The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLANNING MINUTES 1992-11-17 12430 MINUTES OF THE 653rd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF `rir LIVONIA On Tuesday, November 17, 1992, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 653rd 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 30 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jack Engebretson R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann Conrad Gniewek William LaPine Raymond W. Tent Robert Alanskas Members absent: Brenda Lee Fandrei Mrssrs. 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 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 92-10-1-22 by Kamp-DiComo for Robert Chouinard requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road between Norfolk Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFA to OS. 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 Engineering Department stating based on a preliminary review, it does not appear that the parcel is within any portion of the Tarabusi flood plain. They state this will be reviewed further as plans for the site are finalized. We have also received a letter from James V. Policelli of 19992 Myron Drive stating he is opposed to this rezoning. He states he feels very strongly that this is an unnecessary disturbance to existing property owners. Specifically, present Farmington Road property owners would be forced to relocate to other homes. Additionally, property owners on Myron Drive would have their backyards destroyed 12431 by overlooking empty parking lots. Clearly, there is sufficient vacant office space available on Farmington Road-the property north of Norfolk to Eight Mile Road has remained vacant for some time. Also, many other offices have space that is immediately available on Middlebelt Road and Merriman Road and most other main streets throughout Livonia. He doesn't feel the immediate community is best served with additional vacant office space. He states it is his opinion that this rezoning is not necessary and would be very disruptive to present property owners. He closes by saying he is planning on attending the November 17, 1992 hearing and would appreciate our consideration on this sensitive issue. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, has this been before the Planning Commission before? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Gniewek: What was the result Mr. Nagy: The previous petition was denied by action of the Planning Commission. Mr. Gniewek: What does the Master Plan of the City of Livonia show as far as the development of this particular section of the City? Mr. Nagy: The Future Land Use Plan has designated this area for low density residential. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Dan Dicomo, 15875 Middlebelt: I am with Kamp-DiComo Associates. I was going to start out by reminding everybody that was here and letting those that were not on the Commission at the time that this was a proposal made by our office some years ago. I am not really sure but I would say about eight years ago. We are proposing this again as quite a different proposal than the last time. Not so much as the proposal the first time was that it was professional office and this time it is OS because there is no more professional office. What we are doing in this instance, we are not proposing this to be a speculative office site. What we are planning on doing is that we plan on having a portion of this owner occupied. We intend to purchase this property and to hopefully expand our offices into one of the two buildings that will be on the site. As you know, we have been in the City since 1970 and have been fortunate enough to grow along with the City. Right now we are on Middlebelt Road between Five and Six Mile in a building that is very similar to this in the fact that it is on a major street, it abuts residential pieces of property and I think if you take a look at that project, you will see that as an owner occupied property we have kept it up very well and have gotten along with the neighbors quite well also. What we hope to do is to move ourselves into one of these new buildings and have the other portion of the other building built for a specific tenant. It would not be a speculative office space. It would have a tenant before it would ever be proposed before the Planning Commission or to be built. Also, it would be a quality 12432 project due to the fact it would be similar to the one we have on Middlebelt. We want something we could be proud of and proud to occupy. As in the last time when we presented this project, we feel it is a good buffer to the Knights of Columbus property. The Nair. building is located on the south side of their property with all of their parking to the north end of their property. The way we have situated this is the buildings would basically look out towards the Knights of Columbus property and we feel we have given ourselves ample area around the building to adequately buffer the residential properties that surround us. I would like to show the site plan of what we intend to do so we can show the homeowners and yourselves how we intend to work with them to make sure it is not a project they wouldn't want to see. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. DiComo that would be fine but please confine your presentation to a better understanding of how it impacts the zoning. We don't want to get into any details of site plan type discussions here tonight. Mr. DiComo: Basically what it would be is a owner occupied project. We would work with the neighbors to see how they would like it buffered. Mr. Engebretson: If you have a board that helps us understand how that all fits, you are welcome to show that. (Mr. DiComo presented the site plan) Mr. DiComo: These would be very residential scale single story buildings. They would be shorter than a two-story residence. We are looking at about 16 to 17 foot maximum height for these structures. We would like to be able to work with the single family residences to the north and to the west to make sure they would get what they want. Mr. Gniewek: Do you own the property presently? Mr. DiComo: Right now we do not own the property. Mr. Gniewek: You are proposing two buildings. You are saying it is for your company. Are you proposing to use all of the facilities for your company? Mr. DiComo: No at this point in time we see ourselves using one of the two buildings and like I tried to explain, the other building would not be built speculatively. It would have a tenant before it would be built. Mr. Gniewek: So you are saying you would build one building you would occupy and then you would not build another building until you had occupants? Mr. DiComo: Correct. Mr. Gniewek: Which building would you build first? Mr. DiComo: I would imagine we would build the front building first. 12433 Mr. LaPine: You talked about a buffer. I agree a buffer would buffer the Knights of Columbus Hall. What is the buffer for the next piece of property? That is a residential piece of property. Once this piece of property goes OS, all the homes up and down there are nice homes. I can see eventually all those homes are going to be sold because of this piece of property going OS because the next guy will say you went to OS here why don't we just have an OS next door and continue down Farmington Road to Eight Mile Road. We had some proposals here next to the medical center on Eight Mile Road, which we had three or four people that wanted to come in and put some more medical buildings in and we turned those down because we felt there was enough property there where we felt somebody could come in and put these parcels together and put a small subdivision in there. In my opinion, we have enough OS and professional buildings in that area to take care of that area and I don't see where going OS on that particular property is going to help that area. All you are going to do is force all these other lots eventually to go the same way. For me, I would think from there until you run into the R-3 property, it would all have to go the same way. I am for keeping it residential. Mr. Gniewek: How much square footage do you have to have? Why do you need additional square footage from what you have on Middlebelt Road? Mr. DiComo: Right now on Middlebelt Road, in the building we have, I think it is 10,000 square feet total and we have a dentist who takes up about 3,000 square feet and we have a long term tenant that has been there since we built the building who has about 5,000 square feet. That leaves us with not much, 2,000 to 2,500 square feet. Mr. Gniewek: Is it necessary for your expansion to be in a building of your design? Could it be in a building that exists on Farmington Road that someone else designed? Mr. DiComo: We would like to be in a building of our own design. Mr. Gniewek: The reason I mentioned it is we have in that particular area six vacant units in a medical plaza, we have seven vacant units in a professional plaza, we have Pinebrooke Office Park which has two vacant units. There is a lot of vacant office space along that area. Putting more office space, which you are not planning on using all of it, doesn't seem to me to be a logical development of the area. Have you looked in other areas? Why is this site prime to you? Mr. DiComo: This piece of property happens to be owned by a relative of ours and the structure that is there now has to be torn down. The condition of the home is basically condemnable so this whole issue came up last month again because we are going to be in charge of the demolition of the existing structure. Mr. Gniewek: Ideally, is this where your firm would like to locate or are there better places in Livonia for Kamp-DiComo Architects to locate? 12434 Mr. DiComo: I think where we are at is very good and I don't know if anybody else would consider it the best place to be. I think we have taken a piece of property on Middlebelt and done very well with it. I think we could take this piece on Farmington Road and also do very well with it. It is something that if it wasn't desirable, we wouldn't be here making this proposal. Mr. Gniewek: But this is a matter of convenience really because you have some interest as far as relatives and property are concerned. Mr. DiComo: Correct. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this proposal? Leon Lepla, 19875 Myron: This is the second lot from the RUF area. Two things. There is a lot of available office space in Livonia as you have indicated. We don't feel this particular plot needs to be built on for office space. On Eight Mile Road in the strip mall there is an eyesore there, a partially built building. That could be finished and used for office space. In addition, that parcel of land does flood. This past week the creek flooded and that parcel does flood. If anything is built on that property, our property floods more. We think there is a nice greenbelt there for our protection from street noise and we feel very strongly that should not be built for OS. Jim Policelli, 19992 Myron: That is Lot 47. It was my letter that was read. I just want to support what my neighbor had to say and I concur and I think what will happen is each one of those parcels to the north will be affected. Once the first one starts, the others are going to fall in line. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-10-1-22 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #11-510-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 17, 1992 on Petition 92-10-1-22 by Kamp-DiComo for Robert Chouinard requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road between Norfolk Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFA to OS, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-10-1-22 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is in conflict with the Future Land Use Plan which designates the area as low density residential land use. 2) That the proposed change of zoning would encourage similar requests for changes of zoning north along Farmington Road thereby compounding the problem of conflicting with the Future Land Use Plan and policies for growth and development. 3) That the proposed change of zoning would represent a further encroachment into a residential area. 12435 4) That there is no demonstrated need for additional office services in the subject area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance .'441" #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 92-9-2-38 by Gary Reister requesting waiver use approval for a home occupation at 18329 Grimm, east of Middlebelt Road and south of Pickford Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12. 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 Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no objections to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating this petition meets the requirements of Planning ordinance with relation to the Police Department's input. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating this proposal conforms, in all respects, to the definition of a home occupation and we can support its approval. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? *44111. Gary Reister, 18329 Grimm: What I would like to do is hook a computer to a telephone line, sign up clients, monitor them up to three times a day, calling them at designated times when they designate to make sure they are OK. If they are not OK, calling relatives, their friends or who they designate, other than the Police Department and Life Squad. These would be relatives that they designate to come and check on them. Mr. Gniewek: Have you had experience with this type of service before? Mr. Reister: No but I bought the equipment in Sheraton, Indiana and I have gone to their seminars and have had discussions with their people. I fully understand how the equipment works and what it is supposed to do. Mr. Gniewek: Is this a national organization that services clients of this type? Mr. Reister: They sell several different types of computer home occupation equipment. They do voice mail, voice messaging, various different types of monitoring. It is all done by computers. Mr. Gniewek: Who is they? 12436 Mr. Reister: The Computer Business Services. They put the equipment together. Mr. Gniewek: Is this a service that is offered locally presently or is this a new service for the area? '411*. Mr. Reister: This is a new service I would like to bring to Livonia. Mr. Gniewek: Have you had any previous experience with any services in any other area? Mr. Reister: No sir. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Reister, what caused you to come before the City to ask for this waiver? Mr. Reister: I found out you could not do a business like this from your home unless you have permission. Mr. Morrow: How did you find that out? Mr. Reister: By calling here and asking. Mr. Morrow: I want to commend you for not just setting up business but going through the exercise and securing the proper approvals to do it. Mr. LaPine: I will be honest with you. I have a problem with this. Not with this particular business because from what you say here it is a very small operation. There is a good reason why we have ordinances to control businesses in residential areas. Once we open the flood gates of an operation like yours, I can see someone "4111. down the street coming in who wants to operate a small hairdressing shop in the basement for neighbors and friends. Residential area is supposed to be for residential not business. That is the problem I have. I don't know how I am going to vote on your case yet. I have to get some more information. You say you call three times a day. It is all done by computer? Mr. Reister: Yes sir. Mr. LaPine: If someone is in trouble, if you are not physically talking to the person, if the computer is talking to them, is there some way the computer clicks in and calls a relative? How does that operate? Mr. Reister: The way the computer is set up, it will call them at pre-designated times. If they answer the phone and touch a 1 on their touch tone phone, then it will consider that they are OK. If they do not answer the phone, if the phone is off the hook and it is busy or if they push a 0, help is immediately called. Mr. LaPine: Who calls the help? Mr. Reister: The computer. Mr. LaPine: The computer is programmPd in such a way that they know the numbers to call for that individual? 12437 Mr. Reister: Yes sir. The computer goes up to three different help numbers that are dialed and it will call until someone answers. Mr. LaPine: So basically there does not have to be anyone in the home to _ft._ operate it? You could be at your regular job and this can be going on by itself? Mr. Reister: Yes sir. I do plan to be in the house when it is operating. That is one of the reasons I would like to have it at home. In case the phone line goes out, I can change the phone line because I do have two lines in my house. If the electricity goes out, I can hook up the generator. Mr. LaPine: This will be a full time business for you? Mr. Reister: It will be a full time business once I get some clients. Mr. LaPine: How do you generate the clients? Mr. Reister: At first it will be by advertising and then I hope by word of mouth. Mr. LaPine: The advertising will consist of giving your home address and telephone number. Mr. Reister: Yes sir but there should be no reason why anyone should come to the house. Mr. LaPine: You are going to advertise in the yellow pages with your home ,u. address and telephone number? Mr. Reister: That is correct. Mr. Tent: Mr. Reister, if your business should expand, do you anticipate using any satellite dishes? Mr. Reister: No sir. Mr. Tent: Is that in the realm of that type of operation? Mr. Reister: No sir. It is strictly telephone lines. Mr. Tent: I understand what you are doing now. This is for latchkey children and the elderly. You could very well do tele-marketing also. Have you given that any thought? Mr. Reister: I gave it a lot of thought when I bought the equipment. I wanted to do tele-marketing until I found there are so many regulations in Michigan that it is almost impossible to meet the regulations. Mr. Tent: If this is successful, could you branch into tele-marketing? Mr. Reister: The equipment is capable of doing that. However, with the regulations in the state of Michigan, these are state regulations not local, it is almost impossible to meet them using a recorded �"" message. Therefore, I would not consider doing that. 12438 Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, if he were to go ahead and expand to tele-marketing, would he have to come back and get another waiver? Mr. Nagy: If you were to limit this proposed use to what he is specifically requesting, then he would have to come back in. If you so structure your approval to limit it to the use applied for, then any other expansion in another area would compel the applicant to come back to the Commission. Mr. Tent: Have we done that? Mr. Nagy: It is the staff recommendation that you do that. Mr. Tent: This is a waiver use, which means the waiver goes with the use of the property. In the event, he would move and someone else would come in, could they pick up the same waiver or would they have to come before us? Mr. Nagy: They could pick up the same waiver so long as they lived within the same conditions and constraints that are established with the waiver use. It runs with the land and they could rely on it to the same extent the applicant here is proposing. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Reister, having spent more than 30 years in the computer industry, I don't have any problem with the technical aspects of what you are proposing to do. I think you have given the right answers as to why you would want to be on site and what functions you would perform, so I am going to get into a different area. One of the areas that are of principal concern when there is a business New operating out of a residence is they can become a nuisance when they start to have employees and have clients or suppliers come to your home to provide a service. I understand you may have a telephone company there and you may have some other kind of need for servicing your equipment, or maybe you take the equipment out for service, but we are really concerned about having the street loaded up with cars and employees coming and going at the various hours of the day, etc. Having said all that, would you have any difficulty with this waiver use being restricted to the operation of this computer based phone service that you describe in your petition restricting the number of employees of this venture to one, namely yourself? Mr. Reister: No sir that is what I plan to do. Mr. Engebretson: If there were restrictions on the waiver use, you wouldn't feel that would be limiting you in any way? If your business is very successful, you will deal with that by adding either telephone lines and/or more computer resources. That would still only require you as the only employee on site. Mr. Reister: That is correct. Mr. Engebretson: Regarding the sale of your service. If you are going to be maintaining the duty on site monitoring the performance of the equipment, I can understand how you could do telephone type 12439 solicitation of business but will it be necessary for you to go off site and visit with a client to explain what your service does? Are you going to do that yourself? �.• Mr. Reister: Yes Sir. I had hoped to do it in the evening. Most of the people I plan to sell the service to would be the children or younger relatives of elderly people. I feel when everybody works until five o'clock, the best time to do it would be when everybody is there, including the people that would be called if they were needed. If you get them all together it would usually be after five o'clock so I would be out there and my wife would be home and she could check on the equipment. Mr. Engebretson: You would not have sales representatives marketing this service? Mr. Reister: No sir. If it grows to the point where I would have to have sales people and more computers, then I am going to move into an office building. Right now I plan to do this as my income and do it for myself. Mr. Engebretson: What do you do when the prospective client doesn't have touch tone service available. Can your system somehow accommodate them? Mr. Reister: No sir. Mr. Engebretson: Presumably your service is going to be wherever in southeastern Michigan you can obtain clients? Mr. Reister: Right now it is going to be in the Livonia and surrounding area where it is not long distance until I get enough clients. Mr. Engebretson: If this is a 24-hour a day operation, what do you do when the equipment goes down at three o'clock in the morning? Mr. Reister: The computer will call people from eight o'clock in the morning until nine o'clock at night. If there is a problem, it will call up until midnight of that night. At such time I better get on the phone and call somebody. It does not call all night. It stops calling at midnight and resets for the following day starting at eight o'clock. It does the compiling of the records, how many calls were made, what kind of calls they were, who it reached, who it didn't reach, if there was help needed and if it got one, two or three responses to the health calls. Mr. Engebretson: I need to follow up on that question then because I didn't understand it was a limited period of time. Let's say the machine goes down at three o'clock in the afternoon, are you going to have service trucks pulling up to service the equipment? Mr. Reister: No I have two computers. Mr. Engebretson: So you have redundancy built in that will allow you to keep operating while you then take the equipment out for service? Mr. Reister: Yes sir. 12440 Mr. Engebretson: There won't be any service vehicles, customers, sales reps or other kinds of employees parking their cars in your driveway or on that street? Mr. Reister: There should not be. There is no reason for anyone to come to the house. Mr. Engebretson: I just wanted to get that all part of the public record sir and I too commend you for taking the proper steps in coming through the process rather than just doing it, keeping a low profile waiting for someone to drop a dime, as Mr. Morrow would say. Mr. Morrow: You covered it very nicely Mr. Chairman. My concern is there will not be an impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, what methods does the City have of policing this type of business so we would know the petitioner is living within the parameters of what he has proposed to us this evening? Does the Inspection Department go out to those areas to check periodically? What is the system the City uses to double check that everything that is being proposed is being done? Mr. Nagy: The City would make an initial inspection after the use is actually implemented on the property and thereafter probably would not inspect it unless there was a complaint. If some neighbor would see some excess activity, then an inspector would likely go out and evaluate it but that would probably be the extent of it. Mr. Gniewek: So unless there was some noise made, there will not be any type of �.. inspection? Mr. Nagy: Exactly. Mr. LaPine• In reality John, once he gets the initial inspection, and I am not saying this is going to happen, he could conceivably expand the business and unless there was a complaint no one would know it. Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Mr. LaPine• Are you now in the computer field? Do you know computers and things of this nature or is this something new that you are doing? Mr. Reister: The business would be something new. I have been operating computers for about seven years. Mr. LaPine: The next question I have, let's assume a person has a problem at one of your locations. Between the time you make the first call, can he contact you so you can contact his relatives or does he or she have to wait until the next phone call? Mr. Reister: The system is not set up that way. This is not one of those things you wear around your neck. This is a telephone call up to three times a day to see if they can answer the phone, if they are not laying down on the floor someplace with a broken hip or sick in bed where they can't get to a phone. 12441 Mr. LaPine: When they pick up the phone, you don't really talk they just hit a button on the phone, which means everything is OK? Mr. Reister: That is correct. I don't do the calling. The computer does the \F,r calling and the computer asks them if they are OK. Depending on which button they push or if they don't push a button, the computer considers there is something wrong. Mr. Alanskas: How long will that phone keep ringing until they feel they are not OK? Mr. Reister: It is what it is set at. Right now it is set at ten rings. It goes into redial and right now it is set up for 15 minutes. It will call four times. It will then call for someone to check on them. Mr. Alanskas: Do you have a customer base right now as far as customers? Mr. Reister: No sir. Mr. Alanskas: How many do you think you could have in your home before you would need to have an office outside the home? Mr. Reister: The computer is set to take care of 500 people. If it takes three to five minutes per phone call, you can't have that many so you would have to have more computers. I figure at my house I can run three computers. After that I am going to need more space. If I get that successful, I am going to build my own office building. lota. Mr. LaPine: If a person is in trouble, you call their family? You don't call EMS or anything like that? Mr. Reister: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: The point I was going to make is if you call EMS and they go there, that party is going to be charged for a call from EMS when maybe at that particular time they were indisposed and couldn't get to the telephone but it is always the relative you contact? Mr. Reister: That is correct and it is usually a relative or a neighbor and that way you can eliminate any problems. If there is a lot of false alarms, it is better to get a relative. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-9-2-38 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was #11-511-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 17, 1992 on Petition 92-9-2-38 by Gary Reister requesting waiver use approval for a home occupation at 18329 Grimm, east of Middlebelt Road and south of Pickford Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, the City Planning Department does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-9-2-38 be approved subject to the following conditions: 12442 1) That the use shall be limited to that described by the petitioner as a computer phone system service and more particularly described in written form as part of the petition. stow 2) That the proposed use shall utilize an area equal to no more than 8% of the residence. 3) That no article or service is sold or offered for sale on the premises except such as is proposed by such proposed home occupation. 4) That the proposed use shall not require internal or external alterations or construction features or equipment or machinery, with the exception of the proposed computer equipment, not customary in a residential area. 5) That there be no other employees other than members of the family. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 5.03 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. fir• 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 am going to vote for this proposal but normally I am against businesses being operated in residential neighborhoods but I think this is an exception and so this is not the rule. I just wanted to clarify that. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: Alanskas ABSENT: Fandrei 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 92-10-2-39 by Bob Evans Farms, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a full service restaurant (Cantina del Rio) to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Victor Parkway and I-275 Expressway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. 12443 Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the site plans meet the requirements of the city ordinance pertaining to the Police Department. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no objections to this proposal. However, at the present time, there are no water mains or fire hydrants on the site. We would require a minimum of 1 on-site hydrant to be no further than 75 ft. from the fire department connection. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The plans, as submitted, call for frame construction; this type of construction is not permitted for this use. 2. All parking spaces which are to be used by the restaurant are required to be 10' x 20' . The 71 spaces designated as "Easement Area" are for restaurant use and are shown as being 9' wide. The same holds true for the area assumed to be employee parking. Zoning Board of Appeals Case //8904-38 speaks in terms of "restaurant sites" - since there is no other building within 1/4 mile of this proposed development, we assume that all spaces are for the restaurant site. There appears to be sufficient space to increase the length of the parking spaces shown as 18' deep to the required 20' depth if minor alterations are made in the overwide traffic aisles - two-way aisles are only required to be 22' wide. 3. All lawn areas within the boundaries of the site should be sodded and all landscape areas served with complete underground sprinklers. 4. A detailed sign package should be submitted for review. We were not provided with sufficient data to evaluate either the wall or the ground sign. 5. At least two driveways are required for ingress and egress from +r Victor Parkway. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step forward. David Johnson: I am the Chairman of Victor International. Also with me are Peter Steinberger from Cantina del Rio, Bob Evans; Nick Vollman from Cantina and Mark Hubbard from Victor International. The master plan before you is reflective of the original master plan for the corporate park and also the site plan that was approved in conjunction with Building //1 with the concept of the restaurant located on the pond. More specifically the restaurant has been moved about 50 feet to the west but it is in the same general location as in the previous site plan for these buildings and for the contemplated master plan use. The site plan for the restaurant takes advantage of the aesthetic benefits of the pond. The pond acts as a natural buffer area and has outdoor dining. The code for parking would be 179 spaces incorporating the outdoor dining. Part of our total package with Cantina is to have excessive parking that will also be to the benefit of the office buildings when constructed. Parking lots are expensive to build. We felt it was better to get them out of the way in the beginning. The landscape plan incorporates a natural buffer area screening the building from the parkway in this situation to the east, with the entrance being located to the westerly side of the property orienting the visual aesthetics to what we have always called the front yard of the 12444 overall development, being 1-275. The Cantina is a very successful concept which is in Columbus right now. It is doing in excess of $5,000,000 a year in sales. It is a festive atmosphere. Part of what we looked for in the overall concept of the restaurant for the park was affordable dining that would benefit both the park and Livonia as a whole. In the discussions, different from the Colubus store because of the office park, the north and easterly faces of the building which face the office park and the parkway are restricted to all brick and do not have any of the signage or writing on the building. The interior is again a festive atmosphere with a lot of color and a lot of variety and collection of different types of things from Mexico. It is fine dining with Mexican food and very high quality food. The exterior, again there is not a ground sign. There is the use of neon on the word del Rio. Not on Cantina or on anything else and there is a limit of the use of neon virtually around the entrance area. Mr. Tent: Mr. Johnson, 1 am real pleased that Victor Parkway is going to have another tenant and I wish you all the success in the world. I have several questions. Number one, let's get back to the neon around the building. Could you eliminate that neon at the perimeter of the building? Mr. Johnson: We have had extensive discussions back and forth with the Bob Evans people and the original submittal was for neon around the entire building and that is on the Columbus store. Our current agreement with them is the neon only goes here (He pointed this out on the plan). We are requesting that you grant that. That is critical to them. It is part of their sign package. tri. Mr. Tent: I can see where the entire building being neon all the way around would have a purpose but here this is such a small spot, so to eliminate just that corner would give balance to the entire balance. Mr. Johnson: Cooker's has the neon. Mr. Tent: I, as one Commissioner, wasn't very happy with Cooker's. Mr. Johnson: I think what they are comparing to is Cooker's has the entire perimeter neon. We didn't want to grant that. The number one argument that the Embassy Suites made was people can see a hotel here but they can't figure how to get to it. We want to have an attraction to draw them into the park and let them know where the front door is. Mr. Tent: You remember Dave, Embassy Suites came before us too. They wanted to run neon all around the building and I guess you withdrew it because of the comments you received from us. Tell me about your parking. Are all the parking bays 10'x 20'? Mr. Johnson: The code is 179 spaces. This plan shows a total of over 300 spaces. part of our economic arrangement was to provide additional paved parking spaces since they cost about $10,000 a space. These 12445 spaces are not necessary to be in ten foot areas and what we propose to do is have the area ten foot which has the traffic to the restaurant and has the turnover for the restaurant. +r. Mr. Tent: As you know, you were given a variance on Victor Parkway for the parking because that was an office complex. This is a restaurant. Mr. Johnson: Well 179 spaces of this is for the restaurant. Mr. Tent: The ordinance states, and should be enforced, that the parking area bays should be 10' x 20' . This is what I would hold out for. It should be 10' x 20' without exception. You have no hardships. You have plenty of land. With bigger cars and restaurant traffic going in and out, it cost a lot of money to repair door side panels. This is one thing I, as one Commissioner, feel we should live by the ordinance and the ordinance calls for 10' x 20' . I can't support any new development coming in, that doesn't have a hardship, without the 10' x 20' parking spaces. Mr. Johnson: I believe it is submitted 10' x 18' and we could go to 10' x 20 because we have extra wide aisleways. Again, there was a question of whether or not we should show all the parking places in the site plan since a number of them are attributable to the office park. The code for the restaurant is 179 spaces and we would attribute 10' x 20' spaces to the use that would be for the restaurant. Mr. Tent: I would support this proposal if we did have 10' x 20' parking spaces. That is very important to me. This project looks good. I think you have done a fine job and it is going to be a good mow addition to the City so think that over before the evening ends, if you could go with 10' x 20' . Mr. LaPine: I want to get it correct in my mind. The front of the building will not be visible from Seven Mile. Is that correct? Mr. Johnson: You will get glimpses of it from Seven Mile. Mr. LaPine: Basically it faces the expressway? Mr. Johnson: Yes the entrance ramp. Mr. LaPine: Is the reason that is being done is to draw traffic from the expressway? Mr. Johnson: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Are you going to have signage along Seven Mile Road so when they come off the expressway they know how to get into this? Mr. Johnson: We felt the restaurant is an amenity to the office park and the community. What we did not want to have was a pylon sign along Seven Mile or a pylon sign along I-275. Part of our feeling would be even the neon and the entrance orientation was an agreement to not have off-site signage or perimeter signage on the site. 12446 Mr. LaPine: What you are telling me is the only neon is what I see here and that will be basically facing the exit off I-275? All the other three sides will be brick? `,., Mr. Johnson: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Johnson, what is your percentage for landscaping? Mr. Johnson: I believe we are at 18 1/2% Mr. Alanskas: How about sprinkling system? Mr. Johnson: It will be installed. Mr. McCann: Back to the parking spaces. I am confused as to the handicap. You are using eight foot parking bays with a five foot leeway between them. Is that correct? Mr. Johnson: I believe the design for the handicap is per the new law. Mr. McCann: Instead of having twelve foot handicap bays, you went with eight foot bays with a five foot ramp between each bay. Mr. Johnson: That is the new requirement as of some time this year. Mr. McCann: If my calculations are correct, that works out to 10 1/2 feet per bay. How many 10 foot parking spaces do you have for the restaurant with the revised plan? Mr. Johnson: We have a drawing with 175 plus 8 handicap ten foot spaces. Code is 179. It is our feeling that if you take this drawing, which is the usage area of the restaurant and make these 10' x 20' spaces, this is 101 spaces at ten feet plus 8 handicap spaces and then you have 111 in the perimeter that are 9 foot spaces and employee parking. Mr. McCann: You only have 101 ten-foot spaces? Mr. Johnson: This is what we would request. We have another plan showing 175 and 8 handicap spaces at ten foot. Mr. McCann: Which plan are you asking for approval on tonight? Mr. Johnson: We would like to have approval on 101 ten-foot spaces in the traffic area for the restaurant and 111 spaces at the nine-foot and the eight handicaps. Mr. McCann: Do you realize we couldn't approve that? You would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to get that approved. The variance from ZBA is only for the business portion not the restaurant portion. Mr. Johnson: I guess I will ask for this to be approved (referring to the 175 with 8 handicap). So you have a plan now that exceeds code. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, in the letter from Inspection they indicate the frame construction. Is there any validity in that? 12447 Mr. Johnson: That was pointed out by the Building Department. They have discussed that with the Building Department and they will meet code. It has to be brick on top of block. 'tow Mr. LaPine: I have a couple of questions about the operation of the restaurant. What are the hours? Are you open for lunch? Mr. Steinberger: They are open at eleven o'clock for lunch and will be open until 10:00 p.m. during the week and 1:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday night. Mr. LaPine: So you are open approximately from eleven in the morning until ten at night except on the weekends. You don't have any entertainment? Mr. Steinberger: No we don't. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Johnson, I hate to get stuck on this parking issue but you not only fall short of the requirement in terms of the width but also as you heard earlier the depth. Mr. Johnson: The code for the restaurant which meets the ordinance is 179 spaces. This plan shows 175 ten-foot spaces and eight handicap spaces, which is 183 spaces, which exceeds the code. In addition to that, there are parking spaces provided that are office building parking spaces that are built for Victor I and they are office building parking spaces that we are going to let them use at night. Mr. LaPine: What he is saying is they are also going to be building some parking spaces at the same time for the office complex, which I '011mr understand they got a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to have those spaces smaller than the ones at the restaurant. Mr. Engebretson: The spaces I am looking at here are between the restaurant and Victor Parkway, which I suspect have nothing to do with the office. Mr. Johnson: It is a all a calculation of numbers. Mr. Engebretson: Why do you make them 9 feet instead of ten? What did you say it costs to construct a parking space? Mr. Johnson: It is a calculation of quantity of spaces for allowable square footage in the office park and these spaces are attributable to uses in the office park. Part of what we did was, code is 179 spaces and we decided to improve the parking area for the office building at the same time. The code for the restaurant is 179 spaces and this plan has 183 parking places that meets code. Mr. Engebretson: Earlier you mentioned the cost per parking space. Do you recall what you said? Mr. Johnson: About $10,000 for a deck. 12448 Mr. Engebretson: This is not a deck. Mr. Nagy, let me try to understand whether or not this plan is one we can act on. I understand about the Zoning Board variance grant for the nine foot spaces for the office portion. I trust these spaces that are off site, we could approve S ., the plan because there is an existing variance that deals with them. Does that variance also deal with these spaces that are right alongside the restaurant or was that variance not granted here for a piece of geography but for a designated use? Mr. Nagy: It was granted for a designated use. They conditioned it that the variance is for long term office parking purposes and the site plan that was used when the application was made some years ago showed restaurants and the Zoning Board was specific in their language to exclude the application of that variance for restaurant parking. So it is going to be an interpretation as to whether or not that is, in fact, restaurant parking. If it is restaurant parking, it will have to be ten-foot wide spaces. Mr. Engebretson: Who will make that determination? Mr. Nagy: The Zoning Board through the Inspection Department will make that determination. Mr. Engebretson: So if we were to approve this we would be within our authority based on what you just said but there could be some subsequent ruling. Mr. Nagy: There could be a ruling that would widen those to ten feet. 411m, Mr. Tent: I am confused on this one point. They are all going to be 10' x 20' . I am looking at the drawing here and they are 18 foot long. Mr. Nagy: The driveway or aisleway is wider than what the ordinance requires so it is merely extending the length of the parking space into the aisleway. Where they are deficient in depth of the parking space, they are generous in the width of the aisles. Mr. Tent: Then this drawing would have to be revised or a notation made to that extent. Mr. Engebretson: I think we could just indicate that the parking bays indicated as 18 foot would be revised to reflect the 20 foot spaces. Mr. Nagy: We will work that out. Mr. Engebretson: We don't want you to overhang the greenbelt because the greenbelt gets wiped out with salt, etc. Mr. LaPine: I just want a clarification. We are going to have 183 parking spaces for the restaurant under this plan? Mr. Johnson: Code is 179 parking spaces. We will provide 179 parking spaces although we are showing 183 at ten foot. Mr. LaPine: How many parking places are you going to have, 183 or 179? 