Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2010-05-11MINUTES OF THE 995" PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, May 11, 2010, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 995° Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Lee Morrow, 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 Joe Taylor Ian Wilshaw Members absent: None Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on lonighfs 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 pefifion 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 len 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 pefifions upon their fling. 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 2010-02-01-01 DR. NABIL SULIMAN Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2010-02- 01-01 submitted by Dr. Nabil Suliman requesting to rezone property at 18621 Farmington Road, Lots 98 through 106 of Seven Mile Road Super Highway Subdivision, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Curtis Road and Seven Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, from R-3 to OS. May 11, 2010 25285 Mr. Taormina provided background on the item and presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated March 18, 2010, which reads as follows: 7n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. In a discussion with you, it was confirmed that the request is to rezone lots 98 through 106 inclusive. The address of the building, which occupies lot nos. 100, 101, and 102 only, is 18621 Farmington Road. The legal description for lots 98 through 106 inclusive, prepared by Ventura & Associates (dated 2117/10) is correct. These parcels can be served by a water main and sanitary sewerlocated in the Farmington Road right -0f --way. There is no City storm sewer directly adjacent to these parcels." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff? Ms. Varloogian: I know at the study meeting we discussed whether the proposed zoning would be advertised properly in time for this meeting. Has that been done? Mr. Taormina: There was a sign posted on the site for the last couple weeks. That is correct. Ms. Vartoogian: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner here this evening? Douglas Falzon, RA, Ventura & Associates, Inc., 411 W. 13 Mile, Suite 100, Madison Heights, Michigan 48071. I'm the petitioners representative. The reason for the rezoning request is that it is consistent with the Master Plan as we understand it, and the proposed professional medical office use is also consistent with the uses in the area. We would ask for a favorable recommendation. Ms. Smiley: I notice the house that's on the properly is boarded up. I'm assuming that's going to be tom down. Mr. Falzon: The intent is to remove the house, which is also on a basement, which will be removed. The garage will also be removed. May 11, 2010 25286 Ms. Smiley: Thankyou. Mr. Taylor: I know we're just talking about zoning here, but one of my problems is the lot to the north. Mark, did you say it was 60 feel? Mr. Taormina: That is correct Mr. Taylor: I'm wondering if this is developed, its going to land lock that OS piece of properly until they couldn't use it for OS. From looking at the site plan that you showed us, it looks like there's virtually no landscaping, and we always require at least 15 percent landscaping out in front. Now in the back, it looks like there's some grass that they might want to call landscaping, but it worries me that there's not enough parking and that obviously negates landscaping also. If they dont try to develop that whole parcel, the parcel to the north along with this parcel, at the same time, we're going to be caught with a land locked piece of propertythat is going to lay vacant along that strip. Mr. Taormina: In response to your comments, yes, you've identified a number of issues related to the development of this properly, both in terms of the deficiencies that would be created with this conceptual plan and the problem with the parcel to the north and what's available for development. So I think it is worth exploring an opportunity since he is 11 spaces shy of complying with our ordinance, and as you indicated, the distribution of landscaping on this plan is somewhat problematic. I think consideration should be given possibly for whether or not the two property owners can gel together and assemble that as one development site. Mr. Taylor: Again, I have no problem with the zoning of it, but just the development of that parcel. I think you better take a look because if I'm correct, the landscape plan is going to have to come back to us, or your plan will have to come back to us, and I, for one, would not want to approve something that had to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and have a lot of appeals to it. I just wanted to bring that up to let you know that I think you better take a look at the parcel to the north. I know that's between you and the petitioner as to how much money it costs and all of those kinds of things, but to develop the property right, I think you need that piece of property. Thank you. Mr. Falzon: If I may, can I address that? Mr. Morrow: Sure. May 11, 2010 25287 Mr. Falzon: First off, it's clearly not our intent to apply for any variances. The plan will comply with the zoning ordinance if, in fact, the zoning is changed to OS. With regard to the parking, I actually illustrated to the staff based on the intended use, the current, not the gross or useable square footage and how it works with the required number of spaces. With regard to the landscaping, if it needs to be distributed in the front, it's a little bit problematic and this plan will deal with it. With regard to the property to the north, we have reached out. I have specifically reached out to the properly owner and have had discussions with him with regard to whether or not he would like to sell his property. Like most anything else, it's a matter of does it make economic sense. So, we are still in discussions with this gentlemen about that. Mr. Taylor: That's good to hear. I just can't see it being developed with the deficiencies that we just talked about, being short 11 parking spaces and no landscaping in the front whatsoever. Mr. Falzon: I understand. Mr. Taylor: So it could be that maybe you'd want to downsize the building or whatever, I don't know. Mr. Falzon: We may ultimately have to. Mr. Taylor: Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Anyway, we planted the seeds of some of our concerns for when you come back with the site plan. Are there any other questions of the petitioner? Seeing none, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Yes, sir. We'll need your name and address. Dr. Mark Mortiere, 18769 Farmington, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I'm one of the general dentists that's in the office space that's just north of that. I just wanted to put in my vole of approval for some sort of redevelopment. It started to look like blight to me. I police that lot that's in question all the time, picking up garbage and trash and sticks and twigs. I just do it like on the weekends just to keep it looking nice. But I notice that the home is boarded up now. The grass is long. Its just looking bad. So I'm hoping that something can be done about that area. So I'm speaking in favor of the proposal. May 11, 2010 25288 Mr. Morrow: Thank you. It looks like we're moving in that direction as it meets the Master Plan. Dr. Mortere: Thanks. Mr. Morrow: Thank you for your input. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing none, I'd like to close the public hearing and ask for a motion. Mr. Wilshaw: Inasmuch as the discussion has already staled that what we have in front of us is a zoning petition and not a site plan, the zoning does appear to be appropriate for that area. The adjacent properties are also office. The site plan does need some work, but that's something that we will address when it comes to us down the road. With that, I want to offer an approving resolution. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-27-2010 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 11, 2010, on Petition 2010-02-01-01 submitted by Dr. Nabil Suliman requesting to rezone property at 18621 Farmington Road (Lots 98 through 106 of Seven Mile Road Super Highway Subdivision), located on the west side of Farmington Road between Curtis Road and Seven Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, from R-3 to OS, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2010-02-01- 01 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and land uses in the area; 2. That the proposed change of zoning would constitute a minor expansion of an existing adjacent zoning district; 3. That the proposed change of zoning would provide opportunities for a greater variety of uses to serve the area as well as the City as a whole; 4. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area; 5. That the proposed change of zoning would provide for the development of the subject property in a manner that is consistent with its size and location; and May 11, 2010 25289 6. That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land Use Plan which recommends office use in this area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that nofice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, 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 2010-04-02-06 TIME OUT BAR & GRILL Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Pefition 2010- 04-02-06 submitted by Lone Pine Coral, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License (sale of beer, wine and spirits for consumption on the premises) in connection with a full service restaurant (Time Out Bar and Grill) at 36480 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Newburgh Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29. Mr. Taormina provided background on the item and presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Ms. Smiley: Is this the color rendering? Mr. Taormina: That is, but purple is not representative of what he wants the parking lot to look like. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Taylor: Mark, the liquor license is one thing, but the changing of the building, would he have to come back to us then? How are we guaranteed that he's going to change the building like this? Mr. Taormina: We're not guaranteed unless you want to impose particular conditions with the approval of the liquor license. Alternatively, you may want to treat it as a callback item. Typically, this type of minor facade renovation would not require your review. Under a previous site plan, however, we may have approved it May 11, 2010 25290 subject to compliance with a particular elevation plan. Thus, technically, any changes are something you can review. That's why I suggested maybe you treat it as a callback item. That way you can get additional detail on what he is proposing, yet he can move forward with the Class C license request and come back at a later date with more specific information on the exterior building modifications. Unless, of course, you feel comfortable approving the plan changes today. Mr. Taylor: No, I would encourage that because the way the building exists now, it sure doesn't look like it warrants a liquor license, a wane friendly kind of place where you want to go and have a sandwich and a beer and whatever. I certainly would want to call it back, but I'm anxious to hear from the petitioner. Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions? Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated April 30, 2010, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. It appears that no site work will be associated with this liquor license request. The following legal description describes the property and the subject premises: The south 145 feet of Lot 8, Plymouth Levan Industrial Subdivision, TIS, R9E, as recorded in L89, P 19 of Wayne County Records, and more specifically, the building containing approximately 3,140 square feet, with approximate dimensions of 43 feet by 73 feet, located at the northwest comer of the parcel. The address of this site according to our records is 36480 Plymouth Road. We trust this provides you with the requested information." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 7, 2010, which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to utilize a Class C liquorllcense in connection with a full service restaurant on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated April 30, 2010, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with the Time Out Bar and Grill Class C license request, located at 36480 Plymouth Road (north side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh and Levan Roads). We have no objection or recommendations to the plans as submitted as long as they comply with all State laws, City ordinances and stipulations and conditions set by the Traffic Bureau of the Police Department" The letter is signed May 11, 2010 25291 by Donald E. Borieo, Sergeant, Special Services Bureau. The next letter is from the Traffic Bureau of the Division of Police, dated May 4, 2010, which reads as follows: 'We have reviewed the plans in connection with Time Out Bar and Grille, located at 36480 Plymouth. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fifth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 10, 2010, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 12, 2010, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The petitioner's property is located closer than 1,000 feet to a property with a Class C liquor license. The 1,000 foot minimum requirement may be waived by Council. (2) This building was a vacant and abandoned structure under Ordinance 2844. The building has been registered and inspected as required. The violations found at the time of inspection need to be comected before occupancy. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner here this evening? Danilo Josifoski, Lone Pine Corral, Inc., 37630 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We're proposing to bring a liquor license to this location and bring this location to the next level. We're proposing the colors and changing the windows. There will be no structural work on the property at all because wherever the new windows are going, they are going to be where the existing ones are right now. The only thing is that we're going to make them smaller so that way we have enough light for the interior. Also, we're going to be working on the landscaping. We're going to remove all the landscaping and replace it with new landscaping. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the petitioner? Mr. Taylor: The picture that we have here is much different than what you have now, obviously. You're going to keep the same brick on the bottom. Is that what you're going to do here? Mr. Josifoski: That's not brick, sir. It's stucco. We're going to paint it that color. There is no brick. The whole building is stucco. Mr. Taylor: It is a stucco building? I mean it doesn t look that way with this picture, but I didn't remember it being brick. May 11, 2010 25292 Mr. Josdoski: No, the whole building is stucco. We're going to cover the windows. We're going to finish it up with stucco. That way the finish is going to match the existing exterior. Mr. Taylor: There is a sign on the existing building. Is there going to be a sign on the building? Mr. Josdoski: That's not a sign. That's only advertisement. That is going to be gone. Right now, where the existing door is, we're going to enclose the existing door. Next to it, there's two windows. The one window we're going to open up a door there. Mr. Taylor: And the fence that you show here on this. Mr. Josdoski: The fence is just decorative so that way the colors match in front. We have some kind of black color in front, so it matches with the east side of the properly. Mr. Taylor: I see. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: So its going to be brown and beige with black awnings? Mr. Josifoski: Black awnings. The bottom is going to light brown. To me, from here, it looks like purple, but it's going to be off while. Above the light brown, it's going to be off while, then you have, again, the light brown and off white and then dark brown on the lop. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Are you doing to have any signage on your building? Mr. Josdoski: There is no signage on the building. There's signage in the front of the building, which does show, which is the existing sign as of right now. We're not changing signage. Its going to be exactly the same sign we have. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Do you have a Time Out Bar and Grill somewhere else right now? Mr. Josifoski: No. We own Pick -a -Bone. Ms. Smiley: Can I ask you why you came with Time Out? I'm coming from a preschool word and time out is usually where you go when you're in trouble. Mr. Josdoski: Right. Part of the decoration inside the restaurant, we're going to have pictures of lime out for preschool loo. Honestly. Really. May 11, 2010 25293 Ms. Smiley: We don't usually send our preschoolers to a bar. Okay. Thank you. Mr. W lshaw: Dan, can you tell me a little bit about this business and how its going to differ from Pick -a -Bone? Obviously, Pick -a -Bone is a full service restaurant. This sounds a little different. Mr. Jositoski: This place is going to have 78 seats capacity. The kitchen is smaller. Due to that fad, we're going to have a smaller menu. We're going to have sandwiches. We're going to have wraps. We're going to have salads and some Mexican food. But also, if we compare this bar to the surrounding smaller bars in that area - we're not talking about Kickers - we're talking about the Roadhouse and the other bars around. We're going to be more modern. We wont even try to be what they are. We'regoing to be a little bit better. I mean much better than them. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Is there going to be a sports bar type concept? Mr. Jositoski: Yes. We're going to have lots of TVs and we're trying to draw in families. We don't worry about the nonsmoking ordinance right now because I think more families are going out. Like I'm experiencing right now at our bar, we get more families with their kids that come in the bar because of the TVs, where before, they never came in. They were sitting in a nonsmoking section. I think that will be a good impact for the families that can come in with their kids and watch TV and sports. Mr. Wilshaw: You know this is a tough location. A lot of restaurants have not done very well here, but you think you can make a go of it, right? Mr. Josifoski: We don't worry about that part. We made it at Pick -a -Bone, so this is a piece of cake for us. It's a smaller operation. Mr. Wilshaw: You certainly have good experience in the City running a restaurant, and you've done well. So if anybody can make a go of it, I think its probably going to be you. Mr. Josifoski: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: I appreciate it, and I think as far as the appearance of the building, I think it's a huge improvement if it turns out looking the way that you're showing us in this conceptual plan here. We'll talk about if we want to see the details of that later, but it's definitely an improvement over whats there now. May 11, 2010 25294 Mr. Josifoski: I can promise that whatever you see, that's what you're going to get because we're not going to try to short change anybody here because we're trying to do something good, make a nice place and make it go. If we try to make short cuts, nothing is going to happen. What I promise, that's what I'm going to deliver. Ms. Scheel: Could you tell me what your hours of operation are going to be? Mr. Josifoski: Right now, when I applied to the Liquor Control Commission, I asked for from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. in the morning. I'm just trying to gel those hours in case Ford Motor Company opens a third shift, then we're going to be able to open early in the morning. We're thinking about opening probably at 10:00 a.m. Ms. Scheel: And that's to 2:00 a.m. every day? Are you seven days a week? Mr. Josifoski: Yes. Seven days. You can't take a day off here. Ms. Scheel: Okay. And then I have a question for Mark. If we did a call back on what the building would look like, is that when we'd look at the lighting and the landscaping and everything at that time also? Mr. Taormina: We could. Yes. You could request that. Ms. Scheel: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Taylor: Through the chair to Mark Taormina. Mark, you say the parking meets the requirements of the ordinance? Mr. Taormina: Well, he's not making any changes relative to the parking. Based on the proposed seating count, 78, he's required to have 39 parking spaces, as well as parking for employees. So he's maybe a couple spaces deficient, but that's a pre-existing non- conforming arrangement. It's been that way for a long time. He wont need to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals that I'm aware of. I think he's only going to have three or four employees, so he's only one or two spaces shy. Mr. Taylor: According to the schematic that you had up here, it looked like some of the parking was in the service station next door. Mr. Taormina: No. That is separate. Absolutely. Mr. Taylor: He has enough without any shared parking? May 11, 2010 25295 Mr. Taormina: That is correct, except for the couple of spaces that I mentioned. Mr. Taylor: Are you going to do all the work yourself like you did at Pick -a - Bone? Mr. Josifoski: Definitely. Mr. Taylor: Thats what I thought. Mr. Josifoski: I have one more thing to say to Mr. Taylor. It won't take me three years, sir. A few months. Mr. Morrow: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-28-2010 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 11, 2010, on Petition 2010-04-02-06 submitted by Lone Pine Conal, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License (sale of beer, wine and spirits for consumption on the premises) in connection with a full service restaurant (Time Out Bar and Grill) at 36480 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Newburgh Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, which property is zoned G2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2010-04-02-06 be approved for subject to the following conditions: 1. That the use of an Class C license at this location shall be permitted only under the circumstances that the Zoning Ordinance standard set forth in Section 11.03(h)(1) requiring that there be at least a 1,000 fool separation between Class C licensed establishments is waived by the City Council; and 2. That fully detailed plans for site landscaping, lighting and building elevation changes shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council within sixty (60) days from the dale of approval unless more time is granted by the City Council; Subject to the preceding condition, this petition is approved for the following reasons: May 11, 2010 25296 ITEM #3 PETITION 2010-04-02-07 FIVE GUYS BURGERS AND FRIES Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2010- 04-02-07 submitted by B.A.C. Holdings requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant (Five Guys Burgers and Fries) at 29491 Plymouth Road within the Wonderland Village shopping center, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebell Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Taormina provided background on the item and presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated May 3, 2010, which reads as 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area; and, 4. That the proposed Class C licensed establishment would be utilized primarily as a restaurant. 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. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Ms. Scheel: I'd like to add that we have as a callback item a site plan that shows the building, lighting and landscaping. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2010-04-02-07 FIVE GUYS BURGERS AND FRIES Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2010- 04-02-07 submitted by B.A.C. Holdings requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant (Five Guys Burgers and Fries) at 29491 Plymouth Road within the Wonderland Village shopping center, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebell Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Taormina provided background on the item and presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated May 3, 2010, which reads as May 11, 2010 25297 follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. It appears that no permanent site modifications are associated with this request. The address associated with this building space is 29491 Plymouth Road. As is true with any restaurant, the owner of this parcel is cautioned as to grease management. It is vitally important that any restaurant utilize Best Management Practices as regards proper disposal of grease. This will prevent costly sewer blockages caused by grease treprinterceptor neglect. This is also true of the nearby site sanitary sewers, especially given the fact that this building already houses two other restaurants. Note that I've sent a copy of this letter to the owner of the property." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 7, 2010, which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a full restaurant on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 4, 2010, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with Five Guys Burgers and Fries, located at 29491 Plymouth Road. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 10, 2010, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 14, 2010, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, is the petitioners representative here? We'll need your name and address please. Merrick Farber, New Wave Construction Co., 27750 Stansbury, Suite 101, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334. We're just planning on hoping to bring Five Guys to your city. We're planning on bringing 40 to the Slate of Michigan in the next two and half years. We hire about 45 people right off the bat so we get some jobs here. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions? Mr. Wilshaw: I want to make sure we have that indicated on the plan somewhere so it can be seen when the Council looks at it. Otherwise, I am fine. Thank you. Mr. Taylor: That was my question, about the grease. I want to make sure they'll take care of it. Ms. McDermott: I just want to hear a little bit about the background of the company, how long it's been in existence and where it originated. Mr. Farber: I think it originated out of Virginia. We just finished Greek Town with store 1072. 1 just know Michigan. I work for the franchise owner for Michigan. We're slotted for 40 stores. Ms. McDermott: How many do you already have, besides Greek Town? May 11, 2010 25298 Ms. Smiley: I was to your store in Naples, Florida. Is it going to be set up the same? Mr. Farber: All across the country, they're the same. Ms. Smiley: Its all the same thing. Verygood. Welcome. Mr. Farber: Thankyou. Mr. Wilshaw: I took a spin over to the store in Southfield as well and took a look at it. Its a very, very busy place. I think it's a good ft here. The only concern I have is, we talked about this at the study meeting and it was alluded to as well in the letters that were read, is your grease management. Can you explain how you're going to handle the grease? Mr. Farber: Yes. We have a 100 pound grease trap inside the building, and then also, Dover handles all our grease. We put a container out in the dumpsler area and dump all our grease out there. Dover recycles it every week. Mr. W Ishaw: Okay. And its going to go in the same area that the dumpsters are in? Mr. Farber: Correct. Mr. Wilshaw: And there's adequate space there for your container? Mr. Farber: I was told there was, yes. Mr. Wilshaw: I want to make sure we have that indicated on the plan somewhere so it can be seen when the Council looks at it. Otherwise, I am fine. Thank you. Mr. Taylor: That was my question, about the grease. I want to make sure they'll take care of it. Ms. McDermott: I just want to hear a little bit about the background of the company, how long it's been in existence and where it originated. Mr. Farber: I think it originated out of Virginia. We just finished Greek Town with store 1072. 1 just know Michigan. I work for the franchise owner for Michigan. We're slotted for 40 stores. Ms. McDermott: How many do you already have, besides Greek Town? May 11, 2010 25299 Mr. Farber: Last year we opened seven. This year, including this one, in the next month, we're going to start four or five depending on our leases. We're hoping to do len this year. Ms. McDermott: Pending approval from the Council, how soon would you plan on this location opening? Mr. Farber: Six weeks from the time we gel approval. Ms. McDermott: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Anyone else? Seeing none, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this pefifion? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a mofion by Taylor, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-29-2010 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 11, 2010, on Petition 2010-04-02-07 submitted by B.A.C. Holdings requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant (Five Guys Burgers and Fries) at 29491 Plymouth Road within the Wonderland Village shopping center, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebell Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast 114 of Section 35, which property is zoned G2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2010-04-02-07 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the maximum customer seating count shall not exceed 88 seals in accordance with the Floor Plan marked Partition Floor Plan prepared by Guido Architects Inc., as received by the Planning Commission on April 13, 2010; 2. 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; 3. That no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted on the site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 4. That any exterior grease container be located and fully enclosed within the dumpster enclosure at the rear of the building, and be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition at all times; and Mr. Taylor: Okay. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Wilshaw, does that satisfy your requirements relative to the grease trap? Mr. Wilshaw: I was thinking that it would be nice to have something included if we could. I'm not sure how we best do it, Mark, to indicate that grease would be handled the way the petitioner described. Mr. Taormina: We can fashion language as part of the resolution that would address your concerns. I think the main concern is that any exterior storage be handled within the enclosed dumpster area and not anywhere else on the site. Mr. May 11, 2010 Exactly. 25300 5. That the specific plan referenced in this approving Taylor: resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department that. I at the time of application for the building permits. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for Inspection Department would the following reasons: something like that. 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Mr. Taylor: I would ask that we give the seven day waiver to the Council. Mr. Morrow: We'll handle that as a separate motion at that time. Mr. Taylor: Okay. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Wilshaw, does that satisfy your requirements relative to the grease trap? Mr. Wilshaw: I was thinking that it would be nice to have something included if we could. I'm not sure how we best do it, Mark, to indicate that grease would be handled the way the petitioner described. Mr. Taormina: We can fashion language as part of the resolution that would address your concerns. I think the main concern is that any exterior storage be handled within the enclosed dumpster area and not anywhere else on the site. Mr. Wilshaw: Exactly. Mr. Taylor: I don't have any problem with that. I just assumed that the Inspection Department would handle something like that. May 11, 2010 25301 Normally, they do. I could be wrong, but if you're more ITEM #4 PETITION 2010-04-02-08 THE KROGER COMPANY Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2010- 04-02-08 submitted by The Kroger Company of Michigan requesting waiver use approval for outdoor storage and display of merchandise in front of the Kroger Store at 33523 Eight Mile Road within the Northridge Commons shopping center, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Gill Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4. comfortable with it, I have no problem with it. Mr. Morrow: I think if we make reference to it, it certainly can't hurl anything. It will take care of any concerns particularly with the sewage over there. The maker is happy with it. Is the supporter? Ms. Smiley: Yes. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. Morrow: Now, Mr. Taylor has a motion. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-30-2010 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the effective date of a resolution after the seven- day period from the date of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection with Petition 2010-04-02-07 submitted by B.A.C. Holdings requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant (Five Guys Burgers and Fries) at 29491 Plymouth Road within the Wonderland Village shopping center, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebell Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #4 PETITION 2010-04-02-08 THE KROGER COMPANY Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2010- 04-02-08 submitted by The Kroger Company of Michigan requesting waiver use approval for outdoor storage and display of merchandise in front of the Kroger Store at 33523 Eight Mile Road within the Northridge Commons shopping center, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Gill Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4. Mr. Taormina: All that would be moved under the lent. Where it occurs in the parking lot, it does require your approval. Where it occurs on the sidewalk, that can be conducted under permits from the Inspection Department. Once they're done with this event, and they want to hold it through July 31, then they can move some of that material back under the sidewalk and conduct outdoor sales up to October 1. Ms. Smiley: What kind offence would you put around a lent? May 11, 2010 25302 Mr. Taormina provided background on the item and presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated May 3, 2010, which reads as follows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. It appears that no permanent site modifications are associated with this request. The addresses associated with Northridge Commons are 33523-33751 Eight Mile Road. Kroger occupies 33523 Eight Mile Road." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 4, 2010, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with Kroger Store, located at 33532 8 Mile. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 10, 2010, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 16, 2010, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The sales and/or display area must be enclosed with a fence of a type recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by Council. (2) Such use shall be temporary and carried on between April lsr and October 13'. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff? Ms. Smiley: There are all kinds of plants and sluff out there now. I think in the Fall they do pumpkins and sluff out there. Now, would all that be under the lent? Mr. Taormina: All that would be moved under the lent. Where it occurs in the parking lot, it does require your approval. Where it occurs on the sidewalk, that can be conducted under permits from the Inspection Department. Once they're done with this event, and they want to hold it through July 31, then they can move some of that material back under the sidewalk and conduct outdoor sales up to October 1. Ms. Smiley: What kind offence would you put around a lent? May 11, 2010 25303 Mr. Taormina: A split rail, vinyl or metal fence that can be installed on a temporary basis. Ms. Smiley: Something like they would put up for a parade? Mr. Taormina: Yes. They can actually affix the fence to the asphalt on a temporary basis, and then just remove it and patch the asphalt when they're done. Ms. Smiley: Would that be something we would approve? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you, Mark. Ms. Scheel: I want to go back to what Mrs. Smiley had said first. If we do approve this, then there will be nothing in front of the store, everything moves out, or can they still keep things by the door? Mr. Taormina: They could still keep things by the door. Yes. Ms. Scheel: Okay. It's just that they don't want it as crowded as it is. So that would be the purpose? Mr. Taormina: Its probably a combination of that and visibility, I would think. We can ask that question of the petitioner. The one problem that is evident today, which is something our ordinance requires, is that there be safe pedestrian access maintained along the walkways where outdoor sales are occurring. If you go out there right now, I don't think that's the case. Some of the merchandise is being displayed right up to the edge of the curb. So they are not really leaving adequate distance for people to walk up and down that walkway. Ms. Scheel: The fence that is to be put up, you said we could discuss that tonight. Do we decide what kind of a fence or just that we want a fence and they put up whatever they determine? Mr. Taormina: You could make a recommendation on the style of fence, and then the petitioner would work out the details with the Inspection Department. Ms. Scheel: Do you have a recommendation for us? Mr. Taormina: The petitioner might have a suggestion, in which case we can either say yes or no. May 11, 2010 25304 Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions? Mr. Wilshaw: Just one more question of Mr. Taormina. Looking at the site plan, it looks like the outdoor sales area is taking up at least one handicap parking space. Are they going to become deficient in their handicap parking, or are they taking prime handicap parking spaces that are close to the door? Mr. Taormina: I would have to go out and check to see if this is how it's actually striped. It does show that one handicap space would be eliminated, but actually they could provide handicap spaces even closer to the entrance, which is the law. I don't know if that would be a problem. That was not indicated by the Inspection Department's report. If they are deficient in the number of handicap spaces, they could easily provide that closer to the entranceways. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. I just didn't want to lose sight of that because its obviously an important thing. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner here this evening? Name and address for the record please. Jennifer Bernharl, Kroger Company, 33523 Eight Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I'm currently the store manager at that store. I'd agree with all of you that the patio is draped out onto the parking lot and the driveway. All of that product was delivered from others in hopes that we would have a tent by then. This is kind of a failure to plan on Krogers behalf, but we're trying to catch up with that. The only product that would remain on the sidewalk would be three patio sets, no flowers, nothing in between the coffee shop and the building which is a walkway to the salon. The fencing, from what they've run it for other stores, there's about 25 stores doing this in Michigan currently, would just be a white vinyl fence. Its not the gaudy orange and while. It's not a metal fence. It's just a typical white vinyl fencing. The handicap parking, there were two handicap spots added closer to the building by the stop sign walkway. So the deficiency of that one spot ... it's actually not going to be covered. In the drawing it does show that its going to be the first four spots, but we're actually moving it six back, so there is adequate space between the main drive and where we set the tent up. That way with cars passing we don't have people entering the tent that close to the drive. Mr. Morrow: Do we have any questions for the petitioner? May 11, 2010 25305 Mr. Taylor: Did I hear you say white vinyl fence? Ms. Bernhart: Yes. It's what I've seen at the other stores. It's just like a five slated white fence that sits about four feel high. Mr. Taylor: How do you handle security in the evening? Ms. Bernhart: We have cameras that hit that whole area as far as manned security. All the patio fences are chained to the main pole of the tent. Other than that, it's no different than what we have out there now. Mr. Taylor: So you have no security with that material that's out there? Ms. Bernhart: No, sir. Mr. Taylor: Mark, through the Chair, do you know if the two new ones we have have security out there? Mr. Taormina: I don't know how they're handling that. This question has come up in the past. I think they chain all the barbeque sets together. I think they have security personnel 24 hours at the store, right? Ms. Bernhart: No. Mr. Taylor: Thank you. Ms. Bernhart: Its cross your fingers. Mr. Taylor: I'm sorry I brought t up. Ms. McDermott: This is a question I just have to ask because I've been approached by a couple of residents in the area. They were told that the store locafion was closing. Ms. Bernhart: No. Ms. McDermott: Since you're the store manager, you're the right person to ask. Ms. Bernhart: As far as the store closing, that's not true. We do about 450 a week at that location. There has been some talk that I don't think is going to happen in the near future regarding a vacant Farmer Jack building, but we pay very high rent, so that would be the only consideration for moving. One thing with the lent, I think it will drive extra sales considering pretty much the whole side of that complex right now is vacant. So, if anything, t will May 11, 2010 25306 clear up our walkway and at least enhance the parking lot a little bit. Ms. McDermott: Ok. Thank you. Ms. Bernhart: But as far as closing, no. Mr. Wilshaw: Its not so much a question as I just wanted to commend Ms. Bernhart for addressing all the issues that we brought up to Mr. Taormina right away off the bat. I appreciate that. That's very good of you to do that. Its good to hear that the handicap spaces are not impeded, and I think getting this material off the sidewalk will actually be a good thing. Ms. Bernhart: I completely agree. I have nowhere to go with it. Mr. Morrow: If I followed it correctly, all of the merchandise will be under the lent, nothing surrounding the tent. Is that correct? Ms. Bernhart: Some of the slants that currently exist on the sidewalk now, they wont all be enclosed under the lent, but they will be right along the side. Mr. Morrow: I'm talking just the tent area, not next to the building. Ms. Bernhart: Only a couple patio sets will be exposed next to the building. Mr. Morrow: So there will be things within the fence but not in the lent? Ms. Bernhart: Correct. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Seeing no further questions, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by McDermott, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-31-2010 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 11, 2010, on Petition 2010-04-02-08 submitted by The Kroger Company of Michigan requesting waiver use approval for outdoor storage and display of merchandise in front of the Kroger Store at 33523 Eight Mile Road within the Northridge Commons shopping center, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Gill Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section May 11, 2010 25307 4, which property is zoned G2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2010-04-02- 08 be approved subject to the following conditions: That the outdoor sales and display area shall be permitted only under the circumstances that the prohibition of outdoor sales, storage or display of merchandise in connection with a retail sales building that contains a gross floor area of 30,000 square feel or more, as specified under Section 11.03(()(1) of the Zoning Ordinance, is waived or modified by the City Council by means of a separate resolution in which two-thirds of the members of the City Council concur; 2. That the outdoor sales and display of merchandise shall be confined to the twenty feel (20') by forty feet (40') area as illustrated on the site plan prepared by Nathan Levine & Associates Inc., as received by the Planning Commission on April 16, 2010; 3. That the time period within which the outdoor sales and display would take place shall be limited to April 1 through July 31; That the outdoor sales and display area shall be enclosed by a while vinyl fence of a type recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council, which fence shall be located on the boundaries of such sales and display area, as specified in Section 11.03(I)(1)(c) of the Zoning Ordinance, unless this requirement is waived or modified by the City Council by means of a separate resolution in which two-thirds of the members of the City Council concur; and 5. 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. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved 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 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and May 11, 2010 25308 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Ms. McDermott: I'd just like to ask Mr. Taormina if we could clarify the time period. Mr. Taormina: Would the petitioner like it extended to a date beyond July 31? Ms. Bernhart: Il will be taken down by July 11. I think July 5 is the last day we actually plan on using the tent. Mr. Taormina: July 31 was the original request. We will just keep it at that. Ms. McDermott: I'd like to change Condition #3 to July 31. Mr. Taormina: Again, this is something they can conduct every year. If we approve this waiver use, next year they will not need to come back to us so they will be able to do this again. Mr. Taylor: If I may add to Condition #4 that the area be enclosed with a while vinyl fence as recommended by the Planning Commission. Ms. McDermott: That's fine with me. Mr. Morrow: I understand you changed the location of the actual fenced in area as it relates to that plan. Ms. Bernhart: Yes, we just moved it back two parking spots. Mr. Morrow: As it moves forward to the City Council and to the Inspection Department, I think that it would be well that we show the exact location. Ms. Bernhart: Yes, sir. Mr. Morrow: I think you said you had added a couple other handicap spots in lieu of the one that was taken away. Do you agree with that part, Ms. McDermott? May 11, 2010 25309 Ms. McDermott: Certainly. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #5 PETITION 2010 -03 -SN -01 WOODLAND PLAZA SIGN Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2010- 03 -SN -01 submitted by Michael A. Tsakoff, AIA, requesting approval for a ground sign for the Woodland Plaza shopping center at 30200-30282 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Middlebell Road and Sears Drive in the Southeast 114 of Section 26. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to replace an existing ground sign at the Woodland Plaza shopping center with a new and larger ground sign. Woodland Plaza is located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Sears Drive. This is a shopping center that totals about 90,000 square feel. It is currently divided into about 14 tenant spaces with the largest single tenant being ABC Warehouse, which is located at the north end of the shopping complex. The property is C-2, General Business. Woodland Plaza is dassifed as a Business Center, and as such, they are entitled to one free standing business center sign. That sign can be a maximum of 40 square feet in area. It's limited to a height of 8 feel and has to be setback at least 10 feet from any right-of-way line. The center has an existing ground sign that complies with the ordinance. It is 40 square feet in area and setback 10 feel from the right-of-way. I believe it's presently no higher than 8 feel. The proposed replacement sign, however, would be a little bit larger. The sign would be 11 feet in total height and 88 square feet in total area, so it would exceed the ordinance by about 48 square feet in total area and three feet in height. This is a profile view of the sign. You can see it would be framed by columns on either side. Those would actually consist of stone or cast concrete coins, as they are called. They would be separated with a single row of brick. As you look at this sign, these are the columns I'm talking about. These are the coins with the brick separators, and then the base is also constructed of brick. The colors would match what is currently used by the PRDA in its streetscape improvements. The sign, as I indicated, would exceed the ordinance requirements. It's something that has to be approved by the Zoning Board of May 11, 2010 25310 Appeals. Unfortunately, we do not have the final supporting resolution from the Plymouth Road Development Authority. They reviewed a different sign design at their last meeting. They actually suggested the changes that you're looking at this evening. So they are going to take this matter up at their meeting next week. I expect they'll give a supporting resolution for the sign as it's been modified. The one Iasi rendering, and I know there's been some discussion about this at the study session, this gives you an idea of the tenants that would be advertised on the proposed sign. These would be replaceable panels. You can see that one, or possibly more, could be split in half to advertise additional tenants. What this doesn't show is who would get top billing. If we go back to the profile view, there's one more tenant space here that would be reserved for ABC Warehouse. I think that one would have a height of about 22 inches. The panel itself would be about 22 inches and then the panels below would be 16 inches in height. Thank you. We have one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated April 14, 2010, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 29, 2010, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The sign as presented is approximately 88 square feet. A total of 40 square feet of signage would be permitted. An approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to maintain the excess sign area. (2) The overall dimensions permitted fora ground sign would be a maximum of 10'in length and 8' in height. The sign as presented is shown with a height of 12' and a length of 14'3". An approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to maintain the excess length and height. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. IT note that when Mr. Hanna reviewed this plan, it was under the previous sign design. It's actually been made a little bit smaller. It has been lowered by a fool in height and maybe a fool or so in width. It still requires Zoning Board of Appeals approval but not to the degree as indicated in his letter. Mr. Morrow: But the excessive signs you have in the notes, that's corect? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for Mr. Taormina? Ms. Scheel: Mark, you said the Plymouth Road Development Authority has an idea of what is coming before us tonight so they know the May 11, 2010 25311 sign will have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to be approved? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Ms. Scheel: Okay. I just wanted to double check that. Thank you Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please, sir. Bill Goodreau, P.E., Civil Design Services, on behalf of Mike Tsakoff, the architect for the project. Mike did the best to educate me on why I'm here this evening. Mr. Morrow: Did you give us your address? Mr. GOodreau: I'm sorry. Civil Design Services, P.O. Box 163, Fowlerville, Michigan. Mike tried to give me a general overview of what we're asking for. I'm guess I'm more or less here to answer any questions if I may. Mr. Morrow: Do we have anyquestions ofthis gentleman? Mr. Wilshaw: I don't know if you're in a position to be able to answer this question on behalf of the properly owner, but could you explain to us why you need a sign that's over double the square footage of the current sign and roughly three feet higher than what our ordinance allows? Mr. Goodreau: That I couldn't tell you. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Mr. Goodreau: I know that some of the standardized plating signs here for the individual businesses are more or less their standards. Actually, I was aware of this project last week. I was up north this past weekend for Mother's Day weekend and every small community that I drove through had a Dollar General store in it actually. I looked at that sign, very similar to what is being proposed here. A case in point I guess. Mr. Wlshaw: All right. Thank you. Mr. Taylor: Sir, did you communicate with the person that was at our study session at all? Mr. Goodreau: I did not personally. May 11, 2010 25312 Mr. Taylor: The questions this body had was, with the colors of the sign being in our minds more or less garish, we wondered if there was a possibility that all the signs could be black and while. I don't think you're going to be able to answer that question because you're just coming into this. Mr. Goodreau: Yes. I guess it's more or less the general idea and logos of the individual companies is my understanding and the color scheme. Mr. Taylor: And we've had that same reason given before, but in other areas that we have, they said they wouldn't have a problem with doing what we ask them to do. They wouldn't have to follow the logo exactly, just the name. It would be interior lit. The resolution is going to say that an hour after the business closes, the light would be turned off. Do you have any problems with any of that or can you answer those questions? Mr. Goodreau: My understanding is the hour of the latest running business would be 9:00 p.m. in the evening. Mr. Taylor: I just dont know for sure, and we're going to hear from the rest of the people on the Board as to the colors, and I'm not sure it might be approved the way it's presented. That's why I wanted to lel you know about that. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Thankyou, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: If other Commissioners have questions first, then I'll respond because I did have a chance to talk to Mr. Tsakoff today about some of these issues. Ms. McDermott: Are you sure you don't want to tell us that first, or do you want me to go ahead? My question is going to follow along the same lines as Mr. Taylors. We had a rather lengthy discussion with the gentleman that was at the study meeting. I speak for myself, but again, Mr. Taylor has already made his comment. This is not something to me that I consider an improvement to the area. I mean, it may be larger and it may help you with visibility or the stores there, but the coloring is just not good. And now with the ABC Warehouse going on the top, I'm trying to think in my mind what the color of their logo is. I can't remember if it has more than one color in it. Mr. Wilshaw: Red and yellow. Mr. Taormina: That's correct. Ms. Scheel: Where the Subway is and Michigan Works, the Subway would be the smallest it could be, because that's a half panel, right? May 11, 2010 25313 Ms. McDermott: Red and yellow. Okay. So that to me is just going to make it look worse. I'm a little disappointed that the last individual, I'm sorry I don't remember his name, did not prepare you with that situation that you were going to walk into here that most of us, or at lead a few of us, are not loo happy with the way the sign looks with the coloring. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Mark, did you want to comment? Mr. Taormina: Yes. In the conversation I had with Mr. Tsakoff today, he indicated that maintaining the tenant's trade identification is pretty critical. To restrict the lettering to one color, if they keep their trade design logos and then have that limited to one color, that I think is something he is concerned with as opposed to if we stipulated that it just be all white background. So he was okay with limiting the background color. We also discussed not allowing these panels to be split any differently than how they appear here. The concern is if we take, for example, the "Cash Advance" panel and it becomes three tenants, splitting that panel into three spaces, and now having smaller lettering or maybe splitting it length -wise. What we discussed today was a minimum panel size of 16 inches in height with the exception of the ABC Warehouse, that the panels not be split in more than half, and that it be limited to strictly a while background with the tallest letters no more than 8 inches in height on these lower panels. The thought was that it would provide the consistency hopefully that the Commission is looking for. Ms. Scheel: I just wanted to get further explanation. When you say a while background, does that mean where it has "Dollar General", that where it's yellow would be white? Mr. Taormina: That's correct. Ms. Scheel: Okay. And what about on the Subway where the "way" is in yellow? Mr. Taormina: No. The lettering could be different colors. Ms. Scheel: The lettering could be different colors. It's just the background is white. Mr. Taormina: That's correct. Ms. Scheel: Where the Subway is and Michigan Works, the Subway would be the smallest it could be, because that's a half panel, right? RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2010-03SN-01 submitted by Michael A. Tsakoff, AIA, requesting approval for a ground sign for the Woodland Plaza shopping center at 30200- 30282 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Middlebell Road and Sears Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2010-03- SN-01 010-03SN-01 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the 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 for the oversize signage for this location; 3. That the existing ground sign does an adequate job of identifying the center; May 11, 2010 25314 Mr. Taormina: That's correct. So they couldn't split that into quarters or split it lengthwise or anything like that and make the lettering so small that it would illegible. Ms. Scheel: Okay. Mr. Taormina: Also, the one hour closing time was not an issue as well. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Good. Mr. Taylor: Then ABC Warehouse would be a white background also? Mr. Taormina: Those would apply to the sign in its entirety, including the ABC Warehouse portion. Mr. Morrow: A comment I would make, is normally, we don't move this forward until we have some kind of concurrence that the PRDA has approved what we have before us. So if we take action tonight, I guess we'll be sending it forward without that input, but assurance from Mr. Taormina that this is pretty much what they had asked for at their meeting, and they will be acting on it next week. So, I'm going to ask if there is anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Wilsaw, seconded by McDermott, it was RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2010-03SN-01 submitted by Michael A. Tsakoff, AIA, requesting approval for a ground sign for the Woodland Plaza shopping center at 30200- 30282 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Middlebell Road and Sears Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2010-03- SN-01 010-03SN-01 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the 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 for the oversize signage for this location; 3. That the existing ground sign does an adequate job of identifying the center; May 11, 2010 25315 4. That approving this signage request would set an undesirable precedenlforlhe area; and 5. Approving this application would not be aesthetically in the City's best interest. Mr. Wilshaw: If I can gel support, I do have a beef comment on that. Ms. McDermott: Support. Mr. Morrow: Support by Mrs. McDermott. Mr. Wlshaw: Thank you. This is a comment. I know we've had some discussion about the contents of the sign and the coloring and so on, and those things do concern me to some extent, but ultimately what we're looking at is a sign that is over twice the square footage of the signs that we allow in the City as a matter of course, and its over three feel higher than a sign would be allowed in the City. It also has a deficient setback. So those purely simplistic reasons are why I offer this denying resolution in addition to any concern that we may have about the appearance of the sign and the contents of it. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Mr. Taormina, is the Plymouth Road Development Authority in full knowledge of the size of the sign? Mr. Taormina: No. They don't have knowledge that it's actually slightly smaller than what they looked at in their last meeting. Mr. Morrow: Was there any concern in that regard as to the size? Mr. Taormina: I attended that meeting. They were less concerned with the size of the sign than they were with the design. It was a completely different design. It was kind of a classical Greek style with fluted columns and kind of a pediment across. That's what they objected to, that it was so much out of character with the design of other signs in the area. That's what they wanted to see modified more than anything. Mr. Morrow: I'm not sure you can answer this, but one of my concerns would be that they were so concerned with the design that maybe they lost sight of the size. Mr. Taormina: I think they talked about the size. It just wasn't the same concern that they had. And as I indicated, this sign is slightly smaller than the one they looked at. It was the same panel May 11, 2010 25316 design. I think the same color rendering may have been provided to the PRDA. Mr. Morrow: Good. Thank you. Good insight on that. Is there any other discussion? Mr. Taylor: I wasn't particularly crazy about the colors in the sign, but whatever Mark worked out with the petitioner as far as the while background, I don't have a big problem with that. And when you look at the signs that are in the area, that's what I'm visualizing now. The Wonderland sign on the corner is huge, and I know R's a sign for the whole shopping center, but they also have individual signs. For that particular area, I dont know that the sign is loo out of proportion to what the size of the shopping center is. I went by there a week or so ago, and the way the sign exists now, it's rather hidden by trees and the building next door, the medical building. This particular sign doesn't bother me too much as long as they change the colors a little bit and make it less outstanding. I just can't support a denying resolution at this time. Mr. Morrow: Thankyou. Ms. Smiley: Mark, now that you've seen this new structure for the sign, is that more in line with what the PRDA was looking for? Mr. Taormina: Yes. I think this new design will be supported and the reasons are is that they refer to their streetscape improvements, what he has incorporated with this design is a very similar capping, brick that matches the PRDA, and even the stone treatment I think is similar to some of the stone treatments on the walls and pillars that they have. In terms of the structure, I think it will meet with their approval. Ms. Smiley: Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Anyone else? Then I'll ask for a roll call on the denying resolution. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Wilshaw, McDermott NAYES: Scheel, Vartoogian, Taylor, Smiley, Morrow ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Morrow: A motion would be in order. May 11, 2010 25317 On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Taylor, and adopted, it was #05-32-2010 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2010-03SN-01 submitted by Michael A. Tsakoff, AIA, requesting approval for a ground sign for the Woodland Plaza shopping center at 30200- 30282 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Middlebell Road and Sears Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Pefifion 2010-03- SN-01 010-03SN-01 be approved subject lolhe following condifions: 1. That the Sign Elevation Plan marked TS -1 prepared by Michael A Tsakoff, Architect, dated April 19, 2010, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except as modified below: 2. That the background of all of the sign panels be while; that the height of the panels be limited to approximately 22 inches for the top panel and 16 inches for all others; that the panels be split no more than once in half, as shown on the rendering; and that the maximum height of the lettering on the lower panels be approximately eight (8) inches; 3. That the Site Plan marked Sheet Number CE -1 prepared by The Design & Construction Group Inc. as received by the Planning Commission on April 19, 2010, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That this approval is subject to the pefifioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess signage and any conditions related thereto; 5. That the sign shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this business center closes; and 6. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the sign permits are applied for. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Ms. Smiley: Mr. Taylor, do we want to add that all backgrounds be while? Mr. Taylor: Yes. May 11, 2010 25318 Ms. Smiley: And that all panels be consistent is size, no less than 16 inches. Is that what you said? Mr. Taormina: Except for the top panel. Ms. Smiley: And that they be split not more than once. What's the correct wording on that Ashley? Ms. Vartoogian: Whatever Mark says. Mr. Taylor: To the petitioner, it may be a good idea for you to give the City Council another rendering of the while background changing it the way the sign will actually appear. This is going to be a little confusing to what's going on. Mr. Goodreau: I will be meeting with Mike tomorrow morning actually so I'll go over this with him. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou. Mr. Taormina: The other condition that we discussed was the maximum letter height at eight inches. What that does is provide some white space on the lop and the bottom of each of the panels. One thing we don't want to have is it crowded. Mr. Morrow: You want uniformity. Mr. Taormina: Yes. Exactly. Ms. Smiley: That's fine with me. Mr. Taylor? Mr. Taylor: That's fine. That's why he's the planner. Mr. Morrow: Could we have the roll call please. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, Taylor, Scheel, Vartoogian, Morrow NAYES: McDermott, Wilshaw ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. May 11, 2010 25319 ITEM #6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 994" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 994`' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on March 30, 2010. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-33-2010 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 994" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on March 30, 2010, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following AYES: Taylor, Scheel, McDermott, Varloogian, Wilshaw, Smiley, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 995" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on May 11, 2010, was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman