Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1993-06-08 12857 MINUTES OF THF 665th REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, June 8, 1993, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 665th 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 R. Lee Morrow Brenda Lee Fandrei Robert Alanskas William LaPine Raymond W. Tent Members Absent: James C. McCann 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 petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The fir.. Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 93-3-6-2 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.47 regarding signs not needing site plan approval. Mr. Engebretson: This item was tabled for further study at our May 18th Public Hearing. I need a motion to remove it from the table. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #6-115-93 RESOLVED that, Petition 93-3-6-2 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.47 regarding signs not needing site plan approval be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, is there anything further in terms of correspondence? Mr. Nagy: No new correspondence has been received. 12858 Mr. Engebretson: Has everyone had a chance to review whatever points of concern they had to their satisfaction? Are we ready to move on? If so, a motion would be in order. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #6-116-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 18, 1993 on Petition 93-3-6-2 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.47 regarding signs not needing site plan approval, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-3-6-2 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will clarify the matter of replacement signs and previously approved sign panels in vicinity control areas. 2) That the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will provide for a much more efficient process regarding the approval of signs while, at the same time, protecting the public interest. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with Section 19.05 of Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Tent: I would like to make a comment to the Chair or to Mr. Nagy. I would like to revisit the sign ordinance because I don't think the sign ordinance we have is doing its job. There was a lot of time spent in bringing this ordinance around. It took over a year and a half and we thought we had it where it should be. I am getting �► concerned. At the various meetings it seems everyone is coming in to get a variance from the sign ordinance. Either the sign ordinance isn't any good and it should be revamped or re-addressed or we should scrap it and start from scratch because I am a believer in following the ordinance and I believe the ZBA is supposed to handle the hardship cases. It seems time and time again the petitioner is before us and we say they can have two signs and they say they want three and we say fine we will give you the three signs subject to the ZBA's approval. I think that is wrong on our part. I think we shouldn't accept those if our ordinance is as good as we said it is and it took time to bring it about. I have an example here now. The Taco Bell at Seven Mile and Farmington Roads. The windows are all full of signs. That's not right. They aren't supposed to have all those signs. The Pets Supply store at Seven Mile and Middlebelt. They aren't even open yet. I can see one "Grand Opening" sign but they have signs in all the windows. That is contrary to our ordinance. This does concern me so I would hope somewhere along the way we could have a motion to revisit this, or the staff on its own might go ahead and see where we failed in coming up with all the ground rules. I thought we had ironed out all the wrinkles but apparently we didn't. Look at today's agenda and look at the agenda from last week. It seems we are running into everyone appealing our decision. I, as one Commissioner, only have one vote. This is my concern. I say we either revisit that or we stick with the ordinance and we deny all these signs that are coming before us because they don't meet the ordinance. Let them go to the ZBA and let them handle their hardships, not us. 12859 Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, would you please put that on our next study meeting agenda for discussion. Mr. Tent, if you or anyone else has points to make regarding future direction, we can get into it in more detail because it will be on our next agenda for our study meeting. �.. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: For you in the audience who are wondering what this is all about, this is a motion taken by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to simplify the process of getting approval for signs that will make it easier for businesses to come in and do business with the City, while at the same time not giving anything up. Mr. Tent's comments don't really address this particular thing so much as they do the general concern about the sign ordinance and possible weaknesses in it. Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Motion by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #138-93, to hold a public hearing with regard to the question of whether certain property which is located west of Farmington Road between Norfolk Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4 should be rezoned from the RUF and OS zoning classification to NP. Mr. Engebretson: This comes to us from the City Council as you said Mr. Tent. What we really are looking for here is a motion to hold a public hearing. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was __, #6-117-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #138-93, 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 certain property located west of Farmington Road between Norfolk Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4 should be rezoned from the RUF and OS zoning classification to NP; and 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. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Motion by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #335-93, to hold a public hearing on the question of whether the land area of Quaker West Park, Quaker Center Park, with the exception of the triangular portion east of Lot 260, and the land area of Quaker East Park should be rezoned from PL, Public Lands, to NP, Nature Preserves. Mr. Engebretson: This again is direction from the City Council to hold a public hearing as to whether or not to make this zoning change. If there is anyone in the audience wishing to speak to any of these items �.. tonight, they are certainly welcome to do that. We are looking for a motion to set a public hearing. 12860 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #6-118-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #335-93, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby sw establish and order that a public hearing be held on the question of whether or not to rezone the land area of Quaker West Park, Quaker Center Park, with the exception of the triangular portion east of Lot 260, and the land area of Quaker East Park from PL, Public Lands, to NP, Nature Preserves; and 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. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Motion by the City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the question of whether or not to amend Section 2.03 and Articles IV, V, VI and VII of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the definitions of residential lot frontages. Mr. Engebretson: Again, another item where we would look for a motion to set a public hearing. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was 11110. #6-119-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 2.03 and Articles IV, V, VI and VII of Zoning Ordinance #543 regarding definitions of residential lot frontages. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Motion by the City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the question of whether or not to amend Sections 14.02 and 14.03 of the Zoning Ordinance to alter the RE district regulations to make it more compatible to current development standards. Mr. Engebretson: Again, we are looking for a motion to set a public hearing. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #6-120-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Sections 14.02 and 14.03 of Zoning Ordinance #543 to alter the RE district regulations to make it more compatible to current development standards. 12861 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson: This is a proposal that we are bringing again on our own motion �`.. that comes about as a by-product of some previous publichearings that have given rise to the possibility that the RE zoning district should be expanded to include businesses that are in keeping with today's high tech businesses and again, the idea here is to make it easier for people to do business in Livonia. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 664th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on May 18, 1993. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #6-121-93 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 664th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on May 18, 1993 are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Alanskas ABSENT: McCann \r► Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Integrated Architecture, on behalf of Source Club, requesting approval for three wall signs for the building located at 20000 Haggerty Road in Section 6. Mr. Miller: This is the Source Club that is on the east side of Haggerty between Seven and Eight Mile Road with the I-275 expressway behind it. They are requesting three wall signs. They are allowed one at 410 square feet. They are proposing two with the graphic "Source Club" at 205 square feet so they have cut their wall signs and split the difference for the two signs. The "Source Club" graphics, one will be located on the front of the store which faces Haggerty Road and the other will be located on the back of the store which faces I-275. They are also proposing one wall sign that says "Auto Center". That will be located on the wall that faces the Target Store which is under construction now. That sign will be 53 square feet. They are only allowed one sign and they are requesting three so they will have to go to ZBA for a variance. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anything the petitioner would like to add? 12862 Roger Rehkopf: I am from Meijers on behalf of Source Club. He pointed out pretty well proportionately what those signs look like on the building. Mr. Morrow: As far as the wall that faces I-275, is this your typical rear wall? `r. Mr. Rehkopf: The first four buildings that we built, this is a new business for Meijers, the first building opened in December, have all been made out of block. This is the first one that has been any type of a brick material. All four stores do have signs on at least two or three sides so it is not untypical and the "Auto Center" is also on all the buildings. Mr. Morrow: I guess what I was trying to get at is it is not what we would normally call a rear elevation, and I assume this is the rear elevation of the store made to look similar to a front elevation. Would you concur with that? As far as the detail? Mr. Rehkopf: Yes. Mr. Morrow: So you are trying to advertise from a main thoroughfare plus the expressway? Mr. Rehkopf: Correct. We are quite a ways back from Haggerty behind the medical center. Mr. Tent: You indicated that most of your stores have either two or three signs. Is that correct? Mr. Rehkopf: Correct. Mr. Tent: Which ones have the two signs? Mr. Rehkopf: Westland has two signs. Fraser has two signs. Meridian Township, which