Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1993-01-26 12623 MINUTES OF THE 657th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COIVMIISSION OF THE CITY OF NoirLIVONIA On Tuesday, January 26, 1993, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 657th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with approximately 20 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jack Engebretson Conrad Gniewek Brenda Lee Fandrei William LaPine Raymond W. Tent R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planning Technician, 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. 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. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 92-12-2-53 by Senate Coney Island requesting waiver use approval to increase the floor area and seating capacity of an existing restaurant located at the southeast corner of Stark and Plymouth Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: : We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating their department has no objections to the plans as submitted. Also in our file is a letter from the Fire Marshal stating that department has no objection to this proposal. Lastly, in our file is a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or problems were found therefore their office has no objections to the proposal. Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner is in the audience. Will you please come forward and tell us what you have in mind. George Dimopoulas, 43580 Senaca Lane, Novi: We would like to have the room next oir door added on to us. We use this for Sundays when we are real busy 12624 for breakfast. People like to have meetings there and sometimes we have birthday parties. We are asking for 50 to 60 more seats. We want to have another bathroom for ladies and men so people don't have to go to the other side. We are going to take 14 seats out of the other room for people to get around easier. Saw Steve Post, 19267 Parkdale: I am a customer of his and we bring some people from our church from time to time to have lunch on Sunday and it is hard to accommodate our large group because there isn't any space available to accommodate large groups. They do bring a lot of people there on Sunday. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-12-2-53 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously approved, it was #1-15-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 26, 1993 on Petition 92-12-2-53 by Senate Coney Island requesting waiver use approval to increase the floor area and seating capacity of an existing restaurant located at the southeast corner of Stark and Plymouth Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-12-2-53 be approved subject to a limitation on the total number of customer seats not to exceed 260 seats for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Tent: I would just like to make a comment to George and Bill. I think you have a tremendous operation there and you have lived up to everything that you said you were going to do and I am pleased you are successful enough to expand, so congratulations and keep up the good work. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-12-2-54 by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant on property located on the northeast corner of Seven Mile and Haggerty Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6. 12625 Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: : We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating (1) parking blocks will be installed one foot from the sidewalks around the building and (2) landscaping around the driveways shall be placed so as to provide a clear view of Seven Mile Road, east and west, and Haggerty Road, north and south. We have also received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the landscape plan does not indicate sod or a complete underground sprinkler system. Also in our file is a letter from Gary M. Bloom of 39040 W. Seven Mile Road stating he is the owner of the historic building located to the east of the property in question. He states he has no objections to the waiver use approval being sought by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc for a Class C license or to construct a full service restaurant. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come up and explain your proposal. John Carlin: I represent the restaurant applicant here, which is Romano's Macaroni Grill. I hope you have all had an opportunity to review the booklet that we sent in advance to give you an idea of what kind of a restaurant we hope to build in Livonia. Next Monday we will be opening our first Michigan Romano's Macaroni Grill at Northwestern Highway just east of 14 Mile in the City of Farmington Hills, right next to a Chili's Restaurant that we own. Romano's Macaroni Grill, Inc. is a subsidiary of Brinker International, Inc. , which is also the owner and operator of the Chili's Restaurants. We also have another concept called Regas American Grill, which we are building in Novi. We have about nine restaurants in Michigan and as I indicated this hopefully will be our second Romano's. We indicated to you the size of the property and there will be 252 seats, 7305 square feet of building. The site itself is just a little under three acres. There are 156 parking spaces. We will have anywhere from approximately 100 to 150 total employees but no more than 25 to 30 per shift depending on whether or not it is a busy night. Saturday night would be a busy night. The corporation is well experienced at operating restaurants. They have nine here in Michigan and 279 around the country. This is an upscale, white tablecloth, Italian cuisine restaurant specializing in fresh foods and exhibition cooking. Certainly now that we have one built you can go take a look at it. I might add the manager there is Jim Kheonhold. I have told him that you hopefully would stop by and talk to him and see the restaurant menu and help yourself to the hospitality to get an idea of what it is. As far as the site plan is concerned, I heard the letter from Engineering. Certainly this will be sodded and it will be sprinkled. We can make those corrections immediately. Our architect, Mark Drane from Rogvoy Associates, is here if you have any questions as to the technical aspects of the site plan. I am here to answer any questions concerning the operation of the restaurant, etc. w.r.. 12626 Mr. Tent: Mr. Carlin, I did read your booklet and I was quite impressed with it. You had a lot of detail in it and it certainly gave us an insight as to what this operation would be like. I have one question, what are you going to call the restaurant? Are you going to drop off the name Romano's? Mr. Carlin: Yes in Michigan we are going to drop that name because of the use of Romano's Pizzeria. In Michigan we will call it Macaroni Grill. Mr. Tent: That will be on your signage? Mr. Carlin: Correct. Mr. Tent: As far as the architectural part of the drawings you will include the underground sprinkling system and the parking blocks and the landscaping that was mentioned in these letters? Mr. Carlin: Correct. Mr. Tent: H, will that be incorporated? Have we seen those in our new drawings. Mr. Shane: They can be incorporated on the drawings before we send them on to the City Council. Mr. Tent: Will that be part of the resolution? Mr. Shane: You can make it part of the resolution if you want. Mr. Tent: I think it should be part of the resolution. New Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Carlin, there was some indication of problems with wetlands in that particular area. Have those been resolved and can you explain to us how those have been resolved? Mr. Carlin: We are far enough away from the wetlands. We are not going to impede on them. We are using a lot of space for our needs, which accommodates our use quite well. It will make it quite nice aesthetically. There will be no intrusion on the wetlands. Mr. Gniewek: Have you had a study by the DNR? Mr. Carlin: I don't think that will be necessary. I don't think it is large enough to be regulated by the DNR. Mr. Gniewek: Generally you indicated you had this particular restaurant located next to Chili's at another location. Are there any other plans of developing any other restaurants in the general area of this restaurant? Mr. Carlin: None that we are involved with. We already have a Chili's up the road a mile so we will not put in anything like that. There is actually nothing more you can do with this site. I can't tell you what will happen in the future. Mr. Gniewek: You are not aware of any plans by your company? 12627 Mr. Carlin: I can tell you there are no plans by our company. Mr. LaPine: How many Romano's do you have across the country now? Mr. Carlin: The one we are opening in Farmington Hills is number 19. Sow Mr. LaPine: Is that spread throughout the United States? Mr. Carlin: Mostly in the south, the Dallas area and Florida. Mr. LaPine: After reading your literature, I would consider you a family- oriented, moderately-priced restaurant. Wouldn't that be about right? Mr. Carlin: Absolutely. Mr. LaPine: Will there be any type of entertainment? Mr. Carlin: Occasionally we hire an opera singer, one of the waiters or waitresses sings some Italian songs. That is just having a good time. Mr. LaPine: Do you take reservations? Mr. Carlin: We have call ahead seating. We use it at the Chili's Restaurant and we use it at most of our busy restaurants around the country. If you know you want to be there at a certain time, you call ahead. It isn't exactly a reservation but it will get you seated within 15 minutes of the time we tell you to arrive. Depending on the time you call, we might tell you to wait 15 minutes, an hour or an hour ``,. and a half but then when you get there, we will seat you within 15 minutes. Mr. LaPine: This pertains to your next petition, the liquor license. Will you have a bar per se? Mr. Carlin: There is a bar. Mr. LaPine: So people can sit at the bar while they are waiting for their tables? Mr. Carlin: Right. Mr. LaPine: Are there tables in that area? Mr. Carlin: No not tables. There are bar stools. Mr. LaPine: That is strictly a holding area for people that want a drink while they are waiting for a table? Mr. Carlin: Correct. Mrs. Fandrei: As far as the Chili's Restaurant, would this be above that scale or similar? 12628 Mr. Carlin: The price averages are higher than a Chili's. This is more of a leisurely type dining. For example at dinner time the average visit at Macaroni Grill is one hour and ten minutes long while at Chili's it is 47 minutes long. It is more relaxed dining. It 'sow nicer you a little longer. You spend a little more money. It is a nicer menu. Again, it is Italian while Chili's is more casual with all sorts of items. Mrs. Fandrei: So it would be a little bit upscale. Mr. Carlin: If you want to call it that. Mr. Alanskas: Is this proposed to be a seven-day operation? Mr. Carlin: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: What would the hours be? Mr. Carlin: 11:00 a.m. to usually from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. at night during the week. Later on the weekend maybe until midnight or one o'clock in the morning. Mr. Alanskas: Will the sign be shut off at 1:00 a.m.? Mr. Carlin: When everyone is out of there. Mr. Alanskas: Is there going to be any neon lighting on the building? Mr. Carlin: No there is a decorative type lighting but no neon lighting. Mr. Gniewek: What are the materials? Mark Drane: The main building material for the wall is stucco. (He went on to describe the other materials and show the elevations) Mr. Engebretson: Mark, do I recall correctly that you were going to have a patio on the back side of that building? Mr. Drane: No there are no outdoor dining plans. Mr. Morrow: Should this be successful, when would you estimate you would be open for business? Mr. Carlin: It takes us from the time we pull a permit six months to open for business. We are ready to proceed forthwith as soon as we get the City's approval and Council's recommendation on the liquor license. These are prototype buildings so our construction plans can come quickly after those approvals. Mr. Gniewek: As far as the entryways off Seven Mile Road, are there any deceleration lanes? Mr. Carlin: It is directly into the lot. Mr. Gniewek: Is there an entranceway onto Haggerty Road also? 12629 Mr. Carlin: Yes. Mr. LaPine: I thought off Seven Mile we were going to have a boulevard type of entrance. `r Albert Mickalich with Land Tech: This plan represents the landscaping and it doesn't really indicate the site plan. There is a boulevard entrance that is proposed for future development to the Pentagon parcel in the back. It came up before about the wetlands. This has been field verified by the DNR and a permit has been issued also. That was generated due to the fact we had to bring a sanitary sewer up to the sight and we had to cross through here. (He pointed this out on the plan. ) We ended up killing two birds with one stone by putting a boulevard entrance in here and bringing the sanitary sewer in at the same time. Mr. LaPine: Will that boulevard entrance be put in at the time of construction of the restaurant? Gary Jonna: I am with the Jonna Companies. Right now it is just planned. It is a possibility but not necessarily. Mr. LaPine: It is in your future plans? Mr. Jonna: Yes it will be a major point of ingress and egress for the Pentagon Corporate Center. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Donna, that boulevard entrance will never play a role with regard to servicing this particular restaurant? Mr. Jonna: That is correct. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-12-2-54 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #1-16-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 26, 1993 on Petition 92-12-2-54 by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant on property located on the northeast corner of Seven Mile and Haggerty Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-12-2-54 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan Sheet SP1 dated 10-21-93, as revised, prepared by Land Tech, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. 2) That the Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet A2 and A3 dated 12-15-92 prepared by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc. , which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to. 12630 3) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet A-4 dated 12-14-92 prepared by Land Tech is hereby approved and shall be adhered to and the landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition and the lawn area shall be sodded and sprinkled. 4) That the sign plan marked Sheet A-4 dated 12-14-92 prepared by Heath and Co. and T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc. , which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. 5) That the total number of customer seats shall not exceed 253 seats. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing `"` resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-12-2-55 by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for a Class C liquor license for a full service restaurant proposed to be located on the northeast corner of Seven Mile and Haggerty Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received the same correspondence as on the previous petition. Mr. Engebretson: With regard to all those points of concerns having dealt with them on the previous petition, there would no longer be any concerns expressed by any other departments? Mr. Shane: That is correct. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Shane, the 1,000 foot separation requirement I understand is in affect in this particular case. Can you tell me how far away the Cooker Restaurant is? Mr. Shane: Approximately 700 feet. `a.. 12631 Mr. Engebretson: With that, we will go to the petitioner. Will you please come forward and for the record tell us your plans. Mr. Carlin: I have nothing more to add unless you have some questions. °*ie„ Mr. Gniewek: Will you be seeking a new liquor license for this particular location? Mr. Carlin: Yes we will. Mr. Alanskas: What percentage of your sales goes towards your liquor for this type of business? Mr. Carlin: 17% is average. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-12-2-55 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was l/1-17-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 26, 1993 on Petition 92-12-2-55 by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for a Class C liquor license for a full service restaurant proposed to be located on the northeast corner of Seven Mile and Haggerty Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-12-2-55 be approved subject to the waiving of the 1000 foot separation requirement as set forth in Section 11.03(h) by the City Council for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.02 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543 as modified by the City Council. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-12-2-56 by Fry & Partners Architects, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing credit union located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Merriman Road and Oporto Street in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14. 12632 Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their department has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We ''_ir have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating they have no objections to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. There is a temporary waiver of the required protective wall along the west and part of the south property lines where this site abuts residential property. The proposed addition to the building will require the remainder of the protective wall to be built or a new variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. As an alternative, the Commission may wish to substitute a greenbelt as provided by the recent revision of the Protective Wall Ordinance. 2. A detailed sign package should be submitted for review. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and tell us what your plans are. Michael VanGoor: I am the architect representing the credit union. Our plans are to provide the addition to accommodate an increased lobby area, more teller stations, conference room and file room. (He presented the site plan) Mr. Morrow: Do you have a resident next to you? Mr. VanGoor: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Has that been a good experience as far as the waiver of the wall? Mr. VanGoor: Yes, and they have been called by the credit union and they have explained their plans and they have no objections. Mr. Tent: The sign package, you won't have a new sign. The existing sign will suffice? Mr. VanGoor: If the existing sign is augmented, that will be separate and will conform to the sign regulations. Mr. Tent: At this point you are not planning on any new signage? Mr. VanGoor: No that has been deleted. Mr. Tent: So actually what you have there is what you are presenting to us. Mr. VanGoor: Correct. Mr. Tent: As far as mechanical equipment on the roof, is it shielded? Mr. VanGoor: Yes. This is the existing screening right now. We would be augmenting that with an additional screen around the new mechanical equipment. 12633 Mr. Tent: You will show that on the drawing? Mr. VanGoor: Yes. Mr. Gniewek: Would the new facility have any drive-thru or any drive-in fir• capabilities or is that not part of this addition? Mr. VanGoor: That is not part of this addition. Mr. Gniewek: We are not creating any additional traffic, all we are doing is adding extra space for the convenience of customers? Mr. VanGoor: Correct. There is an existing drop box which will remain. Plans in the future may include an ATM machine. Mr. Alanskas: I am sure you have a lot of computers at that building. Mr. VanGoor: Yes we do. Mr. Alanskas: Are there any plans in the future for a satellite dish for any reason? Mr. VanGoor: No. Mr. LaPine: Your new addition is going on the east side of the building. Is that correct? Mr. VanGoor: Correct. Mr. LaPine: So the parking you have there is being rerouted to the east side to the area where you don't show any parking at the present time? Now Mr. VanGoor: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Along your southern border you have a wall that goes so far and then stops. It doesn't look like it goes all the way across your property. Does it or does it not? Mr. VanGoor: It does stop right here. (He pointed it out on the map) Mr. LaPine: Are you going to continue that to the end of the property? Mr. VanGoor: At this point, it is not in the plans but if you do require that, this wall will be continued to the property line. Mr. LaPine: It can't be more than 20 to 30 feet. When I was out there it seems to me it makes sense to continue that wall. Mr. VanGoor: That would cut into the existing planting area that is mature there right now. Some of that may need to be removed to place that wall in there. Mr. LaPine: The lights for the parking lot, where are they going to be located? Mr. VanGoor: The existing parking lot lighting will remain. We would be providing one additional light fixture to illuminate this `... additional parking and the drop box area. 12634 Mr. LaPine: In the rear of the building you have a bricked in area where your garbage is kept. That is not going to be disturbed? Mr. VanGoor: Correct. Nur Mr. Tent: Mr. LaPine, if they continue the wall the 20 feet as opposed to landscaping, are we asking that this be done? Mr. LaPine: My personal opinion is I think the wall should be continued just to finish that off. The resident that lives there now may not have any objection but if she should sell, there is a possibility the next resident might want the wall. It is my belief the wall should be continued because it is a continuing wall all the way across the back. That is my personal opinion. Mr. Tent: Can I ask the staff how they feel about it. Mr. Nagy: I am not so sure that was stopped because of the planting. I think that portion of the site is actually encumbered by a flood plain and that is why the Zoning Board of Appeals waived that. We certainly can check this out. Mr. Tent: Based on that, it is a moot issue. Mr. Engebretson: It appears to me the new construction is depicting a different color. Am I misreading that? Mr. VanGoor: Not entirely. This is the new brick, which will match the existing brick. This new entry is a man-made, synthetic stucco. The middle framing is aluminum. Mr. Engebretson: So you are enhancing the building but with respect to the overall structure, it will appear that it started out the way it ended up. It is not going to look like it is built in phases. Mr. VanGoor: Correct. Mr. Morrow: One more question. We were talking about the light poles. What is the height of the light poles? Mr. VanGoor: Approximately 25 feet. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-12-2-56 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #1-18-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 26, 1993 on Petition 92-12-2-56 by Fry & Partners Architects, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing credit union located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Merriman Road and Oporto Street in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-12-2-56 be approved subject to the following conditions: 12635 1) That the Site Plan dated 1-15-93, as revised, prepared by Fry Associates, Inc. , Architects, which includes the substitution of a greenbelt to be maintained along the west property line and a portion of the south property line in lieu of a protective wall as required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance #543 and which is fir., hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the building elevation shown on the approved site plan and on an accompanying sheet dated 1-18-93 prepared by Fry Associates, Inc. , Architects, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to. 3) That the landscaping shown on the approved site plan shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter maintained in a healthy condition. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 9.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat approval for Hunters Pointe Subdivision proposed to be located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh and Eckles Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating a stop sign will be placed at Plymouth Road and street names shall be consistent with other North-South streets and East-West streets to facilitate emergency services and deliveries. We have also received a letter from the Engineering Department stating the following comments are made relative to the proposed layout. 1) Since new street names are being introduced for the subdivision area, it is assumed that the Police Department (Fire Department) will review these names as to their interest. 2) Since there is no storm sewer outlet of sufficient size and capacity readily available to service the subdivision, a detention basis is being proposed. 3) Appropriate widening of Plymouth Road could be 12636 required by Wayne County to facilitate left turn movements to the subdivision area. 4) We will require that the water system be looped to the Newburgh Village senior citizen site. Also in our file is a letter from the Fire Marshal stating they have no objections to this development. We have also received a letter from Dominic Deiriggi of 33122 Joy Road stating he would not be able to attend the hearing but he wishes to express that he is not against the development or improvement of any land in the City of Livonia. He states that being a Livonia taxpayer for over 32 years, he is depending on the Planning Commission to see to it that his property will not be devalued or be turned into swamp land because of this new subdivision. Mr. Engebretson: Correcting an oversight on my part in the opening introduction, I failed to mention for preliminary plat approval that the Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on those proposals. However, the City Council makes the final determination as to whether a plat is approved or denied taking into consideration the information that will be gathered at this public hearing. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, for the record, have you indicated what the zoning of the proposed plat is? Mr. Nagy: The property is presently in the zoning classification called R-1, single family residential. It is a relatively new classification for the subject area. It was rezoned to the R-1 classification a few months ago. The R-1 requires a minimum lot width of 60 feet at the building line, which is 25 feet back from the right-of-way with 4m" a minimum lot depth of 120 feet, total lot area 7,200 square feet. Mr. Gniewek: Are all the lots that are indicated on the plat in compliance? Mr. Nagy: All lots exceed those minimum lot area width and depth requirements. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step forward. Craig Corbell, 17199 North Laurel Park Drive: I would like to start off by addressing a couple of the letters from the departments. The first one is the Engineering Department. Gary Clark may not have had a chance to write another letter concerning the issues he had raised. The engineer we have working on this particular site, Warner, Cantrell & Padmos, is aware of it. They have made the changes and we did resubmit them so we have addressed all of the concerns. The looping of the water system has been addressed. The storm water detention area as far as the enclosed storm drain has been addressed and as far as the road, I believe the approach design has been addressed and they have all been changed to meet the recommendations. Mr. Engebretson: Excuse me sir, when you say they have been addressed, in what manner? 12637 Mr. Corbell: We have actually made the changes. I was pretty sure Warner, Cantrell had sent them over. I apologize. All of those changes were made in accordance with the recommendations. We didn't come up with anything different. Everything that was requested was actually incorporated into the plan as requested. As far as the design of the plan, I think you saw this preliminary layout when we came before you for the zoning request and it seemed to make the most sense. We had help from the Planning Department, Engineering Department, etc. We have come up with the landscape plan as well and as we originally stated we plan on placing a berm along the front of the property as well as along the western edge and fully landscape it. Those lots along the western edge exceed the minimum and therefore the berm will not encroach on the actual lot size that they would expect in the minimum requirements. Those lots are approximately 150 feet deep. As far as the detention area goes, we will be tying into, at the City Engineer's recommendation, the storm system in the Newburgh Village. The detention area will have a restrictor so if there is excessive rainfall, then that detention area will hold the water and therefore not overutilize the current storm system. It is designed so it is a depression. It is not a big hole in the ground and it is in the back end of the southern lots, which run approximately 200 feet deep so again we are not encroaching on what would normally be their backyard to begin with. As far as the sizes themselves, they run anywhere from 60 to 80 feet wide and anywhere from 120 to 200 feet deep. We feel we have a nice mix of sizes. "` As far as the actual design of the layout and as far as the actual homes that we anticipate constructing, we have had a lot of input from some of the marketing people here in Livonia, both the Michigan Group as well as ReMax Realtors, and the person who is both marketing as well as one of the principals investing in this development has sold in excess of 100 homes himself in Livonia in the last few years and has been involved in two to three new developments here in Livonia in the last few years. We feel we have a real good understanding of the market here in Livonia. I grew up in Livonia so I feel I have a real good understanding of it. We are trying to do something we feel will be in harmony with what you are looking for here in Livonia, single-family, platted homes. Mr. LaPine: Is there going to be a combination of colonials and ranches? Mr. Corbell: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Are they going to be brick homes? Mr. Corbell: We will have brick. The designs are very traditional Livonia colonials and ranches and yes they will have brick. Mr. LaPine: What is the price range? 'r.. 12638 Mr. Corbell: We anticipate the homes will be in the $130,000 price range on average. Mr. LaPine: The $130,000 would be for the ranches? %my Mr. Corbell: At this point we have, I believe, the minimum price would be $124,900 to $135,000 base price depending on options. Mr. Alanskas: On Lots 1 to 10, on the west side of the back, is there anything going to be done as far as a high berm of trees to block the noise from Hygrades? Mr. Corbell: Yes, that is actually what we are referring to with the berm. It is actually a private easement for landscaping and yes we will have both berm as well as evergreens and different types of greenery to help shield. There is also a woods there. It is real dense in the summer. I have been out there all hours of the day and night as well as different times of the year. In the three seasons, other than winter, it is actually well shielded. In the winter, when the leaves are off the trees, you can see the lighting at night and that is all, so we have taken that into consideration. We have also spoken with a couple of sound engineers about ways to possibly even reduce this noise and they are working on this at this time. Mr. Alanskas: Did they give you any idea of what they can do? Mr. Corbell: The biggest complaint that we are aware of from the neighbors on Grantland is when one of the bearings goes out on the fans, otherwise it is not so much a problem but when the bearing starts whistling it becomes a significant problem. Mr. Alanskas: The trees that you will be planting, how high will they be roughly? Mr. Corbell: I would assume they would be at initial planting somewhere in the 12 foot range. The spruce and firs and such are in the 5 to 6 foot range with the berm running five foot so initially we will be at the 10 foot level. Mr. Engebretson: How deep will the retention pond be? Mr. Corbell: After they had made the change to enclose the bottom of it for the actual storm drain, I don't know what the actual depth is at that point because I know that has capacity as well. At this time I am not sure. Mr. Engebretson: Is it like a few feet? It is about the size of a football field. Mr. Corbell: Because it is so large we can probably get away with minimizing the depth and the appearance of depth as well. Mr. Nagy: It will have to be fenced so it won't be any lower than 4 to 5 feet. It is less than what we require for fencing. It is really just a depression. Mr. Engebretson: The reason I asked, because it is so large it would be my w,,,, impression there would be no necessity to have much depth. 12639 Mr. Corbell: We are anticipating that being a part of the actual homeowners' rear yard rather than something that would be growing weeds, etc. That is why we tried to set the road further to the north in order to broaden that area so it wouldn't have to be so deep or necessitate what you picture as some type of a holding area that Vlimp" you see behind a commercial building. This will be part of these folk's yard rather than something you have to look at. Mr. Engebretson: So you would be planting grass back there then? Mr. Corbell: Yes, we anticipate it being grass. It is an easement rather than an actual dedication to the subdivision so they have certain restrictions on what they can do in that area but as far as mowing the lawn, etc. , I don't see that as being any different than a back yard. Mr. McCann: Along that same line your easement is going to describe the intended purpose, that it is a retention basin and it will be filling with water? Mr. Corbell: Yes. Ronald Pray, 37821 Grantland: I didn't hear anything mentioned as far as what is going to be on the north side. Is there going to be a berm or possibly a wall for our privacy? Mr. Corbell: We don't anticipate putting up any type of barrier. These are going to be single-family homes that will be in harmony with the neighborhood. Usually a screening wall is for when you have different zonings or different types of uses and these are `law single-family homes. They are not condominiums. They are not apartments. They are not cluster. They are single-family platted homes. Mr. Engebretson: I can clarify that for you sir. If this were a commercial development or office development, then the ordinance would require either a wall or a very well designed greenbelt to give separation there but where residential zoning districts abut, they are considered equals. Mr. Pray: You said you were moving the road to the north. That's because of the drainage. Is that right? Mr. Corbell: The way you see the road configuration now is the proposed plan. That was from the initial design that we shifted it that way. From the time we actually rezoned to this time we actually maintained the same design as far as the road layout and the lot layout. Mr. Pray: So is there going to be an easement between the properties? Mr. Corbell: The easement should be on the western edge for the landscape berm and what it refers to in the way of easement, as Mr. McCann had addressed, it is for restricting the use so that the homeowner who happens to have that berm running across their property doesn't cut 12640 it down or do anything different with it other than its original intended purpose, which is for screening. The other easement is for the detention area. It is the same thing so no one comes in to build on it. That would actually be opposite where you are located. 'tow Beverly Pray, 37821 Grantland: The only point I wanted to make, the property value of our homes, as we see it, is in question. You say these homes are valued at $125,000 to $135,000, and if that is the case my concern is that our property, we are located on a half acre lot, these lots are about 1/8th of that size. Our house, out of all of them on Grantland, happens to be positioned 3/4th of the way back on our lot, so we are closer to the development than anyone else on the block. I myself value the natural wooded life that we have behind us and I hate to see it be torn down and have private homes go in there that are crammed together for whatever purpose they are putting them that close together. If that is a City requirement and the minimum lot size is correct, I guess I can't argue that point but I beg to differ that the property value for the remaining residents on Grantland is not going to be affected. They may be selling those homes for $125,000 to $135,000 but I don't see how that is going to help us in our situation. We are losing here. We are not gaining. Mr. Engebretson: I don't know if this will be helpful to you, but my recollection is an acre has about 43,000 some odd square feet of space and I think these lots are about 8,000 square feet. Mr. Nagy: The Prays actually have one-half acre and these are a minimum of 7,000 so they are 1/4 to 1/3 the size. Mrs. Pray: Would it be possible to go back to the original plan where you can take a look at our lot compared to their lots? Mr. Engebretson: We could do that but actually the situation is that this property is zoned R-1 and now the question is does the petitioner have a proposal that fits all of the requirements of an R-1 zoning district, and Mr. Nagy described earlier that all of these lots meet or exceed those sizes. I guess the point is that the petitioner is submitting a valid proposal. Mrs. Pray: I understand that. When we bought our property there was nothing behind us. We asked our realtor at the time if there were proposed plans for any building sites and we were told no as far as he was concerned. We have been there a little over a year. We have put a lot of home improvements into our house. We are looking at the value of our home, what is happening to it. I understand what they are doing. I want to be sure that if I lose the natural wooded habitat and landscaping that I have in the back that I am not looking at 15 to 20 backs of houses and garages. They are going to be right up in our back yard. Is there any way to request that a fence or anything be put there to separate the two developments Mr. Engebretson: It is not in our authority to do that. 12641 Mr. McCann: What you don't understand is you moved in within the last year. The realtor was obviously wrong. We have had several petitions to go into there from senior citizens housing to two-story apartments to cluster housing. We have had several proposals. We have studied this over and over again. We have had many public hearings. This is by far the best proposal for everybody that has come before us. These people have the right to do something with their property. They can't afford to pay taxes on a nice open preserve so that your back yard stays nice. I live in a sub. It would be nice if it could stay that way. Mrs. Fandrei: Any time there is vacant land, you should always look into it yourself as to what the zoning is and if there is anything proposed. When we moved to Livonia we didn't do that either and we ended up living behind Livonia Mall. It is a hard lesson to learn. Mrs. Pray: I think what you are doing is good. We were concerned about what the value of the homes were going to be. Our concern is what will happen to the value of our house. I would rather see $125,000 homes than a low-income housing project. Mr. Morrow: Certainly we appreciate where you are coming from, that is your home. However, were you invited to the public hearing when this was rezoned to R-1? Mrs. Pray: No. Mr. Morrow: It would seem the real estate people should have indicated that it was zoned R-1. Tonight we are not studying zoning. We are looking at a plat that meets all the rules and regulations of platting and `w we are pretty much committed to letting this developer go forward. He says he is a Livonia resident and he is sticking around Livonia so I am sure he will do a good job. As it relates to property values, we are certainly not the experts but my opinion is it will not do anything to affect your property value but I am not an expert just a resident like you. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Preliminary Plat approval for Hunters Woods Subdivision closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously approved, it was #1-19-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 26, 1993 on Preliminary Plat approval for Hunters Pointe Subdivision proposed to be located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh and Eckles Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Preliminary Plat for Hunters Pointe Subdivision be approved subject to the waiving of the open space requirement as set forth in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations for the following reasons: 12642 1) That the proposed Preliminary Plat complies with all applicable standards and requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Rules and Regulations. 2) That no City department has objected to the approval of the Preliminary Plat. 3) That the design of the Preliminary Plat represents a good land use solution to the subject land. 4) That the landscape plan covering greenbelt easements and cul-de-sac areas, as well as the subdivision entrance marker, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, are we satisfied that the items mentioned in the Engineering letter will be covered. Should we make this as part of the resolution or would you say the direction that was given to you in that letter was incorporated. Mr. Nagy: I am satisfied that the requirements from the engineer really need to deal with the detailed engineering requirements, the size of the underground sewer, the looping of the water main, for instance. Those really deal with the precise implementation plan from an engineering standpoint. Mr. Tent: So those will all be part of our resolution we have now. I am satisfied then. Mr. Engebretson: We could hold up the approval of the minutes if any of those items that we outlined turn out not to have been satisfied as the gentleman has indicated. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-12-2-51 by Action Olds, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to add showroom space to an existing building located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Stark Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was 1f1-20-93 RESOLVED that, Petition 92-12-2-51 by Action Olds, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to add showroom space to an existing building located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Stark Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 12643 Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, are you satisfied that all the points of concern that were raised at the original public hearing, where there were some loose ends, have these all been addressed and clarified and made proper. Mr. Nagy: I am satisfied that the plans have been revised and been corrected to meet all the application requirements. Mr. Gillow: I certainly do not have any comment. I would only reiterate that the whole purpose of the project is, as we have discussed with you before, one of economy and it is really imperative that we were able to consolidate the Nissan activity down at the Oldsmobile location but are required by the manufacturer to build a separate showroom. Concurrent with that our interest is, as I am sure yours is, to demolish the house and get rid of that particular eyesore on the property. Mr. Engebretson: Your representatives made that very clear last week and made a very thorough presentation. I would only point out it is not just the house but whatever buildings happen to be on that property. Mr. Gillow: That is correct. On a motion duly made by Mr. Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #1-21-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 12, 1993 on Petition 92-12-2-51 by Action Olds, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to add showroom space to an existing building located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Stark Road '011s. in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-12-2-51 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That Site Plan dated 1-19-93, as revised, prepared by Thomas W. Kurmas & Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the Building Elevation Plan dated 12-10-92 prepared by Kurmas & Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 3) That the landscaping shown on the approved Site Plan shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 4) That with respect to the proposed car and truck display lot, no trucks shall be parked closer to the Plymouth Road right-of-way line (as shown on the Master Thoroughfare Plan) than 120 feet. 5) That the surface of the car and truck display lot shall be hard surfaced no later than two years from the date of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy as required by Section 13.06 of the Zoning Ordinance 1543. 12644 6) That with respect to the proposed car and truck display lot, this approval of its use for that purpose shall expire no later than two (2) years from the date of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy unless the surface of the lot has been hard surfaced as \.. required by condition number 5 at which time and in that event the approval shall become permanent. 7) That any building or structure currently existing on the site proposed to be utilized for the display of cars and trucks shall be immediately demolished and all debris shall be removed from the site. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance 1543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance 1543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ',saw Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by LPR Associates, on behalf of Westside Deli, requesting approval for one ground sign on property located at 17199 Laurel Park Drive North in Section 7. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was 111-22-93 RESOLVED that, the request for a Sign Permit Application by LPR Associates, on behalf of Westside Deli, requesting approval for one ground sign on property located at 17199 Laurel Park Drive North in Section 7, be taken from the table. Mr. Miller: This is a ground sign proposed for the Powerscourt Office Building that is located on Laurel Park Drive. The office complex now has two existing wall signs and two existing ground signs that they were granted a variance for. The ground signs are located on both sides of the drive as you drive in. The new proposed ground sign is to be located on the corner of Laurel Park Drive and Laurel Park Court. The new sign will be 22 square feet. It will have the name Powerscourt or Powerscourt Office on the top with the address and then the Westside Deli graphic will go on the lower level. Because they already have over what they are allowed, this sign will have to be granted a variance for excessive signage on the property plus 12645 they are not allowed to have a tenant on any ground sign or on any sign so they would also have to be granted a variance to have a tenant on the ground sign. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do you have anything to add? Mr. Nagy: This very evening we received a letter from a Douglas A. Levine, Director of Property Management for Laurel Office Park Partnerships I and III. It was addressed to the Planning Commission and reads: It is my understanding that our neighbor, LPR Associates has requested a variance from the City of Livonia to install a permanent ground sign for Westside Deli in the Powers Court Office Building located at 17199 N. Laurel Park Drive. While I have no objection to the additional ground sign, I would like the Planning Commission to know that in the event that Westside Deli's sign is approved, in all fairness, the Atrium Cafe located in Laurel Office Park III and also the Atrium Cafe located in Laurel Office Park I (17177 N. Laurel Park Drive) (17197 N. Laurel Park Drive) would like a similar sign along N. Laurel Park Drive. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. I appreciate your consideration in this matter. This was signed by Douglas A. Levine, Director of Property Management. Richard Lambert: I represent LPR Associates and I am here to answer any questions you might have regarding our request. Mr. Engebretson: When the Westside Deli representative was here last week we asked him to determine whether or not the owners of the property would be willing to trade off that Powerscourt sign that exists in front of the building to keep the count the same. Did he propose that to sfty you? Mr. Lambert: It wasn't mentioned quite like that. The signage on there is removable. It doesn't serve a lot of purpose because 80% of the traffic comes from the other direction. If the Planning Commission or Council preferred that be removed, that would be no problem. Mr. Engebretson: I agree with you that the sign would be better on the corner where this proposal shows this sign to be. Mr. Lambert: I am not sure you gentlemen have had the opportunity to see the color renderings. There was some question as to what was actually going to appear on the sign. (He presented these to the Commission) Mr. Morrow: Should the petitioner or the landlord remove the one sign, will that still be covered within the Zoning Board decision? Mr. Nagy: Yes it will. Mr. Morrow: As far as putting a tenant name on there, would that require Zoning Board approval? Mr. Nagy: Yes. 12646 Mr. Morrow: One of my concerns, sir, is once we start doing this we set up a domino effect for the whole Laurel Park area. If we tend to be sympathetic to one, what is to preclude us from being sympathetic to the other buildings and tenants wanting similar treatment? That Nifty is my comment. Mr. Alanskas: Where you propose to put this new sign where the trees and shrubs are, will it be right in front of there or are you going to cut some of those out of there. They look very close to the corner. Mr. Lambert: It is going to be tucked back between the two tall evergreens that are on that corner. We are trying to make it look like it is part of that whole development. Mr. Alanskas: That would not be lit? Mr. Lambert: Internal. Mrs. Fandrei: Iiow many tenants are in your building? Mr. Lambert: Approximately 25 to 30. Mrs. Fandrei: So there is a possibility some of them might decide they would like signage also. Mr. Lambert: It is an office building. Every one of the tenants within the building are displayed on the marquee within the building. What happens is when you have a commercial type business or an extremely large tenant, they may request signature on the building, which you have probably seen around the area. We have tended to shy away from that. The only one that has any signage at all with respect to our building is The Michigan Group and the only other one that we needed was the commercial restaurant sign internally on the lower level because the building itself wouldn't be adequate to support a restaurant facility totally on its own. Westside Deli is well known around the State of Michigan and they are probably one of the premier deli-type operations located in various types of commercial complexes including office buildings, but the majority of their business comes from outside the building. That is the necessity for giving them some signage to permit them to be successful. Mrs. Fandrei: I think one of the things that is so appealing about Laurel Park Drive and the buildings and landscaping is that it isn't overused with signage. Your building in particular has been very well done. It is very appealing. We are concerned if one is allowed other than the two major signs, that we are going to have a proliferation of signs along that drive and it will take away what is so appealing now. Mr. Lambert: It is also a concern of ours. We are not interested in becoming billboard city out there. That is one of the reasons that virtually everything we have done over there we have tried to do it on a permanent type basis. The signage that is proposed out there 12647 will primarily be dominated by the identification of the building itself with the address. One of the problems you have when you come upon the complex is you really can't identify it unless someone says it is the only green glass building in the complex. Other than identifying the building, it is almost impossible. The ��► address for the building is located on the penthouse but until you get within 250 to 300 feet of the building, you can't see that address. It really has a dual purpose. As it relates to one of Levine's buildings, I am sure if he came in with a similar type sign on that corner and did it the way we were doing it, I am not sure that anybody here would have an objection to that either. I think that is a far cry from worrying about the fact it will become a real problem. Mr. Tent: I have to agree with my fellow Commissioner when she stated the fact that this would begin a domino effect. We have a letter here from Mr. Levine saying I have no objection but if you give him those signs, I want my signs. In other words this is setting a precedent and as far as I am concerned what you have there is an attractive building and if we start putting billboard signs in there to accommodate the restaurant internally within the structure, we are going to have a problem. I understand that your tenant has only been there since Christmas and he says he can't get the business because no one knows he is there. Is that correct? Mr. Lambert: I think it goes beyond that. That is very true but I think our application for signage was applied for long before he occupied the premises. We recognized there was going to be a problem a long time ago. Mr. Levine's building, with the number of tenants he has, can support a cafeteria restaurant operation within the fir. building just by the occupants. We do have to rely on outside people to come in and patronize it. Mr. Tent: Maybe it should be in some other location. Maybe the deli doesn't belong there. Mr. Lambert: I am not sure I understand. Mr. Tent: This is an office building and you have a deli in there to service the people in the general area. If it is so well hidden that people can't find it with normal advertising, how can it succeed? Mr. Lambert: I think he ran into a problem of people just trying to find it even within the area. That building doesn't give any indication at all that there is any commercial activity going on. It is an office building. That is the way it is designed and how it appears to the general public. The same with Mr. Levine's building. Mr. Tent: That is a problem. That is where I am coming from. I can't change the rules and regulations to go ahead and accommodate something that maybe shouldn't be there in the first place. You have gone to the ZBA and they have proposed that one proposed signage be allowed on this property and now you are going for more. You have gone to the ZBA and you would have to go back for the tenant's name and the extra signs and I feel we are opening up pandora's box by allowing these things to happen at this location. 12648 Mr. Lambert: The actual amount of signage is not changing because we have agreed to take down the other sign. Mr. LaPine: I agree your numbers on your penthouse are hard to see although the satellite dish is very visible. How many square feet does the deli skew have? Mr. Lambert: 1528 square feet. Mr. LaPine: Is he constructing and paying for the sign or are you? Mr. Lambert: We are doing it. Mr. LaPine: Let's assume the deli a year from now doesn't make it and they move out, will that sign be taken down? Mr. Lambert: The sign face will be removed. Mr. LaPine: If another tenant moves in there, not necessarily a restaurant or a deli, as a condition of taking 2500 square feet he wants his name on the sign, would that happen? Mr. Lambert: No. Mr. LaPine: What would happen? Mr. Lambert: We would put a blank in. It would appear like the rest of the sign. It would have the dark green with no internal lighting. Mr. LaPine: So what you are saying is if we agree to this sign and if they move out, you will agree that no additional sign will go on that. fir.. Mr. Lambert: Other than for the restaurant operation. That is correct. Mr. Engebretson: I recall earlier that in the notes I recall reading there were two sets of numbers on this building that because of their size counted as signs as well and I could only find one set of numbers. That would be coming from the south on Laurel Park Drive. Are there other numbers? Mr. Lambert: Not that I am aware of. I think there are only one set of numbers up there on the penthouse. Mr. Engebretson: I think the problem is because they are the size they are, they are counted as a wall sign, which complicates this case a bit. They are almost difficult to find and I think you are being unfairly penalized because of that little quirk. I think the sign you are proposing would do you a lot of good and I think your willingness to trade off the other sign, keeping it within the same sign count, is a very important concession and I think the signage on this corner would be a lot more effective. I will tell you that from the last time we looked at this to the present time, your building has sprouted a satellite dish and I believe that has happened in that period of time. Whether it has or hasn't I guess 12649 I would ask Mr. Nagy to have Mr. Fegan to look into whether or not there were proper approvals given for that. I support your sign proposal. I think it is real important though that it be there for the benefit, not only of your building in terms of your Powerscourt identification, but the concession that Mr. LaPine pursued that the bottom portion for the benefit of Westside Deli if they should move out, then I would hope it would not be used to advertise another venture in the building. Mr. Lambert: We don't have a problem with that. One of the problems that is typical of an office building of our size is what kind of services can you provide internally for your tenant base to make it a desirable building to be in. In order for us to compete we have to provide a food service operation. This is the only way we figured out to make it attractive enough to do well. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by LPR Associates, on behalf of Westside Deli, requesting approval for one ground sign on property located at 17199 Laurel Park Drive North in Section 7 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Sign Plan as presented to the Planning Commission on 10/27/92, submitted by LPR Associates, for the Powerscourt Office Building and Westside Deli identification to be located at 17199 Laurel Park Drive North, 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 for excessive number of signs and for having a tenant on their identification sign; 3) That the petitioner agrees to remove the wording on the sign that now says Powercourt Office Building. 4) That the petitioner agrees that if Westside Deli should cease to exist at that location, that the Westside Deli sign shall be removed and no other signs will be placed upon that sign. Mr. Morrow: I just wanted to indicate that I am going to vote against this not because I am against any business trying to become viable but because of the domino effect I alluded to earlier, and secondly there are other marketing techniques to be used to offset the absence of the sign in order to generate business not only within his own building but the adjacent buildings in and around the Laurel Park area. I am not sure that has been tried and to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and base it on anticipated hardship as opposed to an existing hardship, and certainly we want to make that building viable, but when you go into business and you know you are going to have a hard time doing business unless you get waivers. I will just end it there but I can't support it. 12650 Mr. Tent: I am going to vote against the proposal too and I am voting against it for the same reason Mr. Morrow has stated. I am fearful we are going to get a lot of petitions before us asking us to allow them to have the waiver. We went through a great bit of time proposing a new sign ordinance and this sign ordinance was supposed to cover 'tow all situations that would come before us. By doing that, we established ground rules for signs, etc. and now we are going around and saying our ordinance isn't any good. If it isn't any good, they should change it. I thought we covered all bases. This is about the third sign ordinance I have been involved with around the City and I thought we had a good one. Now petitioners are coming before us and saying I need a variance. I think that is wrong. We in the Planning Commission should stand up to our rights. I would urge the Commission to vote against it. The letter on file from Mr. Levine is going to be only the beginning. how can we deny him his signs when we are going to go and approve this one. I am totally in agreement with Mr. Morrow by saying this is wrong. Mr. Lambert: I would like to make a comment. You are probably not aware the Atrium Cafeteria, which is in Mr. Levine's building, was also in our building. They couldn't make it. Mr. Levine has made it convenient for his tenants over there and he has a tenant base about 3 1/2 to 4 times our size. That is why he can make it without any external signage. I will tell you the Atrium Cafeteria couldn't make it in our building. He is making it in Mr. Levine's building and he is making it totally internally. If you are asking whether we have a hardship. We have a hardship and what we are doing is we are putting this new tenant in the same position. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to make a comment in support of the proposal. I think there is an important difference between putting a new sign on this corner in addition to what is there versus trading one sign for another. There is a significant difference which goes a long way toward nullifying the domino effect, in my mind. The fact the petitioner has indicated a willingness of making this sign serve the purpose of identification for the building as well as for the exclusive benefit of Westside Deli is also a significant point in his favor. I think that the viability of that building will be enhanced by this sign and I don't think the City's ordinance or the City's position is compromised in any way. Mrs. Fandrei: I guess I am even stronger against this now knowing there had been that type of commercial endeavor in the building that didn't make it. You already knew and the deli evidently knew that the previous tenant didn't succeed. Mr. Lambert: Mr. Levine has a competitive advantage because he was able to provide that to his tenant base. Mrs. Fandrei: I am talking about what happened in your building previous to this petition. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson `� NAYS: Tent, Gniewek, Fandrei, Morrow 12651 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed. Mr. Morrow: I guess we would have to recommend a tabling resolution at this time. `., Mr. Engebretson: Would you rather that this move to the City Council with a denying resolution or would you rather take a little bit more time and let us try to work out a solution here, which could be no solution. I can't promise you anything but if you are interested in moving on, I will be willing to change my vote to go against this sign, even though I support your sign, but I will do that to accommodate you. Mr. Lambert: I think if there is any hope of really convincing this board that it is required and needed, I would rather do that because your concerns are going to be no different than the Council's. I guess it is really up to me to convince you we need it. Mr. Morrow: I think this board, at least from my view, we are not here to interpret need. We look at the ordinance and the ordinance precludes the tenant sign in conjunction with the sign. I am not discounting that there is probably a hardship by not allowing five signs. That is not my charge. My charge is does it meet the ordinance or doesn't it? We are responsible for the ordinance. That is where I am coming from. Mr. Engebretson: If we were to table this until next week's study meeting and then deal with it at the next voting meeting two weeks from now, are you any worse off? I will change my vote to go on the other side to get it out of here but I am not going to change it until I have the ,` opportunity to try to get your approval here. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was #1-23-93 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Sign Permit Application by LPR Associates, on behalf of Westside Deli, requesting approval for one ground sign on property located at 17199 Laurel Park Drive North in Section 7 until the study meeting of February 2, 1993. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Gniewek, Fandrei, Morrow, Alanskas, Engebretson NAYS: Tent, LaPine, McCann Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Permit Application by Francisco Vallarruel for the installation of a satellite dish antenna on property located at 34487 Navin Avenue in Section 4. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously approved, it was 12652 #1-24-93 RESOLVED that, Permit Application by Francisco Vallarruel for the installation of a satellite dish antenna on property located at 34487 Navin Ave. in Section 4 be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing `ft. resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I understand we have a request by the petitioner to withdraw his request. We are looking for a motion to approve his request. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #1-25-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the withdrawal of Permit Application by Francisco Vallarruel for the installation of a satellite dish antenna on property located at 34487 Navin Avenue in Section 4. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Permit Application by Guillermo Bravo for the installation of a satellite dish antenna on property located at 34660 St. Martins Avenue in Section 4. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #f1-26-93 RESOLVED that, Permit Application by Guillermo Bravo for the installation of a satellite dish antenna on property located at 34660 St. Martins Avenue in Section 4 be taken from the table. Mr. Miller: This proposal is for a 7 1/2 foot diameter dish, which will be located about 8 feet from the rear property line, 20 feet from the rear of the house and approximately 12 feet from the west property line. The only consent form we have so far is the one to the rear. Mr. Engebretson: Gus, were you involved in seeking the consent letters or did the petitioner handle that himself? Gus Semaan: The petitioner handled it itself. He did talk to his adjacent neighbors to explain what he was doing and from what he told me they said they just didn't want to sign anything. The one behind him didn't have any problem. I just wanted to let you know I talked to Mr. Bravo and he asked me to continue representing him on this so I will take your questions. What he wants to do is he is a Latin American and eagerly hopes we can find some way to work this out. Mr. Engebretson: We were there and thank you for getting it staked. We stood there for some time trying to envision whether or not that satellite dish would likely represent an eyesore or something aesthetically pleasing. In the process we were wondering if it was necessary to locate it in that specific location. We understand that you want to aim that south and west or just south? r.. 12653 Mr. Semaan: South to southwest. Mr. Engebretson: You need a 14 degree angle. Is there no other spot on the property because it is right in the middle of basically nothing. It is completely unscreened and so we were wondering was there any other thing you could do that would give at least some hint of concealing that dish. Mr. Semaan: That is a real good point. We froze our toes off trying to find another place to put this. I did check this site. There is really no other way. The only other way it would work, because this house is a two-story home, is if we were to go further to the east in his back yard. Basically he would be looking through the windows of his home. It is a high home. I believe we did offer a small site plan to put some shrubbery or landscaping around the backside of the dish which would face that property going back to the west. To answer your question, there really wasn't any other way to do it. Mr. Tent: What about the beach umbrella. Here is a typical case. You don't have the approval of the neighbors and if he is determined to have a satellite dish in his yard, you showed us these umbrellas that fit on a little table. Mr. Semaan: I didn't know it was required that he get approval from the neighbors. Mr. Tent: This is one of the things that I look for as one of the Commissioners. I want to know how the neighbors feel about it because it affects them. It is not a requirement. But answer me the question about the umbrella. Mr. Semaan: The extra cost of $800. Just because he lives in a large home doesn't mean he wants to throw his money away. The cost of $800 to him is too much to pay. He is fully aware that he has gone below the limits of what a normal dish size should be Mr. Tent: I am looking at this from an aesthetic standpoint. He is entitled to a satellite if he complies. We have an ordinance and the ordinance says if it doesn't affect the aesthetics of the neighborhood. To me this does affect the neighborhood so if he wants to come in with something that would be compatible, such as these beach umbrellas which you have shown us and I agree with, that would satisfy me but if he can't go in that direction and he will affect the aesthetics of the neighborhood with this type of installation, I can't support it. Mrs. Fandrei: Did you mention to him about the umbrella? Mr. Semaan: Yes I did. I exhausted everything that we talked about as well as my own ideas for whatever it takes to get the job, and I did mention it to him that $800 is the cost of the umbrella and the cost of the system is a little over $2500 and $800 is something he does not want to add to it. He has had some counsel on his ability for the addition and feels there should be no reason why he can't put it in but he has offered to put in some landscaping to disguise the dish. 12654 Mrs. Fandrei: What kind of landscaping? Mr. Semaan: Initially what was shown, I