percentage that you would view as being an exception for this kind of property within our City? Mr. Helmkamp: The statistic is a bit misleading because one of the major tenants, 2,000 square feet, is there under a hardship basis at half rent. We would prefer to have a more viable tenant there. All I can tell you is I know this administration is comitted to filling up existing strips. My client has had an ongoing problem. Before 'to . 1989 he had a petition before you then. We just see this as a way to get closer to 100% leaseup. Mr. Engebretson: You are aware, of course, this is not an unique proposal and for the most part those previous efforts to go from C-1 to C-2 have failed. There is an overabundance of C-2 zoning and it appears that is more of a problem than the zoning restrictions. Mr. Helmkamp: I think community wide your point is well taken but within the southwest corner of town I don't think we are looking at those kind of vacancies, and the kinds of tenants we have lost in the past. If we get the rezoning, I don't think you have an oversaturation of those types of services in this area. Mr. Morrow: Certainly as you indicated to Mr. Helmkamp it is not unique to try to upgrade to give you more flexibility. A number of times we see it where we are trying to stretch the zoning in the areas where perhaps it is more inappropriate than this one. It is not like we are expanding the district a great deal. Mr. Helmkamp: It is very consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Morrow: In this particular area I don't have this big of a problem stepping up the zoning particularly to maintain the viability in that section of town. 12046 There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-4-1-7 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously approved, it was #5-364-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 5, 1992 on Petition 92-4-1-7 by Rissman Investment Company requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Ann Arbor Trail and W. Chicago in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 from C-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-4-1-7 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning in the area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a uniform commercial zoning classification along the subject portion of Ann Arbor Road. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. `'err. Mrs. Fandrei, 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 in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 19. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating their office has no objection to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating they have no objection to the petition. We also have in our file a letter from the Inspection Department stating no deficiencies or problems were found therefore they have no objections to this proposal. Mr. Engebretson: Will the petitioner please come forward and tell us what you intend to do. The petitioner was not present. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for or against this petition? 12047 There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-3-2-13 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was 'tar #5-365-92 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 determine to table Petition 92-3-2-13 to date uncertain. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-3-2-14 by John M. Mitchell of Tri-Co Foods Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant in an existing shopping center located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Tech Center Drive and Sears Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. ‘Awar, Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or problems were found. They further state there is a deficiency of 41 parking spaces as a result of the 8,000 s.f. addition but the Zoning Board of Appeals addressed and approved that deficiency. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating their department has no objection to this petition. Mr. Engebretson: The ZBA variance granted for the billiard parlor, will that cover any future deficiencies in that particular facility? Mr. Nagy: Exactly. Mr. Engebretson: Will the petitioner please come forward. John Mitchell, 34758 Middleboro: We would like to put a Subway Sandwich Shop in there. We currently have one in Plymouth. I would like to have one in my own home town of Livonia. Subway has about 6500 franchises right now in the United States and 11 other countries. Seventy percent of what are sold are for lunch and about 70 percent are carry out. We would like to have one in that shopping center. 12048 We have no cooking in there other than we bake our own bread. We don't have grills or fryers. We have three other stores in Livonia. We would like to put one in that area. Mr. Tent: I have two questions. One is to Mr. Nagy. The billiard parlor that is located on the premises, will they serve food? Mr. Nagy: When the Zoning Board granted that variance they specifically prohibited as part of the condition the serving of food. Mr. Tent: Has that changed? Are they still advertising it as a cafe? Mr. Nagy: They may still be advertising it but to answer your question the Zoning Board did prohibit the serving of food. The Building Department and Inspection Department, it is their obligation to enforce those conditions. Mr. Tent: Where do we stand on that? There is nothing we can do? Mr. Nagy: We will look to that department to carry out the mandate of the Zoning Board. Mr. Tent: They are requesting 30 customer seats. Is this typical? Couldn't they get by with 15 seats like we limited Tubbys. There is a problem here with parking. Would this fall in the same category as the other submarine shop? That would solve part of my concern about the parking in the area. Mr. Nagy: I think each facility you have to evaluate on its own merits. Each center, each area, has its on special set of circumstances that have to be evaluated and see whether the site itself has the capacity to accomodate the use. Mr. Tent: To