HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2007-03-06MINUTES OF THE 940° REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, March 6, 2007, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 940"' Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive,
Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order a17:30 p.m.
Members present: William LaPine Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow
Carol A. Smiley Ian Wilshaw John Walsh
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were
also present.
Chairman Walsh 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 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 2007-01-08-02 D'ORAZIO CONTRACTING
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Pefition 2007-01-
08-02 submitted by D'Orazio Contracting requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct an office building on
properties at 18421 through 18491 Farmington Road, located
on the west side of Farmington Road between Pickford Avenue
and Curtis Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 9.
March 6, 2007
23873
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to construct an office
building on property located on the west side of Farmington
Road between Curtis Road and Pickford Avenue. The subject
property consists of Lots 133 through 139, plus the adjacent
vacated alley, of the Seven Mile Super Highway Subdivision.
The overall total size of the site is 0.38 acres in area, with 140
feel of frontage along Farmington Road by 120 feet of depth.
The subject site is currently vacant. Adjacent to the west is R-3,
One Family Residential, zoned properties that contain single-
family homes fronting on Filmore Avenue. To the south is a
City -owned parcel, also zoned R-3, the westerly portion of which
is affected by an open drain that is associated with an enclosed
storm sewer that is a branch of Livonia Drain #20. Further
south is the Curtis Creek Apartments, which are zoned R-7,
Multiple Family Residential. Immediately north of and adjacent
to the subject property, at the southwest comer of Farmington
Road and Pickford Avenue, is property zoned OS, Office
Services, that contains an office building for an AAA Insurance
agency. Directly to the east, across Farmington Road, are OS
zoned districts that contain the site of the Woodcraft Office
Building and another parcel containing a medical clinic. The
subject site is in the process of being rezoned from R3 (One
Family Residential) to OS (Office Services). The Planning
Commission, after holding a public hearing on July 25, 2006,
recommended approving the requested rezoning. Following a
public hearing, the City Council gave First Reading on the
requested rezoning at its October 11, 2006, Regular Meeting.
Second Reading and a Roll Call Vole are scheduled at the time
the site plan is presented to the Council for action. The site plan
shows that the proposed office building would be one-story in
height with a gross floor area of 4,030 square feet. The
proposed building would be positioned on the south half of the
property with parking available to the north. The minimum
required side yard setback for a building in an OS district is 15'
feet when abutting residential. The proposed building is shown
right next to the south property line, at a zero setback. The
adjacent property to the south is zoned residential (R-3).
Because the proposed office building would be deficient in side
yard setback, a variance would be required from the Zoning
Board of Appeals. All other setback requirements are mel.
Access to the site would be by a single drive off Farmington
Road. Storm water runoff for this site would be handled
underground. The plan shows and notes a storm water
detention easement under the yard between the proposed
building and Farmington Road. Seventeen parking spaces are
required, and they are providing 17 spaces, so they meeting the
parking requirement. All parking spaces would conform to the
Zoning Ordinance, which requires all parking spaces to be a
March 6, 2007
23874
minimum 10 feet in width by 20 feel in length. Required
landscaping is not less than 15% of the total site, and they are
providing landscaping on 36% of the site, so they meet the
landscape requirement. Because this site borders residential
along both the west and south property lines, a screening wall
or greenbelt would be required along these areas. The
petitioner is requesting approval to substitute a permanent
greenbelt in lieu of the prolective wall along the west property
line. The greenbelt would meet the minimum requirement of
being 10 feel in width. It would be landscaped with a 2-1/2 to 3
foot bene. The berm would be landscaped with a row of spruce
trees. With the proposed building being right on the south
property line the required width of a greenbelt cannot be
established. Along this properly line the petitioner would have
the options of either erecting a wall, obtaining a temporary
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals or receiving consent
from the adjacent residential property owner(s) to waive the
wall. The proposed building would be constructed out of a
combination brick, split face block and dryvil. The north, south
and east elevations would have a 3 fool high split -face block
base. The upper faction of these elevations would be brick with
a decorative dryvil cornice along the roofline. Mulfi-pane
windows would be incorporated throughout. The west elevation
would have the brick band across the lop portion of the building
and the decorative dryvil cornice. The two brick columns, one
near each comer, would be incorporated. The rest of the
elevation would be split -face block. The one-story structure
would have a maximum height, measured from the finished
grade to the highest peak, of approximately 19' feet.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, is there any correspondence for the record?
Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 6, 2007, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time. The drive approach
and the detention facilities will require the approval of Wayne
County. The 36" Water Main is a transmission main and cannot
be tapped. The tap should be made to the 12" Main on the east
side of Farmington Road. The property description contains
some minor emors and should read as follows. Lots 133
through 139, also the east X of the adjacent vacated alley, also
the west 1/2 of the vacated alley adjacent to lots 181 and 182 of
the 'Seven Mile Super Highway Subdivision' as recorded in
Liber 53, Page 540, etc. The boundary of the property should
not include the west 'h of the alley south of lot 181." The letter
is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second
March 6, 2007
23875
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February
5, 2007, which reads as follows: `This office has reviewed the
site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an
office building on properties located at the above -referenced
addresses. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter
is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Inspection Department, dated February 9, 2007, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 31,
2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) As drawn, this petition will need a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient side
yard setback. On the south side. 15 feet is required abutting a
residential district, 0 feet is provided. (2) Then; does not appear
to be the required protective wall along the west and south
property lines. Portions of this could possibly be accomplished
by a greenbelt sufficient to buffer the residential property
completed to the Commission's and/or Council's satisfaction.
(3) There are issues with a proposed basement and
requirements therefore which will be addressed by this
Department at time of plan review. In any case, a basement
use would be limited to stooge or mechanical room use. This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That
is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for staff before we go to the petitioner?
Mr. Morrow:
The south wall that has zero setback, is there some kind of
drainage or easement that abuts that south property line?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. The drainage easement actually occurs on the adjacent
property to the south and which is vacant property. There is an
effort currently underway for the abutting property owner to the
west to acquire that parcel from the City and then split it off.
This petitioner is actually in negotiations to possibly purchase
what would be the easterly portion of that site, which is
immediately south of the building, in which case it would resolve
the issue as far as the deficient setback.
Mr. Morrow:
So the parties are aware of the zero setback?
Mr. Taormina:
They are. In the interim, however, it would require a variance,
and as Mr. Miller pointed out, either the consent of the adjoining
property owner, which is the city in this case, or a variance for
the prolective wall or construction of the wall itself. But I don't
think building the wall is likely in any case.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you.
March 6, 2007
23876
Mr. La Pine:
One of the objections to the new plan is the west wall because it
is solid face brick. Now he's going to have brick about 3 feet. Is
that approximately?
Mr. Taormina:
Scott has just put up the revised west elevation. This would be
the side of the building that is facing west towards the
residential structure. As you can see, the back of the building
has no windows. It has brick on the upper parts of the facade.
There are some column elements on either side of the building,
and then you can see where it's referencing the split face block,
which makes up probably a majority of the back side of the
building.
Mr. La Pine:
Now, will the berm be in front of this?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, the berm would separate the house from the back of this
building, so ilwould provide some screening.
Mr. La Pine:
So when the trees are matured, they would cover most of this
split face block.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. Al lead from the view of the residential structure, that is
correct. You can actually see they've shaded in approximately
where those trees would be. If you're traveling either north or
south on Farmington Road and you can see the return of the
building, you can see how they've added some brick right
around the corners so that should at least give the appearance
from those vantage points that the structure is all brick.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Sam Baki, 20321 Shadyside, Livonia, Michigan. I'm appearing on behalf of the
petitioner since he had another meeting in Westland for site
plan. I'm here to answer any questions. I am fully aware of
everything going on on this site because I represent actually the
owner who is selling the land to the petitioner. So I'm working
with both parties to keep things moving. It's like Mr. Taormina
mentioned about the property on the south side that the city
owns. The owners of the adjacent property, which is the existing
owner and Mr. D'Orazio is going to end up acquiring the land
together. Mr. D'Omzio will get the land further east, which is off
of Farmington so he can be adjacent to this property. This way
he will not be deficient, but as the commissioners are aware of,
until that happens, we know we're going to need the waiver use
unless we acquire that land from the city.
Mr. Walsh:
Very good. Are there any questions forlhe petitioner?