is basically Okemos, has three signs, and Taylor has two signs. Mr. Tent: Did you try to get three signs in Westland? Mr. Rehkopf: Our building only faces two streets. One goes to a vacant lot and the other one backs up to a creek so there really is no visibility to those sides of the building. Mr. Tent: So you want where there is exposure to have the third sign? Mr. Rehkopf: The third sign is actually the "Auto Center" sign. What we are really asking for is that 410 square feet just be divided in half to give us the two signs, where our square footage would be within your area, and then the "Auto Center" is the additional sign, which sign is mainly informational. Mr. Tent: A question to Mr. Nagy. On the sign ordinance, under these circnmmtances would the ordinance encompass something of this type. In other words if we were to revisit it, is there something in there that indicates the types of buildings which would require two tr.. or three signs because of the physical location? 12863 Mr. Nagy: It is hard to draft one ordinance that is going to fit every conceivable location that buildings can be situated on and their exposure to the public. That is why each case has to be looked at and in some cases there are demonstrated hardships and in other cases there are not. Our ordinance did not properly reflect all the unique possible situations that one would encounter. I think this is the case in point. Mr. Tent: Would you consider this a hardship? Mr. Nagy: Yes. I think he makes a fair argument that he is living within the spirit of the ordinance by not exceeding the 410 square feet. The building is well back of the road right-of-way of Haggerty Roadand certainly far removed from I-275. If you were to take any one of those elevations, either Haggerty Road or I-275, if you were to pick one of those elevations, he could conceivably have 410 square feet of signage. If that is an appropriate standard, 410 square feet, he is cutting that in half to try to live within that standard in spite of the distance that building is removed from both Haggerty Road and I-275. I think in this case they are living within the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Tent: Thank you Mr. Nagy. Mr. Alanskas: They will be illuminated only during business hours? Mr. Rehkopf: Correct. Mr. Engebretson: Do you have anything else to add sir? Mr. Rehkopf: The only thing I can add is talking about square footage. The Fraser store, we have two signs and I think they are 440 square feet each. They are rather big and you are right we have tried to live within that square footage amount. Mr. Engebretson: I personally think you have too and I think I would like to point out and remind people that this building is quite exceptional from your standard block buildings. It is an elegant brick. When this came through the site plan approval process, we were successful in getting certain enhancements made to that building and the Council was even more successful in making the rear of that building look very much like the front of the building and to divide your total square footage for signs into front and rear signs, I think is a very reasonable proposition. This 53 square foot sign for the auto center is, in my mind, much like a directional sign that we would see in any number of cases around town and it appears to be a very reasonable proposal. I believe you folks have gone the extra mile all the way here and I would hope we would get an approving motion. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously • approved, it was 12864 #6-122-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Integrated Architecture, on behalf of Source Club, requesting approval for three wall signs for the building located at 20000 Haggerty Road in Section 6 be approved subject to the following conditions: `4w 1) That the Sign Plan dated 5/18/93 prepared by Integrated Architecture is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That this approval is subject to the applicant being granted a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Tent: Mr. Chairman, I am not waffling on this case. I am going to support this petition because I think the petitioner did demonstrate their willingness to go forth and do a good job here. I am sure it would be a hardship in this case and the ZBA undoubtedly would go along with it. In this particular case I am going to support this motion. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Landscape Plan in connection with Petition 92-8-8-12, which received site plan approval to construct a parking lot on property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Five Mile Road and Sunnydale Avenue in Section 13. Mr. Miller: This is the church that is located on the east side of Middlebelt at Sunnydale Avenue. Last August they received site plan approval for the construction of a parking lot for the front of their church. As a condition of that approval the Planning Commission requested that they submit a landscape plan and that is what they are doing now. The landscape plan shows that they are proposing to put landscaping along the sidewalk that is along Middlebelt Road. They show it is going to be a four foot berm with plant material along that. There is an existing sign here and that will have plants around it. There are two trees that are existing. They will stay. Most of the other landscaping is lawn. The landscaping that is in front of the church, they are proposing to leave that alone and use that plant material as landscaping. Mrs. Fandrei: Scott, how many handicap spaces are required? Mr. Miller: Just one. Mrs. Fandrei: Out of how many? Mr. Miller: They have 14 and they have one in the front. I am not sure how many they have in the rear. Mrs. Fandrei: There are 30. Mr. Miller: Yes 30 total, so they will have one handicap in the back and one in the front. 1.- 12865 Mrs. Fandrei: They will have two total and the one in the front is at the western end of the addition? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mrs. Fandrei: Where is the one in the rear? Mr. Miller: They do not show it on the site plan. It has to be existing. Mrs. Fandrei: We can find that out from the petitioner. Mr. Engebretson: Scott, does that plan show that the landscaping will have an irrigation system? Mr. Miller: No it does not but I know at the study meeting the Planning Commission made the petitioner aware and he had no problem with that being a condition that there will be a sprinkler system put in. Mr. Engebretson: I was just wondering if they had modified the proposal to include that. Regarding the landscaping right next to the church building, we were concerned when we first visited this proposal last fall that the landscaping appeared to protrude out quite a substantial distance and my question would be has the staff made any determination as to whether or not it will be possible to "clean that up" in terms of pruning it back and get access for all the parking that is going to be proposed there or will the cleaning up process, in effect, destroy it? Mr. Miller: I know during this process Ralph Bakewell, formerly of this Nifty department, worked pretty close in designing this parking lot along with the petitioner and I am sure he took that into consideration. I don't know what the petitioner had in mind, he just said they were going to use the existing materials. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Yong Kim: I live in Novi. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Kim, in your rear parking lot, where is your handicap parking place located? Mr. Kim: Near the building. Mrs. Fandrei: So it is accessible. Mr. Alanskas: On your irrigation system, are you going to irrigate the entire front and also the sides where all your shrubs are? Mr. Kim: We will put in new underground sprinkler system. Mr. Alanskas: How many heads will you have? Mr. Kim: At this time I have no idea but they should be enough. 12866 Mr. Alanskas: It should be the entire front and also the entire side. It should be all the plantings around your church not just the front. Do you understand? Mr. Kim: Yes, all the lawn area. Nor Mr. Alanskas: It is going to be irrigated? Mr. Kim: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: That is pretty clear. Mr. Tent: To the staff, will there be a drawing submitted to you at all for you to look at to make sure they are in the right direction with this? How can we handle this? Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Tent, I think the prepared approving resolution makes it pretty clear that they will install an adequate irrigation system and that it will be done prior to giving them final inspection on this. Mr. Tent: Who will look at it. Mr. Nagy: We normally. Before they get their final C of 0, we are asked to give a site inspection. Mr. Tent: So you will be involved. Mr. Nagy: As long as it comes within the guidelines of your conditions, we will accept it. Just one or two sprinkler heads won't do it. So we will make a value judgment. Mr. Tent: I wanted to make certain someone with knowledge would look at it. Thank you. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #6-123-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Landscape Plan in connection with Petition 92-8-8-12, which received site plan approval to construct a parking lot on property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Five Mile Road and Sunnydale Avenue in Section 13 subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Landscape Plan, received by the Livonia Planning Commission on 5/25/93 from the Detroit Korean Seventhday Adventist Church, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That an adequate irrigation system that would permanently maintain all plants in a healthy condition shall be installed in all landscaped areas including the front, the side and the island, prior to final inspection; 3) That raised curbing shall be installed around the outline of the entire paved area of the parking lot prior to final inspection. `u.. 12867 4) That the petitioner shall clean up and improve the existing landscaping in front of the church. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Nkr. Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-5-8-6 by Polaris Communication requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.42 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to install a satellite dish antenna on the roof of a building located on the south side of Plymouth road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in Section 35. Mr. Miller: This is the Montgomery Wards that is located in the Wonderland Shopping Center that is located on Plymouth and Middlebelt. They are proposing to put a 4 foot diameter satellite dish on the Montgomery Ward roof. They will use non-penetrating roof mounts and it will be 30 feet from Middlebelt Road and 30 feet from the Plymouth Road building elevations. The front elevation shows that the service area is a little lower and the Montgomery Ward store is a little higher and that is where the satellite dish will be located. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward. Robert Eckley: Our offices are at 8213 Ronda, Canton: Mr. Miller pretty much covered everything. It is a smaller dish. I don't believe it will be visible whatsoever from any street. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously err• approved, it was #6-124-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-5-8-6 by Polaris Communication requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.42 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to install a satellite dish antenna on the roof of a building located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in Section 35 be approved subject to the following condition: 1) That the Site Plan, defined as Plot Plat: w/Framing Details dated 4/9/93 by Polaris Communications, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. for the following reason: 1) That the proposed satellite antenna location is such that it will have no detrimental aesthetic impact on the neighboring properties. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Acting Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-5-8-7 by Observer Newspaper requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.42 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to install a satellite dish antenna on the roof of a building located on �'"'' the southeast corner of Schoolcraft and Levan Roads in Section 29. 12868 Mr. Miller: This is a proposal to locate a satellite dish on the Observer Newspaper building, which is located on the corner of Schoolcraft and Levan Roads. They are proposing to locate a 10 foot diameter dish on the main building. It will be located to the east of the penthouse section of the building approximately 40 feet from the Schoolcraft side of the building and 20 feet from the Levan side of the building. It will be mounted on a 6 foot high pole and the whole apparatus will be about 11 feet high. Upon inspection, there are enough trees around the building that you will not see it from the Levan side and there is a dense tree line at the rear of the building so you won't see it from there. There is a possibility you could see it from the Schoolcraft side on the service drive. Mr. Engebretson: Your field inspection would indicate yes it would be visible but only from the Schoolcraft Service Drive and in that case it wouldn't be highly visible? Mr. Miller: You would almost have to be looking for it. I am just making the Commission aware, there is a possibility you could see it from Schoolcraft. Gus Semaan: I am with Advance Satellite Communications, 400 Starkweather, Plymouth, Michigan. The Observer came to us with this some time ago. There are a couple of reasons for wanting it. There is no access to cable TV in the building. Secondly, basically for obvious reasons, as far as them being news media, there is a world of news and information that can be gained by them having access to this. I guess it has been a long time coming that they have wanted to do something like this. It has manifold reasons as to why they want it up there. The way it is going to be mounted, it is a pretty good site as far as visibility and aesthetics, etc. Mr. Engebretson: You know Gus that is our principal concern. We are not for or against satellite dishes. What we are for is to locate them in a manner that would make them not troublesome to people passing by or neighbors and you are keenly aware of that. What is your feeling as to how visible this dish will be from the Schoolcraft Road? Mr. Semaan: It was really hard to get a site where this will work because of the trees. What we finally decided was, that particular location seemed to be ideal because it allowed us to have the line of sight we needed for perfect reception. The dense tree line on the south is huge so there will be no visibility there. Even from Schoolcraft, because it is a screened black mesh dish, it is going to fade in with the tree lines. I don't think it is even going to be noticeable. Mr. Engebretson: As you know, that is our principal concern. Mr. Morrow: Gus, you say a perfect line of sight, what forces it to a 10 foot versus a 9 or an 8? Mr. Semaan: The Observer is inheriting the system from one of the chief officers of the company so it is one he is removing and choosing to put there. Actually we are using more and more smaller dishes, 8 12869 foot, 7 foot, even down to 6 foot. A 6 foot dish is less than 50% smaller than a 10 footer and it is aesthetically very obvious the difference between the size of the two. In this case, it is not a dish that we are selling to them. It is a dish that was made available to them. `tow Mr. Morrow: So what you are saying you could have achieved it with a smaller size dish? Mr. Semaan: Yes we could have. We could have achieved it with a smaller dish. I would have a small question. When I sighted it I did not sight it for a small dish. It was sighted for a 10 foot dish. If we went to a smaller dish, I would have some question as to the west visibility because right on Levan there is a dense tree line and we try to shoot them between trees there too. Mrs. Fandrei: Since I don't get a chance to run around the roofs of these buildings Gus, I have noticed in these drawings, at least it is the first time I have been aware of it, you have guy wires for this. Is this common for most of these dishes on the tops of buildings? Mr. Semaan: No, it is a practice that we practice as a company, which is basically somewhat of a safety feature. It is nothing we need to do. It is just something we choose to do. That is the only reason it is there. Mrs. Fandrei: Like I said it is the first time I noticed it and it leads me to wonder if some of the other ones that don't have the guy wires, if they are as safe as they could be with the guy wires. Mr. Semaan: Most of the mounts are engineered to hold a certain amount of weight. Just leaning down on the equipment will hold it against an x amount of wind. Again, we just choose to take a little preventative measure. If a tornado comes by or something extreme happens, we would rather be trapped up there and not fly off the roof. Mrs. Fandrei: It sounds like we might be more tuned in to some of these that don't have the guy wires and perhaps require them? Mr. Semaan: My answer to that briefly is, here it was easy for me to add guy wires because I have a retaining wall which I can fasten to and I have an adjacent wall of the penthouse which I can fasten to. There are situations like on top of Krogers when we were doing those, where there is no place to put guy wires without penetrating the roof. Speaking from an engineering standpoint, it is okay to do it without and it is approved that way but where I have a chance to do it, I like to do it that way. Mr. Engebretson: Of course, they are not always non-penetrating. Don't you sometimes attach them to the sides of buildings so there is more into the structure? Mr. Semaan: Yes we have made side building mounts. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously �.., approved, it was 12870 #6-125-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 93-5-8-7 by Observer Newspaper requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.42 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to install a satellite dish antenna on the roof of a building located on the southeast corner of Schoolcraft and Levan Roads in Section 29, subject to the following condition: 1) That the Site Plan, received by the Livonia Planning Commission on 5/17/93 from Advance Satellite, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has shown hardship due to the fact that cable television hookup will not be realistically available to this area due to its location in what is known as the industrial corridor of the City; 2) That the proposed satellite antenna location is such that it will have no detrimental aesthetic impact on the neighboring properties. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Marygrove Awning Company, on behalf of Winter Garden Bar & Grill, requesting approval for one awning sign for the property located at 33320 Seven Mile Road in Section 3. Mr. Miller: This is the Winter Garden Bar that is located on the north side of Seven Mile just east of Farmington. They are proposing to put an awning type wall sign on their building. Their entrance is along the Seven Mile Road sidewalk and they are proposing to put an awning over the steps of that entrance. They have a non-conforming ground sign which they have a variance for but their building is 36 square feet of frontage, so if they were allowed a wall sign, they would be allowed one wall sign of 36 square feet. They are proposing on the awning a sign that is 7 square feet so they are under what they are allowed but because they are not allowed to add to the variance for the non-conforming ground sign, they will need to go to the Zoning Board for another variance. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come to the podium. Sandy Gluski, Marygrove Awnings, 12700 Merriman: Yes he does have a pole sign but he also has another sign that is probably about 10 square feet in neon already existing on the wall. He wants to transfer even less of that onto the awning and take the neon sign down. So he already has that amount of signage existing at this time. Mr. Engebretson: So we are trading some neon tubes for a more subtle graphic on this site. Ms. Gluski presented a picture of the building and samples of the awning materials. 12871 Mrs. Fandrei: Ms. Gluski, then he is stating that he is removing the neon sign in the window? Ms. Gluski: Yes. It is above the window. It is above the wall. Now. Mrs. Fandrei: I don't see anything in our prepared comments that indicates he is willing to do that. I missed this part in the study. Ms. Gluski: The owner is here if you would like to have him verify it. Mrs. Fandrei: It is the sign to the left of the door then, is that correct? Jerry Lewis, 18367 Stamford, Livonia: Yes it is the west side. Mrs. Fandrei: As you go up the steps, you are facing this neon sign. Mr. Lewis: No the sign is actually not neon. It is lighted with fluorescent and it is on the mansard portion of the existing front. Mrs. Fandrei: So it is facing the south. What is this "Bar & Grill"? As you walk up the steps you are facing a sign that says "Bar & Grill". Mr. Lewis: That is going to be going into the awning. Mrs. Fandrei: So you have two signs that are going to be removed from the building? Mr. Lewis: I think the one sign is in the window. It is a paper sign. Mrs. Fandrei: What I am trying to get from you is you are removing both signs. The mansard and this paper signs are both coming off? `'441. Mr. Lewis: That is right. Mr. Alanskas: We discussed in regards to the backlighting, you are only going to have "Winter Garden Bar & Grill" backlit only. Is that correct? Ms. Gluski: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: And there is no bleed through whatsoever in regards to the awning. Ms. Gluski: It will be an 8 foot fluorescent and we are going across about 8 feet. It will bleed maybe about 8 inches. There is no way to really stop it. The colors in the awning itself are very, very dark so it takes a great deal of lighting to light that up. Mr. Alanskas: So you will only see the "Winter Garden Bar & Grill" lit up? Ms. Gluski: You will probably see a slight amount of green around it. We don't know of any other way of doing it to concentrate it right on the letters. Mr. Alanskas: There is no illumination at all for the front where the "WG" exists? There is no backlight for that part of it? Ms. Gluski: We don't have it proposed. Is that a possibility? 