the petitioner, how do you differ from Tubbys? Mr. Mitchell: I think we do a lot more business. Mr. Tent: Do you have a lot more sit down customers? Mr. Mitchell: Yes at lunch time we do. Another point is there are 55 people in the different stores right in that shopping center on duty all the time. That would account for a lot of our business hopefully. Mr. Tent: So you would accomodate those 30 seats. Mr. Engebretson: How many people did you say are working in that center? Mr. Mitchell: Approximately 55. Mr. LaPine: Most of these Subways and Tubbys, most of your business is carry out. Am I correct? Mr. Mitchell: Yes about 70 percent. fir. 12049 Mr. LaPine: Because this particular restaurant is not really close to any residential area, I would have to assume then that most of your business would have to come from the people working in the center and I would have to assume they are not going to eat sub sandwiches every single day plus there will be some people that are shopping at the center and they will maybe stop there and have a sandwich. Is that a viable location whereby you can sustain your business there because I would assume after Builders Square, which is the biggest business in there, closes at night, you would close down because there would be nothing in that center to attract anyone. Will you be able to sustain your operation there? Mr. Mitchell: Yes with all the commercial plants around there. Mr. LaPine: What plants? Mr. Mitchell: Ford Motor Company. Mr. LaPine: You feel this is a viable location? I hate to see a store go in there and then in six months you can't sustain the operation. You do feel this is a viable location taking into consideration that across the road in Wonderland Shopping Center there may be 15 or more restaurants there alone? Mr. Mitchell: Yes. Mr. Morrow: A comment to the petitioner. I am impressed that he came before the Planning Commission to secure his waiver for the use of the Subway as opposed to going to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Mitchell, will you be finishing the interior of that building with a drop ceiling and other things to make that a more normal type of restaurant operation in contrast to the billiard parlor which is basically a warehouse type of place. Mr. Mitchell: Yes, we have standards that we have to go by that are set up by Subway. All stores are basically alike. Mr. Engebretson: Are you going to be the owner of this business? Mr. Mitchell: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: Are you the sole owner? Mr. Mitchell: No. Mr. Engebretson: Is the franchisee and all those sort of things a matter of public record that you can share with us? Mr. Mitchell: No it is a private corporation. Mr. Engebretson: Obviously, you are taking a substantial risk in this venture. What other experience do you have? Mr. Mitchell: We have a store in Plymouth that has been running about a year and seven months now and it is doing excellent. 12050 Michael Southers, 18555 Bainbridge: I work for the franchise owners, Subway Sandwiches. I am here to answer any questions. We do feel this is a very viable location. We have done demographic studies, looking at the accessibility, the visibility, the population, etc. The late night business does not really concern us. Subway does the vast majority of its business at lunch time wherever we go. We do stay open a little later than most stores for those people out there driving but 75 percent of our business is done at lunch time and the rest is what we refer to as "bonus bucks". We have done these studies and feel this is a very viable location for Subway. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-3-2-14 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #5-366-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 5, 1992 on Petition 92-3-2-14 by John M. Mitchell of Tri-Co Foods Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant in an existing shopping center located on the north side of Plymouth Road 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 92-3-2-14 be approved subject to the number of customer seats being limited to no more than 30 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 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed �.. use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: McCann, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei, Engebretson NAYS: Tent ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-4-2-15 by Livonia Inns, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a car rental facility on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Milburn Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35. 12051 Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this petition. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no objections to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating their department has no objections to this proposal as submitted. We have also received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. In 1978, prior to a car rental agency becoming a waiver use, the Zoning Board approved the operation of a rental agency at this site; we would have no problem with this proposal under the same conditions as were imposed upon the previous business. 2. Any additional signage, other than the existing reader board on the ground sign, will require Zoning Board approval. I will read those prior conditions set forth in the Zoning Board of Appeals resolution: 1) That there will be no maintenance of any vehicle on this particular property. 2) That there shall be no storage of unlicensed or damaged vehicles. 3) That there shall not be more than eight (8) cars in the immediate area of Room #101. 4) that the excess cars shall be shuttled to the back of the property and stored in a neat and orderly fashion. 5) That there shall not be in excess of twenty-five (25) rental vehicles on the property at any one time. 6) That the signage for this operation shall be limited to that presently existing on the building. 7) That the Board wishes to emphasize that the storage of any flammable type material including oil lubricants is prohibited on the premises. Vin. Mr. Gniewek: I believe that was prior to a waiver use. The Zoning Board set their own standards as far as what could be existing at that particular location. I am sure there are probably other things that the Planning Department has noted as far as available space at that location. Mr. LaPine: That 25 cars, does that include the cars out in front? Mr. Nagy: Certainly. Janet Wood, General Manager of Ramada Inns, Inc. : I would just like to say I feel they have taken very good care of their vehicles and space. Everything they use there is self contained. I feel they have added to the place. They have brought a little bit of business there. They have helped my staff feel secure because business is down. When people see more cars, they tend to think the hotel is busier, they tend to come in. The riff-raff in the neighborhood tend to stay away because they do feel people are staying there. They have not caused any parking problems and have helped the hotel itself because people are aware there is a rental place there and they do use it. The neighborhood itself has used it. Mr. Vyhnalek: You say they are there now? `. 12052 Ms. Wood: They are temporarily there now. Mr. Vyhnalek: How many cars do they have? Ms. Wood: If they have eight cars on the lot at one time it is a lot. New Mr. Vyhnalek: Could they live with the 25? Ms. Wood: Yes, definitely. Mr. Vyhnalek: Eight up front and the rest in the back? Ms. Wood: Definitely. Most of them are now on loan. They have helped out the other car rentals in the area when they have been low on cars. Mr. Vyhnalek: If there is an abundance of cars then they have some place to put them besides their lot? Ms. Wood: Yes they do. Mr. Morrow: What restrictions, as far as your operation, have you placed on them? Ms. Wood: Basically that they are self contained and they are; that they do not do any oil changes or repairs on the lot and they haven't. Mr. Morrow: What about damaged vehicles? Ms. Wood: They don't have any damaged vehicles on the lot. Mr. Morrow: Do you know where they do their service? `,. Ms. Wood: At the airport. Mr. LaPine: I have no big hang-up about rental cars because Americar was there and we never had any problems with them. Being at that location on Saturday, the wood fence, is that yours? That is in terrible shape. Ms. Wood: Yes it is. Mr. LaPine: The parking lot is not in the best condition and there were a couple of abandoned cars. Have you got any plans to do some cleanup? Ms. Wood: Yes, I have been working with the City Inspector and the owner of the building and he is taking bids to have the parking lot redone. I am sure you are aware that the party store is moving in next door. There are plans on either redoing it up front or knocking it down and extending it and redoing the whole front of the parking lot along with the side and the back. The wooden fence is a continuous problem and has been. As far as it being knocked down, I have a continual problem with the neighborhood kids. I have taken in bids for that too, to have that repaired or replaced. It should be done within the next 60 days. Mr. LaPine: I am glad you are aware of it. 12053 Terry Gibson: I am here representing Dollar Rent A Car. I want to reassure you about some of the things we were talking about a little earlier. We are the fifth largest in the world. My headquarters is currently at Metro Airport. Because of the nature of our business, we need off-site locations. We have opened up seven locations �.. outside Metro Detroit in the last six months. The reason for that is to offset the fact that not many people come to Detroit in the winter so we need off-site locations to help us. That is the purpose of what we are trying to do. Since we have been at this particular hotel, we have rented over 600 cars in 60 days. The majority of our business is business in Livonia. We try to get in good with our competitors. They are a lot smaller than us in Livonia and they run out of cars. We can move cars back and forth. We have no reason to service our cars in Livonia. Mr. LaPine: You heard Mr. Nagy read the stipulations that the Zoning Board of Appeals put on Americar. Can you live with those stipulations? Mr. Gibson: The only way I make money is if the cars are on the road. Mr. LaPine: If our resolution incorporates the Zoning Board of Appeals' conditions, you can live with that? Mr. Gibson: Yes. Mr. Morrow: The gentleman mentioned his competition. You don't intend to rent any trucks there, do you? Mr. Gibson: No, not at all. We are in the car rental business. Mr. Morrow: I just wanted to get that a part of the record. Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you competitive with Enterprise down the street, price wise? Mr. Gibson: We are finding out in most locations we are beating Enterprise. We do a lot of pick up and delivery and take care of our customers. Ms. Wood: To be sure there are no vehicles on the lot they have a variety of cars. A person from Fords isn't going to rent anything but a Ford car. The other ones don't have a variety of cars. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-4-2-15 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously approved #5-367-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 5, 1992 on Petition 92-4-2-15 by Livonia Inns, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a car rental facility on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Milburn Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-4-2-15 be approved subject to the following conditions: 12054 1) That there shall be no more than ten (10) rental cars parked in the immediate area of the Rent-a-Car office and no more than thirty-five (35) rental cars stored or parked on the site at any one time. 2) That this operation shall be limited to the rental of automobiles only. 3) That there shall be no storage of unlicensed or damaged vehicles on the site. 4) That there shall be no maintenance of any vehicle performed on this subject property. 