Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1995-10-10 14427 MINUTES OF THE 712th REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF j LIVONIA On Tuesday, October 10, 1995, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 712th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Jack Engebretson William LaPine Robert Alanskas James C. McCann R. Lee Morrow Patricia Blomberg Daniel Piercecchi Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director; and Scott Miller, Planner I, were also present. Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating 'Nowpetition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the question of whether or not to amend Section 2.06(6) of the Zoning Ordinance, which would change the definition of a front lot line as it regards corner lots. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, any comments on this proposal? Mr. Nagy: What we have attempted to do here is initiate a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, with your approval, to attempt to clarify this specific section of the Zoning Ordinance so as to clarify this section with respect to the interpretation of just what constitutes a front yard. Mr. Engebretson: This is on our agenda tonight for the purpose of setting a public hearing, right? Mr. Nagy: That is correct. 14428 On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was ti.. #10-197-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) 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 Section 2.06(6) of the Zoning Ordinance so as to change the definition of a front line as it regards corner lots. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 711th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on September 26, 1995. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was 'taw #10-198-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 711th Regular Meeting& Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on September 26, 1995 are hereby approved. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Landscape Plan in connection with Petition 95-3-2-13, which received Planning Commission and City Council approval to construct an Incredible Universe store on property located at 19301 Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Miller: As a condition of waiver use approval for the site plan of the Incredible Universe, it was stated that a landscape plan come back before the Planning Commission for review and approval. That is what is before you tonight. The plan shows that there will be a 30 foot wide greenbelt along the east, south, and west property lines. There also will be landscaping islands at the end of each parking aisle. Also, the Lone Star Restaurant, they have already had approval for landscaping but because of this site it changed the site of the Lone 14429 Star Restaurant, so they have to come back with a revised landscape plan, and it is incorporated in the entire landscaping for this site. �... Also, this site is lower in grade than the surrounding area so there are retaining walls throughout the outside edge of the site, and that is incorporated in the landscaping. Total landscaping for the site is 20%. They are required to have 15%, so they meet the requirement. Also, at the study meeting it was suggested by the Planning Commission that a row of trees be planted in this area. (He pointed this out on the plan) The petitioner has done that by adding 16 Spruce pine trees along this area to help buffer the building from the expressway. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and add whatever comments you would like to add to that. Ozell Gothard: I am a designer with Professional Engineering in Troy, Michigan. As stated , the landscape plan covers approximately 20% of this site. The site consists of 100 deciduous trees, 38 evergreens and 60 shrubs. Also, one of the things that I tried to emphasize in the landscape plan was the buffer or screen. That is a very important issue. Mr. Engebretson: So coming down the freeway the proposed landscape treatment will pretty much eliminate the view of the cars that will be parked there, 'to'' but the building will be visible? Mr. Gothard: Yes, in conjunction with the fact that the freeway is ten feet higher than the parking lot. Mr. LaPine: I notice on your landscaping plan it talks about sod and seed, and there is 6,816 square feet I assume is going to be sod, and 7,780 square feet of seed. What areas are sod and what areas are going to be seeded? Mr. Gothard: In general the front area will be sod. Usually the areas along here will be seeded. (He pointed this area out on the plan) Mr. LaPine: Along the parkway, is that all going to be sod? Mr. Gothard: Yes. Mr. LaPine: How many trees did you say were being planted, and how many shrubs? Mr. Gothard: There are 100 deciduous trees, 38 evergreens and 60 shrubs. 14430 Mr. Alanskas: You have from 6 to 8 foot height for the trees? `l.• Mr. Gothard: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: I hope you can make it 8 foot, if you can, so there will be height there. We would like the 8 foot if possible. Mr. Morrow: Ozell, it looks like you have done a very fine job on the landscaping but I want to digress a moment. I noticed that superimposed on that landscape plan are parking spaces, and I would like to ask the staff what size are those parking spaces on there? Mr. Nagy: The parking spaces reflected are 9 foot wide with a 20 foot depth. Mr. Morrow: To the best of my recollection the Planning Commission has never approved a 9 foot wide, 20 foot in length parking space. I certainly do not want the approval of this plan in any way to reflect Planning Commission, or at least my approval, of the less than ordinance parking where we prescribe 10'x20', and until we reach a resolution of this matter, while I find no fault with the landscape plan, I think Ozell has done a fantastic job of listening to the Planning Commission, I want to offer a tabling resolution until we can resolve what we are going to approve on this plan, and I would table that to 'tawthe next study if I can get support. Mr. Engebretson: Why don't you make it date uncertain Mr. Morrow. That way if you are looking for clarification of what is going on here, we asked for some investigation and clarification, and if we put it to the next meeting, it may not be appropriate because it may not allow enough time to do whatever work is needed, but you can be certain we will bring it back as soon as possible. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, that is why we elected you and I have no problem following your direction. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #10-199-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Landscape Plan in connection with Petition 95-3-2-13, which received Planning Commission and City Council approval to construct an Incredible Universe store on property located at 19301 Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 until date uncertain. 14431 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: Sir, what has happened here, if it is not clear, as we indicated to you last time we are more than somewhat concerned about what took place relative to those parking places. It has nothing to do with the job you have done, as Mr. Morrow said. I want to commend you for responding to the issues that we discussed with you last time. I think your work is well done. This is not a reflection in any way on you or your firm. This has to do with other issues and when those other matters are clarified then we will be able to act on this, but as you can tell there was consensus here that you had done a good job, and had it not been for this other matter, I think it is clear to me this would have been approved this evening. You can report to your client what has happened, and this is on hold until such time as we settle the matter of the 9 foot wide parking bays and that is entirely in Mr. Johnson's hands. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, if I can just get a clarification from Mr. Nagy. John, have they been issued a building permit to proceed with this? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. LaPine: So the actual parking spots don't mean anything. They can go ahead r./ with the building. We can't hold up anything. Mr. Nagy: That is right. They are proceeding full speed with construction of the building including the site approval. Mr. LaPine: Even with the site plan that is different than what we approved? Mr. Nagy: You initially recommended approval of the site plan. The final approval of the site plan was with the City Council and the City Council made their decision. Mr. Engebretson: But wait a minute. They approved the same site plan that we approved. Isn't that correct? Mr. Nagy: The City Council considered your recommendation and approved the site plan as recommended. Mr. Engebretson: As recommended to them? Mr. Nagy: I have to check the record but I think you are correct on that. 14432 Mr. Engebretson: Clearly the system has collapsed in this particular instance, and so while we may not have any leverage relative to the building permit, maybe we 'sow. can just sit on the landscaping plan for a long enough time to get someone's attention and bring this to some kind of a happy resolution. Some of the people play by the rules, and sometimes the rules are waived, and it is a source of more than a just a bit of frustration for me as I watch people come here and live by the ordinance, and live within the rules the system lays down, and then others just ignore the system, and I think it is time to take a stand. Mr. Morrow: The reason I tabled it is because it is not so much this individual plan or maybe it is. Where I am coming from is I just don't want the word to go out that don't pay any attention to the Planning Commission, we will take it to the ZBA and whether we prove hardship or not, we are going to get whatever we want, and because we are responsible for the ordinances, we want to see that they are followed, and how do we know if the Incredible Universe has a hardship on parking or not. They are not even open for business. They finally decided to quit mining sand. If they have a problem in parking, I am sure they can come back and probably get a variance, but based on what basis did they get a variance when there has been no hardship proven? That is what I am governed by. I may be totally wrong, and I may be totally right. All I am saying is I want to find out why I am looking at 9 foot bays on a plan we didn't approve, and I thought we were supposed to approve it. Mr. Engebretson: We did but relative to the next step, the Council approved the exact same plan so our elected officials seem to have been upstaged here, and then, as I understand it, as we had it explained to us last week by Mr. Nagy, the Building Department, when the Building Permit application was processed, would