Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1992-12-01 12480 MINUTES OF THE 654th REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA *14111n On Tuesday, December 1, 1992, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 654th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Gniewek, LaPine, Alanskas, Fandrei, Engebretson, Tent, McCann*, Morrow Members absent: None Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planning Technician, were also present. Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. 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 .4411w Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mrs. Fandrei, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 92-9-2-36 by Robert E. Rashid requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant (Major Magic) in an existing building located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington and Norwich Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #12-524-92 RESOLVED that, Petition 92-9-2-36 by Robert E. Rashid requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant (Major Magic) in an existing building located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington and Norwich Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4 be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson: This item was tabled in October to permit the petitioner an opportunity to spend some time with the neighbors that border this property and to try and work out some of the concerns that they had expressed relative to having this particular business going into that location. Mr. Nagy, do we have anything new from the staff? Mr. Nagy: Nothing since the last public hearing. 12481 * Mr. McCann entered the meeting at this time. Mr. Engebretson: Will the petitioner please come forward and tell us how you have resolved these issues. `" Steve Duczynski: I represent Schostak Brothers & Company, Inc. , 26913 Northwestern Hwy. , Southfield, MI. I am also agent for the applicant Bob Rashid. After the last meeting on November 12th, we scheduled a meeting with the local homeowners who live adjacent to the site. There are 13 homeowners. Of the homeowners in question, Lots 87, 88 and 96 came to our meeting. We met for an hour and a half and discussed the following items and also agreed on the following items: The installation of several raised asphalt speed bumps at the rear end of the shopping center to slow down the cars exiting the site. Item number two was to install "No Parking" signs on both sides of the roadway and it was pointed out to me last week if there are parking indications on the pavement, we will erase those parking indications but we will not allow parking within that service drive area of the site. Lot 96 desired to screen some of the noise and some of the view of the parking lot with some spruce trees, pine trees, picture a 2"- 2 1/2" caliper spruce tree 6 feet tall, large ball, big enough that two people would have to be putting it into the hole. That sort of tree. We offered to put it on their side of the fence. They declined and wished to put it on our side of the fence. We have agreed to do that. To do that, it will be necessary to move two cars from the area, which we have agreed to do. Lot 88 requested some landscaping at the edge of their site. The same type trees. Lot 96 suggested that the same landscape `'` screening that the other neighbors were requesting, would we be willing to do that? I said yes. We further thought about and said whether they did or not we should complete the landscape program and put the same size trees in the areas where we have green space now and provide that additional buffer for those residents. Another question that came up was the location of the trash compactor for Major Magic and we indicated the compactor would be located between the building and the eight to ten foot high screen wall. We also agreed that if the trash container would for whatever reason be located northerly beyond the screen wall, we would extend the screen wall in increments of 20 feet in order to block that compactor. We don't believe that will be necessary but we have agreed to work with the residents so that dumpster will not be seen. The homeowners asked us and the tenants to use our best efforts to control the morning trash pickup. It appears that the trash company under contract to the tenants arrive about 5:30 in the morning and I think we have something to say about that and we will work with the tenants to allow a trash pickup at a better hour. The residents requested that we work with the tenant and the tenant has agreed to control the automobile noise from employees when they leave the premises at the end of the day to encourage them to get into their automobiles and to encourage them to do it as quietly as possible and to leave the site quickly. Those were the items that 12482 we discussed and those were the items we agreed upon. There were some other things we had brought up. For instance, I had suggested an increase in the size of the wall. In fact, that came up at the prior meeting. We had done studies as to whether structurally it can be done and economically how much it would cost. All three homeowners did not desire to increase the height of the wall, which varies anywhere from five to six feet. They prefer the landscaping. That in essence was our conversation. Mr. LaPine: The bumper blocks, when I was talking about the parking, I wasn't talking about the west side of the building. That is a service drive. I was talking about the parking directly north of your building. I think that is the parking the residents were referring to as far as the Bonanza employees were parking there and when they came out late at night it was causing them some problems. Is that parking going to be eliminated or is it going to stay? Mr. Duczynski: The parking would stay at the present time because we need it for the parking capacity by code but we would encourage employees to park elsewhere and not against that wall. Mr. LaPine: At the study session you mentioned where the two areas you were going to park basically were. That was directly in front of your building where I counted approximately 50 some spaces plus 5 or 6 handicap spots. Then just south of that you have another area where there was about another 50 or 60 spots, which basically services Winkelmen's, the hairdresser and all the other stores. Mr. Duczynski: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: I was there Saturday and all those spaces, except 8 or 10, were taken and that leads me to believe those spaces are not going to be available to you for Major Magic because those spaces were used basically for people going into the drug store, Winkelman's, etc. So I don't think that property is going to be utilized for your restaurant and if it is and the people park there an hour or two hours, in my opinion, it is going to hurt the other businesses that are there. I grant you just to the east of that, there was plenty of parking spaces, which means people will have to park further over towards the Star Furniture. I don't really think you can say that parking will be utilized primarily by Major Magic. I don't think that is going to happen. I grant you there is plenty of parking because behind Star Furniture very seldom do you ever see any cars parked there and they can park there and walk to Major Magic but that parking, in my opinion, is not really going to be utilized 100% by you. I think you are going to find that most of the time the parking spaces are taken up by the other stores that are there. Mr. Tent: Mr. Duczynski, can you define or explain the hours of operation of the establishment? 