March 6, 2007
23877
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Baki, when Mr. D'Orazio was here during our study session,
one of the questions I asked him was, I haven't seen a coloring
rendering of the building. So I just assume that's what I see on
these plans. But one of the questions I had was, is this building
going to be similar to the building he has on Farmington Road
just north of Five Mile Road? He told me it was going to be
almost identical exceplfor a few changes.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Baki, if you can come over to the footprints. Thank you.
Mr. Baki: As you see, you have the south elevation that is brick and
scored block mixed.
Mr. La Pine On the building he has on Farmington Road, there's like a little
porch on the front where you go in. Is that on this plan?
Mr.
Baki:
There is a porch right here.
Mr.
LaPine:
Is that on the side or is that on the front like the other one?
Mr.
Baki:
Its in the front corner.
Mr.
LaPine:
Front corner. Okay.
Mr.
Baki:
Technically, let's see. East, it's on this side, so it is on the front
corner. You have east and north. That's where it's at. So it is
on the corner of the office building.
Mr.
LaPine:
It was my understanding that he is going to be moving into this
building. Is that correct?
Mr.
Baki:
Yes, he is.
Mr.
LaPine:
And he's going to be rentlng out whatever space he has in the
other building?
Mr.
Baki:
Yes.
Mr.
LaPine:
And he's going to be the only tenant in here as far as you know?
Mr.
Baki:
So far. I don't think he's going to occupy the whole building.
He's going to lease out some more space to whoever he has
available.
Mr.
LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
March 6, 2007
23878
Ms. Smiley:
That west wall . ..is there some reason why there's not a
window in the whole back?
Mr. Baki:
The west wall?
Ms. Smiley:
Yes.
Mr. Baki:
This is the back wall that backs into the neighboring property.
There is residential in the back.
Ms. Smiley:
There's not a window in the whole west elevation?
Mr. Baki:
No. At this time no. They didn't put any. Sometimes they don't
do that if it backs into residential.
Ms. Smiley:
If I were the resident behind that, that would just look like a wall
to me as opposed to a building. To me it's not very attractive.
Mr. Baki:
I understand.
Ms. Smiley:
Maybe that's just a matter of taste, but I ... and you could get
the sun in the afternoon. It might be nice b have a couple
windows there.
Mr. Baki:
Sure. I mean I can suggest it to Mr. D'Orazio. We can suggest
R to him.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I see there's only one entrance door to the building. Are there
any other doors on this building at all?
Mr. Baki:
Al this time, they are showing one entrance, but I know they're
going to have another entrance on the north side, on the
northwest comer, which is closer to the parking lot. They will
have an exit door, but this is going to the main entrance.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. And that's not shown on the plan?
Mr. Baki:
They are showing two entrances almost at the comers.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. And do you have material samples of this brick at all, or
just the color diagram?
Mr. Baki:
No,justthe colordiagmm.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. That's fairly representative of what we're going to see on
the actual building?
Mr. Baki:
Yes.
March 6, 2007
23879
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. I agree with Commissioner Smiley that I think the west
elevafion is making improvements but sti l has a little bit ways to
go.
Mr. Baki:
I agree with her too, and if it were me, I would put some
windows. If the commissioners would like to see some
windows, I can . its not going to be hard to add a few
windows in the back, at lead three windows in the back of the
building. That's not a problem.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I would think a couple windows and maybe a couple more of
those brick columns would be quite nice.
Mr. Baki:
I don't think that should be a problem with modification for the
plans.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, he mentioned there are two entrances. The two
entrances on the original plan, I just looked at them, and I
couldn't see them.
Mr. Taormina:
If you look at the floor plan, the main entrance is shown on the
top left part of the drawing, and then what would be the
northwest comer of the building where the staircase is shown, it
denotes another ingress/egress point to the building. The plan
does show two entrances.
Mr. LaPine:
Which leads us to believe there will be tenants in this building.
Mr. Taormina:
I think there's a likelihood that it will probably be divided into
more than one tenant, and that door may have to be adjusted
based on code requirements and where the demising wall is for
the tenants.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
would be in order.