have under normal circumstances taken note that there was a significant departure from the approved plan from the Planning Commission and the Council, and it should have been sent back. The fact that they got their variance from the Zoning Board set the stage for reconsideration but it should have been sent back, and it wasn't. Mr. Morrow: Well basically I just want to work within the frame. If I am out of line I want to know it. Mr. Engebretson: You are not out of line. Mr. Morrow: Right now I just want to follow the prescribed charge that I take an oath to do. 14433 Mr. McCann: I would just like to make the record show that each of us can vote on this but maybe not all of us voted for a tabling resolution for necessarily the same purposes. It is my feeling if it is 9 foot or 10 foot spots, we need some clarity on it. If the Council didn't approve the 10 foot spots, which I think if they are changing the site plan after the ZBA approved it, it wouldn't necessarily take Council action to change the site plan. Therefore, since there is some ambiguity I don't believe it is proper to vote on the landscape plan because the change in the parking spaces may change the area in which the landscape is being planted and therefore may require necessity in the change of the landscape plan. I am not doing it to hold anybody up or for any other reason other than I think we need some clarification because I don't think there has ever been a site plan approved by the Planning Commission or City Council showing entire 9 foot spaces, which would be necessary under my understanding of the process. Mr. Engebretson: You are exactly correct. I think that is precisely what happens. Mr. Morrow: I would like to concur wholeheartedly with Mr. McCann. That is where I am coming from with a tabling resolution is clarification so in the interest of doing my job I can do a better job. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by `t.• Stanton Signs Inc., requesting approval to revise the signage previously approved for the Kickers All-American Grill located at 36071 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32. Mr. Miller: During waiver use approval to increase the seating and building, the petitioner was granted signage approval. Now they have come back to revise that signage and because it went through Planning Commission and City Council, prior to going to the Zoning Board, because the waiver use does that, they are going back through Planning Commission and City Council for the revised signage before they go to Zoning Board. That is why it is before you. This site is allowed one wall sign at 80 sq. ft., and one ground sign at 30 sq. ft. The petitioner is proposing three wall signs and some neon tubing on the building. The one wall sign you have along the north elevation. You have"Kickers All American Grill", which is 60 sq. ft. You also have, on the same elevation, "Joey's Comedy Club", which is 22 sq. ft. Along the east elevation you have a sandblasted sign that would be implanted in the wall. That would be"Kickers" at 60 sq. ft. The total signage for this building is 142 sq. ft. Also, they have neon tubing on the east, north and west elevations at 106 sq. ft. for a total on the tubing. The neon tubing counts against the signage so combining the signs and the neon tubing you have 248 sq. ft. of signage. That is in i`.. 14434 excess of two wall signs at 62 sq. ft. and neon tubing at 106 sq. ft. After they go on to Council they will have to go to the Zoning Board to get a variance for excessive signage. Now Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and add whatever comments you care to. Bill Stoyanovich, 6426 Highview: I am representing Kicker's All-American Grill. We are asking to put neon tubing, which handle locks around the peaks of the building. Elevation of the peaks, we look at it as we are trying to do three things. We are trying to enhance the lighting around the restaurant. We are trying to beautify it. In our opinion, we are making it look beautiful with the neon and the lighting that we are going to put in. We are also going to put white lighting around the building. We are trying to achieve so that when people go by, we have had the restaurant for 15 to 20 years, and people going by haven't seen the restaurant sitting back there because Wayne Road to Levan it is the only restaurant at that time of the night that is in that area and we want to make it known better that there is a restaurant there. We just think by putting the neon tubing on top of the peaks it is beautifying the building and at the same time it is identifying Kickers All-American Grill. Mr. Alanskas: Sir, how do you think the tubing identifies the building? It doesn't say Kickers. Mr. Stoyanovich: The way we are looking at it is these peaks are so beautiful, in our opinion, so when people are going by maybe 100 or 200 yards away from the restaurant it is already going to be catching their eye, and when they get closer up to the restaurant they will take a better look instead of passing it. For many years we have heard we have passed by the restaurant Stoyan's 15 or 20 times and we never saw that, and we had a sign off the sidewalk. Mr. Alanskas: Just to give you my opinion, number one you have a gorgeous building that you are building. The old one was very attractive, and the colors you had there and the signage you could see that building because it stuck out like a sore thumb. You could see it I