12483 Mr. Duczynski: I can but if you would allow Bob Rashid, President of Major Magic, to speak to that. Bob Rashid: The hours are 11:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday Nifty and 11:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Mr. Tent: They don't vary store to store? Mr. Rashid: They are identical. Mr. Tent: The zoning would only allow 8 mechanical devices and you are asking for 64, which is 8 times the amount allowed. Is there any leeway there or do you actually need the 64 devices? Mr. Rashid: We need the 64 devices. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, to get the 64 amusement devices in this location, they would have to go to the ZBA. Is that correct? Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Mr. Tent: And the ZBA only handles hardship cases right? In other words, when people go to the ZBA it is because of a hardship and then they have to determine if 64 is necessary or whether 25 or 30 would be a hardship. So let's say this does go to the ZBA and they grant them the 64. We have an ordinance that says they would only qualify for 8. Would it be up to us to change the ordinance because then that would mean the ordinance isn't any good so can we make recommendations for the ordinance change? How do we handle that if he is successful, which would mean everybody else that would want 'toy as many devices as they could, wouldn't have to abide by the ordinance any longer but could go as a hardship case to the ZBA. That is my hangup here is the fact that there are so many devices. Mr. Nagy: You are right in your analysis that the burden of the applicant will be to show hardship and practical difficulty in complying with the applicable standard of the zoning ordinance and if they are successful in that pursuit, then the Zoning Board would grant the necessary relief that they seek but that is the burden they carry to show the practical difficulty or hardship. With respect to that standard of the ordinance that if they are successful in granting that variance, it may just be an unique application. It doesn't really necessitate a re-evaluation of that standard of the ordinance. It is always under purview of the Planning Commission to look at that section or any section if there is evidence that there are consistent appeals being made to any standard of the ordinance. Then yes I would suggest that it would be timely for the Planning Commission to look at it but one variance doesn't necessarily show a trend. Mr. Tent: It establishes a court case in the event people want to pursue it further. The reason I asked that question is because he indicated here it would be strictly 64. He wouldn't go for anything less. So what we are saying now is he is going to the ZBA for 64 and if they say 25 or 30, from what I am hearing he is going to say no I Now want the 64. 12484 Mr. Nagy: That is something the ZBA will have to cope with. Mr. Tent: I wanted to bring it out. The other Commissioners probably thought about the same thing. That is where I stand. If the ordinance is no good, let's change it. If it is good, let's enforce it. Mr. Gniewek: To answer Mr. Tent's concern. One of the reasons the Zoning Board of Appeals does exists is to provide variances for exceptions to the rule. Because this particular petitioner is asking for 64 doesn't mean that there is going to be 150 other people asking for 64 that will have the same conditions or the same reasons for asking for 64 as this particular petitioner. This does not set any kind of precedent. It would not set any kind of precedent for the Zoning Board of Appeals should they grant it. Every case is taken on its own merits dealing with hardship or practical difficulty. It doesn't necessarily have to be hardship if it should show some practical difficulty or some unique circumstances that would exist in the particular case. I am comfortable letting this go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and with the knowledge and wisdom that those people have at that particular level, there may be some negotiation as far as maybe not 64 but there may be 54. I am sure the petitioner would be able to work within those parameters also. However, I would indicate that being a former Zoning Board member that this does not set a precedent as far as the Zoning Board is concerned and because this petitioner is asking for it and might be granted it, it does not mean that any other petitioner might come before the board at that particular point in time or any other point in time and would be granted that same situation. Therefore, it would not necessitate a change in the zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance is good but there are always exceptions to rules. Mr. Tent: The thing is I just want to know where is the hardship? Did they tell us where the hardship is? Mr. Engebretson: That is the Zoning Board's problem. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Duczynski, you mentioned the parking behind the buildings is going to be eliminated? Mr. Duczynski: If there is parking behind the shops, permanent parking, it would be eliminated. I don't believe there is but if there is, it will not be allowed. They told me when the Bonanza restaurant operated, whether it was loud or not, the employees did park there. We have agreed to work with all to see that doesn't happen again. Mrs. Fandrei: So there isn't any at the present time? Mr. Duczynski: We plan on none. Mrs. Fandrei: Where would the employees of Major Magic be parking? Mr. Rashid pointed this area out on the plan. Mrs. Fandrei: When is your busiest time? Mr. Rashid: The busiest time is Friday and Saturday, 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. 12485 Mrs. Fandrei: Not even the middle of the day on Saturday? Mr. Rashid: We are busy in the middle of the day but 6:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. is our busiest time. `101, Mrs. Fandrei: So the other shops wouldn't be as likely to be as busy during your busiest time? Mrs. Rashid: I wouldn't think they would be. Mrs. Fandrei: I wouldn't think they would be either. I was kind of concerned realizing the majority of the parking is concentrated in that one area. There isn't a whole lot but if your business time is dinner time, and that is what you are telling me. What about birthday parties? Mr. Rashid: That is the busiest time for birthday parties, Saturday afternoon. 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Friday, Saturday and Sunday is 60% of our revenue. 60% of our business is done in nine hours of the week. Mr. Alanskas: On your proposed new greenbelt at the back of the building and also at the top, how do you plan to irrigate that? Mr. Duczynski: It is not irrigated now. We were not planning on adding any additional irrigation. I believe the trees we are putting in, other than natural irrigation, you don't over water trees. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Rashid, I was out to your Ypsilanti location. How many square feet does that building have? Sow Mr. Rashid: Sixteen thousand. Mr. LaPine: I am curious about something. When we were out there, you say at this location where you are going to have 16,229 square feet, you are going to have 436 customer seats. We were led to believe there are over 800 seats in the store out in Ypsilanti. Mr. Rashid: It depends on how you count. I don't know how we could seat 800. I don't think the Fire Marshal would allow that. Mr. LaPine: If it is built on the same motif that they have out there, and most of them are children, and I am talking about the area where the stage is, you probably could get as many as six kids in a booth. I am curious here if we are basing our seating capacity, and I grant you kids will probably come in a car with mother and dad and two kids in a car, but still there is a big discrepancy between 436 and 800 if the same criteria is held in that not more than two children will sit at those tables and also at this location you are asking for 64 machines and it is my understanding out there, there are 61 machines. Mr. Rashid: It is my understanding there are 65. Mr. LaPine: We were told differently. There seems to be a big discrepancy in the seating capacity. I don't know if that would make that much difference in the parking and as I said before I don't think there is a parking problem at that location. I was just curious. 12486 Mr. Engebretson: I might add to that that I think you are right that the reason over on Washtenaw they are reporting such high numbers is they are assuming there are a number of small children sitting on those benches and on that basis I can see where the capacity would be at that higher number. Regarding the parking, this is not really an 11141. issue for us to deal with here because of the nature of the facility that you are locating in, but I would point out that while on the surface it looks like there may be some concern that when we went to Washtenaw Avenue at a fairly busy time of day, the parking in front of that store was not particularly busy. I think we can put our minds at rest on the parking. I do think the ordinance is pretty clear on that and if it's a problem, it becomes your problem and Schostak's problem to solve but I think it can be solved. Mr. LaPine: I would like for you to explain something else to me. We noticed out there that it costs us a quarter to play most of the games and then they get these tickets. Would you explain that to me. Mr. Rashid: Basically anybody with a token that walks in the game room and drops it in one of these redemption games, you have to be a very poor player to not get a ticket. Basically the Liquor Commission looks at that and says this is not gambling. Mr. LaPine: It is my understanding they can take these tickets and accumulate them and go over to the area where they redeem them for candy, etc. They can't redeem them for cash or big prizes. Mr. Rashid: No it is penny items. tri. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was X112-525-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 27, 1992 on Petition 92-9-2-36 by Robert E. Rashid requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant (Major Magic) in an existing building located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington and Norwich Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-9-2-36 be approved subject to the ZBA granting a variance with respect to the number of mechanical amusement devices proposed and subject to the following conditions: 1) That Building Elevation Plans dated 10-19-92 prepared by Klaetke & Marino, Architects and 9-24-92 prepared by Wah Yee Associates are hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 2) That the signs shown on the elevation plans are not part of this approval and shall be submitted pursuant to the vicinity control ordinance. 3) That the number of customer seats shall not exceed 436. 12487 4) That before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy that those site improvements as set forth in letter dated November 19, 1992 submitted by Stephen J. Duczynski, Vice President of Schostak Brothers & Company, Inc. in connection with subject petition shall be fully implemented. for the following reasons: 1) That the site has ample capacity to support the proposed use. 2) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the established and surrounding uses of the shopping center and neighboring area. 3) That the petitioner has contacted the homeowners in that particular area and has worked out compromises as far as their desires for screening, speed control and noise control in that particular section. 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 intend to support this resolution even though I am not too happy about the mechanical amusement equipment and I was just hoping that my colleague to my left will have the same faith I have that the ZBA will look at it favorably and give us some good direction. Mr. Nagy, I haven't seen the final landscape drawings, etc. When they were talking about the speed bumps and the screening of the trees, etc. , has that been incorporated in the finished drawings? Mr. Nagy: What would be appropriate would be to reference as an additional condition that the site improvements as shown on this plan, which consists of speed bumps, landscape screening, etc. be fully implemented. Mr. Tent: Can we do that by reference number because I don't feel comfortable that it is not there. Mr. Duczynski: May I help. I had written a letter to the Planning Commission several weeks ago outlining the various things I just spoke of and I would have no objection to attaching that letter as part of your resolution if it simplifies things. Mr. Tent: Whatever it will take to tie this all in. Mr. Morrow: I too am troubled with the number of machines but like so many of these petitions they are not all bad or all good. I think there is enough good things about this petition that we will leave it in the hands of the ZBA to make that determination as to hardship. The only thing I would add in our motion is as it relates to the trash pickup. I am sure that this location generates a lot of trash and would have frequent pickups. I would like to have it part of the motion that it be during hours that will not be a burden or troublesome to the neighborhood. Mr. Engebretson: I would just add one comment and that is that the number of 64 12488 machines sounds overwhelming but when you view this in real life, it is not nearly as overwhelming as it sounds. I know Mr. Tent is referring to the intent of the ordinance and I understand his position and basically I agree with him. However, I think each case needs to be judged on its own merits and this particular situation is not at all like what it sounds to be on the surface and I suspect the Zoning Board will check it out thoroughly before making their decision. 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 92-9-2-37 by Robert E. Rashid requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in connection with a proposed Major Magic restaurant to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington and Norwich Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #12-526-92 RESOLVED that, Petition 92-9-2-37 by Robert E. Rashid requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in connection with a proposed Major Magic restaurant to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington and Norwich Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4 be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: Mr, Rashid, what would you like to say about this proposal? Mr. Duczynski: Where we left off were two questions that I remember. One was a question to Schostak as to what is Schostak going to do with their liquor license. Schostak does not have a liquor license. I think that was left over from Wonderland Shopping Center. It expired and we do not control it. On the other hand, Mr. Rashid can speak to his liquor license. Mr. Rashid: What I was hoping to do was buy a resort license and not ask you for one of your new issues. Mr. Engebretson: Is that what you have done in other locations? Use a resort license? Mr. Rashid: This would be the first time. Mr. Engebretson: So you haven't been successful with that type of appeal. Have you tried to get a resort license? Mr. Rashid: I can buy three of them. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Rashid, you do not serve any hard liquor at these locations, do you? r.. Mr. Rashid: Not at all. 12489 Mr. Gniewek: All you serve is beer and wine? Mr. Rashid: That is correct. Mr. Gniewek: Then there would be no problem with us putting a condition that should we grant this, it is limited to just beer and wine? Mr. Rashid: That would be no problem. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Rashid, in the original public hearing we asked you how important the liquor license was and you indicated it was so important. As we spent some time at your Ann Arbor restaurant, it was our opinion that while we were there, there was no alcohol being served. Having said that and considering the fact it is basically a children's type facility, I am just wondering how it is that a Class C liquor license is so important to a children's entertainment facility. Mr. Rashid: Typically it is the parents. The mother would like a glass of wine typically and the father buys a beer. We earn basically in one store in a unit probably $40,000 in profit on the sale of those two items. It is for that reason that we request them. Mr. Engebretson: $40,000 before tax profit? Mr. Rashid: After tax. Mr. Engebretson: That sounds like it is a pretty high volume sale item. Mr. Rashid: It is very profitable. There is very little work to just have a Slow spicket there. The help is already there. Pizza happens to work well with beer. Mr. McCann: I owned a restaurant myself and I am curious, I would assume that your food, liquor relationship is around 80/20? Mr. Rashid: A little less. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Rashid, how do you control who buys the liquor and what method do you use for patrolling to find out that there are not underage people drinking at that location? Do you have people on staff that check periodically, that roam around the facility? Explain to us how you control that. Mr. Rashid: We do it all at the bar area where you purchase the beverages. The person dispensing the beer is the person responsible for either noticing whether the person has been drinking too much or looks to be a minor. We follow all the rules that the Liquor Control gives us. Mr. Gniewek: Have you, at your other locations, had any major problems? Mr. Rashid: We have never had a violation. 12490 Mr. Gniewek: In how many years? Mr. Rashid: In ten years of business. Mr. Gniewek: How many locations? Mr. Rashid: We have eight locations. Mr. Gniewek: Eight locations and never had a violation? Mr. Rashid: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: You only sell beer by the pitcher? Mr. Rashid: No, by the glass and by the pitcher. Mr. LaPine: I have a real problem giving you the liquor license. Basically because I feel this is strictly more of a children's entertainment than for adults. The adults come there to bring the kids because they want to go. They go and sit in one area and the kids go sit in another area. At least that is what I saw when I was there Saturday. As a matter of fact, the Liquor Control Commission was at your location that day checking on it. If parents came there and there was not beer and wine, do you think that is going to discourage them from coming there? Mr. Rashid: I really don't know. I can tell you I have one competitor in this country. They are called Chuck E Cheese's. They have 300 stores. They don't have any stores without beer and wine. I wouldn't want to gamble to find out it doesn't work. I am spending about one million six. I am not in that position. I think in five years it might come to that but today they still drink beer with pizza. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Rashid, since you are open until 11:00 p.m. on those weekend nights, what kind of activity is going on between 9:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. You said the busy time was 6:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. what goes on after 9:00 p.m.? Mr. Rashid: Well the crowd has thinned out substantially after 9:00 p.m. Mr. Engebretson: What kind of crowd is it after 9:00 p.m.? I really wanted to go over and visit your store but I wasn't able to do that. Is it young adults, late teenagers? Mr. Rashid: No I wouldn't call it teenagers. There are families in there still. By 10:00 p.m. there are very few people in the store. The crowd doesn't change. It is the same crowd you see at 3:00 p.m. I can't say you never see teenagers but it is not a teenagers's place. Mr. Engebretson: We saw a number of teenagers coming in late afternoon. I presume they were late teens and I would presume they might be around there in the evening as well, but there were quite a few young adults or teenagers there in the daytime. They did indicate to us it was not a popular college hangout as such and we can believe that because it was awfully noisy. 12491 Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Rashid, you do sponsor baseball teams, hockey teams, etc. Mr. Rashid: Every store does. Mr. Gniewek: So that would probably be some of the people that might be there 44111. after nine o'clock. It might be some of the baseball teams that might come in after for pizza and a beer. Mr. Rashid: They are certainly there. Whether they are there after 9:00 p.m. it would all depend. Mr. Gniewek: But it would be more of the type of people that would be there after nine o'clock? Mr. Rashid: I wouldn't say that honestly. I would say they are families and some people just have later hours than others and they don't mind being there that late. Mr. LaPine: You have no carry-out? Mr. Rashid: No we do not. Mr. Tent: Mr. Rashid, I am impressed that you have been in business for ten years and have had no violations and you have eight locations. To me that is important. That means you know how to run a business and you are pretty much in control. If you had been a novice in here I would have been concerned things wouldn't work out alright so that is in your favor. The question I have now is we know internally everything is being operated properly, have you had any problems at any of your locations in the last ten years in the fir. parking lot? It seems a lot of the action overflows and then they have problems in the parking lot. Mr. Rashid: I am not familiar with any but there could have been some problems. I am not familiar with any police agencies calling us and telling us that we have a problem in our parking lot. I am not familiar with any articles in newspapers. I have no instances that I know of. Mr. Tent: So inside and outside it seems like it has been a clean operation. Mr. Rashid: I would say so. Mr. Tent: Getting back to serving the beer and wine. They can only purchase it by walking to the counter? You have no waiters or waitresses that bring it to the tables? Mr. Rashid: We have waitresses for the birthday parties. She can bring them to the parents. Mr. Tent: That is for the parties but individuals sitting at the table if they wanted another pitcher of beer, it is up to them to walk up to the counter to buy it? Mr. Rashid: That is correct. 