'r.. 12449 Mr. Johnson: 183 at 10' x 20' . Mr. Engebretson: One last question regarding that neon. The neon on that board appears to be quite bright but you have indicated that is because .r., of the time lapse photography you have used. How would you compare the intensity of that neon in that configuration to the neon that is on the side of your hotel? Mr. Johnson: It is not red and it is very limited in configuration at this point to these two areas. It is low profile because it is a one-story situation and it really ties in with the signs. The hotel has three neon signs basically on the expressway end. This has just the del Rio with the extension of the neon situation here. It is not brighter than the hotel. Mr. Engebretson: That is what I am asking, how does it compare in real life to what we see on the side of the Embassy Suites Hotel because I don't think that is particularly objectionable. Mr. Johnson: It will not be brighter. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this proposal? Gary Markwardt, 37785 St. Martins: That is the two lots on the eastern edge of the Victor Parkway. I have a question for Mr. Johnson. I would like to know what, if anything, specifically is being done to shield the residents given the festive nature of the business and the fact it is open until one o'clock on weekends and in my southwest bedroom I ,i„ can see this site. I don't have air conditioning and I sleep with my windows open in the summertime. What specifically is going to be done to shield the residents? Mr. Johnson: Specifically what is being done is this restaurant pad is four feet below the corporate park elevation. In addition to that, this area here will have an undulating three to four foot high berm on top of this. On top of this berm will be trees that will in a continuous nature range from three to ten feet in height so basically you will have a screening situation along the parkway because the entrance to the restaurant and the activities for the restaurant are completely on the opposite side of the building. Mr. Markwardt: Is there any plan to do anything on the berm that was set aside for the residents to shield them? The 100 foot berm on the east side of the property? Mr. Johnson: I think that will have additional landscaping when that office building is built. Mr. Markwardt: But there is nothing in this plan? Mr. Johnson: What is on this plan would affectively create a ten foot screening wall in a contiguous nature along this line over the building. 12450 Mr. Markwardt: Will there be any utilities brought down Northland or St. Martins? Mr. Johnson: No. Mr. Markwardt: We still have temporary facilities in my front yard four years So , later. That is why I asked the question. I would ask that the plan be expanded to really shield the residents. I don't think this does a good job particularly when you live in a two-story house like I do and I can look out my bedroom window and see the site. Given it is going to be open until one o'clock in the morning on the weekends, I would ask the Commission to think about some additional shielding of some kind hopefully on that 100 foot berm that was set aside for that purpose that has yet to be developed. That was actually set aside at the time of the rezoning to protect the residents but it has never been developed. Mr. Johnson: What was set aside was the greenbelt area. Mr. Markwardt: While that is true, the idea was that was somehow going to be developed to shield the residents from the development. As the development is proceeding, I think the Commission should take into account that promise was made to the residents so we need to think about that as we are approving the development of this area. Mr. Johnson: I think, for one thing, this is consistent with the master plan but it is a lot better than having a twelve-story office building. Mr. Markwardt: I agree with that but it is all relevant. Mr. Engebretson: It is not really for this particular site so I I don't think we can deal with that. I understand Mr. Markwardt's concerns but I don't know if there is anything at all we can do relative to this site that would move over to that berm. Maybe Council could do that. Mr. Markwardt: As this proceeds north, we have to take that into account. That was a promise that was made during the very emotional hearing and I would like to see at some point a plan to develop it and make it look presentable. Right now it doesn't look like much. Mr. Engebretson: I think you make a good point sir and that is something we need to study as these new proposals come along. Mr. Morrow: I think Mr. Johnson has heard what the neighbors have said and I think he has always showed a sympathy for living in harmony with the residential. This shouldn't be a big impact but certainly as the development proceeds I think he would make an attempt to shield it if it becomes necessary. Mr. Engebretson: He is shaking his head yes. Mr. LaPine: John, on the letter from the Inspection Department point 5 says at least two driveways are required for ingress and egress from Victor Parkway. Does that mean into the restaurant area? I only see one. Is that something we should be concerned with? \.. 12451 Mr. Nagy: We believe the restaurant site is served by two driveways due to the fact that Victor Corporate Park Drive has linkage to both Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road. Certainly when the future development to the north and this site itself is developed as far as off-street parking for the buildings, it will have multiple '44111. driveway accesses. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-10-2-39 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #11-512-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 17, 1992 on Petition 92-10-2-39 by Bob Evans Farms, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a full service restaurant (Cantina del Rio) to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Victor Parkway and I-275 Expressway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-10-2-39 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 11-16-92, as revised, prepared by Wolfgang Doerschlac, Architects which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the Building Elevations plans Sheet A3.1 and A3.2 dated 11-16-92, as revised, prepared by Wolfgang Doerschlac, Architects which are hereby approved shall be adhered to. __ 3) That the Landscape Plan dated 11-16-92 prepared by John Grissim & Associates, Landscape Architects, is hereby approved and shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 4) That a complete underground sprinkler system serving all landscaped areas shall be installed. 5) That the number of customer seats provided shall not exceed 308. 6) That all off-street parking spaces needed to satisfy the parking requirement set forth in the Zoning Ordinance shall be at least 10 feet in width and 20 feet in depth per the revised site plan. 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 11.03 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 will complement the existing and proposed hotel and office uses in the Victor Corporate Park. 12452 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 92-10-2-40 by Bob Evans Farms, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license in connection with a proposed restaurant (Cantina del Rio) to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Victor Parkway and I-275 Expressway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Johnson, are you planning on utilizing a new liquor license or are you planning on purchasing a new liquor license? Mr. Johnson: A new liquor license. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-10-2-40 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #I11-513-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 17, 1992 on Petition 92-10-2-40 by Bob Evans Farms, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license in connection with a proposed restaurant (Cantina del Rio) to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Victor Parkway and I-275 Expressway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby %m, recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-10-2-40 be approved 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 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the utilization of a Class C license at the proposed location provides a service customarily found in conjunction with restaurants of this type. 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 92-10-2-41 by V. S. Kyriakopoulos requesting waiver use approval to increase the floor area and seating capacity of an existing restaurant (Kerby's Koney Island) located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Yale Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. 12453 Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to the waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no objection to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the following is submitted for your NINE. consideration: (1) For the 150 seats proposed, 75 parking spaces will be needed. The number of staff is not stated so a number of 10 was assumed. This will account for 85 parking spaces. The north parking lot will accommodate 203 vehicles with 85 spaces used by Kerby's. That will leave 118 spaces for the other tenants of the center. I made several inspections of the site at various times. The parking lot was found to be over half full on each inspection. It would appear that the addition of Kerby's would overburden the parking lot. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or problems were found. Mr. Engebretson: Will the petitioner please come forward. Van Kyriakopoulos: Right now the restaurant is only allowed to have 45 seats and that is not enough to operate and we would like to have enough seats to operate the restaurant properly. Mr. Alanskas: You just remodeled that entire building recently to reopen. Your kitchen appears to be in your 36 foot side. Are you going to take that out? Mr. Kyriakopoulos: We are going to move the kitchen to the south. Mr. LaPine: There are two empty buildings to the south of you. Are you taking '1411. one building or two buildings? Mr. Kyriakopoulos: I am only taking one building. Mr. LaPine: I am just curious. You spent a lot of money for the renovations and it looks like you are going to spend it all over again because you are going to have to move the kitchen. Mr. Kyriakopoulos: That was the existing kitchen. We did some remodeling but basically it was in the same location. Mr. LaPine: When you move into the new space, you will put in a whole brand new kitchen. Have you been very successful here? Mr. Kyriakopoulos: Not as much as we would want. Mr. LaPine: You want to jump from 40 seats to 150 seats. You must feel the business is there. Mr. Kyriakopoulos: We expect the business to be there. Mr. LaPine: There is still a fair amount of empty space in that center. Mr. Morrow: I would like to clear up something. Do the Traffic people say they felt the site would be overburdened from a parking standpoint? e,.. However, it does meet the ordinance. I guess it is subjective at this point. From his standpoint he is still within the ordinance as far as parking requirements. 12454 Mr. Gniewek: I would like to point out that the Traffic Bureau indicated on each visit to the site they only found the parking lot half full. Mr. Engebretson: How many seats are there in your Orchard Lake restaurant? Mr. Kyriakopoulos: About 130. Mr. Engebretson: This would be very similar. Mr. McCann: Earlier you said you needed at least 120 seats. So you would be satisfied with that? Mr. Kyriakopoulos: Yes. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-10-2-41 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #11-514-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 17, 1992 on Petition 92-10-2-41 by V. S. Kyriakopoulos requesting waiver use approval to increase the floor area and seating capacity of an existing restaurant (Kerby's Koney Island) located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Yale Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32, the City Plannig Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-10-2-41 be approved subject to a limitation on the number of customer seats in the restaurant of 150 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 11.03 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 92-10-2-42 by Home Quarters of Michigan, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a retail home improvement store with an outdoor garden shop located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft and Plymouth Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. 12455 Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to the waiver use proposal. They state there are no public storm sewers of sufficient size and capacity readily available to service the site. We have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the following is submitted `r.► for your consideration: (1) The West driveway should be signed and constructed for Right Turns Only. (2) The Northwest driveway should be constructed to prevent vehicles from attempting to turn left from the driveway and crossing over the freeway. Also in our file is a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no objection to this proposal. However, their approval is contingent upon a further review of the placement of on-site hydrants, water mains and a water supply of adequate volume. The on-site locations are to be determined when the location of the Fire Department connection is known. We have also received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. We were not supplied with sufficient data to fully evaluate the sign package, but we wish to point out that this site is permitted one wall sign not to exceed 410 square feet of sign area, and one ground sign 30 square feet in area, a maximum of 6' high at a minimum 10' setback. Any additional signage will require Zoning Board of Appeals approval. The existing D.R.C. sign must be removed, as off premises signs are not permitted. 2. The parking count is adequate for the Home Quarters use. The future restaurant will have to be evaluated based upon 1 space for each two seats, and 1 space for each employee when the values are known. 3. The Zoning Ordinance requires that handicapped spaces be 12' in width and 20' in length as opposed to the method shown on the site plan. Nay A total of 16 handicapped spaces are required for Home Quarters. 4. If a waiver is approved for Home Quarters, specific controls should be placed on the outdoor "Garden Shop" and temporary seasonal display area near the front door. 5. The site plan does not indicate that public sidewalks will be provided for the full frontage on Schoolcraft or Middlebelt Roads. 6. The site plan indicates an 18' high fence around the "Garden Shop" area, the fence ordinance limits the height of the fence to 8' maximum. Mr. Engebretson: As a point of information Mr. Nagy, the zoning for this site, as I recall, was scheduled for second reading by the Council. Did that in fact occur. Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: Will the petitioner please come forward. Chuck Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road: We are here on the waiver use because of the size of the Home Quarters building. Anything in excess of 30,000 square feet has to be reviewed and our building is a little less than 105,000 square feet. Accompanying the waiver use we have also submitted our site plan for review and are prepared to go ahead and talk about that. The site plan shows that there is a restaurant site. We are not here tonight to discuss that because we don't 12456 have a user for the restaurant site. We are not here for a waiver use for the restaurant. As soon as that has been developed we will be back before the Planning Commission and the Council seeking a waiver use and if necessary, waiver use for a Class C license. We would like to talk about the site plan unless the Planning r► Commission has any questions on the waiver use petition. To help me out with the site plan we have a representative of Home Quarters, Jerry Esmond, and also the Professional Engineer, Theresa Samosiuk, and I am sure there are going to be some technical questions that I am not going to be able to answer. Theresa Samosiuk: I am with Professional Engineering, 2265 Livernois, Suite 900, Troy, Michigan, 40883. We submitted a revised site plan yesterday afternoon that addressed most of the comments that you have just recited to the Planning Commission and to the audience. This is the revised site plan. (She presented the site plan) We have addressed the comments regarding the garden shop and the building materials, which I will turn over to Jerry Esmond to go over more details with you. Some of the items of concern were we did add in the sidewalk along Schoolcraft Road. There were some concerns regarding the conditions based on the seasonal display area and that has been eliminated from the plan. The rooftop mechanical equipment has been screened. The front wall has been extended to screen the rooftop mechanical equipment as well as the back elevation of the building. The parapet wall has been extended. The other concerns were regarding the garden shop. The 18 foot high wall is going to be masonry. It will be a split-faced block along the north edge of the garden shop and along the back wall of the garden shop. The front wall will be split-faced block approximately three or four feet in height from the ground with the '4411. columns similar to Frank's Nursery garden shop wall. (She presented the elevation plan) Jerry Esmond, 1616 McCormick Drive, Landover, Maryland: (He went over the plans and materials for the Commission) Mr. Alanskas: The grating you show. It is like a fencing. It is very thin. When you discussed like Frank's Nursery, their grating is very thick. Mr. Esmond: This is very heavy gauge metal. The problem we have as far as wrought iron type of fencing that Frank's have, is from a security standpoint. It is very easy to pass things through. It is also very easy to reach into a wrought iron fence of that type to pull merchandise out. We operate approximately 140 stores around the country and we have found the wrought iron does not work very well from a security standpoint. Mr. Alanskas: We are concerned with the beauty of the building. That is our main concern. Also, why can' t you have an eight foot wall? Mr. Esmond: Well again from a security standpoint. I think if we go with the higher wall it will look more a part of the building structure as opposed to being stuck on the building. We are trying to integrate the garden shop into the structure itself. 12457 Mr. Alanskas: How many feet high would this be? Mr. Esmond: Approximately 14 feet. Mr. Engebretson: With big columns of square block? r`. Mr. Esmond: Yes there will be columns in between. Mr. Engebretson: At what interval? Mr. Esmond: We would probably make it a very small interval as opposed to being widely spaced. I would say somewhere in the neighborhood of being about 15 or 16 feet apart. Mr. Gniewek: What is the green highlight on the building? Mr. Esmond: This is a smooth face block that is painted. That is our corporate colors. Mr. Gniewek: How wide is the band on the building? Mr. Esmond: About two feet. Mr. Morrow: On the kneewall and metal screen material, would that be construed as a fence as opposed to a type of wall? Mr. Nagy: It is a wall as opposed to a fence. Mr. LaPine: The block you are going to paint, why can't we get brick instead of block? Mr. Esmond: Under the garden shop canopy, that is not visible from anywhere except the garden shop itself because there are racks that would go up against that wall. That would be an unnecessary expense. On this side there is a driveway to Ladbroke and on the backside is the Ladbroke parking lot. Mr. LaPine: You are telling me the only brick is on the front of the building? Mr. Esmond: That is what we had been asked to look at. We did have a return that would come on the side of the building. That would be a ten foot return to tie into the rest of it. Mr. LaPine: My personal opinion is that it should be brick on all four sides if we are going to have it on that corner, which I am opposed to, to begin with. I want to get the best I can get and I don't see any reason to have block and paint it when you can put the brick up. I am looking for the beauty. That is a main thoroughfare there. You have an expressway that goes by. I want them to put their best foot forward. You are paying a lot of money for the property, at least you could give us a class operation here as far as the structure is concerned. 12458 Mr. Esmond: One of the things we have tried very hard to do is give you a very nice looking building. How about if we use this block which gives a brick-like appearance? Mr. LaPine: As far as I am concerned you can put brick. fteir Mr. Tangora: (He presented the landscape plan) Fifteen percent of the total area is landscaped. This particular area which is next to the Ladbroke parking area is not part of the site but it has been set up as an easement area and Ladbroke, as one of the conditions, asked us to landscape that area. So when you take this area in conjunction with the rest of the area, we have approximately 20% of the site that is landscaped. As we have indicated, this area up in front is to be used for a future restaurant. Of course, the Home Quarters would probably be going in before any restaurant was either approved or negotiated but in the interim as the Home Quarters goes in, the whole perimeter would be landscaped. The only thing that would not be put in would be some of the greenery around the restaurant, which would go in when the restaurant was approved and developed. Essentially that is the landscape plan. I would just like to talk about, since it was brought up, the Ladbroke signage. Signage is being finally negotiated and is being finalized right now. We don't have anything definite to talk to you about but Ladbroke knows the sign has to be moved and that should be taken care of shortly. I think the rest of the signage, one sign would be on the corner, if any, for the Home Quarters, will have to be brought back to you after everything is finalized. Mr. Engebretson: It is your understanding that large sign will be coming down and that the only signage that is a part of this package is that which is depicted on the plans but there will be a possibility that you will want to come back later with a monument sign? Mr. Tangora: That is my understanding. Mr. Alanskas: On the 20% total landscaping, what percent is it without the easement at the back? Mr. Tangora: Leaving out the back, there is 15%. Mr. Engebretson: It appears there is some landscaping in the parking islands also. Mr. Alanskas: It is all irrigated? Mr. Engebretson: It is not shown on the plan but that was an oversight. It will be irrigated. Mr. Gniewek: One of the problems with the garden area, we were talking about eliminating the 18 foot high chain link fence surrounding the outdoor garden shop area and replacing it with a brick wall. Are we conforming to that now? Mr. Tangora: It is my understanding that the wall completely surrounds the patio area. Mr. Gniewek: So there is no more chain link fence? 12459 Mr. Tangora: No more chain link fence. Mr. Engebretson: That 18 foot height is around the entire perimeter? Mr. Tangora: Yes. ``• Mr. Engebretson: What is your impression of the aesthetics of that proposed wall Mr. Nagy? Mr. Nagy: I think because of its limited applications, I would have no serious problems with it. Mr. Engebretson: Do you think squeezing the columns closer together would help or hurt? Mr. Nagy: I wouldn't want to see it any wider than 16 feet. You might be more comfortable with 12 foot centers. Mr. Engebretson: If this plan were approved tonight and that issue were left open, what would we do about finalizing that before it goes on to Council? Mr. Nagy: You would either withhold approval of the minutes pending receipt of the revised elevations or you would spell it out in your approving resolution that the columns that accept the grid treatment be at a 12 foot or 16 foot center. Mr. Esmond: As far as center of columns, could we make them 16 feet being as I have gates in the front where there are kiosks and those gates are 16 feet wide where customers can come in and out of the garden New center itself. If you square it down to 12 that would give me a problem in terms of operating the garden shop area. Mr. LaPine: I would like to voice my opposition to this proposal. As you well know, I opposed the rezoning of this parcel. I thought it was wrong. I still think it was wrong. I think what we are doing here is trying to shove something fast in here because we have a vacant piece of property. We have an opportunity to put a building up here and get some tax dollars, which I know the City needs but I don't think we should have a short-term solution and cause a long-term problem. Not one thing has come up tonight about the traffic problem. We have had cases where we have had buildings of 100,000 square feet where we asked for and got traffic studies. What traffic study has been done to show this is not going to cause any problem on that corner with traffic? There is no difference on this site than on the Chili's site which we fought very hard to not allow a restaurant to go in because of the traffic. The only difference here is it is not surrounded by residential. To allow something this big to go on that corner without trying to find out how much of a problem it is going to be on the impact of the traffic in that area, I think we are doing a disservice. We just seem to be ramming this thing through real fast because we have a vacant piece of land, it is zoned to a zoning classification that allows this type of operation and let's put it up because we need 12460 the tax dollars. That is the feeling I am getting. I don't think we should do this. I think we should table this and have more study to find out much impact the traffic is going to have on that area. I would make a motion to table. Mr. Nagy: The only thing I would comment on is the traffic matter has been reviewed by Wayne County Traffic Commission and they are putting, at their cost, an additional lane on Middlebelt Road. They are expanding the roadway by an additional lane of traffic at their expense. Mr. Gniewek: In regard to the traffic in this particular area, I think this is probably one of the best areas for a development of this particular size. Number one is because the traffic that does occur in that particular area has been realized because of the racetrack that presently exists there. One of the arguments that came up before is the fact that this particular facility would be taking away from the business across the street. If that is the case, we are not adding to the traffic in that area, we are just sharing the traffic. This is the only area in the City that has the number of lanes of traffic that could accommodate the traffic. There is no wider roadway in the City of Livonia and with the additional lanes it also adds to the fact that this would accommodate the traffic. We have a separate right turn lane going to the freeway. We have freeway traffic service drives which would also facilitate ease of movement in the area. We have had numerous traffic facilities as far as the City of Livonia providing for proper policing in that particular area because of the racetrack. This is not unusual for k a situation of this type. I don't think we are going to be adding any more traffic. We may be sharing it a little bit more. I don't `�. think this particular site has anything in common with the Chili's site that we talked about before. That is quite a bit removed from the area. We have more roadways in this particular site. We have more access as far as driveway patterns in this particular proposal. More traffic may come to the area but what better area to have more traffic come into than one that has the facilities to accommodate the traffic. Mr. LaPine: Number one, if you read the minutes of Chili's, one of the biggest arguments we put up was the fact of the additional traffic that restaurant would generate. That was one of the biggest arguments we had. You can't tell me a building of 100,000 square feet is not going to generate a lot of traffic. You are saying it is going to take business from across the street at Handy Andy's. It might take enough business from them to put them out of business and leave us with an empty store over there. We had the same problem years ago when we came in here and everyone wanted Joshua Door at Seven Mile and Middlebelt. We ended up with an empty building there and nothing but an eyesore until it was reconstructed to make a shopping center. The same thing could happen here. We are just jumping on this thing all too fast. I want to table this until they can come in with a traffic study to show me that this building is not going to cause any additional traffic problem in that area. 12461 Mr. Morrow: I would like to add a reason why I supported Mr. LaPine is because of the traffic consideration. We are looking at a waiver that is four times more intense than the normal C-2. Generally something in excess of 100,000 square feet, which is close to some of the major malls we have in the area, I think traffic is a very valid concern particularly on that corner. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-10-2-42 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #11-515-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 17, 1992 on Petition 92-10-2-42 by Home Quarters of Michigan, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a retail home improvement store with an outdoor garden shop located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft and Plymouth Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 92-10-2-42 to date uncertain. 