5) That there shall be no gasoline, oil, transmission fluid, window washer fluid, brake fluid, antifreeze or other similar materials stored anywhere on the subject property or inside the subject building. 6) That the signs be limited to the existing reader board on the ground sign. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complis with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance ##543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. `Now 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance ##543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-4-2-16 by Rally's Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a Rally's drive-thru restaurant on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the following is submitted for our consideration: (1) "Right Turn Only" signs must be placed at the east driveway and both south driveways due to heavy left turn traffic on both Farmington and Plymouth Roads. (2) "No Left Turn" signs must be placed at east driveway 12055 and both south driveways for the above reason. (3) The site plan does not show inside seating. If there is any, parking for one unit for every two seats must be provided. (4) Handicapped space is only eight feet wide. Ordinance requires 12 feet. (5) Parking blocks must be installed to prevent vehicles from extending two feet over the walk, north of the building. A letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division states the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. If the proposal is for a true drive-thru restaurant, the outdoor seating should be removed from the site and signs installed indicating that no consumption of food or beverages is allowed on the property. (2) A drive-thru restaurant would require one parking space for each employee. Excess spaces could be returned to landscape area. 3. The City does not have the full right of way width. 4. A complete sign package should be submitted for review. The "No Left Turn" sign at the Plymouth Road exit should be relocated off of the planned right of way. 5. The site plan does not indicate complete underground sprinklers. A letter from the Fire Marshal's office indicates they have no objections to this proposal. A letter from the Engineering Department indicates that Plymouth Road has not been dedicated to its fullest extent (60 feet) in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, these items that were addressed in the Traffic Bureau's letter, have all of these items been addressed in this particular site plan? Mr. Nagy: They are all covered in the revised site plan. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, is this now being treated as a drive-in rather than a drive-thru? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Tent: How many drive-in restaurants do we have in Livonia? The report here shows none. Mr. Nagy: There are none. Mr. Engeberetson: Will the petitioner please come forward. Paul Lichtefeld: I am the developer and representative of Rally's, Inc. of Louisville, Kentucky. I have with me Dennis Miller, who is a real estate representative and our Architect Engineer, Doug Falzon. We are here tonight to propose a drive-in restaurant at a vacant lot with a building that is vacant. I am not sure how long the building has been vacant. We are here to build a new drive-in-restaurant. Like I said, we are out of Louisville, Kentucky and we are here to answer any questions. (Mr. Lichtefeld presented his new site plan. ) There is no indoor seating. 12056 Generally the reason most of our buildings are laid out the way they are is so we can have an easy flow. We have outdoor seating shown with six tables. We have about 345 restaurants. Two-thirds of those are franchises. One-third is company owned. This is a company restaurant. We employ approximately 70 people to start off with, eight at a time. We are a five-year old company. I have *ft"' been with the company for six months and I don't particularly like the color or the style of our older buildings. We have come up with a new look. We have brought pictures which we have sent around. This will be a whole new look. Mr. Vyhnalek: I am not familiar with your restaurant but explain the passenger side ordering. Mr. Lichtefeld: If there is no one in the passenger side, we always have a person standing outside the window to hand the food to these people. They are called accommodators. Most of our business is through the driver's side. The customer has a choice. If the customer doesn't want to wait, he can use the passenger side and we will have a person out there to hand the food to him. Mr. Vyhnalek: Another thing that bothers me, there are six tables between the egress and the first lane. Are these people going to be walking in front of these cars to the window and then walking over to sit down at the tables. Mr. Lichtefeld: Actually they walk up from the sidewalk to the front of the building and then they will take the handicap walkway. Mr. Vyhnalek: The people are at the tables and they have to walk up to the window to order? Mr. Lichtefeld: We have two walkup windows. They would order here and walk across the walkway. Mr. Vyhnalek: Would they have to walk in front of the cars? Mr. Lichtefeld: The accommodator would be there. Mr. Vyhnalek: You have no speaker boxes, is that correct? Mr. Lichtefeld: Yes we do. We have two order stations. Mr. Vyhnalek: So people do order before they get to the window. Mr. LaPine: The chairman and I went out to look at one of your restaurants and one of the problems I saw was you have the drive-in on the passenger side and then you have a car on the other side and they both exit out through one exit, the same way it is going to operate here. Let's assume you have someone on the driver's side who wants to loop in front of the building and eat out on the tables. There seems to not have been enough room for both cars to do that. Do you forsee any problems with the traffic flow? 12057 Mr. Lichtefeld: We haven't had any in the Detroit area. We have 26 restaurants in the Detroit area and I guess