HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2001-09-1818764
MINUTES OF THE 831'rREGULAR MEETING HELD BY
THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, September 18, 2001, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 831" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive,
Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas H G Shane
Dan Piercecchi Linda Dolan William La Pine
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner
III; and Bill Poppenger, Planner I, were also present.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on lonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation lolhe City
Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and will make the final
delerninafion as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council
for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a pelifion
requesting a waiver of use or site plan is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in
which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by
the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of
adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of
these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both
approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use
depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. We will begin with the
Miscellaneous Site Plans for our agenda.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2001 -08 -SN -02 North American Signs (CVS Pharmacy)
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 2001-08-
Sh402 by North American Signs, on behalf of CVS Pharmacy,
requesting approval for signage for the commercial building located at
29500 Five Mile Road on the north side of Five Mile between
Middlebell and Hidden Lane in the Southeast %of Section 14.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Five Mile between Middlebell
and Hidden Lane. On March 19, 2001, this site received Site Plan
Approval for the construction of a CVS Pharmacy Store. As part of that
approval it was conditioned: That only conformingsignage is
18765
approved with this petition, and additional signage shall be
separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council. CVS has submitted a sign package
for the new store that is in excess of what is allowed by the Sign
Ordinance. Because of this, as specified in the above condition, the
proposed signage requires Planning Commission and City Council
approval. Signage pennitted forthis site under Section 18.50H is one
(1) wall sign not to exceed 85 sq. ft. in sign area and one (1) ground
sign not to exceed 30 sq. ft. in sign area and not to exceed 6 ft. in
height. Proposed signage is for five (5) wall signs totaling 182 sq. ft.
in sign area: south elevation ("CVS/pharmacy")- 75 sq. ft.; east
elevation ("CVS/pharmacy") - 75 sq. ft.; east elevation ("ENTER
DRIVE-THRU/pharmacy) -13 sq. ft.; north elevation ("DRIVE-
THRU/pharmacy) - 6 sq. ft.; west elevation ("EXIT DRIVE-
THRU/pharmacy) = 13 sq. ft.) and one (1) ground sign 20 sq. ft. in sign
area and 5 ft. 6 in. in height. The excess signage consists of four (4)
wall signs, 97 sq. ft. in wall sign area. The proposed ground sign would
be located on the east side of the driveway off Five Mile Road that is
nearest to Middlebell Road. Because the propose signage is in excess
of what is allowed by the Sign Ordinance, a variance will be required
from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence. It is from the Inspection
Department, dated September 13, 2001, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to yourrequest ofAugust 14, 2001, the above -referenced
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) This petition
will need variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive
number of wall signs and excessive wall signage square footage. One
wall sign allowed, five proposed, excess four. Eighty-five square feet of
wall signage allowed, proposed 181 square feet, 96 square feet
excess. (2) This petitioner will also need a variance from the Zoning
Board ofAppea/s for Directional Sign #1, which is located off site and
thus not allowed. (3) The monument and other directional signs
appearacceptab/e as long as all are located at the proper setback
distance which is not detailed on the plan. This Department has no
furtherobjection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Tom Bybee, 2311 East Guy Road, Niles, Michigan.
Mr. McCann: We've reviewed the sign package. Maybe you could explain the
reasons you need the number of excess signs and the excess amount
of square footage.
18766
Mr. Bybee: The sign that is on the south side would be the front side. This building
has a kind of unique location if you will. Even though it doesn't
technically have exposure from Middlebelt Road, it does have access
from Middlebelt Road. One of the concerns is that with just the
monument sign, the building may not be seen and with people trying to
find it, could cause a bit of a traffic flow. Under the ordinance of
18.50H, Section 2, they are required to have a sign one half the size of
what is on the front of the building, which would be the one that is
required of 85 square feel. What we are suggesting is that given that
unique location where it will be entered from Middlebelt Road, we are
requesting that the Planning Commission considering adding that half
of the sign again which would reduce the actual size of the square
footage. The other three signs that will be on the drive-thm canopy on
the west side with an enter; on the north side basically is just
advertisement for the pharmacy, and on the east side is exit, one of the
concems is the driving is fairly tight in there and even with directional
signs there is concem that people possibly may go in that back canopy
in the wrong entrance.
Mr. McCann:
So you are saying thatthe driving is tight in there, thatthe Site Plan
didn't allow sufficient parking and driveway?
Mr. Bybee:
No. It's as light as it could be and still meet the requirements of the
City. The concern is that we would like to be sure to maintain an
orderly flow of traffic through there.
Mr. Shane:
Your comment concerning a wall sign facing Middlebelt Road. You
cited an ordinance section.
Mr. Bybee:
That's correct.
Mr. Shane:
If I may ask Mr. Taormina, that ordinance section he cited I believe is
the one that had to do with comer lots?
Mr. Bybee:
That's right.
Mr. Taormina:
If you could cite the ordinance again.
Mr. Bybee:
Yes, its 18.50, Section H, Subsection 2.
Mr. Taormina:
That section of the ordinance does provide for additional wall signage
for those commercial businesses that are situated on comer lots. This,
however, is not a corner lot. So they would only be entitled to one sign
facing Five Mile Road.
Mr. Shane:
I want to get that part of the record. So you don't comply with that
particular section.
18767
Mr. Bybee: Technically, we do not comply with that. No sir. But given the access
off of Middlebelt Road, there is some concern that there could possibly
be a traffic hazard if people couldn't see that store behind MacDonalds.
Mr. Shane:
Why would there be a traffic hazard? You have a major intersection
there, and it isn't going to take anybody very long to find out there is a
CVS Pharmacy on that particular location.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Miller, do you have a comment?
Mr. Miller:
If @ was a comer unit, he would be allowed half the square footage of
the original sign, but only if he was not allowed a ground sign. This site
does have a ground sign.
Mr. Shane:
Thankyou. I'm having trouble buying your argument about a traffic fie -
up. Of course traffic fie -up was one of the reasons I voted against the
thing in the first place because I didn't think it was a very good idea.
But a CVS Pharmacy is nota hard thing to locate on the site once you
are familiar with the area. And it seemed to me that with a ground sign
and with one sign facing Five Mile that would be ample signage. That's
my particular opinion.
Mr. McCann:
Sir, can you respond to that? I think Mr. Miller made a very good point.
If you wanted an east elevation sign for the traffic on Middlebelt, what's
the purpose of having a monument sign? Should we be getting rid of
that?
Mr. Bybee:
To be quite flank with the Committee, I'm sure we won't be allowed to
have both signs. So one of those signs probably will be lost in the
variance.
Mr. McCann:
You're saying since in essence we are comer lot, we should be allowed
this. If we're not, we want this. But you put them both in there like you
need both. So you're telling me you don't need both. You would prefer
to have the east elevation and you'll forego the monument sign, that's
not a problem.
Mr. Bybee:
Well, I dont know that its not a problem but it would certainly be a
consideration. Al this point, I'm not authorized by the owner to
negotiate on signs. I'm just authorized to present their case.
Mr. McCann:
I see. Maybe we should adjourn this then until we have the owner here
so that the person who has the authorization could be able to tell us
what they really need and what they don't need. Is that a suggestion?
I'm going to go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience who
would like to speak for or against this petition? A motion is in order.
