The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLANNING MINUTES 2004-09-2821680 MINUTES OF THE 892nd REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, September 28, 2004, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 892nd Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: William LaPine R. Lee Morrow Dan Pieroecchi H. G. Shane Carol Smiley Members absent: Robert Alanksas Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were also present. Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has len days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the dale of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2004-09-08-16 LUCKY'S SPORTS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2004-09- 08-16, submitted by Lucky's Sports Retreat requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the building located at 19265 Victor Parkway in the Southeast''/. of Section 6. 21681 Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Vidor Parkway approximately 800 feet north of Seven Mile Road. This petition involves exterior remodeling of an existing restaurant. Lucky's Sports Retreat is a full service restaurant and sports -oriented bar that will occupy all 12,000 square feet of the restaurant. This site was originally approved in 1992 as a Cantina del Rio restaurant with a total sealing capacity of 308. Upon completion of the renovation, Lucky's will reduce the overall seating count to 261. On the exterior, a number of improvements are planned mostly along the west elevation of the building, which is where the main entrance is located and has the greatest exposure to the highway. These scheduled improvements will not only change the appearance of the restaurant to reflect a new theme, but will also perform some much needed maintenance, as well as upgrade the functionality of the building. The most obvious change will be the partial elimination of what can be described as a Southwestern or Mexican style. The deteriorating half rounded parapet above the main entrance will be removed and replaced with a triangular peak. The exposed brick elements that appear randomly throughout the west side of the building will be covered with dryvit in order to provide a uniform stucco finish. In addition, the existing flat canopy above the door will be removed and replaced with an extended peaked canopy to provide additional shelter for patrons. On the same side of the building, one false window and one false vent will also be removed. And at each window opening, the existing metal screens will be removed. Finally, the entire west elevation will be repainted. Regarding signage, the plan shows a single wall sign, measured off the elevation plan at 85 square feet, on the west elevation of the building. Pursuant to the City's sign regulations, the building is allowed a single wall sign on the east elevation not to exceed 100 square feel in size. They also show an additional 85 square fool sign on the south elevation. Because they are only allowed one wall sign, they would need a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated September 17, 2004, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. It is our understanding that this request involves an exterior building change only. We have no objection to the proposal. No additional right-of-way is required at this time." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 21, 2004, which reads as follows: "This office has 21682 reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to renovate the exterior of the restaurant on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal and have no concerns with respect to traffic, points of ingress and egress, site capacity to accommodate the proposed use as related to off street parking or any other safety matters." The letter is signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 23, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 14, 2004, the above -referenced Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The elevation labeled as 'East' should be labeled as 'South.' (2) The landscaping needs maintenance and the underground irrigation should be proven operational. (3) The parking lot needs clean up, resealing and double striping. The barrier free parking should be reconfigured so as to be nearest the entry door, with a marked crosswalk to the accessible ramp. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff? Mr. LaPine: Mark, the question came up at our study meeting about the sign that Rio Bravo got from the Zoning Board of Appeals for an additional 52.5 square foot. Mr. Miller staled that they are only allowed one sign, and the one on the south side would have to go to the ZBA. You were going to look into that. I was under the impression that the variance went with the land. Mr. Taormina: I was unable to verify whether or not the variance as granted will apply in this particular case, but I will tell you what the Inspection Department's policy is with respect to that. They generally consider the sign to be a replacement if it occupies the same general location as the previous sign and is no larger as measured in square feel. So as it relates to the sign on both the west elevation and the south elevation, as long as it meets those parameters, it would be consistent with the previous grant unless there was something specific in the ZBA's resolution that would prevent them from doing that. Its not likely that's the case, but certainly before this gets its final building permits, there will be a determination made by the Building Department as to whether or not it needs to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. LaPine: Thank you 21683 Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Dan Johnson, Lucky's Sports Retreat, 19265 Vidor Parkway, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Johnson, do you have anything you'd like to add to the staffs presentation this evening? Mr. Johnson: We have already repaved and reslriped the lot in accordance with what Alex had mentioned. The landscaping has already been taken care of and cleaned up. We've pretty much renovated the whole outside and cleaned the whole area up. Mr. Walsh: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Mr. Piercecchi: I was by your place today and it really looks nice, the parking lot. Mr. Johnson: Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: But I neglected to see in reference to the handicap area, has that been identified and made to comply? I didn't look for those. Mr. Johnson: Yes, actually. Mr. Piercecchi: That's all taken care of too? Mr.Johnson: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: Because the motion that we made had both those conditions put in it. Mr. Johnson: We actually located the bulk of the four out of the seven handicap spots closer to the front door than they originally were, and we did include the crosswalk. Mr. LaPine: First, the signs that you gave us tonight. Do you want us to pick the sign? Mr. Johnson: I'm tossed between all three of them. They kind of conform to the same signage. Actually, my wife will probably pick it. Mr. LaPine: I like the one with the kind of scurvy lettering. As long as you're here and you're on worldwide television, why don't you give us a rundown on what this type of operation this is going to be. I 21684 know it's a sports bar. It is a family -type sports bar? Are people going to have parties there? Mr. Johnson: It's a full-service menu with ribs, chicken, pizza, fish, pastas. It will have banquet rooms. The three patio rooms that were on the side are being designed so they can be retrofitted into banquet room. It will have many, many TV's. If you like sports, you're going to be able to watch practically everything that's on satellite and cable all at the same time. It's very diverse. Its designed actually after a sports look more or less. Mr. LaPine: One of the things I talked to you about when I was there were the booths with the little televisions in the booth above. They are so close together - about the noise. I mean some guy silting here watching one game, some guy over here watching some other game. How did you tell me you were going to control that? Mr. Johnson: I'm actually going to break open the TV and put compression units in the televisions so they can't go as loud as they actually can go. Mr. LaPine: So everyone will be at the same decimals? Mr. Johnson: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Its very nice. You're doing a nice job on the inside, and good luck. I hope you're very successful. Mr. Morrow: Just one question. We have a number of sports bars around town. Now that you're here tonight, could you tell us what you think makes yours unique over the other ones in banging it to Livonia? Mr. Johnson: If you were to go into some other sports bars, you have the option of not being in the proper position to actually view the TV or the sporting event you want to view. This is designed so that wherever you're sifting in the restaurant, you have optimal viewing of all the TVs. When you go into most restaurants, the sound is either overcoming or you can't hear it enough. This is where technology plays a part in this. We've got programs that will actually streamline it. It's all going to be run by computer. Its got compressors in its that will bring it down the noise so it doesn't overwhelm any one person. Also, if the noise level in the restaurant gels loo loud, there are generators that will actually deaden the noise. We went around to multiple 21685 locations all around the country, and found out the problems that they Ihad, as well as the pluses that they had. We took notes from every spot we went to. Mr. Morrow: Okay. One last thing before the vole. As it relates to the sign, if it causes more harmony at home for your wife to pick it out, I would go along with whatever she picks out. Mr. Johnson: That's that yes, dear' thing. Yes. Mr. LaPine: What are your hours going to be? Mr. Johnson: Its going to be from 1100 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. in the morning Monday through Saturday, and 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. on Sunday. Mr. LaPine: So you will have luncheons there? Mr. Johnson: Yes. Mr. Taormina: I just wanted to comment back to Mr. La Pine's question relative to signage. I have the October 11, 1996, zoning grant that allowed a 65.5 square fool sign on the west elevation. We just calculated the sign area from the information provided this evening and it is 62 square feel, so it would be within the allowable sign area under this original zoning petition. Mr. LaPine: How can we incorporate that in the motion that we approve both signs because they are within the same square footage? Can we do that or do you still have to go to the ZBA? Mr. Taormina: You could reference the approval of the signage information that is submitted this evening. We can f11 in the details regarding the dale of the plans and also indicate that they will need to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for any excess signage that is not covered under the 1996 zoning variance. Mr. LaPine: I'm just trying to help him out so he doesn't have to go to the ZBA for another case. Mr. Piercecchi: Mark, he would have to go through the process. Couldn't he just go to the office and state his proposal. He's going to have two signs. There were two signs there. Mr. Taormina: Ilwould appearthat's the case. 21686 Mr. Piercecchi: He could just go in that office and they would say, 'Well, yes you have to go before the board" or not. Right? Mr. Taormina: We think so. We'll have to verify that with the Building Inspection Department, but based on these calculations, it would appear as if he could just do this administratively. Mr. Piercecchi: But you still recommend that he does touch base with the Zoning Board? Mr. Taormina: Yes, absolutely. Mr. Piercecchi: I agree. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, 9 was #09-122-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-09-08-16, submitted by Lucky's Sports Retreat, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the building located at 19265 Victor Parkway in the Southeast''/. of Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheets A-3 and A-4, both dated August 14, 2004, prepared by Kobeissi Associates, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face 4 inch brick, or in the case a precast concrete system is used, it shall meet ASTM C216 standards; 3. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 4. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water management permits from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan; 21687 5. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feel in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 6. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated September 23, 2004: - That the existing landscaping of the site shall be revamped and reestablished and the underground irrigation system shall be deemed operational; 7. That the signage shown on the approved Elevation Plans and the plans dated September 27, 2004, as prepared by Art One Sign Company, Sheets 1, 2 or 3, are approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 8. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site, including but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 9. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and 10. The Planning Commission has no objection to the second sign as along it is no larger than the sign the ZBA gave the former tenant, Rio Bravo. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: I'd like to add an additional Item 11: The Planning Commission has no objection to the second sign as along it is no larger than the sign the ZBA gave the former tenant, Rio Bravo Mr. Walsh: Is that acceptable to the maker and the supporter? Mr. Piercecchi: I have no problem with that. Mr. Walsh: The motion would stand so amended. Would the secretary please call the roll? A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: YSIH:i:I AYES: Piercecchi, Shane, LaPine, Morrow, Smiley, Walsh NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Alanskas Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 2004-08SN-06 CLADDAGH IRISH PUB Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 08 -SN -06, submitted by Claddagh Irish Pub requesting signage approval for the restaurant located at 17800 Haggerty Road in the Southwest % of Section 6. Mr. Walsh: As has been consistent with my actions in the past, I will be stepping down for this item, Item 3 and Item 4. These are all items related to developments on Schoolcraft College property. I am an employee of Schoolcraft and to avoid any conflict of interest, I have consistently stepped down and will do so this evening. In the absence of Mr. Alanskas, I'm going to pass the gavel to Mrs. Smiley, who will act as Chair in my absence and Mr. Piercecchi will act as Secretary. Mr. Miller: On April 21, 2014, Claddagh Insh Pub received waiver use approval to construct a full-service restaurant on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road. Claddagh Irish Pub is one of three free-standing restaurants approved for College Park, which is a developing commercial and office complex. This development is to consist of three free-standing restaurants and a retail building all with frontage on Haggerty Road. In addition, a series of office buildings would be constructed east of the restaurants and extending to the k275/96 Expressway. As part of the conditions of approval it was specified: That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted, together with the site plans of the other two restaurants, for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Claddagh Irish Pub is proposing a substantial number of signs for their restaurant. This request includes wall, awning and blade type signs. Signage is 21689 summarized as follows: Signage Permitted for this site under Section 18.50H is one wall sign not to exceed 81 square feet in sign area. They are proposing 22 wall signs totaling 292 square feel in sign area, which is an excess of 19 wall signs and 211 square feet in wall sign area. Because the proposed signage is in excess of what is allowed by the ordinance, a variance would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Only the graphics directly over the windows and doors would not be illuminated. All other signs, including the logo sign and blade signs, would be internally illuminated. The blade signs would extend off the building 7% feet. The sign ordinance specifies that wall signs must be flat against the exterior surface and cannot project more than 12 inches from the wall. Because the proposed blades signs project more than the allowable 12 inches, a variance would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated September 24, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 2, 2004, the above - referenced Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The sign package as proposed exceeds what the ordinance allows. This site would be allowed one wall sign on the west elevation of approximately 80 square feet (one square foot for each lineal foot of wall frontage). They could also have one identification sign on the front door of one square foot and up to 10 square feet of permanent window signage. Anything in excess of the above would require variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive number of signs, excessive square footage and location other than the frontage wall. (2) The proposal appears to call for approximately 20 wall signs and two door signs. One wall sign of 80 square feet and one door sign of one square foot would be allowed on the west elevation. It appears the proposal has 270 square feet of wall signage on three walls and four square feet of door signage. There are 19 excessive wall signs, one excessive door sign and signs on three elevations and just the one permitted. The excess square footage is 190 square feet of wall signage and three square feet of door signage. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the only item of correspondence. Ms. Smiley: Thank you, Mark. Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff? Seeing none, would the petitioner please join us at the podium? 21690 Rob Wineman, Elkin Equities, 29100 Northwestern Highway, Southfield, Michigan. I am here tonight on behalf of Claddagh. I know we had some extensive conversations at our study session, so I'm here to answer any questions you may have. I do have a little bit of feedback for you from those dialogs. First and foremost, in talking with Claddagh, they are willing to eliminate the blade sign. I think that probably eases some of the concerns that were discussed Iasi week. In addition, with regard to the facade signage on the south elevation, I know that warranted some further discussion and feedback from them. They would give consideration to eliminating that sign in exchange for having some sign presence on the north facade of their building. With that, I'm happy to answer any other questions, but I think those were probably two of the major slicking points that we had Iasi week. Ms. Smiley: Did I understand you? You're eliminating all the blade signs? Mr. Wineman: That's correct. Ms. Smiley: Okay. And the sign on the south elevation? Mr. Wineman: The sign on the south elevation in exchange for having signage on the north elevation of the building, which they currently have not proposed. Mr. Morrow: Was there any discussion on the awning signs or the building signs, the one square fool signs? Mr. Wineman: There was some discussion. In terms of maintaining that presence, that is their desire. I know that there was some discussion we had related to the sign of that lettering. Mr. Morrow: We wanted the feedback as it related to your client. They would like to see those Gaelic boards indicated in some fashion. Mr. Wineman: Absolutely. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thankyou. Mr. LaPine: If the signage that you're willing to trade off, the south elevation, would that sign be just transferred to the north elevation and where would it go on the north elevation? 21691 Mr. Wineman: I think ideally the answer to the first question is yes. That sign is really the only sign, if I'm not mistaken, on that building that identifies it as an Irish pub. So they would want that demarcation on the north elevation of their building. As far as the positioning of that sign, I would really leave that up to more of the sign experts to determine exactly where on the north elevation. My guess is, it's probably going to be closer to Haggerty Road or to the west of the building. Mr. LaPine: The other question which I brought up at the last meeting, the sign you have on the west elevation, I said it makes more sense to me if you add the words "Irish pub" in there. Have you considered that or is there not enough room to do that? Mr. Wineman: I think that's the answer to the question. It's a spatial concern, a spatial issue. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Mr. Piercecchi: I don't recall you mentioning what square footage you're talking about on the north elevation. Mr. Wineman: I think ideally they'd like to replicate the sign that they have on the south elevation, just really move it to the north elevation. I'm not sure of the exact square footage. Mr. Piercecchi: Its 127. Mr. LaPine: Yes, 127 square feet. Mr. Piercecchi: It is. That's on the south elevation. Mr. Taormina: If I may comment on that. The area is 127 square feet if you include the area that completely surrounds the sign. You'll see that, surrounding the lettering, is gold trim, some logos as well as a boxed -in area. All the dark area shown constitutes the 127 square feel, which by definition is how the ordinance defines or measures the area of a sign. However, the lettering itself, is considerably less than that. In fact, the dimensions of the lettering are one fool two inches in height by approximately 27 feet, four inches in length. So if you consider just the area of the lettering, its substantially less than 127 square feel. Its more in the order of 30 square feet. Scott will check that. Mr. Piercecchi: I've been through some of the mathematics of this and I think the 127 is everything boxed in gold there. 21692 Mr. Taormina: Thats correct. Ms. Smiley: Thats what he said. Mr. Piercecchi: The lop part was not included, the dark area. Mr. Taormina: Oh, I see what you're saying. The dark area that lies just above the top of the gold fringe. Mr. Piercecchi: Yes. Ifyoujuslconsiderlhe lettering, ilwould be probably 30% to 40% less. Scott, how does that seem to you? Mr. Miller: Its 32 square feet. Mr. Piercecchi: Il goes from 127 to 32? You've got roughly one fool two and an eighth inches. Right? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: Are you including where the two hands are and the crown? Mr. Miller: No. I'm just doing the lettering. Mr. Piercecchi: That is roughly 37 feet, four and three quarter inches. Mr. Miller: Yes. That's 32 square feet. Mr. Morrow: I would just like to beg your indulgence for a few minutes to kind of give you an idea where I'm coming from. Obviously, this is a business that would be proud to say is coming to Livonia with considerable expense to the people that are establishing it, but yet, before us is a considerable amount of signage over the ordinance, which forced me back to review the sign ordinance in detail. These are some of the things I came up with. It's there to preserve the scenic and natural beauty of designated areas to make the City a more enjoyable and pleasing community, and creative a more attractive economic and business climate by preserving property values. On the flip side, we can't have unrestricted signage along our main thoroughfares. But to go on a consistent approach in zoning districts necessary to remove the need for the type of sign which would compete for attention of the motorists, thereby creating traffic hazards as well as creating visual blight within the City. My view is that these buildings are not having their ingress and egress from the main road, which is Haggerty. They are serviced by interior 21693 service roads leading up to it. So, I don't think the motorist is going to be distracted or cause a traffic hazard or visual blight from that. These individual Gaelic letters, if they were reduced in size where they were only intended for the enjoyment and adding to ambiance of the building, I could go along by reducing the size and have a visual only to the people on site. As far as the excessive signage, in doing my homework, I visited some of the other freestanding buildings in the same general area. They were apparently given excessive signage over and above what you folks are asking for. The fact that it is not on a main thoroughfare and serviced within. and if the signs are there to maximize, that the people know that it's there but without creating blight or causing motorists to perhaps cause accidents, as one commissioner, I can give a little leeway on how we count the signs if they are for internal use only and not to be exposed to the general public. Whether or not my fellow commissioners appreciate where I'm coming from, that's where I'm coming from even though I know it's against the ordinance per se, but my rationale is it's not competing in the normal manner that we view signs. Thank you. Mr. Smiley: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Mr. Piercecchi: What we're talking here now, if I understand this correctly, that "Irish pub" of 127 square feel is to be deleted. Of that, then 34 square feel is to be added to the north elevation. Is that correct? Wasn't it 34? Ms. Smiley: 32. Mr. Wineman: Yes, you're saying the 127 relates to the sign on the south elevation oflhe building currently. Mr. Piercecchi: On the south side, that's going to be deleted. Okay. As far as the modesty panels, anything under four inches, we discussed anyway, that would all be waived because the only people that are going to see it are going to be those people who are at the site. They would be something you can't read from Haggerty Road as you're driving by. So if you can't read it from Haggerty Road, we don't consider that a sign. Now you've said you voluntarily are going to give up the blade signs? Mr. Wineman: That's correct. 21694 Mr. Piercecchi: You're going to delete the blade signs. In summary here, what we're talking about is on the west elevation there will be one wall sign of 66 square feet, plus a logo of 21 square feet. Correct? Mr. Wineman: I'm not sure of the precise square footage. Mr. Piercecchi: Mark, can you verify that? Mr. Wineman: But if those are correct, Mark, based upon what we have on plan ... Mr. Taormina: I'm going to defer to Scott. He did all the calculations. Mr. Piercecchi: Maybe all those little whiskey signs, all those cute little signs that are going to make it a cool place. What we're talking here is on the west elevation then, correct? We're talking about a logo of 21 and a 66. Mr. Taormina: That's correct. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. That's on the west elevation. And then we're going to delete on the west the blade sign, and we're going to keep the door graphics that they're permitted. Correct? This is permitted. Okay. That's also on the west side. Then on the north elevation, we are going to waive the modesty signs if they're less than four inches, and they are. Right? You're going to make them less than four inches, four inches or less. Otherwise they'll have to be classified as signs. Mr. Wineman: Okay. And l guess... Mr. Piercecchi: Mark went to the trouble of making up various sizes and went all the way over to Haggerty, so those are good numbers. And the blade sign of 14, you're going to replace that. So all in all, we've got 66, 21, and 34 and we're waiving all the rest. Correct? That's 121 square feel. Do you concur with that, Scott? Mr. Miller: Yes. I don't know if the Zoning Board will, but I concur with it. Mr. Piercecchi: We're not at the Zoning Board. We're at the Planning Commission. So there's three signs. And I concur with our very able colleague, Lee, that Alexander's has got three signs. The one next to it, has three signs. Bahama Breeze has got three signs. And that's what they're getting here. So we're not really diverting ourselves based on what's happened in the past. I 21695 don't know why this one doesn't equal those other three. So that's all. Mr. LaPine: Just one question. I still have a problem with the sign where you're not going to say "Irish pub." Is there any way on the one on the west side, if you remove the word "the," could you just say the name of the bar, "Irish pub?" Mr. Wineman: Mr. Commissioner, I would be happy to lake that back to my client and make that suggestion. Mr. Piercecchi: Just put"pub." Mr. LaPine: My position is, if somebody drives up there, they want to know what that is. They won't know if its a Hawaiian bar for all they know. I don't care. I don't even know why you're using the word "the" in the first place, but that's here nor there. But I think maybe if it could be worked out, I think it would be a smart move. Mr. Wineman: I will make that suggestion to them. If I may just ask a question as it relates to the lettering on the modesty panels, the four inches that was just suggested. Is that something, and I may be jumping ahead a little bit, but is that something that we're looking to be uniform with and amongst the three restaurants here? Mr. Piercecchi: We haven't gotten to the other restaurants. Mr. Wineman: Lel me rephrase, that's the intention? Mr. Piercecchi: We will be consistent. Mr. Wineman: Okay. Mr. Morrow: Just to kind of wrap up what I was saying earlier. Obviously, as one commissioner, I realize that it's all subject to Council and Zoning Board approval, and I guess where we were coming from is the fact, when does something not become a sign? When it become something that adds to the ambiance or the motif on site to be enjoyed by the patrons or customers and not considered a sign. That's the way I feel about those Gaelic letters. If we can make them small enough where the people on-site can see them, and have no desire that anybody going by on Haggerty Road sees them, then it become parts of the 21696 That the Gaelic wording/lettering of the vinyl graphic panels shall not exceed four inches (4") in height; That the projecting blade signs shall be deleted; ambiance of an Irish pub. That's primarily where I started. Thank you. Mr. Shane: Two things. I don't want to split hairs. Is the south elevation 32 or 34? You said 32; he said 34. Mr. Miller: I measured 32. Mr. Shane: So the total is 119, not 121. The second thing is, I agree with Lee completely. I think those small four inch signs are really informational, assuming of course you can read Gaelic. It's just a small sign. You walk up there and I assume that they depict some kind of food. So it's informational, and I have no problem with those signs at all, nor do I have a problem with the rest of them. Ms. Smiley: Is there anything else you'd like to add? Mr. Wineman: No. Thank you very much for your consideration. Ms. Smiley: A resolution is in order. Mr. Morrow? Mr. Morrow: We have a couple adjustments, but we'll try to cover that when we gel to it. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, it was #09-123-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004 -08 -SN -06, submitted by Claddagh Irish Pub, requesting signage approval for the restaurant located at 17800 Haggerty Road in the Southwest % of Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Sign Package marked sheets 1 through 9, received by the Planning Commission on May 25, 2004, as revised, prepared by Integrated Sign Associates, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the following stipulations; That the Gaelic wording/lettering of the vinyl graphic panels shall not exceed four inches (4") in height; That the projecting blade signs shall be deleted; 21697 - That the wall sign shown on the south elevation, identified as sign F, shall not be allowed but shall be placed on the north elevation; 2. That these wall signs shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this business closes; 3. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site, including but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 4. That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval; 5. Thatthis approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess signage and any conditions related thereto; and, 6. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the sign permits are applied for. Ms. Smiley: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: I'd just like to say this was a lough case because of the number of signs these three restaurants have, but I think we got it down after cooperation from you and your clients. We welcome you to Livonia, and I hope you're very, very successful - all three of you. Ms. Smiley: Would the Secretary please call the roll? A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, LaPine, Shane, Pieroecchi, Smiley NAYES: None ABSTAIN: Walsh ABSENT: Alanskas Ms Smiley, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 21698 Y 1:4 1i FR).9 =k t It t[a]C WIDE IDEN]C IS6-=1 ZT.'Wi. Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004 -08 -SN -07, submitted by Bravo requesting signage approval for the restaurant located at 17700 Haggerty Road in the Southwest'''/ of Section 6. Mr. Miller: On June 2, 2004, Bravo Development, Inc. received waiver use approval to construct a full-service restaurant on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road. Bravo Cucina Italiana is one of three free-standing restaurants approved for College Park. College Park is a developing commercial and office complex. This development is to consist of three free-standing restaurants and a retail building all with frontage on Haggerty Road. In addition, a series of office buildings would be constructed east of the restaurants and extending to the 1-275/96 Expressway. As part of the conditions of approval it was specified: That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted, together with the site plans of the other two restaurants, for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Bravo Cucina Italiana is proposing a substantial number of signs for their restaurant. This request includes both wall and awning type signs. Signage is summarized as follows: They are permitted one wall sign not to exceed 84 square feet in sign area. They are proposing 16 wall signs totaling 150 square feel in sign area, which is an excess of 15 wall signs and 66 square feel in wall sign area. Because the proposed signage is in excess of what is allowed by the ordinance, a variance would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The proposed wall signs would be internally illuminated, but it is not specified iflhe awnings would be backlit. Backlighting of signs attached to a canopy or awning, which renders it translucent, is not permitted; however, the portion of the canopy or awning, which encompasses the sign area, may be illuminated to light only the sign area in a translucent manner. Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated September 24, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 2, 2004, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The sign package as proposed exceeds what the ordinance allows. This site would be allowed one wall sign on the west elevation of approximately 84 square feet (one square foot for each lineal foot of wall frontage). They could also have one 21699 identification sign on the front door of one square foot and up to 10 square feet of permanent window signage. Anything in excess of the above would require variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive number of signs, excessive square footage and location other than the frontage wall. (2) This proposal appears to call for two wall signs and 14 awning signs. One wall sign of 84 square feet would be allowed on the west elevation. It appears the proposal is for three wall signs at approximately 139 square feet, and the 14 awning signs appear to total approximately 17.58 square feet. This site would have excessive wall signs, excessive square footage and located on three elevations instead of just the west elevation. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the only item of correspondence. Ms. Smiley: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for the staff? Mr. Piercecchi: I have some comments in reference to size. In analyzing this, using the same logic that we did on the Irish pub, we have some different numbers. On the west elevation, the Cucina Bravo Italiana, at 72 goes to 39. On the west elevation also, Cucina Bravo Italiana at 42 goes to 29. On the north elevation, the Bravo at 20 slays at 20, for a total of 88 square feel, which basically is what they're entitled to if we waive all the lettering at four inches or less. Mr. Morrow: Are the signs for Bravo attached to the building or are they going to be on some sort of a panel that is going to be placed on the building? Mr. Taormina: I think this was a question mised at the study meeting. The plans reference plywood. I think that's a backing material that actually is used for support and is behind the wall. The actual letters will be on a channel that will not be as visible as the lettering itself, so it will appear as if only the lettering is projecting beyond the wall. Mr. Morrow: So it appears to attach to the building? Mr. Taormina: It will appear as if it's attached to the wall. I think there is probably a representative here from Bravo that can provide additional detail on that. But it's not intended to have any kind of a background that would be distinctive from the building. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thankyou. 21700 Mr. LaPine: Mark, now here again, with the awning signs, we're going to the four inch lettering. Is that correct? Mr. Taormina: Well, again, we discussed what size letter would meet the criteria. As Mr. Morrow pointed out earlier, one that would be primarily legible on the premises as opposed to off the premises from Haggerty Road, and we determined that four inch lettering would meet that criteria. When you gel up to around eight inch lettering, which is what these awning signs are showing, that would be clearly visible from the passerby traffic on Haggerty Road. So we fell that reducing that down to four inches would keep it only to what's really legible from on the premises or onsite. Mr. LaPine: The second question I have is, each one of these letters is individually affixed to the building. Are they internally illuminated? How are they lighted? Mr. Taormina: There is neon tubing within each of the letter boxes, and there's a translucent or plexiglass facing that disfuses the color across the entire face of the letter. Ms. Smiley: Is the petitioner here this evening? Randy Schmitt, Allied Sgns, Inc., 33650 Gittos Drive, Clinton Township. Michigan. Ronald Dee, Bravo Development, 18 North Main Street, Chagrin Falls, Ohio. Ms. Smiley: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation? Mr. Schmitt: Everything that we could understand is clear for our request. These are individual letters, just to clarify that so there's no misunderstanding here. There's no background. Each letter is an individual component to be attached directly to the wall. Mr. Dee: I'd just like to add, if you look at the site plan based on us being in the center location and located slightly further back than the two restaurants on either side of us, the sign on our north elevation is extremely important to us due to the nature of guests entering this property from either side of the restaurant. That north elevation sign is really important to the success of our business. 21701 Ms Smiley: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Morrow: Mr. Pieroecchi, that north sign and the new configurations, they would at least be within the parameters of the total square feel they're allowed. Is that correct? Mr. Pieroecchi: Yes. My calculations, Mr. Morrow, says that they are permitted 84 and the three signs that we just went through, a total of 88. How close can you be? Mr. Morrow: Yes. So in other words, they are staying within the square foot parameters. Mr. Pieroecchi: We're waiving all the four inch signs. Mr. Miller: Just to make this clear, Mr. Pieroecchi is laking the square footage of each individual component of a sign and then adding it together. The City's policy is to block in the sign in order to calculate a sign's area. This is done in order to keep the sign tight and combined and not allow it to be spread out and appear as two signs Mr. Morrow: Whatever we do is subject to the Zoning Board. Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Morrow: That's the way I view R. If they want to view it differently, that's fine. Mr. Shane: Scott, lake the wall sign, which is really 72 square feel in your notes, which reduces the 39. Is the Zoning Board going to look at it as 72? Mr. Miller: Yes. I'm pretty sure they are. Mr. Shane: And the other one at 42? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: When you box in that frsl sign that's got the Bravo, you're using a three fool box. If that sign was two feet high, now you'd have a two fool box. So it only seems quite logical that you would not box that in because every inch has a tremendous effect on the overall square footage of that sign. 21702 Mr. Shane: Dan, I don't have a problem with the logic, but if the Building Department and the Zoning Board of Appeals calculate it as Scott says, I don't know how we can do anything different. We can maybe say to them, we think it ought to be this, but if that's the way they calculate t, I think we ought to go with the 72 and the 42, and lel it go to the ZBA and go from there. You know what I'm saying? We're not the one that figures out the calculations. Mr. Piercecchi: I'm not saying anything. I just went through the math Mr. Shane: Yeah,lknow. Mr. Piercecchi: And I said if we use the logic as we did on Claddagh, those are the numbers that we would have. If that's the case, then Claddagh may be in a different ball game, loo, when it gets to the Zoning Board. Mr. Shane: I had the same thought then. I just didn t say it. I think we have to go with whatever the City offices interpret as signage. Mr. Piercecchi: This is what our people calculate. Mr. Morrow: I just want to say that we're certainly not here to try and tell the Zoning Board how to calculate signs. They will calculate the way they want. We are doing ourjob trying to look at it as far as how the general public will look it. Certainly, again, we go back to the fact that we look at the other free-standing buildings in the area, and they've got three signs. These are considerable investments, and anything we say here today is subject to their approval. We're just saying that I'm in favor of how I presented it. Mr. Shane: I agree with that, and whether we calculate it our way or their way, it's the same sign. I don't have any problem with it. Mr. Taormina: Madam Chair, if I may, we're really adopting an elevation plan or a set of plans that represent an extension of the site plan and not necessarily prescribing areas to these signs, but instead, approving the plan in its entirety as it relates to signage. I agree that we can separate those issues, and the Zoning Board of Appeals will decide in the end what extent of variances are required for this sign package. But if we approve the plans as submitted or with whatever modifications we suggest this evening, then that's what will be forwarded on to them for a final determination. 21703 Mr. Morrow: Exactly. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Miller, over the years I've been around here, that's usually the way you calculate the size of the sign. When they are like this, you square them up and you take the longest and you come up with the square footage. Mr. Miller: Right. We did that. Mr. LaPine: I think that's the way it's been done all these years and I think that's the way they're going to calculate it. Therefore, that's what I think we should go for. Just one other question for the petitioner: Is this sign similar in size to the one you have in Rochester Hills? Mr. Dee: Yes, it is. Mr. LaPine: I've been out to the one in Rochester Hills, Mr. Morrow and I. 1 didn't any problem whatsoever with that sign personally. I just have one question. I noticed your sign here is fabricated down in Daytona Beach. Is the sign still around or did the storms gel it? Mr. Dee: The company that manufacturers our sign, Federal Heath Sign Co., is based in Daytona Beach, Florida. That's just their administrative offices. They actually have several manufacturing facilities around the country. Mr. LaPine: Okay. I was just worried. They want to get this restaurant opened right away. You may have to wail a while. Mr. Dee: They actually did lose their phones for about a month during the first hurricane, so its been hard to gel a hold of them. Mr. Piercecchi: What numbers are submitted in the resolution? That's fine with me. The important thing is that we treat this particular facility the same as we just treated the Irish pub, and Champps and Bahama Breeze and Alexander's. Give them the same type of signage that they got. That was my concern. I gave those numbers just as reference. That's all. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing none, are there any final comments from the petitioner? 21704 Mr. Dee: We're all set. Thankyou. Ms. Smiley: Okay. A motion is in order. On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Shane, and adopted, it was #09-124-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004 -08 -SN -07, submitted by Bravo Italian Restaurant requesting signage approval for the restaurant located at 17700 Haggerty Road in the Southwest I/ of Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Sign Package marked sheets 1 through 12, all dated April 14, 2004 prepared by Federal Heath Sign Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that the lettering of the awnings shall not exceed four inches (4") in height; 2. That these wall signs shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this business closes; 3. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site, including but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 4. That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval; 5. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess signage and any conditions related thereto; and 6. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the sign permits are applied for. Ms. Smiley: Is there support? Mr. Shane: I will support it with the following question. Shouldn't the 64 square feel be 114? Mr. Taormina: This would be my suggestion, Madam Chair, if I may. First of all, on thatfirst condition, we were offering two alternatives. 21706 Mr. LaPine: I understand that. Mr. Taormina: My suggestion would be to eliminate the bottom part altogether and that we just read the top portion of condition one, along with either one or two of the bottom bullet points. I think there is consensus on the fad that the lettering on the awning signs shall not exceed four inches in height. I didn't know if it was resolved whether or not there would be a sign on the north elevation. But the way the resolution was read, it eliminates that sign on the north elevation, and I'm wondering if that was the intent. Mr. LaPine: Thal was my intent. We will let them keep the one on the north elevation. Mr. Taormina: So we would strike that from the resolution as read this evening. Mr. LaPine: Right. Mr. Shane: Keep the sign and then it's 134. Mr. LaPine: That's right. Ms. Smiley: So we want the top one and not the bottom one? Mr. Taormina: Yes, the top one with the second bullet point. That's correct. Ms. Smiley: Okay. So is that all right with Mr. LaPine and Mr. Shane? Mr. LaPine: Yes. When do you think you might be open? Mr. Dee: Our intended turnover of the building is October 30 and opening November 16. Ms. Smiley: Would the Secretary please call the roll? A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Shane, Piercecchi, Morrow, Smiley NAYES: None ABSTAIN: Walsh ABSENT: Alanskas Ms. Smiley, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 21706 Y 1:41i FIE =9 =k I I I[a]C WIDE EIDEN] C 1!11-0� kyj l Y[al iI=14W Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004 -08 -SN -08. submitted by Mitchell's Fish Markel requesting signage approval for the restaurant located at 17600 Haggerty Road in the Southwest''/. of Section 6. Mr. Miller: On June 2, 2004, Cameron Mitchell Restaurants, Inc. received waiver use approval to construct a full-service restaurant on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road. Mitchell's Fish Markel is one of three free-standing restaurants approved for College Park. College Park is a developing commercial and office complex. This development is to consist of three free-standing restaurants and a retail building all with frontage on Haggerty Road. In addition, a series of office buildings would be constructed east of the restaurants and extending to the 1-275/96 Expressway. As part of the conditions of approval it was specified: That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted, together with the site plans of the other two restaurants, for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mitchell's Fish Markel is proposing a substantial number of signs for their restaurant. This request includes wall, modesty panels and awning type signs. Also proposed are two large wall graphics painted directly on two of the exterior walls of the restaurant. Permitted signage is one wall sign not to exceed 86 square feet in sign area placed on the front (west) side of the building. They are proposing 59 wall signs totaling 619 square feet in sign area, so they have excess signage at 58 wall signs and 533 square feet in wall sign area. Because the proposed signage is in excess of what is allowed by the ordinance, a variance would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The two large "Mitchell's Fish Markel" signs on the south and west elevation and the menu boards next to the entrance would be internally illuminated. It is not specified if the awnings would be backlit. Backlighting of signs attached to a canopy or awning, which renders it translucent, is not permitted; however, the portion of the canopy or awning which encompasses the sign area may be illuminated to light only the sign area in a translucent manner. Ms. Smiley: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated September 24, 2004, which reads as follows: 21707 "Pursuant to your request of September Z 2004, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The sign package as proposed exceeds what the ordinance allows. This site would be allowed one wall sign on the west elevation of approximately 100 square feet (one square foot for each lineal foot of wall frontage). They could also have one identification sign on the front door of one square foot and up to 10 square feet at permanent window signage. Anything in excess of the above would require variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive number of signs, excessive square footage and location other than the frontage wall. (2) The proposal appears to call for two wall signs, 20 modesty panel wall signs, eight awning wall signs, two ID signs on the doors and two illuminated menu boards for a total of 32 signs where two would be allowed (one wall and one door sign). Any square footage in excess of 101 square feet +/- is considered excessive (100 square feet for a wall sign and one square foot for the door.) This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence related to this item. Ms. Smiley: Are there any quesfions from the Commissioners for the staff? I have a question. If they have the menu outside and it's lit up, is that considered a sign? Mr. Miller: Yes, if it has their logo on it. This has their logo on it, and it's lit up. So we do count that as a sign. Ms. Smiley: You wouldn't be able to read that, would you, unless you're right there? Mr. Miller: No, but technically as long as it has their logo on it, we count it as a sign. Ms. Smiley: Is the pefifioner here this evening? Mark Knauer, President of Knauer, Inc., 720 North Waukegan Road, Suite 200, Deerfield, Illinois 60015. Wow. Sounds like we have a lot of signage. Ms. Smiley: You do. Mr. Knauer: The facts are that we are really looking for two wall signs of 70 square feet each, one on the west elevation and one on the south elevation: the west elevation facing Haggerty Road and 21708 south elevation facing the driveway and the entrance road into and around the parking lot. We agreed, based on the previous meetings and work sessions, to keep all of the awning signage and the modesty panel signage to the four inch height that we all talked about. The menu boards we consider to be sort of a public service to let people know what we're serving as well as pricing. It does have our logo on it so you can identify it, but its all about that big, even though the menu board is larger because the menu's larger. Lastly, unlike an Italian restaurant that has Italian architecture as a design and lets people know what kind of restaurant it is, or an Irish pub that has Irish architecture and has Gaelic letters on it that lets people know its an Insh pub, we're a fish market. We don't have a specific architectural vernacular to lel people know that we're a fish house or a fish market. So we've chosen over the years to use fish and lobster and lightly paint them on the building. You can see here. This is the prototype that's in Cincinnati. I understand some of the people went down to Lansing and saw them painted on the building there. That is not what we would like. We're gelling better at this. The more we do, the better we gel. We're good at serving great fresh fish. We're working on the lobster and fish on the building, but you can see what it looks like there in Cincinnati. We're proposing not a lobster that's standing on its tail, but one that looks like it's crawling along that you can see in the package that was given you. Thank you Ms. Smiley: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Shane: Will the lobster that's crawling along have the same color paint? Mr. Knauer: The idea is that its to look like it was painted on the building like you would find in an old fish market in an urban area and that R's weathered off. This over time weathers off more and more and more. So that's the look. Mr. Shane: Al that particular time there, it was new. Is that correct'? Is this a picture of when it was new? Mr. Knauer: Correct. Mr. Shane: Okay. So after a while it will be subdued. Mr. Knauer: Even more than this, yes. 21709 Mr. LaPine: On the north elevation, you have a fish graphic on the building. I can understand that because that building is all solid brick there, plus you're going to have a sign on the north side. That breaks up the monotony of all the brick. But the lobster on the west side, because you have windows there, is that something you really need or can that be eliminated? Mr. Knauer: I guess you could make an argument either way, but again, on the west elevation, we have a blank wall space there. We have all the outdoor dining in front of it. We would like to keep it, yes. Mr. LaPine: The only difference is, on the north wall its solid. It's a solid brick wall if this drawing is correct. Mr. Knauer. It is correct. Mr. LaPine: I personally don't have an objection to it, it's just that I know you're not going to get all the signage you want. I'm trying to figure out what might be the best for you, if that could be eliminated. That's all I have, Madam Chairman. Mr. Morrow: My major concerns are with the fish and the lobster because that is going to be construed as a sign. So how do we go from a sign to something that is aesthetically enhancing to the ambiance for the motif of the building? I guess while doesn't strike me. I haven't seen many albino lobsters or albino fish. If we could come up with something that is a little more ... and I don't know what an old time fish market would look like. I may be old but I'm not that old. If it was more in keeping with what a lobster actually looks like, perhaps I could go along with it, but something that size is a sign regardless of where you are. That's my view. Mr. Piercecchi: I've given some thought, as everybody has done, on the two objects, those graphics being painted. I think that's a little bit downgrading for that restaurant. I think if it was sculpted, something of a work of art or something that you could chisel out, something of that nature, to give it a little bit of class, I think it would be more acceptable to me, but just painted. The paint is going to come off. It's going to be a mess. It's not going to be something permanent. Can you come back with some other ways of doing this? There's no panic on you guys because you haven't even started to dig a hole yet, right? Mr. Knauer: That's right zmo Mr. Piercecchi: Maybe you can go back to the ranch, and say "let's make this an artistic piece' instead of just some painting on a wall. Mr. Shane: To go along with what Mr. Piercecchi and Mr. Morrow has said, if the background was a lighter color, maybe you could make the lobster a lobster color. Mr.Knauer: Pardon? I'm sorry? Mr. Shane: If you had a light background of some sort, then you might be able to make that lobster a more realistic color. Do you know what I'm saying? Mr. Knauer: Seeing that the lobster is red, as you suggested, and not albino, what if we moved the fish around to the front and eliminated the north wall? I know, Mr. LaPine, you were suggesting that we keep them on the north wall, but if you look at the site plan, our building is adjacent to and the majority of the building is overlapped by Bravo. There's very little of the north elevation that's seen. Ifs important to us that people identify this as a fish market from the street. The thing we would consider giving up here is the lobster. Here's the site plan. You can see how the outdoor patio and Bravo's building to the north covers up much of our north elevation. But if we moved the fish around from the north elevation to the west elevation, and then eliminated the lobster, we've all seen while fish, right? We may even serve it. Mr. Piercecchi: The theme goes along with the fish, loo. If you could build some kind of ... what do they call that, an alcove or something when they go in and highlight it, but make it a work of art, not just something that's painted. Mr.Knauer: Asculpture. Mr. Piercecchi: I mean, do you talk to part of your team there? They don't want to think about it to come up with different ways of doing this thing? Is that correct? I mean, what's it going to hurt if we table this thing, for instance, and you gentlemen come back? Mr. Knauer: What we would like to do is proceed, at least with the signage, the awnings, the modesty panels and get that going. Mr. Piercecchi: There's no hurry for you. Mr. Knauer: Pardon? zmt Mr. Piercecchi: You haven't even started that building. Mr. Knauer: Oh, we have. We're digging the ground. The building turnover will be in December and probably certainly open by the end of the year. There is a hurry. Mr. LaPine: If you go with the fish, what color will the fish be? Mc Knauer: White. Mr. LaPine: Its going to be a while fish or a red snapper? Ms. Smiley: Michigan while fish. Mr. LaPine: What color is ilgoing to be? While? Mr. Knauer: While. Yes. Ms. Smiley: Mark, can you table that part of it and proceed? Mr. Taormina: If you want to proceed and approve the sign package without the painted graphics on the building, that's entirely possible and then you could revisit the addifional signage or changes to the elevation plan at a later date. I don't see a problem with that at all. Mr. LaPine: Madam Chairman to Mark, didn't we gel an indication at our study session that the petitioner was going to bring in some photographs? Mr. Taormina: The photographs that Scott is showing right now, those are from Mr. Piercecchi: From Cincinnati. Mr. LaPine: That's the same thing they showed us months ago. Mr. Taormina: Apparently, it's a little different now. The petitioner described the difference. Apparently, this is a toned -down version of the lobster as compared to something that you saw earlier. I can't recall what that was or maybe what was in Lansing. Mr. Knauer: Lansing is a lot bolder than this. It looks like just white paint on a wall. zmz Mr. LaPine: I know what you're talking about because I saw something similar to this, and I used to work downtown for many, many years. I used to go to the Eastern Market a lot for lunch over there, and I remember seeing something like that on one of the buildings, and it is kind of unique. The older it got, the painljusl wore off. I dont think they ever went back and repainted it. But it was kind of neat. I've got to admit it was kind of neat. Ms. Smiley: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, do we have a final word from the petitioner? Mr. Knauer: Singularly, the most important thing to us this evening is to gel going with the signage. Whether this wall graphic is part of that or not, we could move off of that. But the signage needs to get ordered; the awnings need to get ordered; the sign panels or the modesty panels need to gel ordered. Ms. Smiley: You need to proceed. Mr. LaPine: If I may, Madam Chair, what is the awning going to be. Are they black? Mc Knauer: Right. Mr. LaPine: Are they illuminated from the inside or anything? Mr. Knauer: No. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Mr. Knauer: The awnings are black. What if we did a sample prior to finishing it for someone to review? Would that work? Because our goal is to make it look even better than what it is here. We have yet to be satisfied with the artists who have done this work, and we think we have a better process now and a better look. Is there a process that the City can ... I hate to gel you out of the office and drag you out there again. I know you've looked at all the lettering and everything else, Mark. Mr. Taormina: Again, we can approve this in part and then revisit the issue of the graphics. Mr. LaPine: Are we talking here now, because you made a statement a few minutes ago, that you would eliminate the lobster? Are we still talking about the lobster and the fish, and you're going to show 21713 us something with both of them or just the one? I have no objection, personally, as one member. Mr. Knauer: We would prefer to do both, obviously. If we could look at that at some time, look at a sample so everyone would be satisfied with it. Mr. Piercecchi: How about if we approve the 72 on the south, the 72 on the west? We're waiving everything four inches and smaller. That's 239 and 144. We're going to table the 236, which is the painted graphics. What's the problem with that? And you come back, and I think everybody should be satisfied here, right? Mr. Knauer: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: There's no panic on gelling that done. Right? Mr. Knauer: That's absolutely right. No panic on that. Mr. LaPine: I thought you wanted a sign on the north. Is that right? Mr. Knauer: No, sir. Mr. LaPine: You don't want anything on the north? Mr. Knauer: Correct. Mr. LaPine: Okay. I misunderstood you. Ms. Smiley: A mo0on would be order. On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, it was #09-125-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Peti0on 2004 -08 -SN -08, submitted by Mitchell's Fish Markel, reques0ng signage approval for the restaurant located at 17600 Haggerty Road in the Southwest I/ of Section 6, be approved subject to the following condi0ons: 1. That the Sign Package marked pages 1 through 10 prepared by Columbus Sign Company, as received by the Planning Commission on August 24, 2004, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, provided that the total area of the identification signs shall not exceed 144 square feet and excluding the lettering on the awnings and 21714 modesty panels, which shall not exceed four (4) inches in height; and that the two painted graphics, totaling 236 square feet, divided equally between the lobster and the fish, shall be tabled to a future dale for more information; 2. That these wall signs shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this business closes; 3. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 4. That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval; 5. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess signage and any conditions related thereto; and, 6. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the sign permits are applied for. Ms. Smiley: Is there any discussion? Mr. Morrow: The only thing I would say is I appreciate the fact that the petitioner is willing to work with us in regards to the two wall signs that he's looking for as it relates to the lobster and fish. Hopefully, that can be resolved to your satisfaction because we certainly welcome you into Livonia. You're making a significant investment plus being a benefit to the dining people in the general area. Thank you. Mr.Knauer: Thank you. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Piercecchi, LaPine, Shane, Morrow, Smiley NAYES: None ABSTAIN: Walsh ABSENT: Alanskas Ms. Smiley, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, returned to the podium at 8:56 p.m. 21715 Y 1:4 1i F&�9:k 111[a]C FIQrL1SIPIk-1 [a]=1C I I:4 W.-I�U7I]A7 Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 09 -SN -09, submitted by Phoenix Land Development requesting approval for signage for the residential development located on the east side of Farmington between Plymouth Road and Capitol Avenue in the Southwest''/. of Section 27. Mr. Miller: On November 20, 2004, waiver use approval was granted allowing the development of the residential portion of Fountain Park. Fountain Park is a pedestrian friendly development blending commercial businesses along Plymouth Road with residential condominiums fronting on Farmington Road. As part of the approval it was conditioned: That any identification signage for the residential portion of the development shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval. The petitioner is requesting approval for a conforming entrance marker for the condominium portion of Fountain Park. This sign would be located within the boulevard entrance island off Farmington Road. Signage permitted for this site under Section 18.50E is one entranceway sign not to exceed 20 square feel in sign area. The petitioner is proposing one entrance marker at 10 square feet in sign area, and four feet in height. The setback would be 10 feet from any right-of-- way line and constructed out of natural materials. It is a conforming entrance marker. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated September 14, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 8, 2004, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The proposed ground sign upon this multi -family residential development is covered under Ordinance 543, Section 18.50E(L), which allows a ground sign to be 20 square feet in area, a maximum height of 5 feet and a setback of 10 feet from all property lines. (2) The Petitioner proposes one ground sign, which is 10 square feet in area and 3.75 feet in height. Although no setback was denoted on the site plan you provided, it is assumed that the required setback of 10 feet can be provided. If not, a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required." The Iefler is signed by Randy Abrahamson, Plan Examiner, Inspection Department. That is the extent of the correspondence. 21716 Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff? Seeing none, if the petitioner would please step forward. Bruce Michael, Phoenix Land Development, 32000 Northwestern Highway, Suite 220, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the description thus far? Mr. Michael: No, other than we can place the sign 10 feel behind the right-of- way line from Farmington Road. Mr. Walsh: All right. Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners for the petitioner? Mr. Shane: The thought occurred to me that when this proposal was first brought before the City, there was an idea that a master sign plan would be submitted for the whole development. Are you aware of that? Mr. Michael: Yes Mr. Shane: We just want to make sure that you haven't forgotten that item. This is sort of separated from the commercial, I would think, but as long as they're all compatible ... Mr. Michael: If we go back to the site plan on the overhead, please ... there is the center drive that goes down to Plymouth Road. Just to the east of that drive is where we had proposed the other site plan. That is where we proposed the other sign that would be part of this project. There have been no other signs built other than the wall signs that were allowed on Walgreens and whatever was approved for the TCF bank that's on the southeast comer of the properly. The sign that would be located there, just east of that entry drive onto Plymouth Road, would be virtually identical to this one except that it would not have "Fountain Park Condominiums" It would have something like Fountain Park commercial or Fountain Park something or other, but it would be very similar. I just mel with Jonna who is going to purchase the two vacant commercial parcels that are along Plymouth Road. I asked him whether or not he had any concerns about signage or that sort of thing. It was my understanding that tenants' logos or sign rights would not be allowed on this particular sign that would go along the road. He had no problems with that at all. He just said we're going to be pulling signage on the building like we normally would. So the other sign that we could come in with ultimately for that 21717 commercial frontage would be the same exact brick base with a Idfie bit different logo on the face of it to differentiate the commercial from the residential entity. Mr. Shane: Good. That makes me feel a little better. We can forget that whole thing. Okay. Mr. Taormina: I have a question for the petitioner. What kind of material is the cap? Is that a precast concrete? Mr. Michael: The cap? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Mr. Michael: Yes. I believe it's going to be a precast concrete cover to look like limestone. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Shane, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-126-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004 -09 -SN -09, submitted by Phoenix Land Development, requesting approval for signage (Fountain Park Condominiums) for the residential development located on the east side of Farmington between Plymouth Road and Capitol Avenue in the Southwest I/ of Section 27, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Sign Package submitted by Phoenix Land Development, as received by the Planning Commission on September 7, 2004, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the setback of this sign shall not be less then len feel (10') from the Farmington Road right-of-way line; and 3. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the sign permits are applied for. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 21718 Y 1:41i Fd-�9=k111I[a]i! WIDE ffrkIS9C K11� I i! Iy I. Ix07i! Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 09 -SN -10 submitted by J.L. Geisler, on behalf of Infineon Technologies, requesting signage approval for the office building located at 19111 Vidor Parkway in the Southeast''/. of Section 6. Mr. Miller: On March 13, 2002, N & J Development received site plan approval to construct an office building on the northwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Victor Parkway. This property is located at the southern most boundary of the Victor Corporate Park development. This office building is two -stories in height and 20,000 square feet in total area. As part of the conditions of approval it was specified: That the Sign Package submitted by Biddison Architecture & Design, as received by the Planning Commission on January 30 2002, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval to the Planning Commission and City Council. The approved Sign Package consisted of a conforming ground sign. The sign was to be located on the south side of the site's drive off Victor Parkway. The petitioner is now not only proposing a slightly different looking ground sign but is also proposing a wall sign for the building. An office building in an OS district is permitted only one type of identification sign, either in the form of a wall sign or a ground sign, not both. Signage permitted for this site under Section 18.50F is one identification sign not to exceed 16 square feet in sign area. One ground sign at 10 square feet in sign area was previously approved. The proposed signage is one wall sign at 46 square feet in sign area and one ground sign at 24 square feet in sign area. If installed as a wall sign, there is 30 square feet of excess signage. If installed as a ground sign, there is eight square feet of excess signage and it would have deficient setback. Because the proposed signage is in excess of what is allowed by the ordinance, a variance would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals. It should be pointed out that the main sign panel of the of the ground sign with the graphics "Infineon Technologies' is only 12 square feet in area. It is the additional identification lettering "Infineon Office Plaza" along the top edge that causes the sign to be over in area. If this lettering were removed, the ground sign would become conforming. The petitioner would still have to be granted a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals, but it would only be for the wall sign, which based on the endorsement of the ground sign, would not allowed. On September 16, 2004, the petitioner informed staff that in order to make the ground sign conforming in sign area, 21719 Mr. LaPine: So the Inspection Department should have caught it and told them that they weren't back far enough. There isn't really a lot you can do here. The base is there. All they're doing is pulling the signage on the base. I don't see a real problem. I think the Inspection Department made a mistake when they gave them a permit to go ahead and put the footings in. They weren't 10 feel from the property line. They should have stopped the guy from putting them in. Mr. Taormina: I don't know the circumstances involving the installation of that fooling or base al this point. they would have no problems removing the redundant wording "Infineon Office Plaza" from the sign. The setback of the sign would still be deficient. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated September 13, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 8, 2004, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The proposed ground sign is located upon property zoned for "Office Services" and Ordinance 543, Section 15.80F(a) allows a ground sign to be six foot tall, 16 square feet in area and have a set back of ten feet from all property lines. No wall signs would be allowed. (2) The ground sign desired by the petitioner is approximately 5.5 feet tall, 24 square feet in area and has a set back of 6.5 feet from the east property line. (3) The proposed sign is nonconforming and as such, would require application be made to the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess sign area and deficient set back from the property line. Your letter references a different address (19111 Victor Parkway) than City Council Resolution 148-02 (19250 Victor Parkway). You may wish to verify the comect address to avoid any confusion with future correspondence." The letter is signed by Randy Abrahamson, Plan Examiner, Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff? Mr. LaPine: Mark, the base is out there. The sign is already there. I would assume they had to gel approval to put up that sign. Did they not? Mr. Taormina: There should have been a permit for the base. That is correct. Mr. LaPine: So the Inspection Department should have caught it and told them that they weren't back far enough. There isn't really a lot you can do here. The base is there. All they're doing is pulling the signage on the base. I don't see a real problem. I think the Inspection Department made a mistake when they gave them a permit to go ahead and put the footings in. They weren't 10 feel from the property line. They should have stopped the guy from putting them in. Mr. Taormina: I don't know the circumstances involving the installation of that fooling or base al this point. 21720 Mr. LaPine: I wouldn't want to tear it down it now. It wouldn't make any sense. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Gary Geisler, J.L. Geisler Corp., 28750 Lorna Avenue, Warren, Michigan 48092. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation? Sam Shamie, N & J Development Co., LLC, 26111 W. 14 Mile Road, Suite LL -4, Franklin, Michigan 48025. I'm the owner, developer and landlord of the building. This building was built as a speculative office building. Al the time, the monument was approved with the site plan. Evidently, there was a 4.5 fool discrepancy in the location. We just missed it, and the City missed it, but at the time we had no tenant involved. We didn't know who the tenant was going to be. Al the beginning of this year, Infineon came along and liked the building, and we worked out the arrangements for them to lake the whole building. Also, I just want to menton to this Board, there are other buildings along this park that have both monument and building signage, both sides. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-127-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004 -09 -SN -10 submitted by J.L. Geisler, on behalf of Infneon Technologies, requesting signage approval for the office building located at 19111 Vidor Parkway in the Southeast I/ of Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Sign Package submitted by J.L. Geisler Corporation, as received by the Planning Commission on September 7, 2004, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That these signs shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this business closes; 21721 3. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 4. That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval; 5. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess signage and deficient setback and any conditions related thereto; and, 6. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the sign permits are applied for. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Before we vote, I'd just like to say congratulations. I'm glad you found a tenant. It's a beautiful building, and we look forward to having it occupied. We wish you good luck on that. Gary Geisler. Before this is resolved, I was involved directly, of course, with the ground monument sign, but I'm not clear that the wall sign is being directed into this motion. Mr. Walsh: Yes, it is part of this motion. Mr. Shamie: One wall sign and one monument sign. Mr. Walsh: Correct. Mr. Shamie; And the monument, you can have it on both sides. Mr. Walsh: That's correct. Mr. Shamie: We'd like to thank the City from the very beginning. This company is now located in Northville. They went to Farmington; they went to Novi. They eventually ended up in Livonia because Livonia was very pro business, pro company relating to taxes, and the economic development corporations of the stale. Where the other two communities were not very cooperative, they ended up losing and Livonia gained. There's going to be quite a number of jobs created by this new facility. So we want to thank the City. Hopefully, you'll like what we did. 21722 Mr. Walsh: Yes. We're glad to work with you. Mr. La Pine: We approved your property on the other side. Now, that you have this one leased out, are you going to start building another one? Brace Welch, Infineon Technologies, 1730 N. First Street, San Jose, California 95112, Sam has been talking to us for about three months about grabbing more of this space. So we're hoping that our company grows to that point. Mr. LaPine: We will do anything we can to help you. Mr. Shamie: Believe me, he has all the plans. Hopefully, in the years to come, he will expand. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #7 PETITION 2004 -08 -GB -04 RON RISSMAN Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 08 -GB -04, submitted by Ron Rissman requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the prolective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 38047 Ann Arbor Road in the Northeast % of Section 31. Mr. Miller: The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the prolective wall that is required between commercial zoned properly and land zoned residential. This site is located on the east side of Ann Arbor Road between Ann Arbor Trail and West Chicago Boulevard and is known as the Sunny Village Shopping Center. The subject properly is somewhat T" shaped and has two separate multi -tenant commercial buildings located on it. One building faces northeast and the other faces west or towards Ann Arbor Road. Abutting the shopping centers entire east property line is the Arbor Woods Apartments. It is along this east property line that a protective wall is required in order to screen the shopping center from the residential apartments. There is an existing wall along part of the property line. Starting at the southeast corner of the site and extending in a northeastern direction for approximately 280 feet is an existing wall. This wall also continues in an easterly direction at the elbow of the "L" for another 80 feel. It is from that point on 21723 where the wall stops that the petitioner is proposing a greenbelt. The proposed greenbelt would be approximately 270 feet deep by 160 feet wide. The submitted plan identifies the area as the shopping centers retention basin. This large basin is located behind the retail building facing Ann Arbor Road. According to a letter attached to the application, the petitioner stales that "the area in question was originally designed as a retention basin. However, in the twenty years that he has owned the center, he has never witnessed any water in the basin." Right now the basin area is a natural wooded area, and the petitioner plans on leaving it that way. There is an existing 6 -fool high chain link fence around the entire retention area. The attached letter goes on to explain that that by leaving the greenbelt in its natural stale, the abutting apartment complex is provided a more appealing view of trees rather then a vast expansion of a cement wall. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated September 23, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 2, 2004, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The parking lot needs repair, resealing and double striping. (2) There are two parking bumpers missing at the sidewalk. (3) Then= is a sinkhole by the drain in the rear lot, east end. (4) Then= is a hole in the fence around the basin in the west side, about center. (5) The brush is overgrown and is encroaching the rear parking lot and other areas. This should be cut back. (6) There were three unenclosed dumpsters in the rear lot (7) The landscaping needs care at the west side, north of the emergency gates. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Ron Rissman, Rissman Investment Co., LLC, 21411 Civic Center Drive, Suite 360, Southfield, Michigan 48076. 1 represent Rissman Investment Company, which is the owner of the shopping center. Interestingly, the shopping center was built in two phases. The first phase was the two buildings farthest away from the retention basin, and that is the legal entity called Ann Arbor Road Shopping Center, LLC. The parcel in question was the last building built, and it was built specifically for Manufacturers Bank, which I was very sorry to lose. That 21724 property, the legal entity, is called Rissman Investment Company HB Corpman Joint Venture LLC. If I could comment on the report that was drawn up, all of those items are being addressed. We are getting bids on repaving the shopping center and the hole has been fixed. All of those items are in different processes of being fixed. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Seeing none, I know there's nobody in the audience, so we can proceed directly to a motion. Mr. Rissman: Could I add one thing to this? Mr. Walsh: Sure. Mr. Rissman: Since there's no opposition, I'll act as the opposition for a second, and there's a reason for this. Originally, as it was shown, the first phase, which is the two buildings, as was indicated in the purple, that was built to the current code at that time, which was a six fool high block wall. Why the detention basin was only required to have a fence, I can't answer that question. Apparently, no one else can either. There's no minutes or reference to that. However, if I lived in the apartment complex, I would certainly want to look out my window and see a bunch of greenery with the fence as opposed to a block wall. That's my comment. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-128-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-08-315-04, submitted by Ron Rissman, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the prolective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for properly located at 38047 Ann Arbor Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 31, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the natural landscaped greenbelt along part of the east property line, as shown on the plan received by the Planning Commission on August 26, 2004, is hereby accepted and shall be substituted for the prolective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That using a combination of tree species, along with other landscape materials, not only provides a superior buffer but 21725 also contributes to the site's aesthetic attractiveness, helps reduce visual monotony, and offers year-round appeal; 3. That any change of circumstances in the area containing the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's effectiveness as a prolective barrier, the owner of the properly shall be required to submit such changes to the Planning Commission for their review and approval or immediately construct the prolective wall pursuant to Section 18.45; and, 4. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated June 21, 2004: That the entire parking lolshall be cleaned up, repaired, resealed and doubled striped; That the parking bumpers missing at the sidewalk shall be replaced; That the sinkhole by the drain in the rear lot, east end, shall be repaired; That the hole in the fence around the basin, west side, shall be repaired; That the landscape area at the west side, north of the emergency gates, shall be revamped and reestablished. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. Rissman: I just wanted to say real quick, that the Planning Department, the personnel, was outstanding. Mr. Walsh: Thank you for saying that. Ms. Smiley: We agree. Mr. Rissman: This is kind of an unusual situation, and they were outstanding. They helped me and they were a real asset. Mr. Walsh: Well done, to both of you. 21726 YID 1i Fi£M Nall 0[a]C a Cal: [alp B1e\111-14[am:I =FA : I11[ y=1 �[a]Ste: Mr. Walsh, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, a motion to hold a public hearing pursuant to Council Resolulion #379-04, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 18.29 and 18.49 of Article XVIII of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to amend certain regulations pertaining to fences. (Petition 2004-09-06-04) On a motion by Morrow, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-129-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #379-04, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Sections 18.29 and 18.49 of Article XVIII of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to amend certain regulations pertaining to fences. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #9 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 890T"Regular Meeting Mr. Walsh, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 890' Regular Meeting held on August 10, 2004. On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, it was #09-130-2004 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 890' Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on August 10, 2004, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 21727 AYES: LaPine, Smiley, Piercecchi, Morrow, NAYS: None ABSENT: Alanskas ABSTAIN: Shane, Walsh Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a mofion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 892otl Regular Meeting held on September 28, 2004, was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: John Walsh. Chairman