On a motion by
Smiley, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#03-18-2007
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-01-08-02,
submitted by D'Orazio Contracting, requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct an office building on
properties at 18421 through 18491 Farmington Road, located
March 6, 2007
23880
on the west side of Farmington Road between Pickford Avenue
and Curtis Road in the Northeast'''/ of Section 9, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated November 13,
2006, prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Planting Plan marked LP -1 dated
March 6, 2007, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
3. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the lop of the root ball to the mid -point ofthe top leader;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5. 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;
6. That the landscaped greenbelt along the west property
line, as shown on the approved Landscape Planting Plan,
is hereby accepted and shall be substituted for the
prolective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
7. That any change of circumstances in the area containing
the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelts
effectiveness as a prolective barrier, the owner of the
property shall be required to submit such changes to the
Planning Commission for their review and approval or
immediately construct the protective wall pursuant to
Section 18.45;
8. That for the south property line, the petitioner shall have
the option of either erecting a protective wall immediately,
going to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a temporary wall
variance or seeking the consent of the abutting property
owner(s);
9. Thatthe Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-1
dated January 25, 2007, prepared by GAV Associates, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that the
petitioner shall work with staff to revise the exterior west
March 6, 2007
23881
elevation of the building by adding windows and increasing
the percentage of brick;
10. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face
four (4") inch brick;
11. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
12. That the three walls of the trash dumpsler area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building and the enclosure gates shall be of steel
construction and maintained and when not in use closed at
all times;
13. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary perils,
including storm water management permits, wetlands
permits and soil erosion and sedimentation control permits,
from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the Slate of
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality;
14. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20') feel in
height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize
stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring
into adjacent roadway;
15. That the petitioner shall correct to the Engineering
Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the
correspondence dated February 6, 2007;
16. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient
building setback and any conditions related thereto;
17. 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;
18. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site, including but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
March 6, 2007
23882
19. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
al the time the building permits are applied for; and,
20. 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. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Ms. Smiley: Should we add something about adding some windows to the
back of the building?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. That the petitioner shall work with staff to revise the west
elevation of the building to include the addition of windows and
full brick.
Mr. Walsh, 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 2007-01-08-03 EMBASSY SUITES
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
01-08-03 submitted by Constantine George Pappas, on behalf
of Embassy Suites Hotel, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a new fitness center to
the hotel at 19525 Victor Parkway, on property located on the
west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile Road and
Pembroke Avenue in the Southeast % of Section 9.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to construct a fitness
center addition to the Embassy Suites Hotel. This hotel is
located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile
Road and Pembroke Avenue. Running adjacent to the west of
the hotel is the 4275/96 Expressway. To the south is a large
vacant piece of property that is zoned PO, High Rise
Professional Office. Further south are the Lone Star Restaurant
and Doc's Sports Retreat, both zoned G2, General Business.
To the north are PO zoned properties that contain the Victor
Park West office building and the Valassis building. Across the
street, on the east side of Victor Parkway, are PO zoned
March 6, 2007
23883
properties that consist of the 3M Building and another multi -
tenant office building. Embassy Suites is five stories in height
and approximately 56,180 square feet in size. The proposed
addition would be 912 square feet in area and added to the east
(facing Vidor Parkway) elevation. According to the submitted
floor plan, the addition would allow the hotel's guest fitness
center to be enlarged. The existing fitness center is presently
only approximately 224 square feel in size. The proposed
addition would occupy an area that is currently utilized as an
outdoor patio and provides an exterior entrance to the indoor
pool. Because of the displacement of the patio area, a rew
outdoor courtyard would be created within a space just north of
the addition. The proposed fitness center is considered an
accessory use of the hotel and does not increase the number of
required parking spaces. Parking for hotels is based on the
number of guest rooms. The elevation plan indicates that the
addition would be constructed out of masonry that would match
the existing hotel. The north elevation of the addition would
have large windows and a glass door so that the inside of the
fitness center would be visible from the new outside courtyard.
The one-story addition would have a maximum height of 14 feel.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 5, 2007, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above-refemnced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February 5, 2007,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition
to the hotel located at 19525 Victor Parkway. We have no
objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C.
Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated February 8, 2007, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of January 31, 2007, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
Parking conditions have not been reviewed as this addition does
not increase the occupant load or parking requirements. This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That
is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening.