18768
On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and approved, it was
#9-136-01 RESOLVED, thatthe City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2001-08SN-02 submitted by North
American Signs, on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, requesting approval for
signage forthe commeroial building located at 29500 Five Mile Road
on the north side of Five Mile between Middlebelt and Hidden Lane in
the Southeast %of Section 14, be tabled indefinitely.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
La Pine, Shane, Piercecchi, Dolan, McCann
NAYS:
Alanskas
ABSENT:
None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. You will contact the Planning Department and let them know
when that person will be available and we will reschedule it.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2001-08SN-03 Intercity Neon (Kmart, 7 Mile)
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-08-
SN403 submitted by Intercity Neon, on behalf of Kmarl, requesting
approval for an additional wall sign for the store located at 33400
Seven Mile Road in the Southeast''/. of Section 4.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northwest comer of Seven Mile and
Farmington. The petitioner is requesting approval to add an additional
wall sign on the front elevation of their store on Seven Mile Road. The
existing signage consists of the following five (5) wall signs totaling
554 square feel in sign area: south elevation ("Big Kmart') - 330 sq. ft.;
south elevation ("Garden Shop") - 63 sq. ft.; south elevation ("Penske
Auto Service') - 63 sq. ft.; south elevation ("Pharmacy') 35 sq. ft.; and
east elevation ("Penske Auto Service")- 63 sq. R. The signage
permitted for this site under Section 18.50H is one (1) wall sign not to
exceed 433 sq. R. in sign area. The additional proposed signage is
for one (1) wall sign on the north elevation ("I Hr. Photo") - 59 sq. R. to
be located on the front of the building. The excess signage consists
of five wall signs, 180 sq. R. in wall sign area. A variance (case #9708-
122) was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on September 2,
1997 for the existing signage on the building. Because the new sign
would increase the nonconformity of the signage, anew variance would
be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
18769
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence. The letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated September 13, 2001, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to yourrequest ofAugust 20, 2001, the above -referenced
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. This petition will
need variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess number of
wall signs and excess square footage. One wall sign allowed, existing
five, proposed one additional fora total of six (five excess), allowed 433
square footage of wall signage, 643 square feet existing, proposed 59
square feet additional for a total of 702 square feet (269 square feet
excess). Previous Zoning Board of Appeals Grant 9708-122. This
Department has no furtherobjection to this petition." The letter is
signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Roy Schafer,
Intercity Neon, 23920 Amber, Warren, Michigan.
Mr. McCann:
Are you representing Kmart?
Mr. Schafer:
Yes.
Mr. McCann:
Have they talked to you at all whether or not they are going to be
expanding this site to become a Super K or not?
Mr. Schafer:
I havent heard on this location at all on expanding to that, but we don't
get the word until right at the end.
Mr. McCann:
Before l goto the other Commissioners, is there any particular reason
why you need these additional signs?
Mr. Schafer:
Basically for the one-hour photo. They've had a photo shop in there for
quite some time but now it's a one-hour photo, and they are trying to
compete with all the CVS, Rile Aids and such with the one-hour photo.
The setback of the building is quite a ways back. Basically, that's
about R.
Mr. McCann:
Any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
I guess I have a problem. I go to that Kmart because I live right by
there. And I know there is a one-hour photo in there. A big corporation
like Kmarl, I can't believe this one-hour photo sign out front is going to
draw people to that store just for one-hour photos. People go thereto
shop continually. People in the neighborhood know it's there and they
can use that facility if they want to. By putting up a sign, are you trying
to draw people from somewhere else? I don't understand how this is
going to draw people into Kmarl.
18770
Mr. Schafer: A lot oftimes people driving by or even pulling into the store don't
realize they have a one-hour photo shop inside. They go past it but
they don't look at it. Hopefully, they will see the sign when theyre
pulling in.
Mr. La Pine:
You mean to tell me when they are in the store shopping, and when I
go in there I usually go down all the aisles because I might see
something I forgot and might need. They don't know what's in there?
Mr. Schafer:
Well,sometimes they don't realize that it's a one-hour photo. They see
that it's a photo shop ...
Mr. La Pine:
Theyve got a big sign there— One -Hour Photo— by the photo shop
where you turn your film in. To me, I just cant see it. Where do we
end this? If they come along now and they want to start selling glasses
in there, are we going to have to have a sign outside that we now have
an optometrist in there? We could have hundreds of signs across this
store. Somewhere along the line there's got to be a point where we
have to say enough is enough. To me, Big Kmart should be enough to
draw the people into the store. Once they get there, they can walk
through the store and know what services are there. You take the
Penske auto service; they've got five overhead doors with five six foot
banners over each door, which is really not permitted, unless they've
got a 30 -day permit to put them up. I'm not complaining about that. Its
just that I can't believe for the life of me unless somebody at Kmart can
prove to me that one-hour photo is going to draw hundreds and
hundreds of people into that store. I dont believe that.
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but also in all your circular
flyers you have in the weekend papers, every Kmart store says one-
hour photo in that circular, so people know when they look at that
circular when they are looking for buys, they know that you've got the
one-hour photo.
Mr. Schafer:
The only thing is, they are running those at this time, but eventually
they will quite running those ads. The sign becomes a permanent thing
so you have permanent one-time advertising.
Mr. Alanskas:
But I hope you see our point because, just like Bill said, if a year down
the road you want to have another service, you'll want to advertise that.
You'll want a sign there. And all of a sudden Livonia's got all these
stores with all these signs which our ordinance does not allow. Right
now you're five over what you're allowed and 180 feet over. I can't
even believe that you're here before us.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Sir, do you realize that you had a one-hour photo at that Seven Mile
store atone time?
Mr. Schafer:
No, I wasn't aware of that.
18771
Mr. Piercecchr
Yes, they had one there. You've been told that currently you do
exceed the signage allowance. You do recognize that?
Mr. Schafer:
Yes, l do.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You've made a case on this one-hour photo. I don't believe that that's
a major component of the retail business. Do you?
Mr. Schafer:
It's not a major component, but it is one of their components. They sell
clothing, everything, shoes, tires, auto service. I mean everything is in
there.
Mr. Piercecchr
That's justthe pointthat l have too. That permitfing this parficularsgn,
especially after the inifial allocafions, and negotiations were terminated
on the signage originally for that place, we're very afraid to establish a
precedent of individual signage and point it out. You ward to have
optcal, you get a sign for it. How about trousers, how about you name
it — fertilizers, lawnmowers. This is what concerns us and concerns me
in particular. You should be aware of that however the vote comes out.
But some of us do feel like we may be establishing a very poor
precedent by allowing individualized signage.
Mr.Shane:
Just to finish that thought. Who doesn't know that Kmart has
pharmacy, for example? You're asking fora pharmacy sign. I think
people are less apt to know that there's a one-hour photo than they are
a pharmacy. It's just one more point towards what the gentlemen have
been saying, when is enough. When is the next extra service going to
come dawn the line to be adverfised? So, I think you're getting the
message here that we're a little upset about all these little signs that
weren't there before. They've had a pharmacy before; they had a
photo shop before, a garden shop and all the rest of it.
Mr. LaPine: I'm not here to impede Kmarl. I want them to be successful. And its
my understanding, the rumors I'm hearing, this may be changed to a
Super Kmart down the line here in the very near future. Maybe at that
lime you people could come in with a whole new sign package and
incorporate that and we will negotiate getting rid of some ofthe signs.