don't care what side of the street you were on, how far away. It could be seen. You are going to have this Kickers sign on the front. You don't need neon tubing to make it look gaudy. This is my opinion. I don't think neon tubing is going to draw people to your restaurant. I don't think it is necessary because that is a good looking building. With the signage you want, you will be defeating your purpose believe me. 14435 Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman I share the view on the neon lighting. I think it gives a carnival and a circus appearance to this facility, and I don't think it is appropriate for this area. May I ask a question. Why don't you have Now a freestanding sign in the front? Mr. Stoyanovich: We had that for many years, a freestanding sign off the road, and we have had trees that have been there, and we do plan on putting landscaping there again, and we want to make sure it is higher. We do have the one sign off the north side facing Plymouth Road. We want to at least catch their attention so they are looking there when they are driving by. Mr. Piercecchi: That may be true and it may attract attention. They may think it is a carnival, a circus, whatever. I don't think neon lighting is ever in good taste myself, and I know my friends on this board feel it is a little overkill. I don't think it is going to do your business any good. The way to get business is to serve people and they will beat it back to your door. Everyone seems to be hung up on signage, and I guess you have to have it, but it seems most people that come to us really overkill on the signage. I share the opinion of my colleagues that this is really unnecessary and you don't need it and I think it is going to set a precedent for that area in signage and it is inappropriate. Mr. LaPine: John, I am just curious about something. Under our ordinance the Now neon tubing is considered signage. Right? Mr. Nagy: Correct. Mr. LaPine: To me it is lighting, but anyway assuming that they put spotlights in the ground, like you see down in Florida shooting up on the building, up on the top where you get different colors, that is lighting the building the same as neon tubing but that isn't considered a sign. To me there is something different there. In one way we are saying neon tubing is signage but light directly upon the building is not considered a part of signage but it is still lighting. It lights up the building. Either way we are lighting up the building so I think there is a little conflict there in the ordinance, which I think maybe we should take a look at because I really think he could accomplish the same thing with spotlights if he really wanted to do that. I don't say he is going to do it. I agree with the other members of the Commission. I am not really in favor of the neon but I really do think we are in conflict here when we are talking about they couldn't put the lights shining on the building but we can accomplish the same thing, and that is not considered a sign. `w 14436 Mr. McCann: I kind of sympathize with Mr. Stoyanovich in some respects. I have a client, as many of you may recall, that has a furniture store on Plymouth Road between Wayne Road and Levan. His complaint was �► 80% of the traffic along Plymouth Road either turned north on Wayne Road that was traveling westbound or came up Levan and turned eastbound at that point and the section between Wayne and Levan got very little traffic. You recall he painted his store purple and tried a few different things to try to correct it. I think they have a beautiful project here. I think it is going to be an asset to the City but I am concerned. We have a lot of neighbors to the back and a lot of different things going on. Mr. Stoyanovich would you agree to maybe putting the neon, if you really feel it is necessary, along the front peaks as opposed to the side peaks so it wouldn't interfere with the neighbors? Mr. Stoyanovich: That would be great. It would still be getting the attention of the people passing by. Mr. Piercecchi: The purpose of that going east and west was to see it, and if it is on the sides, you don't need it on the front. Mr. Stoyanovich: I think when they are passing and looking you can see it just on the front also. I was just trying to make it look equal on all sides by lighting every peak. If I couldn't light up all the peaks, what I am `�.. trying to achieve is to light up the entrance and the front so at least they will know there is a main entrance, and I think when they are passing by they will see it coming east or west down Plymouth Road. Mr. McCann: To the staff, if he is light fluorescent, there is no restriction on lighting coming down on the side of the building, is there? Whether it be fluorescent or any other thing? It wouldn't come within the sign ordinance would it? Mr. Nagy: The ordinance distinguishes neon. It doesn't say the color. It just says neon. I think if the source is a neon tube, I think you would still have to consider it signage. Mr. McCann: Neon tube is signage but fluorescent lighting? Mr. Nagy: Fluorescent lighting is not. Neon is what is identified in the ordinance. Mr. McCann: Would white lighting going around the building, around the peaks to accentuate the building be something you would consider? Mr. Stoyanovich: Yes that is a possibility. 