March 6, 2007
23884
Constantine George Pappas, 560 Kirls Blvd., Suite 116, Troy, Michigan 48084.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am the architect for Embassy
Suites Hotel. With me today is Mr. Jay Haratsis, General
Manager of the hotel. We're here to answer any questions that
you may have. I did want to mention one small item as a Iasi
minute change, and Mr. Haratsis will pass the model by so you
can see it. We would like to extend a small little canopy roof
over the door of the existing stairs that is there, such that if
anybody is coming out of that stair, at least it's a slight covered
canopy in that area. You'll see that represented on the model.
Unfortunately, it was a very last minute change and we didn't
have the opportunity to resubmit it to the Planning Department.
The majority of the exterior material will match the existing
facility. We have a sample, although what we have not brought,
you'll notice what is there is a 8 by 16 scored unit. We will be
matching that 8 by 16 scored unit. This is a representation of
the color that happens to be the exact brick that is on the hotel
itself.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Seeing
none, this seems to be pretty straightforward. Thank you for the
explanation.
Mr. Pappas:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
would be in order.
Mr. LaPine:
I'll make a motion. Before I do, I'd just like to say to Embassy
Suites, I was here when Dave Johnson first developed that land.
Embassy Suites came in and built that building. For a number
of years you had a rough, rough time. A number of limes we
didn't think the Embassy Suites was going to make it, but you
hung in there. When I go by there everyday, I'm just amazed at
the amount of business you're cling there. I assume you're
doing well. I, for one, am glad that you hung in there because
@'s really an asset to the city. Lel me tell you, you did a good
job on it and you hung in there. You must be doing an excellent
job or else you wouldn't be doing the business you're doing.
Jay Haratsis,
19525 Victor Parkway, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Thank you, and I
also want to thank the community of Livonia. We can't do it
without the community, needless to say. And certainly you have
supported us in many, many ways through many of the
organizations in the city. We appreciate it and cannot thank you
enough for everything you do for us.
March 6, 2007
23885
Mr. La Pine: We're glad to have you. We're hoping to gel the vacant land to
the south of you developed, and then you'll have more
business.
Mr. Haratsis: Yeah, but then l can't work on my golf game.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, 0
was
#03-19-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-01-08-03
submitted by Constantine George Pappas, on behalf of
Embassy Suites Hotel, requesting approval of all plans required
by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct a new fitness center to the hotel at 19525
Victor Parkway, on property located on the west side of Victor
Parkway between Seven Mile Road and Pembroke Avenue in
the Southeast I/ of Section 9, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet At dated January 27,
2007, as revised, prepared by Constantine George
Pappas, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That a small canopy roof over the door of the existing stairs
is hereby approved;
3. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet A3 dated January
27, 2007, as revised, prepared by Constantine George
Pappas, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the lop of the root ball to the mid -point ofthe top leader;
5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
6. 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;
7. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A2
dated January 27, 2007, as revised, prepared by
Constantine George Pappas, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
March 6, 2007
23886
8. That the building materials used in the construction shall
match that of the existing hotel;
9. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
10. 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,
11. 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 date 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. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. La Pine: Now, Mr. Chairman, I think we have to add in there about the
canopy addition. Does that have to be added in there, Mark,
that little piece they're putting over the stairs?
Mr. Taormina: We'll actually modify Condition 1.
Mr. La Pine: So the Council will know that we approved that.
Mr. Walsh, 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 2007-01-08-04 MT. HOPE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
01-08-04 submitted by Mt. Hope Congregational Church
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an
activities building at 30330 Schoolcrett Road, on property
located on the north side of SchoolcraR Road between
Middlebell Road and Hillcrest Avenue in the Southeast % of
Section 23.
Mr. Miller: Ml. Hope Congregational Church is requesting approval to
construct an activities building on its property, which is located
March 6, 2007
23887
on the north side of Schoolcreff Road between Middlebell Road
and Hillcrest Avenue. Adjacent to the west is the Henry Ruff
Road right-of-way. This section of roadway does not actually
exist along the church's property line; it is only a "paper street'
between Schoolcraff Road and where it actually starts just north
of Ml. Hope. A "paper street" is a street that is depicted on
paper subdivision maps but was never actually built. South of
the church is the F96 Expressway. Abutting along the north are
residential homes that front on Buckingham Avenue. These
houses are part of the Lyndon Meadows Subdivision No. 3.
Immediately to the east is a large residential lot with a single
house located on it. The proposed activities building would be
located behind the church, straight back from the existing
parking lot. Presenfly in the general location where the
proposed building is to be constructed is a structure that looks
to be a house. Access to the new activities building would be by
way of a concrete walk off the northern edge of the parking lot.
The proposed building would be one-story in height and 6,795
square feel in size. According to the submitted floor plan, the
proposed building would provide the church with a gymnasium,
a couple of classrooms, a kitchen area, a stage, his and her
bathrooms and some storage rooms. The proposed activities
building is considered an accessory use of the church and does
not increase the number of required parking spaces. Parking
for churches is based on the number of seals in the main
assembly area. The proposed building would be constructed
out of decorative concrete masonry and have very modest
entranceways. According to the petitioner, the colors of the
proposed building would match that of the existing church. The
acflvities building would be one-story and have a maximum
height of 28 feel, measured from the finished grade to the
highest peak.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 6, 2007, which reads
as follows: 7n accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time. The owner should
contact Wayne County to determine if any detention will be
required for this development. There are water mains in
Schoo/craft and Henry Ruff Roads to serve this building and
there are sanitary sewers in Schoolcraft Road and adjacent to
the North property line to serve the building. The existing 6"
private sewer on the site is not shown on the plan. We
recommend that consideration be given to installing a small
diameter storm sewer to pick up the drainage from the two
March 6, 2007
23888
swales around the building. This will provide a more positive
outlet" The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department,
dated February 8, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request of January 31, 2007, the above -referenced petition
has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Although this
Petitioner's plans state the sanctuary and gymnasium will not be
occupied simultaneously, that could change in the future and at
that time the parking would be deficient. The Commission
and/or Council may wish to consider land banking the 55
deficient parking spaces. (2) All parking spaces should be
double striped. (3) A recycling binkrontainer, not noted in the
plans, is located in the northeast comer of the parking lot The
Commission and/or Council may wish to address this. (4) There
are several issues that are a concern that will be further
addressed at this Department's plan review should the project
move forward. (a) Then= does not appear to be barrier free
access to the stage. (b) The kitchen will be subject to a plan
review and is not treated as a residential kitchen. (c) Occupant
load, egress and type of classroom for classrooms both
designated as number 1. (d) Other code issues such as storage
room, fixture count, etc. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for staff before we go to the petitioner?
Seeing none, we'll go to the petitioner here this evening?
Michael Boggio, Michael Boggio & Associates, 30100 Telegraph, Suite 216,
Bingham Farms, Michigan 48024. 1 have with me from the
church Mr. Robert Labell, he's a member of the Board of
Trustees. At the study meeting, we had a color board, a
material board. Pretty much what we're going to do is we're
going to match the existing colors of the church. We'll just put
some accent color in. If you guys have any questions with
regards to the materials, I'd be more than happy to answer
them. With regards a couple of these responses from Mr. John
Hill, I discussed this project with John Hill, Assistant City
Engineer. I've been working with him and I'm letting him know
that with anything in regard to utilities, we're just lying right in to
the existing utilities that are already on the site. So we're not
doing any tapping in the right-of-way or anything like that. With
regards to Alex Bishop's letter, I remember loo kind of
apologizing a little bit with regard to the double striped parking
spaces. The parking lot was just resurfaced and restriped within
the last six months. So I know the church is pretty adamant
March 6, 2007
23889
about not having to do that again. I don't know if there's any
comments from the Planning Commission that can resolve this.
Mr. Walsh:
Why don't you go ahead with your report and we'll ask some
questions and we may adjust that.
Mr. Boggio:
Item 3, the recycling bin container - you know, it's just the
church doing their duty as earth friendly and recycling, but if it
becomes an issue, they'll be more than happy to gel rid of R.
The other four items with regards to building code issues, I'll
work that out with Alex Bishop and those will all be up to code.
It will be ADA accessible, and the kitchen is going to be a staff
lounge. That type of stuff will be worked out with Alex Bishop
and the Building Department.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Morrow:
Getting back to the parking lot, the restriping that you did. Are
the spaces 10 fool by 20 foot size?
Mr. Boggio:
They following the existing striping. I wasn't involved at that
time, but we did have this discussion with the Trustees. What
they basically did was they resurfaced the parking lot, and then
just matched the existing parking spaces that were on site.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, as one commissioner, I'm glad you resurfaced the lot.