And one ofthe other things that's kind of interestng to me, pharmacy is
more important that photo shop and garden shop and the pharmacy
letters are smaller than the one-hour photo and the garden shop. And
to me, thatjust doesn't make sense. The pharmacy is very important;
people want to get medicine. One-hour photo ... I dont care if we get
the photos in one hour or if we getthem in a week. Il makes no big
deal to me. Maybe to some people it's important, but I think that's kind
of unique.
Mrs. Dolan: I know that we discussed it at our last meeting. Unfortunately, l think
that we all agreed that where do we draw the line as far as how many
18772
signs are going to be on and how many lights are going to be on one
particular building. It was like Bill said, we talked about what if they go
to Super Kmart? What if they have exlms that they have on that
building? Where are we going to stop? And I think the most important
thing as Bill said, and the other Commissioners here, is that we want to
draw the attention to Kmart to gel the people to come into Kmarl, but
ideally, we can't just say, ok we want you to come because of our
pharmacy; we want you to come because of our photo shop; we want
you to come because of this. We want you to come to Kmart because
Kmart is a good store and we can offer you a wide variety of different
things. And l think that's what we all agreed upon. If we confinue to lel
people in businesses say, we've just added this feature to our
business, let's add a sign, where do we draw the line? And I think you
might want to agree. Its a difficult decision for us to make because
absolutely we want to bring the public into Kmart. We don't want to
stop that. And we want you to continue to grow and add different
items, such as the one-hour photo and pharmacy, to bring the people
in, but it's difficullfor us to confinually advertise itwith an additional
sign. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Any last
comments, sir?
Mr. Schafer:
No.
Mr. McCann:
A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane and unanimously approved, it
was
#9-137-01
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2001-07-08-03 by Intercity Neon, on behalf of
Kmart, requesting approval for an additional wall sign for the store
located at 33400 Seven Mile Road on the northwest corner Seven Mile
and Farmington in the Southwest %of Section 4, be denied for the
following reasons:
1. Thatthe applicant has failed to comply with all the requirements
outlined in Section 18.50H of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the applicant has not justified the need forthe addifional
signage for this location;
3. That this sign is unnecessary and does not offer pertinent
information to customers;
4. That the sign would clutter up the exterior of the store and make it
artistically unappealing:
18773
5. That approving this sign request would set an undesirable
precedent for the area and other similar type stores throughout
the City of Livonia; and
6. Approving this application would not be aesthetically in the City's
best interest.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted. The petitioner has ten days to appeal the decision to the City
Council in writing.
ITEM#3 PETITION 2001-08SN-04 Intercity Neon (Kmart, Plymouth Rd)
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001 -08 -
SN -04 by Intercity Neon, on behalf of Kmart, requesting approval for an
additional wall sign forthe store located at 30255 Plymouth Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 35.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Plymouth between Middlebelt
and Milburn. Kmart is requesting approval to add an additional wall
sign on the front elevation of their store on Plymouth Road. The
existing signage consists of 5 wall signs totaling 714 sq. R. in sign
area: north elevation ("Big Kmart")- 367 sq. R.; north elevation
("Penske Auto Service")- 99 sq. R.; north elevation ("Pharmacy") - 51
sq. R.; west elevation ("Penske Auto Service") - 63 sq. R.; and west
elevation ("Big Kmart") -134 sq. R. Signage permitted is one wall sign
not to exceed 478 sq. R. in sign area. Additional proposed signage
is one wall sign on the north elevation (1 Hr. Photo') - 59 sq. R.
Excess signage consists of five walls signs, 295 sq. R. in wall sign
area. A variance (case #9710-159) was granted by the Zoning Board
of Appeals on February 3, 1998, for the existing signage on the
building. Because the new sign would increase the nonconformity of
the signage, anew variance would be required from the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence. The letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated September 13, 2001, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to yourrequest ofAugust 20, 2001, the above -referenced
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This petition
will need a variance from the Zoning Board ofAppea/s for excess
numberof wall signs and excess square footage. One wall sign
allowed, existing five, proposed one additional for a total of six (five
excess), allowed 490 square footage of wall signage, 748 square feet
existing, proposed 59 square feet additional for a total of 807 square
18774
1. That the applicant has failed to comply with all the requirements
outined in Section 18.50H of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the applicant has not justified the need for the additional
signage for this location;
3. That this sign is unnecessary and does not offer pertinent
information to customers;
4. That the sign would clutter up the exterior of the store and make it
artistically unappealing:
5. That approving this sign request would set an undesirable
precedent for the area and other similar type stores throughout
the City of Livonia; and
feet (317 square feet excess). Previous Zoning Board ofAppea/s
Grant 9710-159. (2) The proposed banners will need Council approval.
This Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is
signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection.
Mr. McCann:
Sir, name and address.
Roy Schafer,
Intercity Neon, 29320 Amber, Warren, Michigan,
Mr. McCann:
Is there any difference between this petition and the prior petition?
Mr. Schafer:
None.
Mr. McCann:
Any questions from the Commissioners? Its pretty much a re-
statement of the last petition. Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? Any additional comments,
sir?
Mr. Schafer:
No.
Mr. McCann:
A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it
was
9-138-01
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2001-08SN-04 submitted by Intercity Neon,
on behalf of Kmart, requesting approval for an additional wall sign for
the store located at 30255 Plymouth Road on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Middlebell and Milburn in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 25, be denied for the following reasons:
1. That the applicant has failed to comply with all the requirements
outined in Section 18.50H of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the applicant has not justified the need for the additional
signage for this location;
3. That this sign is unnecessary and does not offer pertinent
information to customers;
4. That the sign would clutter up the exterior of the store and make it
artistically unappealing:
5. That approving this sign request would set an undesirable
precedent for the area and other similar type stores throughout
the City of Livonia; and
18775
6. Approving this application would not be aesthetically in the City's
best interest.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion carded and the foregoing resolution is
adopted. The petitioner has len days to appeal the decision to the City
Council in writing.
ITEM #4 PETITION 97-08-08-21 Jaafar Investment Group
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a revision to
Petition 97-M-21 by Jaafar Investment Group, on behalf of Sunoco
Gas Station, requesting approval to construct a trash dumpster
enclosure for the gas station located at 29401 Seven Mile Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 11.
Mr. McCann: On September 14, 2001, the Planning Commission received a letter
requesting that this be tabled due to an emergency of Mr. Jaafar. A
motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanska, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, 0
was
#9-139-01 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 97-8-8-21 submitted by Jaafar Investment
Group, on behalf of Sunoco Gas Station, requesting a revision to the
petition for approval to construct a trash dumpster enclosure for the gas
station located at 29401 Seven Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 11, be tabled.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. We will leave itto Mr. Tangom to contact the Planning
Department to have this item rescheduled. This concludes the
Miscellaneous Site Plans section of our agenda. We will begin with the
Pending Items section of our agenda. These items have been
discussed at length in prior meetings; therefore, there will be limited
discussion tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous
consent from the Planning Commission.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2001-07-02-13 Tennyson Chevrolet
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-07-
02-13 by Tennyson Chevrolet, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to
operate a used car lot proposed to be located on the north side of
Plymouth Road between Mayfield Avenue and Hubbard Avenue in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Chairman, I move that this item be
removed from the table.