14437 Mr. McCann: I don't know what the rest of the people think. I am trying to look for solutions because I understand you are putting a lot of money in this `'a► place. One of those solutions might work. Mr. Stoyanovich: May I say one more thing. I know it is a restaurant. There are three major things we are trying to achieve. The good food and good service. That is what is going to keep people coming back. We are trying to make it look beautiful, and the way we are trying to go about that, we are trying to identify foods majorily involved in this restaurant. My brother Pete Stoyanovich, who is a kicker for the Miami Dolphins, and that is what we are trying to go by, his colors. The aqua, we have an aqua custom metal roof on the building, and we have the white lights and the white bricks on the building. They also have orange in their uniforms and that is why we are trying to highlight the building with the orange neon. Mr. Engebretson: Well you have heard considerable opposition to that neon tubing. That doesn't come as a surprise to you because your representative here last week brought that message back to you. The business that Mr. McCann referred to that is down the street from you that resorted to an odd color scheme and gaudy colors to draw attention, as you know, failed, which just again illustrates the point that signage, strobe lights, neon tubing, all the windows covered with paper signs isn't the *O.. solution to operating a successful business. What it takes to run a good business is to offer a good product. In your case food and comedy at fair prices with good service, and that is all there is. You can have any two of those things present in most businesses and still be moderately successful. If you have them all, you have a winner. I worked for a couple of Fortune 100 companies that were well known and then I also owned my own business for several decades, a very prosperous business, and it was very unknown, but I want to underline that word successful. We did it with a sign that probably on our building was probably 12 or 14 sq. ft. That sign didn't get people in there. It wasn't a retail business as such but it was part of our image, and it was very professional, and the job got done. The sign had nothing to do with it. I could have put strobe lights out there or neon around the top of the building. I owned the building. I don't think the City of Farmington Hills would have let me but I could have tried, but that wasn't the solution to running a successful business. It is the three things I mentioned, and you know that. Mr. Stoyanovich: Yes sir. 14438 Mr. Engebretson: I don't know how many millions of dollars you are putting in this building but I know it is substantial, and I can't imagine anyone making an investment like that and wanting it to look like, as Dan 4111111, says, a circus, or making it look like the first block into Tijuana. That is the kind of image that comes to my mind when I saw that plan presented last week. It is your business and you can do whatever you like within whatever framework we can agree upon here. I would like to see you rethink this plan and look to some other alternatives to draw attention to your business there if you really feel that is an important part of your marketing strategy and maybe do it with an illuminating ground sign out front. If you have to get rid of some landscaping to do it, so be it, but the other alternative you have is to not seek a solution here. You could take whatever vote comes out of here and move on to the Council and work it out with them. Who knows what the resolution would be. You may get exactly what you want. I want to make sure you understand what your options are here. I would encourage you, and I would think that the Plymouth Road Development Authority would encourage you, to try to present as professional an image there as you possibly can. I wouldn't want my name or something associated with one of my skills, as your brother is here, being denigrated by that neon tubing. Some people might think it is beautiful, and we do have some other buildings around Livonia that have some neon tubing. In one case it snuck by. In another case it was misrepresented when it came through, and while so„ it technically may have been presented correctly, it was certainly downgraded as to what the effect would be, and it is not pretty. Most people would agree it is not pretty. I know there are one or two people in town that think it is glorious so it is a subjective issue. What is your desire here? Would you like to see if we can find some accommodation here that would possibly delay you a week or so and move you forward with a resounding recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission on the basis of something that is acceptable, or would you rather we just deal with this here tonight? Mr. Stoyanovich: I would like to deal with something tonight. Mr. Alanskas: I will give you a few more thoughts. I am very sincere about this. I have been a good customer of Stoyan's for a long time. Why? Not because the roof was lit up. Because you had very good food. You had a nice ambiance for dining in the evening. People were dressed and it wasn't very noisy. When you first came before us you wanted 84 sq. ft. and we gave it to you. At that time, I think now you knew you wanted more signage. You went from 84 sq. ft. to 204 sq. ft., three times what we first gave you. Believe me the size of that building that you have there now, you can see it, I don't care what you 14439 say, a long way down both sides of the street. With the signs you had