From my standpoint, as long as it's a church and the people
there are members or attending, it's not really open to the public
other than the people that perhaps come occasionally. So as
one commissioner, I wouldn't want to burden the church with
having to redo the striping, but I would ask that you make a note
that the next time it comes due that you try to conform to our
standard.
Mr. Boggio:
We'd be more than happy to.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm just one commissioner. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
The letter from the Engineering Division and one of the things
they talked about: 'We recommend that consideration be given
to installing a small diameter storm sewer to pick up the
drainage from the two males around the building." Are you
going to do that?
Mr. Boggio:
I'm trying to remember the swales. The males around the new
building ... if lheyre looking for a yard drain, like I said, I'll work
with John Hill on that. And if they request a yard drain or they
suggest it, we'd be more than happy to put it in.
March 6, 2007
23890
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. As long as we have that understanding. The other
question I have is, at the present time, the new addition .. . and
maybe the gentleman from the church can answer this question
... its going to be used for a gymnasium, basically. Now, from
experience, the church I belong to, a number of years ago we
built a gymnasium. Over a period of time, we lost all our young
people and all us old-timers are there now. The point is, then
we had to take the gymnasium and we put in a full kitchen, and
we use the gymnasium as a hall to rent out for weddings,
dinners, and things of that nature. Would you be willing to
maybe ... well, let me ask you this: I believe you have enough
parking at that location that if you did do that, you could put in
additional parking to take care of that situation if it should arise.
Is that correct?
Mr. Boggio:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
And you'd be willing to do that?
Mr. Boggio:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
In that case, you would have to do it if you want to get the
parties. Okay. That's all.
Mr. LaBell:
We already have an existing activities center, an existing
fellowship hall, which we put in recently and was designed for
that purpose. If we ever change the use from just an ancillary
building -type use, we would be happy to put in more parking.
Mr. LaPine:
You'll find as time goes by that your gymnasium may not be
used as much as when it first starts out. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional comments? Thank you, gentlemen. Is
there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
would be in order.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#03-20-2007
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-01-08-04,
submitted by Mt. Hope Congregational Church, requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an
activities building at 30330 SchoolcmR Road, on property
located on the north side of SchoolcraR Road between
March 6, 2007
23891
Middlebell Road and Hillcrest Avenue in the Southeast % of
Section 23, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet A-1 dated January 23,
2007, as revised, prepared by Michael A. Boggio
Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LS -1 dated
January 23, 2007, as revised, prepared by Michael A.
Boggio Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
3. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point ofthe top leader;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5. 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;
6. Thatthe Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-3
dated January 23, 2007, as revised, prepared by Michael
A. Boggio Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
7. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
8. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary permits,
including storm water management permits, wetlands
permits and soil erosion and sedimentation control permits,
from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the State of
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality;
9. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the following items outlined in the
correspondence dated February 8, 2007;
- That the recycling bin/container located in the northeast
corner ofthe parking lot shall be removed;
March 6, 2007
23892
That the following issues shall be addressed at the
Inspection Department's plan review:
(a) Barrier free access to the stage;
(b) The kitchen will be subject to a plan review and
is not treated as a residential kitchen;
(c) Occupant load, egress and type of classroom for
classrooms both designated as number 1; and
(d) Other code issues such as storage room, fixture
count, etc.
10. This site shall be exempt from double striping the parking
lot until such time as site requires restriping;
11. That the petitioner shall correct to the Engineering
Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the
correspondence dated February 6, 2007;
12. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
al the time the building permits are applied for; and,
13. pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is vald 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. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Morrow: As part of my motion, I would like to exempt them from the
double -striping until such time as it again calls for restriping.
Mr. Wilshaw: The motion refers to correcting the Engineering Division's water,
which is the small diameter storm sewer, which the petitioner
seemed to indicate wasn't necessary. Do we need to adjust
that?
Mr. Walsh: I think the petitioner indicated that he had been working with Mr.
Hill, and if it was necessary, they would do the drain.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that we had that clear.
March 6, 2007
23893
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resoluton.
ITEM#4 PETITION 2007-02-08-05 LIVONIA DTASSOC.
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
02-08-05 submitted by Livonia DT Associates requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior
of a portion of the commercial shopping center (Buckingham
Village) located at 27650 SchoolcmR Road, on property located
on the north side of SchoolcraR Road between Inkster Road and
Cardwell Avenue in the Southeast % of Section 24.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to renovate the exterior of
one of the units of the Buckingham Village Shopping Center.