people have gotten used to alternating when they come out. We are also on 45 second time limits. They are timed to get the food to the drivers side in 30 seconds and the passenger side in 45 seconds so the traffic is staggered. Nom. Mr. LaPine: This type of building isn't as high as your old one? Mr. Lichtefeld: It is about the same height. Mr. LaPine: The new color combination is red and white? Mr. Lichtefeld: Yes. Mrs. Fandrei: What is the gray building on the west property line? Mr. Lichtefeld: It is a storage shed that will be removed. Mrs. Fandrei: John, can you tell me who is responsible for the parking blocks at the north end of the property that have been taken away? Mr. Nagy: Newport Richie. Mrs. Fandrei: They are going to need these replaced. Can we get Inspection to see to that now? Mr. Nagy: Sure. Mr. Lichtefeld: We will have curbing all around. Mr. Tent: It seems like an awful lot of congestion there with traffic in and 441111. out and you will have an accommodator there, etc. Would it be possible for you to eliminate the outdoor eating and strictly have only the drive-thru? Could you exist in that area? To me I see a problem with the congestion. Mr. Lichtefeld: To address your question, in the winter time 85% of our business is drive-thru. Fifteen percent of the people sit outside in the winter time. In the summertime 75% of the business is drive-thru and 25% is outdoor seating. Our sales are up in the summertime and a lot of it comes from the fact people want to get outside and eat at the tables. We feel that the outdoor seating is vital to our business. We have a limited menu. We don't have a lot to choose from. They pretty much know what they want when they come to Rally's. They spend on the average of 7 to 10 minutes at these tables. That is why we don't have the need for indoor seating. However, when the summer months come around we have a need for the outdoor seating. Mr. Tent: I feel this lot should be developed but the site seems small for what you are attempting to use it for. You were describing the traffic flow and the only protection is the traffic accommodator. I just have a problem with the site being so small. Mr. Gniewek: What are you planning for signage? rr..• 12058 Mr. Lichtefeld: We will naturally meet the requirements. This sign is actually changing to a small pill shaped sign. It is much smaller than what we have had in the past. Mr. Gniewek: How high will your sign be? Mr. Lichtefeld: As high as we can be. We will meet the City requirements. It will comply with the existing ordinance. Mr. Vyhnalek: In the past three or four years all the new businesses that have come into town, we try to get them to get a monument sign. Maybe you should think about it and talk to our staff tomorrow and get a six foot high monument sign. Mr. Lichtefeld: We are sticklers on pylon signs. Mr. Vyhnalek: Some of us would prefer a monument sign. Mr. Engebretson: It will be a separate call back item. Mr. LaPine: We had the staff do a study of traffic in that area, which is substantial. Can you give us a general idea, based on how you feel this restaurant will go, on how much traffic will be coming and going at all times. I assume you have done a study and you know how much business you feel you need at that location to be successful. How much traffic do you feel you will generate at one time? Mr. Lichtefeld: Our peak hours are 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and then we start picking up at dinner time about 5:00 p.m. until 6:30. Dennis Miller handles our demographics. Maybe he can elaborate. `• Dennis Miller: Being Plymouth Road and Farmington Road with that traffic, to tell you how many customers per day would be hard. I think they try to get a lot. Every 35 seconds on one side and 45 seconds on the other side. Mr. LaPine: If you serve 100 customers within a hour's lunch time, I am trying to find out if you are dumping a lot of traffic there that could cause problems. Dennis Miller: You have the traffic light at Plymouth and Farmington. When it is red, you have the opening for cars to get out. Mr. LaPine: Your biggest time is 12:00 to 1:00? Mr. Miller: Yes, lunch time is our biggest time. Mr. LaPine: You said you had eight items you serve. Hamburgers and what else? Mr. Miller: Hamburgers, cheeseburgers, chicken sandwich, chicken deluxe sandwich, french fries, tacos and a barbecue sandwich. Mr. LaPine: Is all this food prepared ahead of time? 12059 Mr. Miller: It is made to order. I would like to answer the question about the size of our site. This site is bigger than most of our sites. Traffic is our whole business. If we can't get people in and out, we are in trouble. Doug Falzon: I would like to address a couple of issues. I believe the current property owner is aware that if this is granted that additional right-of-way will be required. On the other item with regard to wheel stops, we have indicated diagonal parking. We are planning on using concrete curbing as a wheel stop instead of having additional wheel stops. If that becomes a problem, in terms of engineering, we can certainly change it. Lastly, regarding the size of the parking spaces. I trust you are all familiar with the American Disabilities Act. We have allocated 16 feet for barrier free parking spaces and that is a federal regulation we have complied with. I don't think that is an issue. Mr. Nagy: They misread your note. Mr. Falzon: The signage has already been incorporated on the revised site plan. Mr. Shane: I don't know if anybody mentioned, in the initial plan the easterly Plymouth Road driveway was a two-way driveway. It is now one way in. The westerly driveway is one way out. Mr. Falzon: I would like to make one comment regarding the circulation complex. The passenger side and driver side windows, it is not unlike the circulation with regard to a drive-in bank where you have vehicles stacked in a row that are all merging to a lane, some of which are going this way and some of which are on their way out. It is not an uncomfortable or, I believe, a hazardous movement. It is not that unusual of a vehicle movement. With regard to people crossing to the seating area, we could probably look at McDonald's, Burger King and every other fast food restaurant that has a drive-thru. The drive-thru typically runs along one side of the restaurant and people that are parking have to negotiate across there. While it might look a little cumbersome, it is just that. I don't believe any of the circulation is all that unusual. Mr. LaPine: The Farmington Road entrance, is that one way? Mr. Falzon: It is a two-way. Mr. LaPine: The way the traffic flow is now, there is no way you can leave your site to go back onto Farmington Road. Is that correct? Mr. Falzon: They enter off Plymouth. It is a one way circulation, back onto Plymouth. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-4-2-16 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was w.- 12060 ##5-368-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 5, 1992 on Petition 92-4-2-16 by Rally's Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a Rally's drive-thru restaurant on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission fir. does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-4-2-16 be approved as a drive-in restaurant subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 5-1-92, as revised, prepared by Ventura & Associates, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the landscaping as shown on the approved Site Plan shall include an underground sprinkler system and shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 3) That the Building Elevation Plan dated 5-1-92 prepared by Ventura & Associates, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 4) That a sign plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for their approval prior to the issuance of a sign erection permit. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance ##543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. fir.• 3) That the proposed use represents a unique type of eating establishment not generally found along Plymouth Road in this area. 4) That the proposed use provides an opportunity to remove a vacant commercial building. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance ##543, as amended. Mr. Tent: I am going to vote against this petition. I am not in favor of reinstituting the drive-in restaurant concept. If this were a drive-thru, I could possibly support it but the drive-in restaurant concept is a thing of the past. I am concerned that the traffic flow and outdoor eating is going to present a problem. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Fandrei, Gniewek, LaPine, McCann, Vyhnalek NAYS: Tent, Morrow, Engebretson ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 12061 Mr. Engebretson: My vote was based upon the genuine concern over the study of the site plan relative to some of the traffic issues, etc. I probably will feel comfortable in due course. I wish you good luck in your endeavor in Livonia. New Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-3-6-1 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend the Zoning Ordinance so as to establish filing fees for site plan approval and to increase filing fees for waiver use approval. Mr. Engebretson: This is a proposal to increase a variety of filing fees that have been out of date for sometime. There is a new fee for satellite dish antenna and an increase in various other fees that will more accurately reflect the cost of processing these various petitions. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-3-6-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #5-369-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 5, 1992 on Petition 92-3-6-1 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend the Zoning Ordinance so as to establish filing fees for site plan approval and to increase filing fees for waiver use approval, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-3-6-1 be approved for the following reason: 1) That the current fee structure contained in the Zoning Ordinance is outdated and not in keeping with similar fee structures in other area communities. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance ##543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-3-6-2 by the City Planning Commission to detrmine whether or not to amend Section 31.02 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to provide that certain privately owned property could also be eligible to be rezoned to an NP, Nature Preserves zoning district. Mr. Engebretson: This petition comes to us as a result of a Council resolution asking for this public hearing to be conducted. So there is no confusion, the proposed language will provide that certain land encumbered as a wetland designated by the DNR or as a flood plain, at the property owner's request, could be rezoned to the Nature Preserve district. This, in no way, empowers the City to arbitrarily zone private property to other than its current use. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? 12062 There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-3-6-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was ``r. #5-370-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 5, 1992 on Petition 92-3-6-2 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 31.02 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to provide that certain privately owned property could also be eligible to be rezoned to an NP, Nature Preserves zoning district, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-3-6-2 be approved for the following reason: 1) That the proposed amendment will provide an opportunity for private owners of properties with severe limitations to also have their lands designated as a Nature Preserve. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-2-1-14 by Ledford & Grifka, P.C. for Northwest Alano Club requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh Road south of Say Ann Arbor Trail in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 32 from RUF to C-2. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #5-371-92 RESOLVED that, Petition 92-2-1-14 by Ledford & Grifka, P.C. for Northwest Alano Club requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh Road south of Ann Arbor Trail in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 32 from RUF to C-2 be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: This item was tabled to permit some further study of the proposal. The petitioner has asked that the item be disposed of and that we conclude the issue. I guess I would be looking for a motion. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously approved, it was #5-372-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 31, 1992 on Petition 92-2-1-4, as amended, by Ledford & Grifka, P.C. for 12063 Northwest Alano Club requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh Road south of Ann Arbor Trail in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 32 from RUF to C-1 and P, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-2-1-4 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed changes of zoning are incompatible to the surrounding uses in the area. 2) That the proposed changes of zoning are not supported by the Future Land Use Plan which designates the subject area as medium density residential. 3) That the proposed changes of zoning will encourage similar requests for commercial zoning both north and south of the subject property along Newburgh Road. 4) That the proposed changes of zoning provide for uses which would be detrimental to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat approval for Parkside Villas Subdivision proposed to be located on the \n. south side of Seven Mile Road between Wayne and Van Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 8. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy is everything in order? Mr. Nagy: Everything is in order. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #5-373-92 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for Parkside Villas Subdivision proposed to be located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Wayne and Van Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 8 for the following reasons: 1) That the Final Plat is in full conformance with the Preliminary Plat. 2) That the City Engineer has recommended approval of the Final Plat. 3) That the City Clerk has indicated that all financial obligations imposed upon the Proprietor by the City have been taken care of. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 12064 The next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the 640th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on March 31, 1992. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously approved, it was ##5-374-92 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 640th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on March 31, 1992 are approved. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. The next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the 641st Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on April 14, 1992. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously approved, it was ##5-375-92 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 641st Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on April 14, 1992 are approved. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Permit Application by Robert A. Nawrocki for a Satellite Disc Antenna on property located at 14142 Blue Skies in Section 19. Mr. Bakewell showed a picture of the home and the plans showing the location of the satellite disc. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I would like to ask you an opinion. I don't know if the petitioner is aware of this or not but these satellite dishes have been the subject of considerable controversy in the City in recent years both as they pertain to business use, but more particularly as they pertain to the use in residential areas. You rarely see them mounted on the roof. They are typically mounted on the ground. Even then, they are controversial to say the least and because of the nature of the impact that they have in a neighborhood as contrasted to a business environment, where we almost always require the business to totally screen the dish so that it can't be seen from most areas, although there are plenty of them around town that appeared before the City got control of this issue. There has been some concern that the language in the ordinance was not clear enough to indicate what the City's concerns and purposes were to enforce this ordinance. To get to the point of the question to Mr. Nagy, the question is, is it proper, in your opinion, for us to be dealing with this request while there is a change in the ordinance under way that is likely to be governing the installation of these dishes in residential neighborhoods. I know it is submitted for the public hearing at the Council level. Obviously, I am aware we have to deal with what we know today. To be fair to all concerned, would it be your opinion that this item would be best adjourned to see what the Council does with that 12065 proposed ordinance change, which I recall was precipitated by their request so as not to put this petitioner through a lot of unnecessary series of efforts here. Mr. Nagy: The proposed amendment to the text of the zoning ordinance dealing ",`, with the satellite disc antenna is to set forth a clearer language as to the objectives sought by establishing a special set of regulations dealing with satellite disc antennas in residential neighborhoods. That language is scheduled for a hearing tomorrow evening. It is not something that would take a great amount of time to become a permanent part of our ordinance. It was brought about at the request of the Council previous to the urging of our Law Department, which was precipitated as a result of litigation that had occurred. We are trying to correct some defects in our ordinance. Obviously there is a very strong indication that it will be supported at the Council level so if you