18776
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it
was
#9-140-01 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2001-07-02-13, submitted by Tennyson
Chevrolet, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a used car lot
proposed to be located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Mayfield Avenue and Hubbard Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
27, be removed from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, is there any additional information?
Mr. Taormina: There is no new correspondence. However, we have received a
revised plan that includes mainly changes to the landscaping plan. The
petitioner is here this evening to present those changes.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Charles Tangos, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan, representing Tennyson
Chevrolet. I just want to mention that on the Landscape Plan that was
filed with your office last week, we had met with the Director of the
Plymouth Road Development Authority. And the plan that you see
uses some of the plans that were developed by Mr. Nagy so that the
Landscape Plan fits with the Plymouth Road streetscape. When that
goes in, which we understand will probably be sometime next year, that
in the meantime it will be sodded and maintained until the Plymouth
Road Development Authority takes over and puts in their streetscape.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Tangora, at the prior meeting we discussed the plans for the main
building which were going to be revised and we brought some plans in
for some suggestions. Have those been filed with the City?
Mr. Tangora: Not yet. They are still working on those.
Mr. McCann: Commissioners, anyquestions?
Mr. Alanskas: I have one. On your Landscape Plan, the only thing I don't show from
the PRDA is that 1O'strip that goes between the barbershop and the
new showroom that's been there. The last thing that was there was
taken down or tidied. What are we going to do?
Mr. Tangora: I believe that's part of the streetscape.
Mr. Alanskas: I don't see it on here.
18777
Mr. Tangora: I guess I need some help from the architect here. He was the one that
actually drew the plans up to coincide with the Plymouth Road
Development streetscape.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, do you have a comment?
Mr. Taormina:
I think Mr. Alanskas is referring to a portion of the Landscape Plan that
will actually exist on the parcel to the east. It wouldn't appear on this
plan but would appear on the landscape plan for the principal
dealership. Is that correct?
Mike Devine, Joseph
Philips -Architect, LLC, 921 Wing Street, Plymouth, Michigan.
Yes, that is correct. The landscape strip in question is actually
adjacent to the existing dealership so that wouldn't be indicated on
what we're presenting tonight.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Are we talking about that asphalt drive down ...
Mr. Alanskas:
No. They didn't bring those plans with them tonight.
Mr. Devine:
If I could, I'd like tojustwalkthrough the plans and point out the
changes that we made since the last time we presented the project.
One of the things that had been pointed out during the last Planning
Commission meeting was the location of the handicapped accessible
parking space. It was requested that we move that to the front of the
building, which we've done. It's now to the west side of the south side
ofthebuilding. And one of the other issues that was brought up was
the aisle width along Mayfield. In the location where we have
exclusively parallel parking, we have a 20' wide aisle space; and where
that parallel parking over aps any 90 degree parking, we've increased
that aisle to 22', 1 believe, which is the required width by ordinance.
Also, in several conversations with the Naimola's, we have
implemented some screening devices here thatwere requested by
Mrs. Naimola. Specifically, we've got a 7' vinyl privacy fence that runs
from the north side of the barbershop all the way to the north property
line. In addition to that, Mr. Tennyson has agreed to provide the same
fend ng along the entire north property line of the barbershop property.
I think that one of the additional items we've indicated here is some
directional signage at the Plymouth Road entrance to the site, and
again, that was something that was requested by the Naimola's just
from the standpoint that it would help to eliminate any confusion as far
as customers pulling into their site that would be actually looking to
enter the Tennyson site. And I believe that's the majority of the
changes that we've instituted since the last time that we presented the
project. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to ...
18778
Mr. Alanskas: We had discussed one other thing and that's the approach where the
used car lot is now. We were discussing about closing that off where
you would not need that approach.
Mr. Devine:
Yes, and again, we're not presenting any information with regard to that
dealership tonight. What we're focusing on is just the proposed use.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right, thank you. But that will be coming back before us.
Mr. Devine:
Correct. One thing that I failed to mentioned was the change that we
made to the elevation of the project. And if you remember last time, we
had four windows similar to what's indicated here. Whatwe'vedoneis
increase the window space on the west side of the building so that we
could gain more light into the bullpen area which would be the main
sales office area, and that would increase visibility again out to the lot
for the sales agent.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, ifthey tear down the original used car sales building on
the main site, is there any reason — if they just get a permit and remove
that building -thatthey have to come back before us with a site plan?
Mr. Taormina:
I would say that if it was limited only to the demolition of the structure,
or apart of that structure, probably not. However, seeing that the
improvements will involve other aspects or components of the site,
including possibly changes to the parking layout, circulation, number of
vehicles displayed -which is something that this body controls -then
yes it would have to come back for our review.
Mr. McCann:
That's what I'm wondering. If they decide to just demolish the building
and park a few cars there, there is no reason for them to come back.
Mr. Taormina:
If it increased the number ofvehides displayed on the site beyond what
was originally conditioned, then they would have to come back and
modify the site plans through the Planning Commission as well as the
City Council.
Mr. McCann:
All right. Go ahead sir, I'm sorry.
Mr. Devine:
I think that covers all of the major changes both to the elevation and on
the site plan. If there are any further questions, I would be happy to
answerthem.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Chairman, I just had a couple questions. I don't see anything on
the plans nor on the prepared motion about the fence that we agreed to
that was going to separate your property from the homeowners next
door. Did we decide thatwas going to be a 6' or Thigh fence? What
was the final decision on that?
Mr. Devine:
It's going to be T tall.
18779
Mr. LaPine: It's going to be T tall. And it's going to be beige or white?
Mr. Devine: While.
Mr. LaPine: White, ok. And that's going logo from the back of the property all the
way past the barbershop or just by the house?
Mr. Devine:
Its going to extend from the back of the barbershop all the way to the
north properly line and across the south of the east property.
Mr. LaPine:
And that's going to be the vinyl, is that correct?
Mr. Devine:
While vinyl.
Mr. La Pine:
While vinyl, ok. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
Justto continue yourlhought through the Chair. Mark, if they decide to
just tear down that building, then how do we get the review in regard to
closing the ramp off and also that 10' easement for the landscaping?
Mr. Taormina:
Well, again, I believe it would have to come back before this body for
its review and I believe that the way the resolution has been fashioned
for your consideration this evening includes specific direction to that
effect.
Mr. Alanskas:
OK, thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Any other questions? Ok, now in order to go to the audience, did you
want to speak this evening, Ma'am? We need unanimous consent if
you do. Is there unanimous consent to opening up the floor?
Mr. Alanskas:
No.
Mr. McCann:
I'm sorry, Ma'am. We have to have unanimous consent. We don't
have it this evening. We've had public hearings on this before, so you
would not be able to speak. Bulyou will be able to speak
allhe
Council level. So what you have to say, please take
it with you to the
Council meeting and you will be allowed to speak. All right? Thank
you. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Dolan, and unanimously approved, it
was
#9-141-01
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on August 21, 2001, on Petition 2001-07-02-
13 submitted by Tennyson Chevrolet, Inc. requesting waiver use
approval to operate a used car lot proposed to be located on the north
side of Plymouth Road between Mayfield Avenue and Hubbard Avenue
18780
in the Southwest %of Section 27, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-07-02-13 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 of Job No. 01019, prepared by
Joseph Philips -Architect, LLC, dated September 13, 2001, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1 submitted by Tennyson
Chevrolet dated September 12, 2001, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
3. That the Floor Plan and Elevations drawing marked Sheet of
Job No. 01019, prepared by Joseph Philips -Architect, LLC, dated
September 13, 2001, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full -
face four (4") inch brick, no exception;
5. That all pole -mounted light fixtures, as depicted in the detail
shown on the Floor Plan and Elevations drawing, shall be
shielded from adjacent properties and shall not exceed a
maximum overall height of twenty (20') feet above grade;
6. That the fence on the north property line shall be repaired to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department;
7. That the parking areas shall be double striped;
8. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
variances for the seven (7) parallel parking spaces within (20) feet
of the Mayfield Avenue right-of-way line, and for the two (2) fool
deficiency in the width of the parking aisle adjacent to the parallel
parking spaces, and to allow the seven (7') fool privacy fence
within a portion of the required sixty (60') fool front yard;
9. That this approval shall incorporate the following comments listed
in the correspondence dated August 3, 2001 from the Traffic
Bureau;
- That handicap space shall be moved to the south side of the
building closer to the entrance of the building;
- That no offloading of car haulers shall take place within the
public right -0f --way;
10. That the following maintenance items as listed in the
correspondence dated July 30, 2001, from the Engineering
Division shall be accomplished to that department's satisfaction:
18781
- That the storm manhole in the existing asphalt parking lot shall
be repaired or reconstructed;
- That the existing sidewalk ramp along Plymouth Road leading
onto Mayfield Avenue shall be replaced;
- That the approach onto Plymouth Road shall be replaced;
11. That there shall be no outdoor storage of auto parts, spare
equipment, soap material, debris or other similar items generated
by the subject use;
12. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved
with this petition; all such signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council;
13. That the elevated outdoor display of vehicles on lifts, ramps or
other similar apparatus is prohibited;
14. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the
building permits are applied for; and
15. That the removal of the existing used vehide sales office shall
require the submission of a revised Site Plan for the original
Tennyson dealership property and shall address issues related to
vehicle display, storage and additional landscaping;
for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use
standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 ofthe
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; and
4. That the removal of a porton of the existing building on the
subject property will rectify an existing front yard deficiency and
will bring the building into compliance with the C-2 district front
yard setback requirements.
18782
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. Alanskas: I just have a question Mr. Taormina. On #6 it says that the fence on
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, 9
was
#9-142-01 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 ofArtide IV of the
Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven-day
period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in
connection with Petition 2001-07-02-13 submitted by Tennyson
Chevrolet, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a used car lot
proposed to be located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Mayfield Avenue and Hubbard Avenue in the Southwest %of Section
27.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
the north property line shall be repaired. It's not going to be repaired;
@'s going to be replaced.
Mr. Taormina:
That is probably referencing the fence on the site itself and not the
barbershop.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas:
I think that we've had this for quite a long time and I think that both
parties have done a wonderful job making this happen, and I'm glad it
wentthrough. Thank you.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. Ilwill go on to Council with an approving resolution. Mr.
Tangora?
Mr. Tangora:
Yes, I have another request, and I think that you are aware of it— a
seven-day waiver.
Mr. McCann:
There's three rules. One, the Council agrees to it— I have spoken with
them and they say that they can get you on sooner. Two, that it will
benefit you. And third, that there is need. What is the need?
Mr. Tangora:
The need that we have is to go through the Council procedure- a study
session and onto the regular meeting, and this is done during the
month of October. They have a date that they have to dose by which
is at the end of October, so it is necessary that we have all these
approvals granted by that time. We will have to take a chance on the
Zoning Board variances but we're willing to do that.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, 9
was
#9-142-01 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 ofArtide IV of the
Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven-day
period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in
connection with Petition 2001-07-02-13 submitted by Tennyson
Chevrolet, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a used car lot
proposed to be located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Mayfield Avenue and Hubbard Avenue in the Southwest %of Section
27.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
18783
ITEM #6 PETITION 2001-08-08-24 California Pizza Kitchen
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-08-
08-24 by California Pizza Kitchen requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to renovate the exterior of one of the units of the Laurel Park
Place Shopping Center located at 37065 Six Mile Road in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 7.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-143-01 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2001-08-08-24, submitted by California Pizza
Kitchen requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of
the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the
exterior of one of the units of the Laurel Park Place Shopping Center
located at 37065 Six Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, be
removed from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence. It is from the Inspection
Department, dated August 17, 2001, which reads as follows: "Pursuant
to your request ofAugust 2, 2001, the above -referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This petition will need
variances from the Zoning Board ofAppea/s forthe following: (a)
Excessive number of signs, none allowed, five proposed, (b) Any
square footage of exterior signage; none allowed, and (2) The three (3)
signs on the doors are allowed as long as the total square footage of all
permanent signs does not exceed ten (10) square feet. This
Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is
signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Douglas MacDonald, 6053 West Century Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90045. I
am the Vice President of Design & Construction for California Pizza
Kitchen.
Mr. McCann: Could you tell us a little bit about your operation?
Mr. MacDonald: We are a restaurant that specializes in pizza, pasta, salads and
desserts. We currently operate in the Somerset Shopping Center in
Troy, Michigan. We have just opened a restaurant at Briarwood Mall in
18784
Ann Arbor. This would be our third location. We definitely would like to
be here. Frankly, I wasn't aware of some of the items that were
mentioned in the staff report. We thought that we did qualify for
exterior signs and I'd like to see what the objections are. What we are
trying to do is come into the shopping center and be competitive with
the other full-service restaurants that are there now. Max & Emia's is
there; there is a restaurant called The Shiek. The restaurant space we
would take over is currently called Genghis Khan. We're proposing a
total renovation of the space, probably spending about $1.4 million to
do that. We have been before staff several times. There have been
concerns mentioned by staff, which we have attempted to fully comply
with. Frankly, I wasn't made aware that there were further objections
here.
Mr. McCann: Sir, do you have outside signage at Somerset?
Mr. MacDonald:Yes, we do.
Mr. McCann: Do you have outside signage at Bnarwood as well?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, we do, and the other restaurants that are there have outside
signage as does the Genghis Khan restaurant.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, the other two restaurants you have, do they have the same exterior
as far as the windows and awnings?
Mr. MacDonakd:
No, Somerset is an internal restaurant that does not have exterior
windows. It does have an exterior sign, but it's a little bit different
because the mall entrance that we're near is behind a parking
structure, so it's a little bit different situation. Bnarwood, which just
opened two months, does have those elements —the windows, the
signs and the awnings. It does not have an exterior entrance however,
as does this restaurant.
Mr. Alanskas:
What are your hours for these restaurants?
Mr. MacDonakd:
Normally, it's from 11 in the morning to 11 at night. If the traffic and the
customers want it, we can be open later Friday and Saturday.
Typically, on Sunday we close earlier than that.
Mr. Alanskas:
But you are open seven days a week?
Mr. MacDonald:
Yes, sir.
Mrs. Dolan:
I have to tell you that's a great place to eat. And I am hopefully looking
forward to you coming to Livonia. But l do want to ask you, how
important are the awnings on the outside? I know that was a concern
with the other Commissioners with regard to it being so bright with the
rest of the building.
18785
Mr. MacDonald: Well, it's very important to us. That is our trade dress, and over the
past four or five years, we have tried to make our image more friendly
than it appeared in the earlier version. If you are familiar with the
Somerset restaurant, it has black signage, chrome and mirrors in some
areas, and we have tried to make our restaurant more friendly. This is
the look we've developed in the last four years. We probably have 30
of our restaurants in this style now, and our proposal is to go and do
them all ulfimately.
Ms. Dolan:
So you think its important to have that. That was a concern of ours
because of the fad that we didn't know how uniform it was to the
outside of the mall and whether it would be an eyesore for someone or
how detrimental that was to bringing in the business. I'm sure you're
probably going to bring in a great deal of business just by being the
California Pizza Kitchen and having great food. And I know you have
great staffing at Somerset. But l was just curious about that.
Mr. MacDonald:
Well, we think it's very important particularly in this shopping center
because it is smaller in terms of area than we normally go into. We
think the demographics of the area and the customer base and the
people who live in the area are our customer. But the other restaurants
there all haw exterior entrances. I noficed today, Talbot's, which is a
retail store, a very fine retail store, does have its trade dress; they have
a red awning. And that's all we're asking for. Part of our trade dress
that frankly is experimental is the file below the windows, which we
were willing to forego here. I think there would also be a technical
problem of water getting behind the lile and freezing and popping off
the tile. Californians aren't really too aware of those things but we
need to be as we go i nto the rest of the country.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Good evening. You came in from California.
Mr. MacDonald:
Yes, I did.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Are they flying a lot down there?
Mr. MacDonald:
Well, I was actually scheduled on a flight yesterday afternoon, but
was cancelled. And then I was on one this morning, so I've been up
more hours than I want to admit to.
Mr. Piercecchr
I can imagine. Sir, my original questions in regard to this facility that
you're going to put in Laurel Park Mall was in regard to the ceramics
and the two entrances and the brightly colored overhead awnings. I'm
very pleased that at least two of those issues have been resolved. You
are going to move the current Genghis Khan entrance itself. Is that
going to leave any telltale markings on that building?
18786
Mr. MacDonald: We're going to make sure that it does not. And there is also going to
have to be possibly reconstruction of the planter and possibly even the
sidewalk. We are willing to do that and make sure that it doesn't
appear to be a relocated entrance. The reason we are proposing this
is really a restaurant -friendly issue if you will, if I can use those terms.
The way the Genghis Khan situation is, they in fact have two separate
entrances and customers entering from either one don't know where
the hostess is and that sort of thing. This way, they are all focused into
the same lobby to be greeted; its just a much better operational
situation and is more friendly to our guests.
Mr. Piercecchr
So you will close the entrance that is currently in the entranceway to
the mall?
Mr. MacDonald:
That's right and we will rebuild the front oflhe restaurant as required so
that it does not appear to be a patch job.
Mr. Piercecchr
Idon't object to adding windows although I really don't like to see that
building defaced as much as it may be, but I agree with my colleagues
about this brightly colored awning. Isn't there away that you can scale
that thing down? I mean tone it down?
Mr. MacDonald:
Well, I think the rendering ... there's a sample of the actual fabric
there. That's a sunbrella fabric that is fire retardant which is usually a
requirement on a public facility. There is a non -fire retardant version of
itthat's a little bit lighter color, I have to tell you, butyou getinto the
issue that it's not fire retardant. I think the rendering depicts it as a lot
more orange than it really is. I don't know whether you had a chance to
look at the actual sample that is on the board there.
Mr. Piercecchr
Are you using that awning as a sign then?
Mr. MacDonald:
No, no.
Mr. Piercecchr
So that people will see that and theyll saylhis is California Pizza?
Mr. MacDonald:
Well, there are all kinds of aspects to trade dress. Take Talbot's as an
example. Typically they have a red door on their shops and they dont
in this situation, but they have a red awning. And they have their name
Talbot's on it.
Mr. Piercecchi:
That was before all our limes. Two wrongs don't make a right, you
know.
Mr. MacDonald:
Well, I don't think that's wrong. I don't think what we would do is wrong
either.
Mr. Piercecchr
I'll tell you what my concern is, sir. I can get very troubled about the
direction Laurel Park Mall seems to be taking in relationship to its
18787
outside appearance. I feel that this regional center was suppose to be
a showcase for the City, but is in fad turning into a large cluttered strip
center. It's going to look that way; you know that. That'swhyweare
concerned about awnings; that's why we're concemed about windows;
that's why we're concerned about ceramic file and things of that nature.
What we would like to see is that you blend in more and keep this class
which is what we consider that mall to be. Have you discussed some
of these changes with the proprietor of that properly? That's Schostak
properly, isn't it.
Mr. MacDonald:
Yes. One of their representatives is here with me this evening.
Mr. Piercecchr
Well, I don't want to take up more time Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LaPine:
Did you say on the Somerset Mall location you have an exterior sign?
Mr. MacDonald:
We do as you're exiting.
Mr. LaPine:
It's got to be out back on the north side of the building because it's not
along Big Beaver.
Mr. MacDonald:
Well, I don't think you can see it from the road.
Mr. LaPine:
That's what I'm saying. You can't see it from the road.
Mr. MacDonald:
No.
Mr. LaPine:
So consequently, the only signage you really have is inside the
building, inside the shopping center.
Mr. MacDonald:
There is certainly signage within the building. What I'm referring to
though is the entrance to the mall from the parking decks.
Mr. LaPine:
How large of a sign is it?
Mr. MacDonald:
It's probably eight feet; I think it's several lines.
Mr. LaPine:
Can you explain to me what's different between your location here and
your location at Somerset Mall? At Somerset Mall you do not have an
awning. You just have the windows. You have the one exit. I was out
there; I looked it over. I went through the restaurant, which is fine. Its
a great restaurant. I don't see anything wrong. I've never eaten at it.
Butwhat's different? This is a mall. Why can t we have the same
situation? Why dowe haveto have an awning? Whydowehaveto
have these windows in there? Now I can understand having the
windows there if I was looking out at a beautiful landscaped area and it
made me feel good when sitting by a window eating. But I'm looking at
a sea of asphalt and cars. It's taking away from what the shopping
center originally was planned— it's nice and clean. Grant you I was
18788
here when this was built; I was here when Talbot's came in and
pleaded for their little red awning and things like that — when we gave
Genghis Khan a sign. I didn't like it, but I gave into it. But now I'm
getting to the point here, the next guy comes in and says, well you
gave it to California Pizza, we want the same thing. Here again, where
do we end? I just dont understand why this can't be operated the
same way as the one you have at Somerset Mall.
Mr. MacDonald:
Well, several factors. Number one, Somerset does not represent how
we operate restaurants today. We feel from the inside ofthe restaurant
we need daylight, that's why we want the windows. The view at times
may not be perfect but it is admitting daylight. The shopping centers
actually are signifcanflydifferent. Somerset is, help me with this,
probably in excess of one million square feet. It is a very large regional
shopping center. This Laurel Park is a high quality but smaller center.
Its how large? It's probably in the half million range. And frankly, foot
traffic is everything. We do not do well in a situation where we are a
destination location. We do betterwhen there is traffic. So we are
trying to generale additional traffic by having outside identity for
nighttime business. We think daytime will be fine with us there, but
nighttime will require identity from the exterior. And the other
restaurants that we compete with in that center do have it.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. I have no problem with the sign. My problem is with the canopy
and the windows, quite frankly. And I guess I can give in on the
windows, but I'm not happy with the canopy. But is your location at
Somerset Mall ... to me, the few limes I've been in that mall, and I
have a client right across the street so I walk over occasionally, they
seem to be doing well - excellent, as a matter of fad.