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, LaPine, Morrow, McCann NAYS: Gniewek, Alanskas, Engebretson ABSENT: Fandrei 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 92-8-6-4 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #419-92, to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.50H of Zoning Ordinance #543 to provide additional regulations regarding illuminated canopies and awnings with attached signage. Mr. Engebretson: This is an item that comes to us by direction of the City Council dealing with the issue of illuminated canopies, which have become very, very popular. The proposed ordinance change is to limit the illumination of those canopies to that area which has signage attached. There is a provision that if the desire is to illuminate the entire canopy, then there will be a reduction in sign area permitted. Mr. LaPine: John, to light just the area where the lettering is, how do you control that? There is going to be a certain amount of light that is going to filter through from that. Mr. Nagy: There is some bleed through. If the restriction is to eliminate only that portion of the awning where the graphic is, then they will have to use some opaque material for the balance of the sign area. 12462 There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-8-6-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #11-516-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 17, 1992 on Petition 92-8-6-4 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #419-92, to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.50H of Zoning Ordinance #543 to provide additional regulations regarding illuminated canopies and awnings with attached signage, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-8-6-4 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment will provide for additional control over the placement and nature of signs attached to marquees or awnings. 2) That the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment will provide for more aesthetically pleasing marquee or awning signs. 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 92-9-6-5 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #611-92, to determine whether or not to amend Article XXI of Zoning Ordinance #543 so as to authorize the appointment of two alternate members to the Zoning Board of Appeals in accordance with the provisions of MCL 125.585. Mr. Engebretson: This is another action that was initiated by the City Council. We have asked Mr. Dave Parr, President of the Zoning Board of Appeals, to come be with us tonight and to explain the reasons for making this ordinance change. Dave Parr, 14388 Gary Lane: Thank you Mr. Chairman for giving me an opportunity to speak to the Commission tonight. We are speaking on behalf of this ordinance change. As many of you know, when people come before the Zoning Board of Appeals they have a right to be heard by seven members of the board. The reason they have that specific right, it requires four votes, not just the majority of the people in attendance that evening, but it requires four votes in most variances, and it requires five votes on some variances. So the petitioners are at a disadvantage when a Zoning Board member is on vacation or is inhibited from coming from a work conflict or a variety of other reasons. As a matter of fact, fifty percent of the time we have about one board member missing and for any one of the reasons in the summertime it gets particularly difficult. This will eliminate that problem and give the public actually a better 4 access to what we call fuller justice in the Zoning Board area. It 12463 won't actually increase the cost to the City in that a Zoning Board member that does not attend, does not get paid and in his stead the alternate member would be compensated for that. The other portions of the ordinance that we were seeking some revisions on, there are some minor changes in terms of the language itself. We are Now cleaning that up. It is fairly old language originally constructed back in the 1950's. We are also recommending a fee change. We have simplified the fees. We have brought it down from about a sheet and a half to virtually three lines. The fees have actually been increased in that sense and again that has been several years since that was done. We feel the people that are petitioning the board shouldn't be supported by the general public. The petitioners have that responsibility so we are going to allow them to share a little greater a portion of that responsibility. Another area under the general provision section that we are including is, we are for the first time including in the language of the law so it becomes greater general knowledge that they have one year to act on a variance. The reason we are doing this is normally we put this right in our conditions but sometimes people come before the board for reasons of getting a variance and then selling that variance. We don't want that to happen. That is not our intent of giving individuals a variance. The intent is to allow them to use it for their own personal use and not to make it a marketable condition so we require that be utilized within a year. Those are the three general areas we have asked for some revision in terms of our ordinance. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Parr, regarding the alternate members to the Zoning Board of Appeals, being an old Zoning Board member myself I realize there are a lot of things a member has to know about the ordinance, about ''_ creating resolutions, etc. What criteria will be used to appoint these alternate members? Will there be any kind of training session for these alternate members that will be provided by the Zoning Board that will enable these people to come in on an equal basis of a regular member at any point in time when one can't be there? Mr. Parr: We have addressed that and we are leaving that to the Council in terms of their administrative requirements but the thing the Council is talking about right now is to go out and seek old Zoning Board members, people that have some history of Zoning Board activities. We agree you can't really learn the Zoning Board by showing up once every two months. It requires something more than that. That is one of the resolutions of that problem. Regarding the training, as you know, we have by and large had a lot of on the job training and we are looking into some more formal training right now and trying to develop a formal training package for Zoning Board members. That would also include people with first appointments. We hope to resolve that and make better Zoning Board members through that. Mr. Gniewek: My concern is, I am happy that the Zoning Board is looking at providing for the proper administration for variances, etc. with a full board and giving the populace that opportunity. However, I would hope that person appointed would have all the credentials a Ntom. regular member would have at any point in time. 12464 Mr. Parr: They will have full voting rights. As a matter of fact if they started a case, they will finish the case if it is tabled. They won't have rights to hold office for some obvious reasons. They won't be able to be elected Chairman, Vice Chairman or Secretary. Those are officers' positions that require them to be there at all *tar times and make administrative decisions nor will they vote on the election of officers. It won't be any different than it is today. In terms of having full vestige rights, they will. They will also have the same voting power that any other member has on any issue before them. Mr. Gniewek: You just touched on one of the points I was going to ask about, the fact that if an alternate member is hearing a case and the case is tabled, the alternate member will be present when that case is brought back. Mr. Parr: That is correct. Mr. Tent: Mr. Parr, presently there are seven members on the Zoning Board of Appeals and each Council member appoints one of the members. Is that correct? Mr. Parr: That is essentially how it works although the Council as a body appoints them but generally one person nominates them. Mr. Tent: For your two alternates, how will they be appointed and who will appoint them? Mr. Parr: The Council will still appoint them. We are leaving that to the Council obviously in terms of this language. In terms of their \rr actual internal mechanics, we felt that was the Council's responsibility and prerogative nor are we making any recommendations other than the recommendation that they consider going to Zoning Board members with prior experience. Mr. Tent: If each Council member has one appointee, then the other two which are the floaters, I was just concerned how they would be picked up. Mr. Parr: I am not going to handle that political hot potato Mr. Tent. That is strictly up to the Council and I am leaving it as such. I really don't have the answer to that. It is up to the wisdom of Council and their operation. Mr. LaPine: Dave, I have two questions. Number one, the compensation that the member gets who is filling in for a member who is not there, what would happen is the member that is not there would not get paid and his pay would go to the member who is there. Is that correct? Mr. Parr: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: The other compensation he gets car allowance, does an alternate get any car allowance? Mr. Parr: That hasn't been addressed at all nor are we making any recommendations along that line. °v.. 12465 Mr. LaPine: If a case is tabled and it comes up in two weeks and the member who was absent at that meeting is available, does he sit in for all the other cases that night except for the one case that the alternate member had heard that was tabled? Mr. Parr: That would be correct. Mr. LaPine: Does he get compensated that night when he is there too? Mr. Parr: Mr. LaPine, we have not addressed that specifically so I don't have an answer for you. I might add one of the reasons we have looked at increased fees is if there was any additional cost to the City, this would not be any further drain on the City's treasury. That was definitely the forethought to this whole process that we not increase the cost to the City. There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-9-6-5 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously approved, it was 1111-517-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 17, 1992 on Petition 92-9-6-5 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #611-92, to determine whether or not to amend Article XXI of Zoning Ordinance 11543 so as to authorize the appointment of two alternate members to the Zoning Board of Appeals in accordance with the provisions of MCL 125.585, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-9-6-5 be approved for the following reason: Now 1) That the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment will permit the Zoning Board of Appeals to conduct its business in a more efficient manner. 2) That the proposed amendment will allow the Zoning Board of Appeals to continue to render efficient and equitable service to the general public. 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. 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 a Motion by the City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the question of whether or not to amend Section 2.10 and 11.03 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to provide for definitions and standards relating to Family Entertainment Centers. Mr. Engebretson: The purpose for this item is to set a public hearing date. I am looking for a motion. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was 12466 #11-518-92 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 2.10 and Section 11.03 of the Zoning Ordinance #543 regarding Mechanical Amusement Devices and Family Entertainment Centers. Sow 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. LaPine: When will this public hearing be held? Mr. Nagy: January 12, 1993. Mr. LaPine: As you well know there is a lot of opposition to this. Will those civic associations that are opposed to it down there be notified? Mr. Nagy: We will notify Mr. Henry Binder and two or three others and rely on them to get the word out. Plus it will be published in the Observer. Mr. LaPine: If the Planning Commission decides that we do not want to change the ordinance, then it goes to the Council and then if they want to change it, they can change it. Then they would have to come back and go through all the process again? Mr. Nagy: This just amends the language of the zoning ordinance. Then whoever wants to petition pursuant to the new language starts over. '411ftr Mr. Engebretson: If this were to become implemented, then the proposed use would come in as a waiver use and site plan approval through the whole system so there would be many, many hearings and meetings on this. Mr. Nagy: There will be a hearing on whether or not the ordinance itself should be amended and there will be hearings on any applications of use pursuant to that new section of the ordinance. Mr. LaPine: Isn't it true once the ordinance is amended, we are more or less saying we are willing to listen to these things. Mr. Nagy: Of course. Mr. Engebretson: We will move very carefully on this. 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 92-11-8-19 by Van Keros requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to alter a unit's storefront and revise the Master Tenant Wall Sign Format in connection with a multi-unit retail building located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Yale Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32. 1246? Mr. Miller: The restaurant unit is proposing to add an awning to the north elevation and west elevation, the west being the one that faces the parking lot and the north being the one facing Plymouth Road. Because they are altering the elevation that was approved for the shopping center, that was approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council, it has to be approved again by you. On the awning he is also proposing a sign which is not conforming to the master sign plan that was approved for the shopping center. If the sign plan was not in effect, this sign is conforming to the unit but because it is not conforming to the sign plan, it has to be approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Engebretson: It does meet the ordinance? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Will this awning sign comply with the new ordinance? Mr. Engebretson: We have a condition in the proposed resolution that will, in fact, make it comply. Does the petitioner have anything to add? Mr. Kyriakopoulos: When we first bought the restaurant, the owner sold because his health was not so good and his business was not so good. If business was good, he would not have sold because he does have a son. For his own son not to buy the business I guess he did not have a good business. When we took it over, we did some remodeling and the previous owner did not have waiter service and we have waiter service. When the customer drives up and down Plymouth Road he does not see that. He looks at the building and he sees the same old building and as far as he is concerned nothing has changed, therefore he does not stop. So the point I am trying to make is the remodeling is not going to help me unless I make the building look different on the outside so the customer sees it is different. The only thing I can do is when the customer comes in is to give good service and good food to make him come again but if he doesn't stop by, there isn't much I can do. People can drive up and down the street 100 times and they are not going to see me unless I put something on the building to make it look different. The only thing I can see is the awning. The sign itself is not going to help much. Like I said before I have a restaurant at Twelve Mile and Orchard Lake and I did not do anything to the building except put up my sign. Almost six to seven years later people drive by and they don't even see it because they say it doesn't look any different than it did before and I don't want to make the same mistake again. I was at an earlier meeting asking about the seats. Getting the seats is good but unless I can fill them up it doesn't do any good so I am willing to trade off the seats for the awning. I do have to do something with the awning. I got the idea you are against awnings. Mr. Alanskas: We had discussed at the last meeting that you might want to take where it says Kerby's Koney Island and put it on the north side of the awning so people coming down Plymouth Road can see it instead of on the west side. 12468 Mr. Kyriakopoulos: That is true but I have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to get that sign on the north side of the building. There is a proper way and a compromise way to do things. The proper way is to have an awning on both sides of the building with two signs. It is important for us to have one sign on each side. If I cannot have that, the next step would be to have a sign on the north side of the building with an awning on both sides and the awning is illuminated. If you drive up and down Plymouth you see the businesses that look best are the ones with an awning that is illuminated: Mr. Engebretson: You have given us a lot of your opinions but we deal with the ordinance and that is what we are going to do here tonight. The ordinance does not oppose awnings. However, the ordinance does control the signage on the awnings. We only have the authority to grant one sign of a certain dimension that you have complied with here. You may think that you should have two signs and maybe you should but the ordinance provides for one so that is what we are going to deal with. Mr. Alanskas was recommending that it might serve you better if it faces Plymouth Road but it is your choice. Mr. Kyriakopoulos: I understand and I will try to get it on the other side but I have to go in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Engebretson: Not for one sign. You are talking about the second. Mr. Kyriakopoulos: I am talking about the one sign. To go on the north side of the building I have to go in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. LaPine: Let me explain it to you. The sign you have here now, we could allow you to move it to go on the north side tonight. Then if you want this second sign, then you go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and ask for the second sign. Mr. Kyriakopoulos: I have no problem with that but that is not the way I understood it. Mr. Engebretson: Before we say that I think we better check the ordinance. The fact that it is on the side of the building may impact that. Mr. Nagy: Under the new sign ordinance, it says building frontage and it limits it to one wall sign. Since this is already a departure from the previous plan by virtue of it being on the canopy not part of the master sign plan that was pointed out earlier, it is a departure so under the new sign ordinance you can have one wall sign on either the west elevation or the north elevation as either elevation could be interpreted as building frontage. Mr. Engebretson: Having heard that, would you want to amend this petition so we can approve it on the Plymouth Road side? Mr. Kyriakopoulos: Yes. 12469 On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was 'tam„ #11-519-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-11-8-19 by Van Keros requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to alter a unit's storefront and revise the Master Tenant Wall Sign Format in connection with a multi-unit retail building located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Yale Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the sign plan dated 10/14/92, as revised, prepared by Belle Isle Awning Co. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, with the exception that the petitioner has the opportunity to place the verbiage of the sign on either the north elevation or the west elevation; 2) That the site plan dated 10/18/92, prepared by Belle Isle Awning Co. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the building elevation plan dated 10/8/92, prepared by Belle Isle Awning Co. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4) That the awning shall only be back-lit between the hours of dark until 10:00 p.m. ; 5) That the back-lighting herein authorized shall be limited to the sign \111. portion of the awning only and that the balance of the awning shall not be illuminated. 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 92-11-8-20 by Johnson, Johnson & Roy, Inc. , on behalf of Comerica Livonia, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to an existing building, to build a parking facility and add to the surface parking on property located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Miller: This was a proposal that was approved in two phases. Phase I is up now. What they are proposing tonight is not what was proposed for Phase II. The petitioner did request to present this himself. Elliott Stark: I am from Comerica. We are here tonight, and I have with me Jerry Reinbold from Smith, Hinchman & Grylls, who are the architects for our addition as well as Jim Paige from Johnson, Johnson & Roy, who are the land planners and site planners. The purpose of our being here tonight is to talk about the addition to the Livonia Operations Center. The building was built in the late 1980's to house the operations functions of the then Manufacturers Bank. As 12470 a result of the merger of Comerica and Manufacturers earlier this year, we have come to the realization that a significant addition of about 140,000 feet is necessary to house the combined check processing activities of the two functions. We have done an `4411••• extensive amount of internal planning to look at how that space would best function. It is different than the original pre-plan was of potentially building a mere building, which would house a wide range of functions. What we are particularly interested in this building today is the housing of our check processing activity, which suggested to us that we wanted a very large floor plate. The plan before you would create a single floor plate at the lowest level of about 117,000 square feet. This, in our view, would represent the full development of the site. It is less than the existing FAI would provide. It provides more parking than the City ordinance would have provided. It is an important addition to Comerica and is a building we would like to be in occupancy of in early January 1994. We are on a very fast track in the design process and would hope to be under construction, in fact those of you who may have passed the site may have noticed that we have received a permit to do some temporary parking as this new addition would be built over one of the existing parking lots and prior to the construction of a parking deck. This will provide enough parking space to see us through the construction phase. With that I would like to introduce Jim Paige to present the site plan and then Jerry Reinbold who will present the building architecture. Jim Paige: Basically we have a 22 acre parcel with an existing building and existing parking. (He presented the site plan). The addition is a two level addition with approximately 80,000 square feet on the ‘41111. first level and 60,000 square feet on the second level. The landscaping is approximately 30%. (He presented the landscape plan). Mr. Tent: In the parking structure, the parking bays will be 9' x 20' . Is that correct? Mr. Paige: Yes. Mr. Tent: It will be for the use of the employees? Mr. Paige: Yes. Mr. Tent: On your ground level parking you indicated that you are going to be expanding the ground level parking in both positions. Will those parking spaces be 10' x 20'? Mr. Paige: Yes. Jerry Reinbold: (He presented the elevation plans) Mr. LaPine: Is the parking structure basically going to use the same material? Mr. Reinbold: Yes. Mr. LaPine: It all ties together? 12471 Mr. Reinhold: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, does this comply? New Mr. Nagy: It meets the ordinance with the exception of the nine-foot bays in the parking structure. Mr. LaPine: Did I understand you to say it will take a year to build this? Mr. Reinhold: The construction period will be about ten months. Mr. Stark: There is an extensive amount of data center activities that will go on the first floor so the occupancy of that will not take place until the spring of 1994. That was what I was referring to earlier. Mr. Tent: The red striping, is that typical of Comerica? Mr. Reinhold: The color is a color we felt is more compatible with the colors that are there. It is purely architectural. Mr. Tent: The reason I bring up the question I was so disappointed what they did with the NBD up at the corner. I was just hoping what you did would be compatible. Mr. Gniewek: As far as refuse is concerned, all of it will be contained inside the building? Mr. Reinhold: Yes. It is a special system Comerica has because of security. Nifty Mr. Gniewek: How about outdoor bays or loading docks? Mr. Reinhold: The loading docks again are completely enclosed within the building. Mr. Stark: There is a dumpster that sits in one of those four deep bays. While it is true some of the trash is stored within the building because it is secure trash, it is kept generally for two weeks within the building. The normal administrative trash is emptied every evening. Mr. Engebretson: What is the schedule of the construction plan? What comes first? Mr. Stark: Under way, as we speak here tonight, is the temporary parking lot. We would then start removing the rear parking lot in February and then begin construction, moving out from the building to the loading dock area and then the generators have to be relocated. We have about 200 employees that have to be relocated that we would like to bring back into this building. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was 12472 1111-520-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-11-8-20 by Johnson, Johnson & Roy, Inc. , on behalf of Comerica Livonia, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal `o , to construct an addition to an existing building, to build a parking facility and add to the surface parking on property located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 be approved subject to Zoning Board of Appeals approval of the nine foot bays in the parking deck and also subject to the following conditions: 1) That the site plan sheet No. 5-1 dated 11/2/92 prepared by Johnson, Johnson & Roy, Inc. and Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Assoc. , Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the building elevation plans dated 11/3/92 prepared by Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Assoc. , Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the landscaping plan sheet No. 5-2 dated 11/2/92 prepared by Johnson, Johnson & Roy, Inc. and Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Asssoc. , Inc, , which is hereby approved, and all landscaping shown thereon, shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Stark: One of the issues on this parking, it was our impression and understanding that because it is not public parking that we wouldn't be required to get a zoning variance. Since it is employee only, it will be gated and require card access to it. Mr. Engebretson: If that turns out to be correct, then obviously you won't be held to that condition. 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. Mr. Miller: The petitioner is asking for a ground sign located on the corner of North Laurel Park Drive and Laurel Park Court. This is the site of the Powerscourt Office Building. The site was granted a variance that permitted it to have two ground signs and two wall signs. Because they are proposing a new ground sign, the existing variance becomes invalid. The petitioner was not present. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was ti.. 111-521-92 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 Regular Meeting of January 26, 1993. 12473 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 Nor by Francisco Vallarruel for the istallation of a satellite disc antenna on property located at 34487 Navin Ave. in Section 4. Mr. Miller: This is a satellite dish that is proposed for 34487 Navin Avenue. The petitioner is requesting a ten foot satellite dish to be located approximately 15 feet from the rear of his house. It will be on a six-foot high pole and the whole apparatus will be about 11 feet high. The surrounding trees on the property is what he is proposing for screening. Francisco Vallarruel: I only wish to add that I did, in fact, consult with my adjoining neighbors to my immediate right, Mr. Steven Tempe who resides at 34509 Navin, concerning my proposal. I furnished him with a copy of the site plan and I furnished him a sheet of paper that basically reads that Mr. and Mrs. Steven A. Tempe, residing at 34509 Navin, Livonia, 48152, are aware of the installation of a Satellite TV Dish at my home at 34487 Navin, Livonia 48152. We have seen the proposed site plan and size of dish and its location. In light of the fact, we have no objection to the installation of the dish at the said residence and he affixed his signature to the document dated today, and I have that available in the event that members wish to see that. I also consulted my neighbor, Philip M. Mathai, on the corner. I showed him the site plan and I walked him to the area in the backyard where the proposed location is. He too signed the document dated October 17, 1992. In addition, I spoke Now with Anthony Greko, who is the property owner behind me, and indicated the site location. We walked it this morning and he also signed the document as I previously stated, also dated November 17, 1992. Those are the neighbors I consulted to my immediate right and left and behind me. I have not received any comments from anybody else. Mr. LaPine: Me and the Chairman and Mr. Alanskas were out there Sunday at your property. Quite frankly I don't know where it is going. It was supposed to be staked. There was no stake out there. You have those evergreens there. Is it going between those evergreens? Mr. Vallarruel: Yes. The proposed site, if you were standing on my patio and you are looking to the backyard, there are three evergreens. It would be between the middle evergreen and the one to your left. Mr. LaPine: My problem is how is that dish going? You have to cock it so it goes to the southwest. Is that correct? It seems to me it is going to hit the house directly behind you. Mr. Vallarruel: I am not sure it is going to hit the house behind me. The main interest I have in the location of the dish is to receive reception from two specific satellites. Our interest is to get reception from the Hispanic satellite. I guess that will be facing to the south. +` Mr. LaPine: The dish is going to be facing directly south. 