12492 Mr. Morrow: The only comment I would make is at first I was a little bit troubled with the request for Class C liquor license for something of this nature. However, on my field trip I found that it was not that big of a part of what was going on and to be perfectly frank, one of the reasons I will vote for this it was kind of neat to see Sur families out having fun together. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 27, 1992 on Petition 92-9-2-37 by Robert E. Rashid requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in connection with a proposed Major Magic restaurant to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington and Norwich Roads in the Southeast 1!4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-9-2-37 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in full compliance with all of the applicable standards of the Zoning Ordinance relating to the proposed use. 2) That the proposed use is customarily associated with the principal use being made of the property. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the established and surrounding uses. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance `r► x{543, as amended. Mrs. Fandrei: I am not going to be able to support this because I am not at all in favor of alcohol of any kind being served when the property is particularly geared towards children. I think it is fabulous that families are together and having a good time but I think the day is coming, and I think it is long past, that they should be able to do that without alcohol seeing that is one of our major problems in this country and I am real disappointed it is in this type of a situation. Mr. Alanskas: Could we also put in as item 4 that the petitioner will be buying his own license. It will not be coming out of the City's quota? Mr. Engebretson: I don't think we can do that. Can we John? Mr. Nagy: If he doesn't qualify for it, he takes a real risk. Whether or not he can obtain a resort license is going to be tough on him. Mr. Engebretson: The real issue here is the waiver use. Whether or not it is an appropriate use so I really think we need to let it go at that. Mr. Tent: There is one more item. Will they have to get approval because they are within 1000 feet of an existing Class C liquor license? '44t,,, Mr. Engebretson: The notes indicate there are none but if there were, you would be right. 12493 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Morrow, McCann NAYS: Fandrei, LaPine, Alanskas, Engebretson ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was #12-527-92 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 27, 1992 on Petition 92-9-2-37 by Robert E. Rashid requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in connection with a proposed Major Magic restaurant to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington and Norwich Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-9-2-37 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is an inappropriate use for a neighborhood shopping center. 2) That the proposed size, scale of operation and hours of operation of this proposed use of liquor sales are such that the use is incompatible to the shopping center and to the adjoining neighborhood and incompatible to the use as it is geared primarily to children. 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, Fandrei, LaPine, Alanskas, Engebretson NAYS: Gniewek, Morrow, McCann Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is 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. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #12-528-92 RESOLVED that, 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, be taken from the table. 12494 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward. Mr. Tangora, as you will recall, there were several items of concern at our regular public hearing. One of them had to do with a traffic study on that intersection and there was a secondary concern about the brick treatment on the building. The third item of concern was the wall around the garden center. I believe those were the issues that caused the item to be tabled. Charles Tangora: Let me start with the first one. You mentioned that you requested we provide you with a traffic study and since that time the firm of Reid, Cool & Michalski has been engaged and has provided a traffic study in conjunction to work with the architect on this development. My own knowledge Reid, Cool & Michalski is one of the premier traffic engineers in the metropolitan area. We have worked with them before. That study has been provided to the Planning Commissioners just recently and we have the architect here. We don't have anyone here from the traffic engineers because of the lateness of the study and the closeness of the meeting but the architect can address any questions you do have. In reading the study they have indicated that the present facility there on the roads will adequately take care of the traffic generated from this location, both from the Home Quarters as well as from the restaurant. The recommendations they do make is that on the northbound Middlebelt Road as it approaches the Schoolcraft Service Drive, that the right turn lane be made a dual right turn lane, which has been done in other places in the City, and feel that would take care of the possibility of a backup in the right turn lane that is going to be put in front of the facility. Mr. Engebretson: That was extended for the full length of the property too. Mr. Tangora: Yes it is. That is my reading of the traffic study. If there are any individual questions, we can answer them and then go on with the site plan. Mr. LaPine: Is there anyone here who can explain exactly how they came to these conclusions? I am curious to know why we have a traffic study from the north, from the south, from the west but none from the east. Mr. Tangora: This is Mark Drane and he is the architect that has been working with the traffic study engineers. I will let him answer that question. Mark Drane: I am with T. Rogvoy Associates, Architects. I would like to answer Mr. LaPine's question by simply stating the study was based on the south half of the expressway. There is only eastbound traffic. There is no westbound traffic on that side of the expressway. Mr. LaPine: When you do a traffic study, you do it on the whole area. I want to know how much volume goes up and down. People coming from 12495 Detroit from the east will get off at Middlebelt if they were coming to your store and they would have to make a left hand turn at Middlebelt, which creates traffic on Middlebelt. Am I correct? Mr. Drane: Yes. Mr. LaPine: You haven't given me any count from the traffic coming from the east, getting off at Middlebelt and making a left hand turn going south to the racetrack, to Ford Motor Company, to Cadillac, etc. To me that has to have some impact. Wouldn't you agree? Mr. Drane: The people getting off of eastbound 1-96 who are going to our development are taken into account on the southbound data, which crossovers Schoolcraft. Mr. LaPine: It doesn't make sense because you have to count the cars coming off from the east that get off at Middlebelt. I would think so but maybe I am wrong. I am no expert in traffic studies but it seems to me those cars have to be counted too. Let me go on to another question. When you say vehicle totals at the bottom, day totals. When you say day totals, you are talking about five hours 2:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. Is that correct? Mr. Drane: Correct. Mr. LaPine: So you are talking about for a five hour period there is a total of 25,665 cars going up and down