Mr. MacDonald:
Well, they are doing well. But again, it's a matter oftmffic because it's
twice the size and the parking deck, which is right outside of our space,
generates a lot of foot traffic past us there.
Mr. LaPine:
And you're telling me that this canopy and your sign -you're going to
be able to draw people coming up on Newburgh Road? This is what
you're hoping for?
Mr. MacDonald:
We hope to do that but we also hope to draw people who may be in the
parking lot of the center and will see where we are. We have done
focus groups and a lot of research over the last two to three years
about what does draw traffic to our restaurants. And identity is one of
the items. I have losay food is the number one item. Identity is the
second item. That's why we're proposing what we're proposing.
Mr. LaPine:
Let me ask this question then. This restaurant actually runs east and
west inside this shopping center. What kind of identification, what's
going to be done on the inside? What is it going to look like on the
inside to draw the shoppers that are in the shopping center?
18789
Mr. MacDonald: Its going to be the same look as the exterior, basically, except that the
exterior is concrete materials, stucco—whereas on the interior ...
Mr. LaPine:
So on the inside you're going to have a canopy too?
Mr. MacDonald:
Yes, we are.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, do you have a certain age group that you draw. Is it a younger
group or an older group?
Mr. MacDonald:
Well, we draw from a rather large group. Its a matter of disposable
income loo. But its probably 20 to 60.
Mr. Alanskas:
As you know we have some movie theaters at the other end of the
mall. Do you hope to get some of their business also?
Mr. MacDonald:
The movie theaters are a very positive factor in that shopping center.
We do hope to draw from there.
Mr. Shane:
Are you intending to light this canopy at night?
Mr. MacDonald:
Yes, we have lights that shine down on it from the exterior. They will
be triangular-shaped lit areas on the outer surface of the awning. I
think that shows on the rendering.
Mr. Shane:
I'm having trouble with the canopy as well. I don't have a problem with
a canopy per se, but I'm having trouble with the color. I think some of
the other Commissions are loo.
Mr. MacDonald:
If I may break in. The reason we're being so consistent in our
approach to canopies is that Iasi year, and we were here before you
Iastyear... we would probably offer to change the color and we did in
five locations of the seventeen that we built Iasi. And they range from
black awnings in two cases, terracotta awnings almost a red color in
two cases, and then one was a light beige color. And I have to tell you
that there is a measurable difference in our business volumes from
those restaurants to the ones that had the yellow. Now there may be
other issues, granted, about the quality of the restaurant location, but
they all are 7% to 10% less in sale s.
Mr. Shane:
Don't you think that with the clientele that comes to Laurel Park that
your business is going to come primarily from those that are shopping
there?
Mr. MacDonald:
Well certainly. I think they'll be drawn to the center. But I think
because the other restaurants have exterior entrances that there is
possibly a mind set established now that the restaurants are outside.
18790
Mr. Shane: I don't have a problem with the outside entry. As I've said again, I have
problems with the aesthetics and that boils down to the canopy. Ifyou
could change the color of the canopy, I think you could change some
people's minds.
Mr. MacDonald:
I wish I could offer that, but as I've said ...
Mr. Shane:
Parliculady, if lwas closerlolhe color ofthe building that its on so it
has continuity.
Mr. MacDonald:
I'm not trying to be arbitrary or to confront you, but we recently
concluded within our group that the yellow awnings are our look.
Mr. Shane:
Having said that, you said it wasn't a sign. But in my mind, its
definitely what it's going to be - a sign - because you're going to light it
al night. You continue to tell me that the color is what's going to attract
people, sothat's kind ofa sign perse. So you have a sign lhatsays
California Pizza Kitchen fight up there which tells us who you are. And
it seems to me that with the outside entrance, with that sign, that you're
going to gel what you want anyway. That's just the way I see t at this
point.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I agree with everything my colleague says here. You seem to be
putting this canopy as the defining element ofyour operation. That is
your sign. I don t knm how you can deny that it's a sign.
Mr. MacDonald:
It's a matter of semantics I'm sure, but it's part of our trade dress. I
need advice from you whether truly it ranks as a sign in your
ordinances. I'm told that it does not, but I'm willing to be overruled on
that subject obviously.
Mr. Piercecchr
In that one paragraph I read in my notes here- we're afraid of turning
Laurel Park into a strip mall. That's why we're so prolective here. And
we think that if you could tone that down and give it ... if you need an
awning to keep the sun off, that's one thing. But you'renot using it to
keep the sun off. The defining element ...
Mr. MacDonald:
Well, it is the south elevation; there is that aspect.
Mr. Piercecchi:
And it isn't going to gelyou any more business because, as Mr. Shane
pointed out, you're going to gel the traffic that goes in there. And
people going down Newburgh, you've got your sign. They can see it. I
don't see why you're really being so insistent on having that canopy.
And that's going to bring you one customer, really, in my opinion. And
the different colors you're using, I mean that can be geography too.
Having one you say its got a better color sign. I imagine if you looked
at them all, you'd find some reason in that data.
Mr. MacDonald:
Well, that does seem to be the consistent down variable.
18791
Mr. Piercecchr
I'm not here to argue with you. My concern, and I think it's quite
obvious, that each one of us is concerned about the status and the
image of that shopping center.
Mr. McCann:
I have a couple comments. You refer continually to the two restaurants
at the south end of the mall. You have to understand when the mall
was developed it was a concept mall. It was the thought that they did
want a restaurant area within the mall. Itwas agreed and negotiated
between the developer and the City of Livonia as to where to put that.
We did not want it to be a traditional strip mall where you have
entrance after entrance, sign after sign after sign. It was a boutique
mall. Mr. Schostak has stated how people from around the country
have come to look atthis mall as being an example of a nice mid-size
mall that is very successful partly because it has the aesthetics and the
type of shopping the people in the community will use. It's easy to get
in and out of, and one of the concerns we've had is keeping the
aesthetics. And every time you add a little bit more, you further
encroach on what the original concept was. As we talked about Kmart
earlier, if you add a 24-hour photo or a one-hour photo, then you add a
pharmacy, then you add tires, then you add a broadband of signs all
the way across the building. And every time we allow one more step
into that, we change the whole concept of what made that mall a really
great mall. We believe its a real prize in the City of Livonia. And that's
why we're trying not to encroach further and further into the aesthetics
of the mall by adding another entrance, by adding more windows, by
adding an awning, by adding a sign. You are basically defacing what
the original concept was. We're trying to work here with you and you're
saying, no we don't have it at Somerset but for some reason that's
okay. But here in Livonia it's all or nothing. I understand that you want
to get some nighttime traffic. I understand that you want to be able to
identify the subject site, but you don't seem to want to say that you're
willing to work with us in anyway. What is it that you can do to make
this a little more appealing and try to work with us and what our original
concept for this mall was?
Mr. MacDonald:
Well, obviously, the proposal as it exists now is not going to succeed.
We do want to be here. Could I ask if the Board would approve
everything but the color of the awning. And then we could work with
staff to develop other proposals.
Mr. McCann:
I'm not sure it's just the color of the awning. You are doing certain
things. According to my notes, you have three different signs there.
You have a sign across the archway; you have a sign above the door;
you have a sign above the building. Some of these are just signatory
things as you're entering the establishment and I understand that and
I'm willing to work with that.