Kickers with 64 sq. ft. lit up, and the other two signs, and if you put some lights on the side of the building to light it up, believe me they `'�•► are going to see that building. I hope you think about that because I just can't see a gorgeous restaurant ruined by neon tubing all over the roof. Now maybe down the road, if it is necessary. A year from now if it doesn't work, you can come back before us and get a variance for neon tubing but I think if you gave it a shot first of all with the way you had it, without the tubing, you would be very successful. Mr. Piercecchi: You know Kickers is just a sandblasted imprint in that east wall. Is that correct? Mr. Stoyanovich: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: You could light that up. Mr. Stoyanovich: There are lights there. A correction from last week. The neon person did not know there was any lighting. There is uplighting. I want nothing more than to get people back for the food and service. I totally agree with that. I just don't want to be bypassed for 15 to 20 years. Like you say, the building is big enough and it is a little different. Nifty Mr. Engebretson: You know there is a new restaurant in town called The Outback. Are you familiar with it? Mr. Stoyanovich: Yes sir. Mr. Engebretson: Obscure location and if you get there past five o'clock, you stand in line. How do you suppose they do that? Mr. Stoyanovich: Good food and good service. Mr. Engebretson: Good prices. Mr. Stoyanovich: Yes sir. Mr. Engebretson: Why can't you operate that way? Mr. Stoyanovich: We do. We want to operate that way. Mr. Engebretson: Why do you need to light your building up like a circus? 14440 Mr. Stoyanovich: We went to Five Mile and Middlebelt, and Cooker's, and they are both very successful in Livonia. They both have good food, good service, good prices, and they both have neon lighting around their __411a. places. We are trying to become a Cooker's, an Outback, in such a way as good food, good service. If it is working there, we try to do the same thing, maybe in different places. Mr. Engebretson: Maybe I stand to be corrected. Does the Outback have their restaurant surrounded by neon tubing? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: I have never been there at night. It has always been daylight when I have been there. I still maintain you can be extremely successful without it. I can never, ever support this. I wouldn't want to be responsible for making that happen. It may well happen. I can accept that. I just don't want to be associated with it. Mr. McCann: I would like to say one thing. I think it is what he has said there. Part of it, I am sure, is me because I have been in the restaurant business for over 11 years. You tend to feel when you are in a business, especially one where people will stop by on impulse, signage is extremely important. I know where he is coming from. What I am going to do is offer an approving resolution. However, I would like to No.. do it as a compromise between Planning Commission and him, and then leave it with him between now and the time he seeks the Council, and he is going to have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals either way, to consider it but not to keep them up. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Stanton Signs Inc., requesting approval to revise the signage previously approved for the Kickers All-American Grill located at 36071 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Sign Package by Stanton Signs Inc., received by the Planning Commission on September 26, 1995, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that no neon tubing shall be on the east, west, or south sides of the building; 14441 2) Being this proposal is excessive in number and area of signage permitted by the sign ordinance, this approval is subject to the applicant being granted a variance by the `.• Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Morrow: I am certainly in favor of Stoyan's Restaurant. I voted for it originally. I think it is going to be a neat business. My vote will be a little bit simpler. Not so much in the area of the neon signage as I don't know what degree we are exceeding the ordinance but I assume we are exceeding the ordinance. It is on that basis I will not vote in favor of it. Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to offer an amendment that no neon tubing shall be allowed on any exterior elevation of the building. Mr. McCann: I would like to have a vote called on the original resolution. Mr. Engebretson: It doesn't sound like there is support for that. The maker of the motion does not accept the proposed amendment Dan. If there is no further discussion, would the Secretary please call the roll. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, McCann �., NAYS: Alanskas, Blomberg, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the resolution failed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was #10-200-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Stanton Signs, Inc., requesting approval to revise the signage previously approved for the Kickers All-American Grill located at 36071 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Sign Package by Stanton Signs Inc., received by the Planning Commission on September 26, 1995, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that no neon tubing shall be allowed on any exterior elevation of the building; 2) Being this proposal is excessive in number and area of signage permitted by the sign ordinance, this approval is subject to the applicant being granted a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 14442 Mr. Morrow: I think we heard earlier there are a lot of things that can be done with lightscaping as opposed to perhaps neon tubing riding the building. I think with a little thought the lightscaping around the building will accomplish the needs and not necessarily impact the sign ordinance. For that I am going to support the motion. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Blomberg, LaPine, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson NAYS: Alanskas ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Sign Text, Inc. requesting approval for signage for the commercial building located at 33504 Five Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16. Mr. Miller: This business is located on the north side of Five Mile Road just west of Farmington Road. It used to be occupied by the Dutch Boy Paint Store. This business is allowed two wall signs because they are on a *Now corner lot, and they are not permitted a ground sign because of deficient building setback. They are allowed two wall signs at 40 sq. ft. each. The petitioner is proposing two walls signs at 39 sq. ft. each. One would be located on the south elevation, which is the front of the building facing Five Mile, and one is on the east elevation, which faces towards Farmington Road and faces the parking lot. The signs are conforming. Mr. Engebretson: Last week when this was presented to us at the study meeting we advised the petitioner, because it was a conforming sign and everything was in order, there was no necessity for them to appear here tonight. I will look for a motion. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #10-201-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Sign Text, Inc. requesting approval for signage for the commercial building located at 33504 Five Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16, be approved subject tot he following condition: 1) That the Sign Package by Sign Text Inc., received by the Planning Commission on September 27, 1995, is hereby approved and shall `r be adhered to. As well as the following conditions as described in the correspondence dated September 29, 1995 from the Inspection Department: 1) That the parking lot shall be repaired, repaved and restriped with double stripes; 2) That the rear porch shall be repaired or removed; 3) That the exterior of the entire building shall be repainted. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, before we leave, I hope H had a chance to mention this to you. I received several telephone calls from citizens who had interest in this new ordinance that we passed recently and that the City Council gave first and second reading to regarding the issue of detention homes and where they can be located, etc. The question is if the county or the state were to acquire property that might otherwise not fit the ordinance, do the state laws supersede our City ordinances relative to waiver use requirements and all the other matters that were outlined in that recent ordinance change? Mr. Nagy: H did briefly advise me of your question. I have had some time to sit here and think about it and quite frankly I have not come up with an answer. It is my opinion I think in the more recent years of practice that both the county as well as state agencies, and certainly the City of Livonia, are moving in the direction to comply with local ordinances. They don't try to come in and be in exempt of local ordinances and set local ordinances aside. I know the City itself abides by it with having lands appropriately rezoned before they will proceed, and I would expect the county to abide by our ordinances but I think the final determination should be made with the Law Department. I think it is too important of a question because of the public interest and the hew and cry that has been associated with that property over the last few months. I think the right answer should come from the Law Department rather than me trying to give you an answer that I would be quoted as saying and have it go over the airwaves. I could back off a bit and hazard a guess but I think quite frankly it should go to the Law Department. 14444 Mr. Engebretson: I understand and appreciate your candor. Would you take it upon yourself in the coming week to put that question to the Law Department and then maybe a week from today we could clarify that question. Mr. Piercecchi: John, at the Plymouth Road Development Authority somebody brought up about the footprint of the Bill Brown addition that they are putting on. It looked like it was closer to Plymouth Road than before. I went over and took a look at it, of course, and maybe it is just the size but it does look like that. We did not give them permission to come any closer to Plymouth Road did we? Mr. Nagy: That is true. We did not nor did the City Council. It appears from our investigation that it is not closer. I think it is the fact that it is going to be a two-story elevation that it appears to be closer to Plymouth Road. It is in compliance with the site plan. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 712th Regular Meeting held on October 10, 1995 at 8:18 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 7 id Vi("eq“ /74,V7 Robert Alanskas, Secretary ATTEST: 111 ,f c, ,,1 Jac :Engebre on, Chairman jg Nr..