believe, did not come all the way up to the top of the dish. It was basically some two to three foot shrubbery to add some scenery to take away from the initial impact. Mr. Engebretson: My recollection is when we had that sketch of that proposed landscaping, the landscaping that exists is in the neighbor's yard and it gave us the impression that was the landscaping they were talking about as counting toward concealing the dish from that neighbor. Mr. Semaan: It would help. I think it was spoken of but I don't think it was actually documented. Mr. Engebretson: I think you are probably right. Mr. Semaan: He has offered to do something so if you folks were to say can you plant six-foot trees, etc. that would not restrain the satellite signal, that was an open option to him and he did let that be known to me. Mr. Engebretson: I guess if you had brought in tonight a commitment as to what the landscaping is going to be, that would be very valuable. Once that dish goes in, it is pretty difficult to reverse the installation of landscaping. It would be hard to agree as to what it should be but if it is all done in advance, it is very simple to decide. Mr. Semaan: It is winter time to be honest with you and I don't know anything about trees. He said to me let them tell us what they want us to sfty do to make this come together, so you are here to advise me as well as scrutinize what I have to offer. Mr. Alanskas: Gus, I think the problem I have is being the lots in this sub are so short, if you even had some shrubs around it. It would stick out like a sore thumb. There is no good place to put that dish on that small lot. I would be glad to say yes if it could be screened but it just can't. It is not aesthetically right in that back yard. Mr. Semaan: It is the only place where he can receive satellite signals. Mr. Alanskas: Then there is a problem. Mr. Semaan: I don't disagree with what you are saying. I gave you a piece of documentation last week that I hope you reviewed but it has been very successful and has been effective in causing lots of ordinance changes in the civil rights, land use rights, right to information, etc. Mr. Bravo is aware of all of those things. It was important for him to receive programming from South America. What I would like to do is make a suggestion. Will you approve it if he says he will go with an umbrella? Give me some means by which it might be approved. 12655 Mr. Engebretson: I think we gave you that message last time that the umbrella installation would be very difficult to find any fault with unless it was planted on top of the garage or some other aesthetically troublesome area. Nor Mr. Morrow: I don't know what the time frame is. The umbrella sounds like a great idea but is that going to be an umbrella sticking up in the middle of the back yard or will it be an umbrella surrounded by trees or tables and chairs or landscaping that might be a substitute for that. It would be difficult to vote on this tonight without any kind of subjective plan. I would rather have you come to us with a plan and then we vote on it. Mr. Semaan: I did mention at the study meeting and I apologize, I said he did rule out the umbrella so we will leave it at that. If he wants to exercise any other rights, he can. Mr. LaPine: When I was out there Saturday I don't care if you cover it with a covering or you put shrubs around it, the nature of the lot, the depth of the lot, and the way this subdivision is laid out, that location can be seen from every house going to the west. It is shielded somewhat to the east by those tall pine trees behind the houses but you can even see that dish between the houses from the street and, therefore, I don't care what you do at this location, we are not going to get away from the detrimental affect it is going to have on the neighborhood so therefore I can't support this. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was #1-27-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Permit Application by Guillermo Bravo for the installation of a satellite dish antenna on property located at 34660 St. Martins Avenue in Section 4 subject to the following reason: 1) That due to its size and location, this dish antenna would be detrimental to the aesthetic quality and beauty of the surrounding neighborhood by presenting a visual blight that could jeopardize the property values in the area as set forth in the comprehensive plan of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Gniewek I tend to vote against denial for the reason we are looking at a situation where there is no other site for this particular dish. I am also looking at the legal aspect that we seem to be having come up more and more and I think we are going to be tested more and more as this goes along. In my opinion we are infringing upon the rights of a person. I know there are antennas in my area, other than satellite dishes, that are considered to be not aesthetic in nature, for example large CB antennas, large TV antennas, etc. I intend to vote against this resolution. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: Gniewek, Fandrei ABSENT: None 12656 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc. requesting approval to erect ` one ground sign on property located at the southeast corner of Middlebelt and Schoolcraft Roads in Section 25. Mr. Miller: You have the Home Quarters property located on Middlebelt at Schoolcraft. They are proposing one ground sign that will be 6 feet in height and 30 square feet the full sign area. There is an axisting ground sign on the corner. It will be removed so this sign is conforming to the sign ordinance. Mr. Gniewek: Scott, is all the fencing that presently exists there, is that all coming down where this sign is going to be? Mark Drane: I am with T. Rogvoy Associates. All the fencing along Middlebelt and Schoolcraft at the Home Quarters property will be removed completely. Mr. LaPine: Why do we have to have Ladbroke Center? Mr. Drane: The sign is for what we feel is the shopping center. Mr. LaPine: This is one building. Mr. Drane: There are two buildings on the site. Mr. LaPine: The second building, the restaurant, is on a separate parcel of *14ft.• land. Mr. Drane: We consider it a shopping center because there are two uses on the site. The illumination is internal. The sign background is opaque. It is a very aesthetically pleasing architectural sign package. The color of the sign picks up the color of the building. Mr. Engebretson: Was the landscaping for this area included on the landscape plan that was associated with Home Quarters? Mr. Drane: The landscaping on the corner was limited to some flowering trees and some shrubs. I think we have located our sign where it will not be in the way of the landscaping. Mr. Alanskas: Will that go off at dusk or when the store closes? That is a visible corner. What are your plans? Mr. Drane: Home Quarters is not a 24-hour a day store. I am not sure what their operations have planned for the hours of operation of that sign. I would like to have it illuminated 24 hours a day because it is a very simple understated architectural sign. I can't say they are going to turn it off at midnight. Mr. Alanskas: What are the hours of Home Quarters? 12657 Mr. Drane: They are probably open until 9:00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. Mr. Alanskas: I don't think it should be on 24 hours a day. I think it should be on only during the working hours of Home Quarters. __10. Mr. Drane: I think Home Quarters would agree to that. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was #1-28-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc. requesting approval to erect one ground sign on property located at the southeast corner of Middlebelt and Schoolcraft Roads in Section 25, be approved subject to the following condition: 1) That the Sign Elevation and Site Plan, as revised, dated 1/19/93, Sheet 1, File 92026 by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc. , to erect one monument sign on property located at the southeast corner of Middlebelt and Schoolcraft Roads, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Color Rendering Plan received by the Planning Commission on 1/20/93, by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 3) That the sign shall be lit during the working hours of Home Quarters. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Fandrei, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Landscape Plan and Sign Permit Application by Lendrum & Ronayne Development Company on behalf of Stonehouse Estates Subdivision requesting approval for a new subdivision entrance marker and landscape plan approval. Mr. Miller. To refresh your memory Stonehouse Estates Subdivision is located north of Joy Road just west of Newburgh. They are proposing a 20 square foot subdivision marker, which is what is allowed under the ordinance. It will be located in the landscaped area to the right as you drive in the subdivision. The proposed landscaping is there is a detention pond located to the right as you drive in and the landscaping will be around it. There is also landscaping to the left and in the little court. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously approved, it was 12658 X11-29-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning commission does hereby approve Landscape Plan and Sign Permit Application by Lendrum & Ronayne Development Company on behalf of Stonehouse Estates Subdivision requesting approval for a new subdivision entrance marker and landscape plan approval subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Sign Elevation Plan dated 1/11/93 for an entranceway sign for the residential subdivision Stonehouse Estates, being that it meets all requirements of Zoning Ordinance ##543, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Landscape Plan dated 1/20/93, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 657th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on January 26, 1993 was adjourned at 9:52 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ) aures C. McCann, /Secretary C' � ATTEST: t^( L t-'"t,�1 ".L '�lt ' , Jack Engebretjson, Chairman jg