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..