Mr. MacDonald: The sign above the door ... we could eliminate that
18792
Mr. McCann: I understand that. Do you see what I'm saying?
Mr. MacDonald: Right.
Mr. McCann: Are the windows a key issue to you?
Mr. MacDonald: Well, yes, from inside the restaurant more so than outside. I don't
know how to ...
Mr. McCann:
How long are the windows? Twenty-five feet?
Mr. MacDonald:
It may be more than that. It covers the area where there is seating.
We could make them smaller windows. I would kind of like the extent
to be there, but they could be smaller with wider mullions between
them.
Mr. McCann:
What we're trying to do is lessen the impact. Wedowanllogiveyou
visibility, but the awning ... as you say above Talbots ... right or
wrong when that went in, its about 6'— 12'. Its not a major block like
we're looking at with this. Ifwe have 60' of awning ... Mr. Taormina,
did you come up with a proximate number?
Mr. Taormina:
Approximately 34' to 35' and that's with the store front being about 60'.
Mr. MacDonald:
Maybe there's a way to have smaller windows with a smaller awning
over each window. That would lessen the extent of it. That's
something we would certainly be willing to do.
Mr. McCann:
Put something along the upper edge of the window to create your
image without bringing an awning out over the street, or maybe an
awning just over the door with the windows to the side. Maybe it would
be more symmetrical that way with Talbots to have just an awning for
people when theyre walking under the door. Is this something that you
think you could work on and come back to us, or is this something that
you need to move on?
Mr. MacDonald:
Well, this is an area where we need to have a restaurant. Our
customersarehere. We don't want to arbitrarily walkaway from that. I
think there are other proposals that we could make and I haven't had a
lot of time to think about them, but one is to make the windows smaller,
make the mullions wider, and then have smaller awnings over each
windows and/or develop your idea which is to have an awning over the
entrance, if you will, and then have some other shading device over the
windows. That's a strong possibility.
Mr. Alanskas:
Do you have a lease on this property atthe presenttime? Genghis
Khan, they are still open and advertising. What is the situation?
18793
Maybe we should hear from the Schostak people in that regard. Sir,
could you step forward?
Mr. MacDonald:
They should speak to that subject and the other matters that have been
raised, but we don't have a signed lease at the moment. That's true.
Ifs in negotiation.
Mr. Alanskas:
I have a question for you. Could you give your name and address
please?
William Hall, 25800 Northwestern Highway. I represent the owner of Laurel Park,
Schostak Brothers.
Mr. Alanskas:
If by chance this did not go through since they do not have a lease,
would Genghis Kahn still be in business there? What is the situation
because right now they are still in business?
Mr. Hall:
Yes, they are in business. Genghis Kahn is not doing what they would
like to do in that location probably for a number of reasons. We're not
sure if that's the right use for this shopping center. And when we've
approached and talked to California Pizza Kitchen, California Pizza
Kitchen represents our image, ifyou will, at Laurel Park, in a lot better
way to the demographics of the area. So we're actually very interested
in bringing in California Pizza Kitchen.
Mr. Alanskas:
How long is the lease Genghis Khan has with you?
Mr. Hall:
Genghis Khan probably has a ten year lease. They're probably
approximately five years through their lease.
Mr. Alanskas:
Would California be taking over the remainder of the existing lease?
Mr. Hall:
No, we would probably negotiate with Genghis Khan and relieve them
of their obligation under the lease and then allow California Pizza
Kitchen in.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
I'm trying to figure out a way. And again, this is only one person from
the Planning Commission. Mr. Pieroecchi and I were talking that we're
trying to work with you but not hold you up. Do you believe that your
company would be satisfied with an awning similar to what Talbot's did
where you have an awning over the entrance and then just a little bit
smaller on the windows with a little divider and then some type of
shaded window without the awnings going over. We want to keep the
appearance of the building as close to the onginal design as possible.
18794
Mr. MacDonald: Well, I would certainly recommend that we do what you're suggesting
Mr. LaPine: May I make a suggesfion? I personally would not want to vote on this
I don't make the final decision. I'm obviously a participant in it but
there's three other people I have to consult with on it. But I think its
very reasonable that we would adopt what you're suggesting.
Mr. McCann:
He's flying from California and back. Right now, I realize what a
burden that can be. Mr. Taormina, do you have a suggestion?
Mr. Taormina:
No, I think actually some of his comments married with yours probably
make a lot of sense —widening the mullions and narrowing the
Mr. MacDonald:
canopies, maybe even shrinlang those down a little bit- to address the
concerns that have been expressed this evening. If you would like, we
Mr. McCann:
could meet with the mall management as well as California Pizza
Mr. Piermcchi:
Kitchen, if this gentleman is available tomorrow. Maybe we could
formulate some of these changes in more detail and then present them
back to the Planning Commission for review. Whether or not he'd have
to come back for another meeting ...
Mr. McCann:
We would have plenty offime to nofify him.
Mr. MacDonald:
I'm fanHy happy to comeback. Obviously some airline schedules ...
Mr. McCann:
Well, the airlines are asking for people to fly.
Mr. LaPine: May I make a suggesfion? I personally would not want to vote on this
again until I actually see another drawing similar to what I have here.
Would it be possible that you could sit down with our Planner and
coordinate some of the ideas he has and what we want. Then you
could go back to California and talk to your people, because you need
to talk to your people, draw up some new plans and then maybe Fedex
them to us, and then we could take a look at those. We may have to
postpone it for awhile.
Mr. MacDonald:
I can arrange it so that I can be here all day tomorrow if that would
work. But we want to move forward with this.
Mr. McCann:
We do loo. We wanlyou here butwe'd like to look at new plans.
Mr. Piermcchi:
Inasmuch as a couple of areas need to be more closely defined and
designed, namely the canopies and windows, Mr. Chairman, I think it
would be in the best interests of the petitioner and the City of Livonia if
this matter were tabled until the next regular scheduled meeting.
On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it
was
#9-144-01
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2001-08-08-24 by California Pizza Kitchen
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning
18795
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of one
of the units of the Laurel Park Place Shopping Center located at 37065
Six Mile Road in the Southeast 114 of Section 7, be tabled until the next
Regular Meeting of October 16.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. Hopefully, we'll have it all worked out by then and move it
along to Council.
Mr. MacDonald: Hopefully we will. Is it appropriate now to schedule a meeting? I would
be happy to do that.
ITEM #7 Approval of Minutes 828th Public Hearings & Regular Meeting
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the
Minutes ofthe 828" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on July
24,2001.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved ilwas
#9-145-01 RESOLVED, lhallhe Minutes ofthe 828th Public Hearings and Regular
Meeting held by the Planning Commission on July 24, 2001 are hereby
approved.
A roll call was taken with the following result:
AYES:
Pieroecchi, Shane, Alanskas, La Pine, and McCann
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
Dolan
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
18796
ITEM #8 Approval of Minutes 8291h Regular Meeting
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the
Minutes ofthe 829" Regular Meeting held on August 7, 2001.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it
was
#9-146-01 RESOLVED, thatthe Minutes ofthe 829" Regular Meeting held by the
City Planning Commission on August 7, 2001 are hereby approved.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: Pieroecchi, Shane, Alanskas, LaPine, and McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Dolan
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 831st Regular
Meeting held on September 18, 2001, was adjourned at 8:56 P.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman
/mr