Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2009-01-13MINUTES OF THE 974TH REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, January 13, 2009, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 974"' Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Lee Morrow, Acting Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow Lynda Scheel Ashley Vartoogian Carol A. Smiley Ian Wilshaw Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were also present. Acting Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination 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 petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval 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. ITEM #1 PETITION 2009-01-08-01 LEO ENTERPRISES Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2009-01- 08-01 submitted by Leo Enterprises requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior of the adult assisted care facility (Laurel Park West) located at 38910 Six Mile Road, located on the north side of Six Mile Road between the 4275/96 Expressway and Haggerty Road in the Southwest % of Section 7. January 13, 2009 25060 Mr. Miller: Laurel Park West is located behind or north of the Buca D'Beppo Restaurant and is accessible by way of Fox Drive. Directly north of Laurel Park West is the Marriott Residence Inn and further north is the College Park development. To the west across Fox Drive is the Comerica Operation Center. The subject site is zoned OS, Office Services. The existing architecture of the building is a uniform structure with continuous ribbons of windows situated between plain cement panels. The proposed exterior renovations would transform the building and create a Tuscan -style facade. The front (south) and rear (north) elevations of the building would receive most of the remodeling, with the sides (east and west) elevations being painted to blend in with the renovations. Two new framed tower elements would be constructed near the front entrance area to give the building some depth. Along the roofline, peaked features would be installed in conjunction with a standing seam metal roof to help create height delineation. New window treatments would be sectioned off and separated by wingwalls. Shutters, decorative arches, trellises and ornamental pillars would accent the building. The existing cement panels would be replaced with E.I.F.S. (Dryvil). A landscape plan shows a row of eleven new arborvitae bushes planted next to the northwest comer of the building screening the existing mechanical equipment from Fox Drive. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated December 30, 2009, which reads as follows: 'The Engineering Division has its review of the plans associated with the above -referenced petition. There are no changes proposed within the public right -0f -way for this project. The address of this site is 38910 Six Mile Road. The developer should be aware that the option exists of changing the address of the building. The building faces 6 Mile Road, however, buildings have been constructed between this building and Six Mile Road. In addition, the driveway for this building is on Fox Drive. If the developer finds that persons not familiar with the building are having difficulty locating the building with a Six Mile Road address, the developer may find it beneficial to change the address of the building to a Fox Drive address. If this is desired, the developer should request this of the Engineering Division. We trust this provides the requested information." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, Acting Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 2, 2009, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in January 13, 2009 25067 connection with a request to remodel the exterior of the adult assisted cam facility on the property located at the above - referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations. (1) This division requests that the drive on the south side of the building be posted (on both sides) 'Fire Lane — No Parking'. (2) Fire lanes shall be marked with freestanding signs that have the words FIRE LANE — NO PARKING painted in contrasting colors (on both sides) at a size and spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 5, 2009, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with Laurel Park West, located at 38910 Six Mile. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 6, 2009, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of December 19, 2008, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Is the pettoner here this evening? Steven J. Lenderman, Vice President, Mandell Bilovus Lenderman & Associates, P.C., 4082 John R Road, Troy, Michigan 48085. I'm the architect for the project. Mr. Morrow: Is there anything you'd like to add to the comments that you've heard or anything that you want to show us? Mr. Lenderman: Yes. There are a few other things I'd like to add. Scott did a great job explaining it, but there's a few other things we'd like to add. The standing seam metal roof that is running basically the whole width of the building, the whole length of the building, is also there to serve ... if you went back to those photos of the existing facility, you can see the existing rooftop units. You can see it right there. So its actually there to serve as rooftop screening as well. So not only does it add height and depth to the building, but its also serving as rooftop