the service drive on the south side only. So we have to assume that you have the same number of cars coming from the east as from the west, we would have approximately another 3,000 or 4,000 cars and that would add up to `'`" about 28,000 or 29,000 cars. Mr. Drane: These are just actual counts. These aren't projected counts. Mr. LaPine: These numbers are what you clocked that day. How do you factor in how much traffic is going to be generated by this business? Mr. Drane: There is a manual called International Trip Estimator. It was recently updated in 1991. It is the 8th edition of this manual. If you look on page 1 under the section of Trip Generation, you will see that during a 24-hour period the Home Quarters had 1,603 inbound and 1,603 outbound. The restaurant, assuming we have 8,300 square foot restaurant, we had 854 inbound and 854 outbound. Mr. LaPine: Do those figures mean that in a 24-hour period for Home Quarters plus the restaurant there will be 2457 cars going in there just to that one location? Mr. Drane: Yes. Mr. LaPine: That doesn't take into consideration the cars going into the racetrack? Mr. Drane: Correct. The cars going into the racetrack were taken into account on the actual parking count. 12496 Mr. Engebretson: I think the southbound traffic on Middlebelt includes those cars that exit from westbound 1-96 to crossover the freeway to enter the Home Quarters property. Isn't that what you are saying? Mr. Drane: Correct. The actual count does not take into account the estimated additional traffic. Mr. LaPine: John, in the recommendation that they made that they be able to make right hand turns from the two lanes of Middlebelt, who would approve that? Mr. Nagy: The county. Mr. LaPine: Should that be approved before this establishment is built? Mr. Nagy: Before they would be given a construction permit, that would be first reviewed to make sure all the conditions of the site plan could be complied with. Mr. Morrow: I would say we would be adding roughly 10% more traffic in that area over a 24-hour period. The expert feels the road can absorb that traffic. Mr. Drane: If you look at the capacity evaluation, you will see with our development there will be a one second delay increase due to the traffic generated by us. It would be almost negligible and we still keep our rating as a B intersection even with our development. Mr. Morrow: What is a B? 'ormr Mr. Drane: They rate intersections in a class from A to F, A being the least densely used intersection, F being the most densely used intersections. C is a design engineers like to go to to maximize the efficiency of an intersection. D is acceptable in a high density suburban area. So we are above a D even. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, isn't this the same traffic consultant that did the City-wide project several years ago? Mr. Nagy: No. Mr. Engebretson: Would they have had that information available to them do you think? Mr. Nagy: They do have the study the City of Livonia had commissioned for. Goodell-Grivas did the City-wide study and they were furnished a copy. We also checked the recommendations of Goodell-Grivas as they relate to this intersection to see if they were consistent with what Reid, Cool & Michalski had come up with and they are. Mr. Engebretson: I find it a point of interest that the two consulting firms come to the same conclusion, one of them having done a very in depth study years ago and then we have an up-to-date review of that work and factoring in the impact of the proposed use here and we still come close to an untroubled intersection from the standpoint of congestion. Would you agree with that? 12497 Mr. Nagy: I would agree with that. Mr. Tangora: (He presented the site plan) The brick will be put on the frontage which will be facing the west, which is to Middlebelt Road and also on the north which faces the Schoolcraft service drive and I-96. 'Sow The south exposure and east exposure is to be constructed of a block that we presented to you. Both of those sides back up to the parking area to Ladbroke Racetrack. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Tangora, I think at the last meeting on the block walls I think someone indicated they might be a scoured block to give it more relief and perhaps more of a brick use. Mr. Tangora: I think the scoured block is still planned for the block walls. Theresa Samosiuk: I am with Professional Engineering. I am the Civil Engineer and the representative for Home Quarters. Home Quarters has agreed to put the beige brick on the front of the building and the north side of the building facing Schoolcraft. However, they would like to propose to put the smooth face block on the south end of the building facing the Ladbroke service drive and the west end of the building facing the Ladbroke Racetrack. Mr. Engebretson: I don't hear scoured block anymore. Ms. Samosiuk: Well last week, if you remember, we proposed to put the scoured block on the side of the building facing Middlebelt and the side of the building facing Schoolcraft. That was proposed to be the scoured block and the smooth block was going to be on the back of the building and the south side of the building. Mr. Morrow: Myself, we have done it in other areas of the City where people want a block wall and they have given us some type of scoured block wall to give some relief to have it approach a brick look. I am not familiar with what the cost constraints are or anything but as one Commissioner I have been told there is not an appreciable difference as to whether it is a scored block or regular block. I would rather see the scored block as opposed to the regular block only because of the relief it gives it. Mr. Tent: I would like to discuss the scoured block. When we talked two weeks ago we indicated we would like the brick frontage. In fact I was for brick all around the building. I am satisfied that we are going with two sections of the building. That satisfies me but the smooth wall doesn't. I have to agree with my fellow Commissioner. I am looking for a scoured block on the two opposite areas. If you put in that scoured block, you will have no problem with me but if you are going to go ahead and put in that cement block, then you will have a problem with me. Mr. Tangora: I don't think we are going to have a problem with you. The developer has just indicated to me that on those two sides of the building they will put up the scoured block. 