12474 Gus Semaan: It will be facing south slightly off to the west. Mr. LaPine: I though you told us you were going to have these things staked for us. 'glow Mr. Semaan: I did tell you that. If it wasn't there, I am sorry. I did put it there. Mr. LaPine: To be honest with you I am still not sure where it is going to go. I think I know. I hope that is where it is going to go. Mr. Semaan: That is exactly where it will go. Again, the direction of the dish is in the way so it is looking into the clearing. You are right, if that dish was turned all the way to the west, it would be blocked tremendously by that evergreen. Our primary concern was those two satellites. Mr. LaPine: If it is going between those two trees, I have no objection because it is screened completely. Mr. Semaan: That is exactly the site where we want to put it. Mr. Alanskas: Seeing the lot and the large house there, the backyard is very, very short. It doesn't have the depth and with a ten foot dish there it is going to be visible. I think it is not the proper place to put a dish. Mr. McCann: Gus, did you discuss with him the patio type? __ Mr. Semaan: Yes I did. The excessive cost incurred by the patio umbrella for a ten foot dish, which was necessary to have proper reception, was almost $800. That is something the customer doesn't want to put out. Mr. McCann: Would it work on his patio? Mr. Semaan: The location we had was the best location for his reception. I try my best. I know it was not staked. We did walk the entire yard. Mr. Engebretson: Eight hundred dollars you said was the cost to have a patio type dish. Eight hundred dollars more than what? Mr. Semaan: The cost of the system, which is under $3,000. Mr. Engebretson: So for 25% more, which is relatively insignificant, you could go to something completely disguised. Mr. Semaan: It would be exactly $800 more. In the event we did go for the umbrella type with a smaller dish, there were really no other places to put that dish in other parts of the yard to perform to his needs. I am trying to push these umbrellas. Mr. Engebretson: Gus, I have to tell you when you are dealing with a couple of hundred thousand dollar houses and three thousand dollar dishes, to me eight hundred dollars, it is not a hardship to upgrade to put 12475 something on a property like that to disguise what otherwise might be considered an eyesore by a great number of people. The fact that the petitioner here says that is more than he wants to spend, that may be his decision and I can't argue with that but I think `�► that all the things I said would indicate that it is well within the means of reason to consider something like that. I would support that but in this particular circumstance I am not going to support this proposal. We took our time on Sunday afternoon and went out there expecting to be able to see exactly what was going on and we weren't able to see that. Now we are told precisely where it is going but I can't envision where that was so I can't support this. I would support the proposal for a disguised dish. I am very disappointed that it comes to this point and we had such a good dialogue going as to what was needed and what our concerns were and then when we go to follow up on it, we are dealing with a mystery. Mr. Semaan: I was confident with the drawings because they were pretty specific. There is only one set of hedges out there and it is right next to the pine trees. Due to personal circumstances, just as you also have things happen, I had some emergencies happen and I was not able to do that for you but I was confident the drawings did portray the location. Mr. Engebretson: Gus, I don't want to argue with you and I don't want to hold this up to make it your problem but we have fully certified engineering drawings come in here in some instances that in theory represent precisely what is going to happen and something completely different happens. You are dealing with sketches. They are good "tow enough to portray the plan but then the real equalizer is having the exact identification of where it is going to be so there is nothing left to chance. I am not trying to be difficult. I am just telling you why I feel like I do. Mr. Vallarruel: I have two responses. One is with respect to the staking. I was home on Sunday when I saw a red Cadillac pull up in front of my home. I was not alerted that the back was not staked. I too was under the impression that it would be staked. Certainly Mr. Chairman the petitioner should not be penalized because the installer did not do that. I personally will take on that task. If someone had knocked on my door, I would have personally welcomed you and showed you the location. Mr. Engebretson: I hate to tell you this sir but I did knock on your door and I spoke to a nice young lady, whom I presume was your daughter, and told her what we were there to do. I guess I probably could have asked to have been taken into whatever room you were in. Mr. Vallarruel: My point was if I had been alerted I would have made the effort to meet you and show you the location. Mr. Engebretson: I only have one vote. Mr. Vallarruel: The second comment I wish to make. I don't know whether those 12476 that did go out, there are two other dishes in the same vicinity, and I have not received any comments from anyone that those are eyesores or happen to be offensive to anyone in the area. Less err than half a block away there is one that has been there for a while and at the intersection of Gill and Eight Mile there is another one. Those are the ones I happen to see because I drive by there on a daily basis. I certainly will take whatever suggestions the Chairman or the Commission wishes to offer. I don't think my request is unreasonable for what I am attempting to do. Mr. Engebretson: May I tell you that dish at Eight Mile and Gill is a point of discussion every time we go past there. We were promised that we would never see that dish because of the screening offered by that fence so there is another example of promises being made that can't be kept. I am not saying you promised anything that you are not going to keep your word on. The problem is I personally couldn't determine exactly what was being proposed here. I made a very solid effort to do that. You saw me pull up in that car. You could have taken some initiative yourself. Don't put it all on me. Mr. Vallarruel: I am not trying to do that. I am trying to comply with the City's requirements. Mr. Tent: I think the point is not so much the staking but the umbrella type satellite dish is not a problem. If he really wants to receive the stations he is talking about, if he went to the umbrella I would have no problem with that at all but as far as having this ten '41ku„ footer in the backyard, in my opinion, it would be an eyesore and I couldn't support that either. The staking had nothing to do with my thinking about it. It was just the fact that I thought this one was too big for the area and the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood. Mr. McCann: I would like to table this to the next available study so two things can be looked at. The petitioner can consider the possibility of a decorated satellite dish and it could be staked so those members that are willing to go by a second time would have the opportunity to do so. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was #11-522-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Permit Application by Francisco Vallarruel for the installation of a satellite disc antenna on property located at 34487 Navin Ave. in Section 4 until the study meeting of January 19, 1992. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: Alanskas ABSENT: Fandrei 12477 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 disc antenna on property located at 34660 St. Martins Avenue in Section 4. Mr. Miller: This is located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 4. The address is 34660 St. Martins Avenue. The petitioner is proposing to locate a 7 1/2 foot diameter dish approximately 20 feet from the rear of the house, 12 feet from the west property line and 8 feet from the rear property line. It will be on a five foot pole and the whole apparatus will be about 9 feet tall. They are proposing to use the existing trees on the lot to screen it. Mr. Seeman: I am representing Mr. Bravo. He works the second shift so he couldn't be here. Basically I spoke with him and proposed to him that we encircle the location of the dish, which was also apparently not marked when you were out there, with evergreens to eight feet in height and he also wants to put bushes and greenery around the base of the dish. His intent is to basically block the view of the dish from his western neighbor and rear yard neighbor and east side neighbor. He is proposing some landscaping, which he is willing to commit to in a number of ways. As far as getting signatures, again he has a very tight schedule. He did get a signature from one of his neighbors. There are three neighbors who can see his house or yard. He was not able to get signatures from his other two neighbors. He told them about it and told them there would be a meeting tonight about it and said if they had any problems they could show up. This was done over the phone. His wife who speaks Spanish did this. Other than that he did get one signature. That dish is a 7 foot dish, which is roughly 45% smaller than a 10 footer. As opposed to spending money on an umbrella, he would rather spend it on landscaping. Mr. McCann: Is this unit for Hispanic stations? Mr. Semaan: Francisco, the former petitioner, and Bravo and over 10,000 other Hispanics in the Livonia community are a strong force and what they have done is they actually went and took signatures and petitions to the cable company requesting that they offer some Spanish programming. They made a big effort and they got deaf ears. This is the only other way of trying to access some programming. Mr. McCann: He is looking for the same dish that your previous client? Mr. Semaan: Yes one of the stations. Mr. McCann: That is what I am getting at. He can get away with a seven foot on a five foot pole. What is the difference? He wants one less satellite? Mr. Semaan: Yes. 12478 Mr. McCann: What does the satellite offer? Just more variety? Mr. Semaan: It is Mexico City direct. Just like you are down in Mexico. Mr. Alanskas: I think with this lot there is no depth, and even with this size dish even putting these trees around, you are going to have to make a circle and it will stick out like a sore thumb. If the lot was deeper, you could hide it but it is a real short backyard and aesthetically I don't think it belongs there. Mr. Engebretson: Gus, there is another point that there is very little landscaping back there. This area in the backyard, and it is a very small backyard, is very visible from quite some distance in all directions as far as we viewed it. Again, I am not needling you or anything but because we weren't exactly sure where that dish was to be located, we may have misread that. I am going to propose someone make a tabling motion to deal with this just like the previous one. We would suggest that you assist your client here in standing on that spot where this dish is going to be and see what line of sight you have to various neighbors. If he is going to put a disguised dish in there I don't think it is really an issue. Mr. Semaan: I understand you are doing good things for Livonia and I see it day in and day out, especially with the satellite dishes. You have been more than understanding. However, I wanted to just ask this question. If he offers to put an umbrella in, just as a scenario, and he spends another $500 for that. However, he may have a neighbor who says I don't care even if you put an umbrella type, I would rather you do not do it. It is on your property. It is your home. Would the fact that he did go that extra amount and put an umbrella on his dish, would the Commission lean towards favoring this installation even though his neighbors are not in favor of it? Mr. McCann: Each one of us has one vote and none of us can speak for the other. If it was appropriate. You know an umbrella sitting around in someone's backyard would not be appropriate. If you could place it in the back porch area where a normal umbrella table would be, I would say fine. A guy is entitled to have an umbrella in his backyard on his deck whether his neighbor wants it there or not. We can't control that. If it looks unobtrusive, I don't think we could find that it unreasonably impacts the neighborhood and I could vote for it. Mr. Semaan: If the people it was going to impact within sight are all addressed and all approve of it, sometimes I get upset trying to get signatures because I am almost discouraged to talk to them because they turn around and they want my card and the next thing you know they want to talk to me about a satellite dish. My point is if it impacts the immediate neighbors and they say we have no problem with it, then why should you deny it because you think it is going to stick out like a sore thumb? Mr. McCann: With any of our petitions we have to look at the City as a whole as to good planning. The neighbors, we believe, are a very important part of it but they are not the whole picture. 12479 Mr. Engebretson: Gus, we appreciate the cooperation we have gotten from you and I think you can look to us for continued cooperation but there is a need to consider the aesthetic impact. Whether it is in a suitable rr.► place or not would certainly have some determination as to whether these disguised umbrella dishes would get support. I think they would meet a lot less opposition assuming they were in suitable places. We will see where this goes but I think it is time to make a motion. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #11-523-92 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Permit Application by Guillermo Bravo for the installation of a satellite disc antenna on property located at 34660 St. Martins Avenue in Section 4 to the study meeting of January 19, 1992. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 653rd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on November 17, 1992 was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 4 — James C. McCann, Secretary ATTEST: C C � �' Ja k Engeb etson, Chairman jg