screening, which obviously this building has none. When you gel to the other buildings around it, which are all multi -story hotels, looking down at it, obviously it would improve that look as well. But I'm here to answer any questions you have. Ithink Scott did a great job explaining what we're trying to do. Mr. Morrow: Did you bring any building materials with you? January 13, 2009 250W Mr. Lenderman: Yes, we did. Mr. Morrow: If you'd like to present those, could we get the easel? Thank you. Mr. Lenderman: You bel. So these are the pillar samples that we're proposing for the building. We have the main E.I.F.S. color. Could we go back to the renderings, Scott, please? Thank you very much. This is the main building color and texture. We have an accent color that is kind of the base and then up the new towers that we're bedding in for depth. This would be just your window surrounds. We're adding on top of the stair lowers. We're actually extending those up to tie those in with the rest of the building as well because the stair towers are existing. This is the standing seam metal roof color. This is a sample of what would be the awnings over some of the windows and the shutters. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Ms. Smiley: I want to tell you first that I was by that building so many times and never realized it even existed. So this really should help you, and it's a very nice addition. I'm not seeing any brick on there even at the base or anywhere. Mr. Lenderman: The brick is on the east and west end of the building. It's already existing brick. You can see on the stair lowers on either side. Thatall stays masonry. Ms. Smiley: But along the front and back there's no brick on any of that base? Mr. Lenderman: No. Actually, I take that back. There's actually wingwalls that cul through the building. See the dark vertical bands? Ms. Smiley: Yes. Mr. Lenderman: Those actually are brick masonry walls that project out. Those are existing and those will stay. So yes, there is masonry on both sides. Wherever there is circulation, for example, right here at the entry, that's all masonry and you actually walk in and have masonry on both sides just the way it is right now. On the far end down by the stair lower, that's all masonry. What we're addressing is all the existing bland cement panels and the continuous ribbon windows. All that is getting replaced. Ms. Smiley: Thank you, Mr. Chair. January 13, 2009 25009 Mr. Morrow: Anyone else? Mr. Wilshaw: The base of the building, since you're not going to have masonry on it, how are you going to protect that from lawnmowers or weed whippers or other things, or even gardeners who are working around the base of the building? Mr. Lenderman: There's two ways. Actually, there is masonry. Technically there is. There's eight inch block. It's a starter course. From what we can tell from the existing drawings, we don't know until we open it up but our standard detail would put a starter block there anyway. So there would be masonry at the very base course. Anytime you're using any land of E.I.F.S., whether it's Dryvil or any of the other manufacturers, they do not allow for proper installation for the E.I.F.S. within eight inches of grade. So this can never go down to grade. Its got to slop shy. It's just like on the bottom basically of your podium. So the unique things that we have here on this building is there is no traffic circulation up against the E.I.F.S. It's all up against masonry. So the only place that we have will be landscaped. E.I.F.S. or Dryvil has a process where they actually use heavy dense fiber mesh that actually reinforces it and that would be used for the bottom four feet, and that would protect against like weedwackers and sluff like that. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Just to the Planning Department, that sounds typical of what we've seen in the past. Is that adequate? Mr. Taormina: Yes. The Panzer mesh is one product used to protect that. I was happy to hear that all the areas where the sidewalks intersect the building are currently protected or will be protected with the masonry. That's not something that we were aware of until this evening. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Just a comment. Al this point, it looks attractive. Its a nice upgrade and I really like the color samples because the computer renderings don't always do the colorjustice. Mr. Lenderman: No. I brought the original rendering too. I can bring that up if you like. Even the colors that we have here, you can only do so much with markers. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. That looks very nice. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Anyone else? January 13, 2009 25070 Ms. McDermott: Mr. Miller briefly mentioned the landscaping, that you're adding some arborvitae. So all of the current landscaping is slaying there? Mr. Lenderman: Yes. Obviously its going to have to be trimmed and pruned and brought up a little bit and enhanced. But yes, basically so the existing stays. We're basically refinishing the north and the south sides of the building, so there's going to have to be some pruning back to gel to it. Then, of course, they'll have to replant whatever gets disturbed or doesn't make it. What we're proposing to be different from what's there is up the stream where they have their existing generator. They also have a fuel lank and trensfold, which are the three things up in that corner there, all sticking out on Fox Drive. I think there are a few arborvitae there planted loo close to the generator so when it fres every month it kills it. They're like a Charlie Brown Christmas tree kind of a thing. So those will be removed and new will be put in. Ms. McDermott Okay. So the trees that are in front while you're working there, if they're disturbed then they're going to be replaced. Mr. Lenderman: Yes. We have existing landscaping that we're going to be working with. Yes. Ms. McDermott Okay. I just want to add that I also agree that it's a very nice upgrade. Mr. Lenderman: Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions? Thank you very much. We will go to the audience now and see if there is anyone who would care to speak for or against granting this petition. Seeing no one coming forward, you can go right back to that podium. Mr. Lenderman, do you have any final words? Mr. Lenderman: No, thank you. I'll answer any questions you may have. Mr. Morrow: A motion is in order. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, t was #01-01-2009 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2009-01-08-01 submitted by Leo Enterprises requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior of the adult January 13, 2009 25071 assisted care facility (Laurel Park West) located at 38910 Six Mile Road, located on the north side of Six Mile Road between the 4275/96 Expressway and Haggerty Road in the Southwest I/ of Section 7, be approved subjectto the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet S-1 dated December 12, 2008, prepared by Mandell Bilovus Lenderman & Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LS -1 dated December 12, 2008, prepared by Mandell Bilovus Lenderman & Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 5. Thalthe Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-4 dated December 12, 2008, prepared by Mandell Bilovus Lenderman & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the stipulations contained in the correspondence dated January 2, 2009; 7. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 8. 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, 9. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the dale of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. January 13, 2009 25072 Mr. Morrow, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM#2 PETITION 2008-06-02-20 LIVONIA MARKETPLACE - JO -ANN FABRICS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda. Petition 2008- 06-02-20 submitted by Livonia Phoenix, L.L.C. requesting approval of a building plan for the existing Jo -Ann Fabrics store as required by CR #429-08 in connection with a Planned General Development (Livonia Marketplace) at 29514 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Purlingbrook Avenue in the Southwest % of Section 2. Mr. Miller: On September 24, 2008, the pefitioner received waiver use approval for a Planned General Development consisting of a total of approximately 320,180 square feel of retail building area (Livonia Marketplace) located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Pudingbrook Avenue in the Southwest % of Section 2. As part of the approval it was conditioned "that the Building B Conceptual Building Elevations Plan marked AR -5 prepared by Rogvoy Architects, dated September 19, 2008, is hereby approved including the specific building plans for Building B and the improvements to the west side of Sears shall be adhered to. Specific building plans for buildable areas A and Jo -Ann Fabrics shall come back for the Planning Commission's review prior to their construction." The petitioner has submitted plans for the proposed changes to the west elevation of the existing Jo -Ann Fabric store. This exterior wall of the existing store faces inward towards the proposed new stores of Livonia Marketplace. The Jo -Ann Fabrics store occupies a unit that is located on, and is connected to, the north elevation of the existing Sears store. With no opening into the Jo -Ann Fabric store, this wall appears to be a continuation of the Sears store. The petitioner proposes to cover the wall with building materials that would match and complement the adjacent Sears store. The base of the wall would be split face block and the upper portion would be C -Brick. GBdck is made with normal weight aggregates complying with ASTM C-33 standards. Nominal face size is 16 inches long by 4 inches high by 4 inches thick. The submitted color rendering shows that the proposed color scheme of this wall would be very similar to the anticipated color scheme for the Sears store. January 13, 2009 25073 Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is no departmental correspondence related to this item. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff? Is the petitioner here this evening? Mark Drene, Rogvoy Architects, 32500 Telegraph Road, Suite 250, Bingham Farms, Michigan 48025. I'm here representing Phoenix. Bill Eisenberg sends his regret that he can't be here tonight. He had a previous engagement. To further the presentation, less is more, try to blend in. We're dealt an existing building out there with Sears and we're trying to simplify the design, make it complement the new buildings that are going to be built, but again, match what's there. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Ms. Scheel: Possibly at our study session, we discussed the doors that were going into the building, the wall that you're putting there. Can you go over that this evening? Mr. Drane: There is one means of egress door and I lett my pointer at the last meeting. There is a means of egress door. You can see the pilaster in the higher portion of the joining wall right there. Where that dot is right there, that's an overhead door for the landlord area. There is a means of egress and landlord area right where that little hand is swoshed by there and then just to the left over there. That's the means of egress door for the Jo- Ann sales area. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Drane, at our study meeting we talked about trash for the Jo -Ann's store. Mr. Drane: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: What did you come up with on that? Mr. Drane: I put a call into Jo -Ann and they never returned my phone call. They dont have a dumpster out there right now. I'm assuming they lake care of all their trash inside. If that's not the case, I'll work with your administration to come up with an appropriate compactor or dumpster location. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. So at this time there are no trash enclosures that are going to be around the building? Mr. Drane: Correct. January 13, 2009 25074 Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, are there any final comments or questions? Mr. Drape: No. I'm just here to answer questions. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Seeing none, a motion would be in order. On a motion by McDermott, seconded by Varloogian, and unanimously adopted, d was #01-02-2009 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petifion 2008-06-02-20 submitted by Livonia Phoenix, L.L.C. requesting approval of a building plan for the existing Jo- Ann Fabrics store, as required by Council Resolution #429-08, in connection with a Planned General Development (Livonia Marketplace) at 29514 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebell Road and Purlingbrook Avenue in the Southwest''/. of Section 2, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the changes to the west elevation of Jo -Ann Fabrics, as shown on the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet ELEV-1 dated November 24, 2008, prepared by Rogvoy Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the specific plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and, 3. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the dale of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Morrow, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. January 13, 2009 25075 ITEM#3 PETITION 2009 -01 -SN -01 LIVONIA MARKETPLACE WALL SIGNS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2009 -01 - SN -01 submitted by Livonia Phoenix, L.L.C. requesting wall signage approval for the Regional Center (Livonia Marketplace), on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Purlingbrook Road in the Southeast % of Section 2. Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting wall signage approval for the Livonia Marketplace Regional Center. A Regional Center is a planned complex of buildings containing a total gross leaseable area of 500,000 square feet or more and sharing a common parking area. Livonia Marketplace would be comprised of a proposed Wal-Mart store, an existing Sears store, and a number of freestanding multi -tenant buildings (Retails "A", "C" and "D' and Outlol "A", "B" and "C"), all of which equal over 500,000 square feel in retail space. Wall signage for each building in a Regional Center is based on the length of the building's storefront. The length of the storefront determines he amount of square footage in sign area that the building is allowed as long as it is not over 500 square feet. There is no limit on the number of signs or any specifications as to where the signs have to be located on the building. On September 24, 2008, Livonia Phoenix, L.L.C. received waiver use approval for a Planned General Development consisting of a total of approximately 320,180 square feel of retail building area (Livonia Marketplace). As part of the approving resolution it was conditioned "that only conforming signage in accordance with sign regulations for a Regional Shopping center as set forth in Section 18.50H(c) of the Zoning Ordinance is approved with this petition and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council." The length of the storefront of the proposed Wal-Mart exceeds 500 feet, thus enliting it to the maximum of 500 square feet of wall signage. The developer has submitted a preliminary plan that shows that the total area of wall signage will not exceed this amount, and because it is in compliance with both the Zoning Ordinance and the original condition of approval, it will not require any additional approvals by either the Planning Commission or City Council. Basically, the wall signage proposed for Livonia Marketplace is three times the amount each building would be permitted. Because the proposed signage is in excess of what is allowed by the sign ordinance, a variance would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals. January 13, 2009 25076 Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated January 6, 2009, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of December 19, 2008, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The petitioner has proposed wall signage in excess of the permitted 1 square foot per 1 lineal foot of building frontage for this site. A regional shopping center such as this would be allowed per building, 1 square foot of wall signage for each one lineal foot of building frontage with a maximum wall signage of 500 square feet per building. The number and location of the wall signs on the building is limited only by the square footage allowed. For example Retail Building C would be allowed approximately 80 square feet of wall signage. (2) An approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required for any excess square footage proposed. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff? Ms. Smiley: Is what they're proposing in excess of wall signage at Wonderland? Mr. Taormina: That's a difficult question. There are probably one or two examples at the Wonderland Village complex that are comparable to the signage that they're proposing here. on a tenant by tenant basis. If the Livonia Marketplace was to have the maximum signage as is being requested, clearly that would be more than what has been provided for at Wonderland Village. But again, there are a few exceptions at Wonderland Village which we see variances for their unique situation. Chili's is a good example. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner here this evening? Mark Dmne, Rogvoy Architects, 32500 Telegraph Road, Suite 250, Bingham Farms, Michigan. Scoff, can you go back to the site plan for me please? Thank you. Signage is always difficult. I have tenants who feel like they need to be successful and for some reason, they feel bigger is better. I do feel that our site is unique in that we have buildings that are sprinkled all over the site. They are not liner buildings on the street. They are four-sided January 13, 2009 25077 architecture. We view them from mulfiple views. Its not a strip development. We'd like the opportunity to place signage on all sides of the building except, as we discussed in our study session, for Retail A. We changed our drawing here to indicate we only want signage on the south face. Retail C, which is up along the lett hand side, is to have signage on three sides so we would have signs facing the church. Scott, if you can go back to an elevation if you have a chance. What we did at the request for Mr. Wilshaw, we just put the relative building sign areas on the elevations so you can see the proportion of what our proposal looks like in relationship to the architecture of the buildings. We just used blocks because I don't have specific tenant names, but it kind of gives you an idea of proporfion and scale. The idea was, and again when we started our project here, Green Oaks Village Place was a model, which I think everybody had gone out and looked at. We have a very similar sign program out there. I think I mentioned in the study session that we didn't have a limit of two square feet for every lineal fool of frontage. There were no limits. Here we limit the sizes of the signs based on the size of the tenant, that if I had a 1,000 square fool tenant, they were still allowed 70 square feel. So on a 1,000 square foot tenant, they could have been 15 feet wide and we couldn't handle the amount of signage they were allowed based on their frontage. But in this case, we are limited to 2:1, so that we would be able to fit those signs on their storefront. Again, I think a critical part of this proposal is that we are going to limit the amount of signage per tenant based on the amount of square feet they have. For instance, any tenant that has 35 feet wide, will have a 70 foot sign, but if they are 80 feet wide and they are still underneath the 4,000 square foot floor area limitations, they still only get a 70 square fool sign. They wouldn't get 80. For instance, if somebody look this whole entire building and it ended up being a tenant that's 12,000 square feel and they had 200 lineal feet of frontage, they'd still only be limited by our criteria to 150 square feel on that front. The idea is to lel the smaller tenants that seem to gel lost in the shutter benefit from a higher percentage of ratio of square fool per lineal fool of frontage, the larger tenants who have more facade to work with, are limited somewhat as they gel longer and wider. And again, every end of the ends facing Seven Mile would only gel the 40 square feet. So each end cap would only be allowed 40 square feet on that facade that faces Seven Mile. And then there is facade facing the Walmart portion of the project that would also be limited to 40 square feel on that facade. And then we're asking for, of course, the signs on the backs of the building which were designed for the fronts of the building, because they are of course viewed from many different angles. The idea is advertise the tenant but also make it look January 13, 2009 25078 like a retail building. I don't want to be looking at backs of buildings. I want to be able to use those facades to be a retail village, a festive fun place to shop and somewhere you can go and see where everybody is. Ms. Smiley: There's only one entrance into each store? Mr. Drape: Right. The way you'll see on the rear elevation, the second one down, we do have openings there. We will probably put glass and awning and opaque glass here so you're not looking into the backrooms of these stores. So they'll still have glass. They'll still have awnings out there. Theyll look like fronts of buildings but they won't have a customer entrance. It's been proven that multiple entrances to small tenants is a bad thing safely -wise, theft -wise. Ms. Smiley: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Dmne, I'll apologize in advance. I have a lot of questions. This might take a little while. Mr. Drape: I'll apologize if I cant answer them. Mr. Wilshaw: We'll start with Building Retail A, which is the one alongside Walmarl. I think its going to be the easiest one, so I may as well get that out of the way. You've agreed that you just want signage on the south face. Mr. Drane: Correct. Mr. Wilshaw: How much signage? Mr. Drane: Based on our chart, if the tenant is anywhere between 4,200 and 6,500 square feel, we're asking for 250 square feet. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. And, Mr. Taormina, that would be more or less a conforming sign? Mr. Taormina: I need to ask Mr. Drane what's the length of that building? Mr. Drane: The width of the building ... see, we really don't know exactly. And that could be two buildings. That could be two tenants. Mr. Taormina: What is the total shown on the plan? Mr. Drane: I'll have to grab it. Mr. Taormina: Mr. Miller informed me it's 190 feet in width. January 13, 2009 25079 Mr. Wilshaw: So they would normally be allowed a 190 square fool sign then. Mr. Taormina: And they're proposing 250 square feet. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. If that was to be a sign that is strictly conforming, which is essentially if you're going to have a 190 fool wide building, you have a 190 square fool sign. Is that acceptable based on the footage, so that gives you the flexibility if you have a little wider building, you'll gel a little bigger sign. A little narrower building, a narrower sign. Is that about what you're looking for or is that not enough? Mr. Drape: Well, its never enough. Mr. Wilshaw: I know that. Mr. Drane: Given the fad that its probably 1,600 feet away from Seven Mile Road, I would still push ... I mean, 190 versus 250. I don't know if you and I can see it given the fad that building facades are fairly large. You may see it. I can't given the proportions of the buildings. From a tenant's point of view, it's really, really important. Mr. Wilshaw: I understand. All the signage we're going to talk about today, I'm sure, is going to be very important both to you as the developer and also to us as a city. Well, okay, I'll just say al this point with Retail A, just to knock this one out, down at Wonderland we gave, as I recall, Walmart and Target a little bit extra signage based on the fad that they were set so far back on the property from Plymouth Road. I don't mind giving a little excess as well at this location based on the same logic. So if that turns out to be, and this is what I'm going to look for, toward a resolution which is for the sake of us to have an easy way of looking at this signage is to look at some multiplier of the lineal frontage of the building. If we say one and half times the lineal frontage or something along those lines, that would get you right about where you're looking to be. Mr. Drane: I agree with that. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Mr. Drane: Thal is a very nice ratio as a matter offal. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. So that gets Retail A kind of out of my mind. I appreciate the fad that you're not putting signs anywhere else on that building. As far as Retail D and some of these other out lot January 13, 2009 25080 buildings, what I want to talk about is, again, the same thing. Can we figure out a ratio based on the lineal frontage of the building that makes sense to us. That way we can have an approving resolution that is easy for us to understand, it's easy for the Planning Department to understand, and it's easy for the Inspection Department to understand. The proposal that I've seen so far that was presented to us is confusing in many ways as you've heard at the study meeting and you've heard our Planning Department describe. Its difficult to gel your thumb on. So with Retail D, there's not going to be any entrances on the east side, I think is what you just said. The backs, essenfially people can't gel into these stores from the back. Right? It's a fake back. It's not a true entrance. Because of that, its possibly confusing for some shoppers who are going to go to this building if they have a sign on the front and the back that's the exact same size, and the back looks like the front. It could be confusing to them which is the front and which is the back. They could park in the back and walk up and go, hey, where's the door? Mr. Drane: Yeah, they make that mistake once. Mr. Wilshaw: I understand. So, is it possible to maybe make this a little easier for them to understand which is the front and the back, to vary the size of the sign between the front and the back? Say, again, if we're going to give you one and a half times the frontage on the front to give you one times the frontage on the back, or if we give you one in the front, half on the back of whatever, so that it's more clear which is the front and back. Does that seem reasonable to you or is that not acceptable? Mr. Drane: Ildoes. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. It seems reasonable. Good. Mr. Drane: So let me ask the question, take away the square footage chart, and just say one and half for the front, one for the back. Sides? That to me is a very easy way of doing it. Even I can follow it. Mr. Wilshaw: That's kind of what I'm looking for. Something easy. I'm a pretty simple guy so I think that makes sense to me. Okay. Good. I think we're making progress. I appreciate that. My other question then is, gosh, I'm running out of questions. You're really accommodating. I appreciate that, Mr. Drane. Mr. Drane: Did I shock you? January 13, 2009 25081 Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. You're doing a fine job. Obviously, Retail C, you said that you will not have signs on the back of that one. That's the one that is the western most building. Is that okay? The western most retail building will not have signs on the back because those are the ones that abut right up to the church. Mr. Drape: Correct. Nosgns on the back ofthal. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. For now, that is it. I'll lel someone else talk. Thank you. Mr. Drape: To further your linear square fool concept, can we have some consideration on the ends of those units where there are 60 fool and 80 fool wide stores, and if we were allowed one and half on that, it's more than what we've asked for on that side, but again, its a nice linear... Mr. Wilshaw: Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Taormina, our norm for signage on end caps like that is to give half the square footage on the side that's allowed on the front. Is that correct, Mr. Toarmina? Mr. Taormina: That's correct. Mr. Wilshaw: So if we had one and half on the front, if we stayed to our theory of half as much on the side, then you would have .75 for the side. Does that gel you what you're looking for or is that not enough? Mr. Drape: I do know that we're asking for a lot, but I'm wondering if the sides can be treated the same as the back. Mr. Wilshaw: I think that might be acceptable. Mr. Drape: I mean we are facing Seven Mile in the case oftwo buildings. Mr. Wilshaw: I think I might be able to go along with that. We'll see what the other commissioners have to say. I don't want to craft the whole proposal. Ms. Scheel: My question is actually to Mr. Wilshaw. Can you explain what you're getfing al? Are you getfing at if the sign on the front, and I'm just going to use even numbers, so if the sign on the front is two, then the one on the back would be one? If the sign on the front is like two feet, then one on the back would be one fool? Mr. Wilshaw: No, I think what Mr. Dmne and I have discussed at this point, you can correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Drane, is one and half limes the lineal frontage for the front. January 13, 2009 25082 Ms. Scheel: Okay. So we have the front sign, whatever size the sign in the front is. Then what's the size of the sign in the back? Mr. Wilshaw: The back would be one square fool for each linear square foot offronlage. Ms. Scheel: So it's one and half limes the square frontage on the front, it's one on the back, and then you're saying .75 on the side? Mr. Wilshaw: That's what I was saying. Mr. Dmne was saying he'd rather see a 1:1 ratio on the side. Mr. Dmne: I think what we're coming down to is with that language, we're acknowledging that these are all four sided buildings and because of their position on the site, that it's appropriate when you view these buildings from many different angles that you'll see signs on all sides of the building, and on three sides of the building, they'll conform to your square footage in your ordinance, one per one, but there is a bump if you will for the fronts of the building where the storefront entrances are located. And again, because it is unique that these buildings are far away from the street, they will be difficult to see. Ms. Scheel: Do you have a drawing with names on it that you could show us an example of what you mean? Mr. Drape: Well, seeing that we just thought of d, no, but I think what you're going to see is a reduction. Mr. Wilshaw: It's similar to what you see there but it will be slightly reduced on the back elevation. Ms. Scheel: Similar to what we see as the colored box on top? Mr. Drape: I don't know what the right protocol is here, but maybe if we had discussed this at the study session, I could have had more comprehensive solutions for you. Without my client being here, I dont want to negotiate on his behalf with you without maybe having another study session. Mr. Wilshaw: Tabling is certainly always a possibility here as we get into this, so we will certainly keep that in mind. The color blocks that you have indicated on this drawing that's in front of us, are those based on a 1:1 ratio or a 2:1 ratio? Mr. Drape: A 2:1 ratio. January 13, 2009 25083 Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. So the color blocks that you're seeing are signs that are based on two times the frontage, so we would be looking for one and half on the front and only one on the back. So the signs on the back would be half the size that you see on that drawing. On the front, they would be reduced slightly. Ms. Scheel: And half of that would then be on the side of the building? Mr. Drape: Correct. Ms. Scheel: Okay. Mr. Drape: So a 20 foot wide tenant would get in the front 30 square feet where their door is. On the back, because they're 20 feet wide, they'd gel 1:1, 20 square feet, and if that happened to be an end cap if they're 80 feet or 60 feet wide, they'd end up with their pro rata share of 1:1 on the end. Mr. Wilshaw: I do have one question if you don't mind to Mr. Taormina. The end caps, I'm trying to think about this here. Let me think about this for a minute. I'll come back. Ms. Smiley: I have a minor in math and I'm not following this. So, we're talking about, say if they're allowed lets say 100 square feel on the front according to our ordinance, you'd like 200 in the front, is that right? Mr. Drape: If they were allowed 100 on the front per your ordinance .... Ms. Smiley: Yes, if the yre allowed 100 square feel on the front, what you'd like is 200 square feel on the front and 100 on the back? Mr. Drape: Correct. Ms. Smiley: That's abouttriple. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. Ms. Smiley: So we're back to what he's doing before? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. Ms. Smiley: Actually, I think the tabling is a good idea. Mr. Morrow: Let me just interject something here. I think you indicated that your client is not here, and you're moving on perhaps maybe more than you can agree to tonight. Would a tabling notion, January 13, 2009 25084 should it occur, interfere with any type of time frame that we're talking about? Mr. Drape: I don't believe so. The Walmart deal is moving ahead regardless of our sign situation. I would feel more comfortable if we all could come to an agreement. Mr. Morrow: I think everybody is trying to get a grasp of it but because you have a campus or village-type setting, sometimes the end caps are what you see from the road and the interiors are the fronts, and then you have backs and we're trying to reach a formula. Mr. Wilshaw said that I think this would be one with the quantity that we have and the number of buildings, if we could slow it down a little bit so we come out with what we would like and your client gets what he would like and we have a meeting of the minds when we introduce new ratios. So on that, I'll see what the Commission wants to do. Ms. Smiley: I'd like to make a tabling resolution. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Varloogian, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-03-2009 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does recommend that Petition 2009-01SN-01 submitted by Livonia Phoenix, L.L.C. requesting wall signage approval for the Regional Center (Livonia Marketplace), on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebell Road and Purlingbrook Road in the Southeast''/. of Section 2, be tabled. Mr. Morrow, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow: We'll schedule thalfor next Tuesday, Mark? Mr. Taormina: Yes, that's fine. Mr. Morrow: The nexlstudy, next Tuesday. Mr. Drape: This coming Tuesday? Mr. Morrow: Yes. Mr. Drape: Okay. I'll be here. What I'll do then is, maybe with some graphics, I'll show you what those ratios look like. January 13, 2009 25085 Mr. Walsh: Before we close, is there anybody in the audience that wants to comment on the proceedings thus far? Buddy Stanton. 19658 Melvin, Livonia. I just have a few questions on how these signs are to be lit and would all sides be lit the same way and if there is a road that goes between the building on the west side and church and there are no signs on that building. Why do we need any signs on the other buildings? It sounds like this might be just a tad bit overkill. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Would you care to respond to that? Mr. Drape: The signs will be internally illuminated channel letter neon signs with plexi faces so they're not flashing, rotating but they're individual letters exclusively. They're not box signs that are big while boxes that have red letters on them, but each letter will glow individually. Mr. Morrow: Are you able to hear this, ma'am? Ms. Stanton: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Mr. Drape: The building along the church, of course, is very close to residential. I don't think you could even see the signs if we put signs back there. I don't think they're appropriate because of the adjacency to the residential component. So we've excluded signage on that. However, I do believe that signs on the buildings closest to Seven Mile are appropriate on all sides of the building. They are far away from the residential component. They are on a very heavily traveled Seven Mile Road and in that case I believe they are appropriate. The other buildings within the site, the one building that is right in the middle, when you view that from Middlebelt across the Sears parking lot, you obviously view it from the Sears parking lot. End caps you can view from the new Sears entry, the new Walmarl entry. Again, I dont want to hit this home too hard, but we are trying to do four sided architecture there. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Drape: I'll see you Tuesday. January 13, 2009 25086 ITEM#4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 973m Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approva I of the Minutes of the 973rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on December 16, 2008. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-04-2009 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 973d Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on December 16, 2008, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Wilshaw, Sheel, McDermott, Vadoogian, Smiley, Morrow NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Morrow, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 974" Regular Meeting held on January 13, 2009, was adjourned at 7:56 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Acting Chairman