want to delay action on this pending the outcome of that, I think it is a very short time frame. Mrs. Fandrei: I would like to table the motion until we get the results of the Council action. Mr. Engebretson: Before that is supported, if it is supported, Mr. Nawrocki, do you understand where we are coming from? Mr. Nawrocki: No not really. I have been waiting patiently all night. It seems like you are just trying to put me off for another day. I see people in my residential neighborhood who have 50 and 60 foot television antennas hanging above their house. I see people who have solar panels on top of their houses. I am trying to put one little mesh satellite and now we are waiting for another ordinance. *lo " I am very frustrated. I have been here all night. I was kind of hoping to hear something tonight. Mr. Engebretson: You can hear something but you may hear something negative if you force us to make a decision. I am not saying that would be the case but I can tell you that based upon my inspection of the property and what I understand your proposal to be, I have to be honest with you, the indication that you gave us was that this dish was basically not going to be seen except for a small tip of the antenna from the front of your garage. It is my contention it is more than just a trivial portion and, furthermore, you made the point it would not be very visible to the neighbors to the rear when the trees were in bloom. However, there are a great many months that those trees are not in bloom and it is going to be highly visible to a great many of the neighbors. We asked you to seek the position of all the affected neighbors so that we would know what their position is. You had several. Did you get the others? Mr. Nawrocki: I have one more. The last person I went to talk to one day and there was no answer and I did not have a chance to get back. Mr. Engebretson: So you really don't have all the information that we asked for do you? 12066 Mr. Nawrocki: From what I understand the F.C.C. regulations say I don't really need the permission of my neighbors to put one up on my property. I talked with my two adjacent neighbors and the one across the street and nobody gave me any objection to it. `, Mrs. Fandrei: When I went by your property I also went by the street to the east of you and as I sat behind your home. I could see from your neighbor's home, as they came out their front door, they had a direct view of your garage roof. That would be the neighbor facing west on the street east of you. I would have difficulty if I voted right now because of the sizes of the lots, how close the homes are, etc. in the residential neighborhood. Your neighbors have a direct view and to me that is not the kind of thing we are looking for. Mr. Nawrocki: I just don't understand a lot of this. You are saying legally I need everybody's permission? Mr. Engebretson: No we are not saying that. We are acknowledging that the F.C.C. allows all of us as citizens of this country to receive transmissions. However, it is the City's position that there are some aesthetic values that are to be maintained in a community and most particularly a residential community. We are not denying your right to receive a transmission. We have approved a number of satellite dishes. They have been screened either on a commercial building or screened on the ground with landscaping in a residential area. You are proposing to put one on the roof of your garage, which will be visible, and the issue relative to your neighbors would be to give the Planning Commission and City Council some indication that your neighbors find this to be a desirable addition to the neighborhood. That is why we are asking you to bring that in. It is not that they have the right to approve or deny. It is the City's contention that it does have the right to enforce standards and it does have a variety of ordinances dealing with all kinds of issues as to what is okay and what is not okay in the community. We are not trying to be difficult and we certainly are not forming a new ordinance in reaction to this petition. This has been underway for sometime. I was aware that it was scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council but I was unaware of when it was to occur. We just heard it was to be tomorrow night. The question I raised was to check Mr. Nagy's opinion as to whether or not it would be appropriate to hold this vote over to have that ordinance as our guide because by the time this gets to the Council, if this is denied and you appeal it, this ordinance will be in effect. Mr. Nawrocki: What is the new ordinance? Mr. Shane: What this does is it becomes more definitive on the reasons why the City treats satellite dishes differently than other antennas. It sets forth a paragraph of words which talks about things like the fact that residential areas are unique. It is concerned about maintaining property values, etc. that the ordinances currently does not have in it. There are no words that say why the City has 12067 concerns about satellite dishes. If this ordinance is passed, we will reiterate those concerns in words. It won't change where they can be located. It won't change the size they are. It won't change who approves it and who doesn't. It is simply a more definitive description of the reasons for satellite dishes to be ,terw treated in a special manner in a residential district. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was #5-376-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Permit Application by Robert A. Nawrocki for a Satellite Disc Antenna on property located at 14142 Blue Skies in Section 19 to the Regular Meeting of June 2, 1992. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Vyhnalek, Fandrei, Engebretson NAYS: Morrow, LaPine, McCann ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 642nd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on May 5, 1992 was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Brenda Lee Fandrei, Secretary q0-61 ATTEST: �i ) �' `�;t. cr JEngebr tson, Chairman jg