12498 Mr. Engebretson: We aren't looking to impose any financial hardship on you but I can't imagine that is significantly more expensive. Can you tell me the differential in the cost between a scoured block and regular block. Say Ms. Samosiuk: I can consult with the representative from Home Quarters. I am not familiar with that. Eight to ten cents a square foot additional. Mr. Engebretson: What are you planning on doing around the garden shop? Ms. Samosiuk: Around the entire garden shop the walls are 18 feet high and they are solid masonry walls. Since the walls are 18 feet high, which is a requirement of Home Quarters, we would ask that the walls be considered as a wall and as part of the building and not to be looked at as a fence. We are proposing that they be shown and constructed as a building wall and considered as a building wall. The back portion will be the scoured block. Mr. Alanskas: Why do we have to have an 18 foot high wall? Why can't it be lower? Ms. Samosiuk: It is a standard requirement by Home Quarters. It is a security reason. They have security concerns for external as well as internal. Mr. Alanskas: We discussed it in regards to Frank's Nursery, the wall they have around their garden shop. It is nowhere near that high and they have no problems whatsoever with theft or loss of merchandise. Ms. Samosiuk: I just know it is a very high concern of theirs and at every site `► they have, it is 18 feet high. Mr. Alanskas: With that high wall and that wire fencing, it looks like a prison. Ms. Samosiuk: Well the wire fencing is only a small area in the front. It will be a 4 foot high brick wall on the bottom and then every 11 feet is a column so that will be a 14 foot high column. The fencing, we would not like to call it fencing because we have changed it to iron grids that are dipped in vinyl. It doesn't have the appearance of a chain link fence or anything like that. We would like to have a more aesthetic appearance. Actually it kind of disappears when you look at it. Mr. Alanskas: But it is a very thin grate. Ms. Samosiuk: It is not as thick as a wrought iron fence but it is a thinner iron. It is dipped in vinyl and it eliminates the security reason why Home Quarters does not like the wrought iron fence. It is not a cost issue. It is security reasons. Mr. Alanskas: I still have a problem with that high wall. I just can't see it especially on that corner. Coming from Plymouth Road east you are going to be approaching that building and seeing these two high walls. I just don't like it. 12499 Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Alanskas, it is going to be face brick. That is going to make it blend right in with the building. Mr. Drane: The reason the wall is 18 feet high, is not only for security '%110. so They also stack lumber out there, which is 16 feet high so we want to make sure the lumber isn't seen from the outside area. It is there for screening the material that is inside also. Mr. Alanskas: What is the garden portion? Ms. Samosiuk: It is for merchandise not just lumber. Mr. Drane: The back portion of that is where they store some lumber. They come in and it is unloaded in a unloading area in the back of the building and it is transferred into that area. Mr. Engebretson: I am glad you pointed that out Mr. Drane because I think we have been relating it to a garden center and not thinking of it in terms of having building materials out there that might be stacked up like that, in which case we would probably want you to build a tall wall. Mrs. Fandrei: Do we have a front view rendering? Ms. Samosiuk: No not with me at the time. Mrs. Fandrei: That to me is as important as all the rest of it. A picture of the height of the wall with the building and the whole thing. Mr. Tangora knows what I am referring to. Mr. Tangora: Well the answer is obvious that we don't have it and it has never been requested or shown before. Mrs. Fandrei: It is always a part of a presentation. Mr. Shane left to get a color photograph that was in the Planning Department. Mr. Gniewek: How tall is the building itself? Ms. Samosiuk: Twenty-eight feet high. Mr. Gniewek: So the building is 28 feet and the wall that is adjacent to it is 18 feet high, so there is ten feet that extends above the wall. Is that correct? Ms. Samosiuk: Yes. Ms. Gniewek: And the brick will be the same on the side of the building as will be on the wall so it will all more or less blend in so what you will basically be seeing is the screened wall blending into the side of the building. Mr. Tent: On your revised drawings you are going to provide the location of the screening of the rooftop mechanical units? You have taken that into consideration? 12500 Ms. Samosiuk: Yes. Mr. Tent: The underground sprinkling system, the landscape area and all that, will be addressed? err. Ms. Samosiuk: That will occur with the construction drawings. Mr. Tent: The scoured block will be incorporated in the revised drawings? Ms. Samosiuk: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask the petitioner if there is anything else they care to add. Mr. Tangora: I think we pretty well covered it in the two meeting we have been here. Marvin Walkon: There were two issues raised by Mr. Tent as to the screened in area and that is absolutely going to be screened in and you mentioned sprinkling and we intend to do the sprinkling. The only new issue that you raised tonight was the scoured block and we have unequivocally agreed to that. Mr. Shane returned and passed the photograph of the building to the Commissioners. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was #12-529-92 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 recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-10-2-42 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 11-16-92, as revised, prepared by Professional Engineering Associates which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the following recommended actions put forth by Reid, Cool & Michalski, Inc. , Traffic & Transportation Engineers in their report titled, "Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Home Quarters Livonia, Michigan" dated November 25, 1992 shall be implemented: a) That the north bound right turn lane on Middlebelt Road be extended as shown on the approved Site Plan, and b) That right turns from northbound Middlebelt Road be permitted from the second lane as well. 3) That the Building Elevation Plan dated 11-30-92, as revised, prepared by Home Quarters Architectural Department which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 12501 4) That the landscape Plan dated 11-16-92, as revised, prepared by Michael J. Dul & Associates, Landscape Architects, which is hereby approved and shall be adhered to and the landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 5) That an underground sprinkler system serving all landscaped areas shall be installed. 6) That a sign plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for their approval prior to the issuance of a Sign Erection Permit. 7) That the approval of this waiver use in no way implies approval of the "Proposed Future Restaurant" illustrated on the approved site plan. 8) That scoured block shall be used on the east and south elevations of the building. 9) That brick shall be used on the garden wall on the north and west elevations. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance 1{543. `r 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 11543, as amended. Mr. Tent: The reason I proposed the approving of the resolution is because I think they have lived up to the things they said they were going to and with the conditions we have here, I feel as long as the zoning is intact, which it is, I feel we got the the best use for the C-2 zoning at that location and I hope they will do a good job and produce what they said they would. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Fandrei, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: LaPine, Morrow ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 12502 On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was 1112-530-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning iw„ Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewe, Fandrei, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Motion by the City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on whether or not to amend Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding signs not needing site plan approval. Mr. Engebretson: We are looking for a motion to set a public hearing as to whether or not to adopt this proposed language change. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was 1112-531-92 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 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding signs not needing site plan approval. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance X1543, 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 Approval of the minutes of the 652nd Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on October 27, 1992. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was 112-532-92 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 652nd Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on October 27, 1992 are hereby approved. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 12503 Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Rally's Inc. requesting approval for two ground signs, two wall signs and two menu order boards on property located at 33500 Plymouth Road in Section 28. Mr. Miller: This is the Rally's Restaurant that will be built on the north side of Plymouth Road just west of Farmington. They are proposing two ground signs, two wall signs and two menu signs. The primary wall sign, under the ordinance they are allowed one wall sign at 19 square feet. They are proposing one at 18 square feet and that will be located in the front of the building. Also, on the front of the building will be a menu, which because it is attached to the building counts as a wall sign. That will be between the two windows. It has 6 square feet. The ground sign will be located between the two drives off Plymouth Road and they are allowed one at 30 square feet and that is what they are proposing. They also are having a directional sign with their logo on it off the Farmington entrance. Because it has their logo on it, it has to be counted as a ground sign and that is 5 square feet. The menu boards, they are allowed 1 at 30 square feet and they are proposing 2 at 17 square feet because they have two drives in the back of the building so they will have to go to the ZBA for excessive signage. Mr. Morrow: Just a point of information for the record, the directional sign coming off Farmington Road is a drive that is dedicated to the Rally site as opposed to a common drive. Mr. Miller: Right, that is part of their property. It is kind of a square piece of property with a little drive, which is included in their drive. Mr. Tent: On their original proposal they had their logo around the building. Has that been eliminated completely? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Tent: The only reason they have to go to the ZBA is because of excessive signs? Mr. Miller: Excessive ground signs, menu and wall signs. Mr. Engebretson: Does the petitioner wish to add anything to that presentation? Dennis Miller: I am from Rally's. I have nothing to add. We went over it last week at the workshop and we came to an agreement. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #12-533-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Rally's Inc. requesting approval for two ground signs, two wall signs and two menu order boards on property located at 33500 Plymouth Road in Section 28 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the sign package dated 11/30/92 for the Rally's Restaurant at 33500 Plymouth Road is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 12504 2) That this approval is subject to the applicant being granted a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive number of signs. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Ohio Sign Services, on behalf of Comerica Bank, requesting approval for one ground sign on property located at 29370 Plymouth in Section 25. Mr. Miller: This is on the corner of Plymouth and Middlebelt Road. There is a shopping center behind it. They are proposing to put up a 30 square foot monument type sign. Right now existing is a 20 foot high freestanding sign. They are going to take that down and put up a conforming 30 square foot sign. That is what they are allowed under the ordinance. They are also going to landscape around it. (He presented a color rendering). Petitioner: This sign will serve our purpose to identify the bank from both Middlebelt and Plymouth Roads. Mr. Alanskas: How long will that sign be on sir? Petitioner: I can't make binding statements for them in this regard. However, in discussions that I have had with them and from what I have seen, they leave their sign on throughout the night because a major part of their service is the automatic teller machine network so they ,tor leave it on all night. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was X112-534-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Ohio Sign Services, on behalf of Comerica Bank, requesting approval for one ground sign on property located at 29370 Plymouth in Section 25 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the sign plan drawing No. B11527 dated 7/11/92 prepared by Plasti-Line, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the monument sign elevation plan dated 11/25/92 prepared by Plasti-Line, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the site plan sheet C 1 dated 6/23/76 prepared by Austin Engineers, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4) That the landscaping plan dated 11/25/92, submitted by Comerica Bank, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 12505 Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Permit Application by Jose Vela for the installation of a satellite dish antenna on property located at 29461 Linda Avenue in Section 23. Mr. Miller: He is proposing to put a 10 foot diameter dish approximately six feet from the rear of his house and 39 feet from the east lot line. The pole it will sit on is 10 feet high so when the dish is straight up and down the whole apparatus will be about 15 feet in in total height. He submitted consenting letters from the people on the west, east and the person directly behind him. He is proposing the trees on the lot to screen the dish. Mr. Alanskas: Upon visiting your site, the satellite dish is going to be facing southwest perfectly. Why do you have to have it so high? There is nothing in back to stop your beams coming in. Couldn't you lower that pole? Mr. Vela: Even though the pole is ten feet tall, it is buried in the ground so it is only seven feet tall. Mr. Alanskas: That will be fine. Mr. McCann: You have no problem with us limiting it to 7 feet then? Mr. Vela: I don't have a problem. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously approved, it was #12-535-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Permit Application by Jose Vela for the installation of a satellite dish antenna on property located at 29461 Linda Avenue in Section 23 subject to the following conditions: 1) That the site plan and specifications dated 11/10/92 submitted by Jose Vela for a satellite dish antenna at 29461 Linda Avenue, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 2) That the pole the satellite dish antenna will be mounted on shall be no higher than seven feet from ground level and cemented in place. for the following reason: 1) That the proposed satellite antenna location is such that it will have no detrimental aesthetic impact on the neighboring properties. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 12506 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 654th Regular Meeting held on December 1, 1992 was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. `. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION , i' / James C. McCann, Secretary ATTEST: (�!� ., !j -7( Jac Engebre/son, Chairman jg