12872 Mr. Alanskas: No. Mr. Lewis: The lighting could go through that because of it being a white material but there wouldn't be any fluorescent for the actual letters. Now Mr. Alanskas: You say you put a neon tube in. Is that towards the bottom of the grill or at the top of this awning? Ms. Gluski: It will be directly behind. It will be two feet back and it will be directed right behind the lettering. Mr. Alanskas: So you won't get the very top? Ms. Gluski: No. Mr. Engebretson: I am concerned Sandy with the comment you made regarding the bleed through and the awning. It would be my impression that these letters on the bottom part of the awning, that you could put some sort of a baffle right immediately above the letters that would prevent that light from bleeding through even one inch much less eight inches. Ms. Gluski: The rafters run about two feet apart. I think it would be rather difficult to run something two feet over to create something. That is such a dark material that if you hold it up to the light, there is little that comes through. It would be very little. What is going to pop out is the lettering. Mr. Engebretson: I see very little versus a lot or none. Nora Ms. Gluski: I am saying it is probably going to be about 8 inches and that will just be diffused. Your main part of your lighting will light up the lettering itself. Mr. Engebretson: I think, while I have no expertise in this particular field, it would seem to me there would be a way to engineer a solution to keep this awning from lighting up. I can see it is opaque but when you put a fluorescent tube in back of this, looking at these lights here doesn't tell me anything. Ms. Gluski: Normally if we do an awning that is about 4 feet, we only put one row of lights across in one spot to light it up. If we go 5 to 6 feet, we put two rows. That is how much light you need to light these up. You need a lot of light especially with a dark color like this. We would suggest a great deal of lighting in here to do that. It is 11 feet. I would think we would probably be putting two rows through here. We would put two rows to light the whole thing up. In this case, we are not even doing that. We are aiming just to do the one fixture behind the lettering. Mr. Engebretson: I don't want to belabor the point but we don't want this awning to become the sign. That is our concern. We have no problem with having the business having its name illuminated. That is a reasonable proposition but there are a few awnings around town that slipped through the cracks and they are not works of art. 12873 Mr. Tent: A question to Mr. Nagy. This isn't new to us. This is part of our ordinance. We have been able to illuminate these signs without illuminating the entire awning. Is that correct? What is your opinion? 'err. Mr. Nagy: It is a relatively new ordinance. It is a restriction of non-illuminating awnings where signs are being applied. It is a new amendment. It just came to pass within the past two months. Mr. Tent: I realize that but we were able to contain that. We have approved several signs like that now so it is no problem to do what we are asking. Mr. Nagy: I think what they are proposing is reasonable and could be reasonably enforced. Mr. Tent: In other words, there wouldn't have to be any bleed through, etc. Case in point is the Pet Supplies, the big green sign. I am sure there will be no bleed through on those lights because that is a big awning sign. At Seven Mile and Middlebelt, again, next to that travel agency, they have a green sign and they have some lettering. on that and there is no bleed through so I would think there shouldn't be any bleed through here if they are doing their job. Mr. Engebretson: I think they will find a way to do it. If it turns out that they are misunderstanding the result of what is being put together here, they will make some accommodation to discuss it. Mr. Morrow: It would occur to me if too much light is diffused from the green, it would be a negative effect on the actual sign you are trying to err. illuminate. It would be to me in your best interest to make sure that the only thing really coming through is the sign that you want to be read. To diffuse the green would diminish the contrast. That is how I feel. Mr. Engebretson: I would suggest to you that when you move on to the Council with this item that you are sure to bring this picture along so that they understand that red and green is not at all representative of the reality. These computer generated drawings leave something to be desired. What about that satellite dish on top of the building. I don't really want to get off on a tangent but did that go up a long time ago prior to our ordinance? Mr. Lewis: Yes, it has been up since the early 70's. Mr. Engebretson: You mentioned there is a possibility that you may be moving that? Mr. Lewis: One of the satellite guys here last time I was here, he is supposed to come over and give me a quote to move it. Mr. Engebretson: We had some discussion about that. We were afraid by your doing that, which is a good move on your part and being cooperative with the City, we may have to force you going through all this process but we will sure work with you but we will try to be as accommodating as we can. 12874 Mr. Lewis: Did you say we have to go before Council now? Mr. Engebretson: Yes. You are in a control zone. There are a number of areas in the City that get special attention and Council looks over our shoulder very carefully in these areas and you just happen to be in one of those areas. You actually also have to go to the ZBA Now because of the fact you are getting a variance here. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #6-126-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Marygrove Awning Company, on behalf of Winter Garden Bar & Grill, requesting approval for one awning sign for the property located at 33320 Seven Mile Road in Section 3, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Sign Package received by the Livonia Planning Commission on 5/13/93 by Marygrove Awning Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the back-lighting will be designed so that only the letters of the signage will be illuminated and the awning will not be translucent, as defined in Section 18.50B of Zoning Ordinance #543; 3) That the paper sign in the window and the mansard sign will be removed and no other window signs allowed. 4) That this approval is subject to the applicant being granted a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 'Nor Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 665th Regular Meeting held on June 8, 1993 was adjourned at 8:32 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 7 ( a,,/ Raym. . W. Tent, Acting Secretary ATTEST: ._; „ , Jack Engebreten, Chairman jg