This center is located on the north side of SchoolcraR Road
between Inkster Road and Cardwell Avenue. A Frank's Nursery
store was the most recent occupant of the subject unit.
Bordering along the north and west of the shopping center are
residential homes that are part of the Buckingham Village
Subdivision No. 2. Properties to the east, across Inkster Road,
are part of Redford Township. Directly south of the shopping
center is the 1-96 Expressway. The entire shopping center
property is a total of 7.53 acres in size, with approximately 1,000
feet of frontage along SchoolcmR Road by 367 feel of depth or
frontage along Inkster Road. Buckingham Village is made up of
over 20 units, with some storefronts facing SchoolcraR Road
and others facing in the direction of Inkster Road. Even though
this entire development is considered as one large shopping
center, the site is split up into a number of separate parcels of
land. Each parcel is under different ownership and can contain
one or more units. Because the various owners, sections of the
center have been renovated independently. Each individually
owned section has a distinctive architectural look. The subject
renovation involves the entire westerly 275 feel of the center.
The subject unit is 18,000 square feel in size and faces
SchoolcraR Road. It is separated from the rest of the center by
an open outdoor nursery area. The petitioner plans on
eliminating this nursery area and replacing it with parking.
When Frank's Nursery utilized this property, they occupied the
entire unit. The submitted floor plan illustrates that the petitioner
is planning on subdividing the existing unit into three sub -tenant
spaces. The main remodeling of the unit would take place on
the front or south elevation. The storefront would have a 3 fool
March 6, 2007
23894
high base of scored split face block. The upper fraction of this
elevation would be a decorative dryvit material with a
prefnished metal cornice along the roofine. The one-story
structure would have a maximum height 24 feel.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 2, 2007, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above-referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February 5, 2007,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to renovate part of the
exterior (former Frank's Nursery) of the shopping centerlocated
at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
February 8, 2007, which reads as follows: We have reviewed
the plans in connection with The Klein Group, LLC in connection
with building renovation located at 27650 Schoolcraft. 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
February 9, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of February 1, 2007, the above-referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The existing non-
conforming pole sign does not appear to be correctly located on
the drawing. The Commission and/or Council may wish to
address this non-conforming pole sign. (2) The concrete
protective wall along the west and north property lines has
areas of failure and/or disrepair. The south end needs to be
replaced with the 10 feet north of the property line being 3 feet
tall. The third panel from the north end is broken. The balance
of the wall should be assessed by a professional engineer
(acceptable to the City) as to its continued viability and/or
replacement. (3) All barrier free parking shall be located
nearest and dispersed at the front entrances with proper
ramping as needed. (4) Ninety six spaces (10' x 20) are
required for this site and 103 are provided. Five spaces must
be barrier free. All spaces are to be double striped and property
sized. (5) The dumpster location as proposed will not work.
Trucks and vehicles will not be able to safely navigate that
corner. (6) All graffiti should be removed from the protective
wall. (7) The gas meter existing on the north wall must be
protected with two bollards of substantial size. (8) The roof
March 6, 2007
Mr. Neuland: We went out and took some measurements of the existing sign,
and it's roughly 30 feet tall and 20 feet in length. We talked to
our prospective tenant about that. They would like to see as
much height as we possibly can have, and we have brought the
tenant representative with us this evening. We kind of went out
there and looked at it, drove up and down 96. We are willing to
reduce the actual overall square footage of that sign; however,
we'd like to try and keep as much height on that sign as we
23895
drains and scuppers appear to be in disrepair and will need to
be made fully functional per current code. (9) The required off
street loading space is not detailed. (10) The bathrooms must
not be located in a stock room and be fully accessible to the
public. This Department has no further objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director
of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Andy Neuland,
The Klein Group, L.L.C., 89 W. Chicago, Coldwater, Michigan
49036. I'm representing the prospective landlord, and with me
this evering is Russ Hire, representing the prospective tenant.
We are here to answer any questions you may have. Most of
the comments that were just discussed here or read from the
Inspection Department have been addressed on the new site
plan, which has been submitted. So many of those details have
already been addressed and will be going away. That being
stated, we'll answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Are there any questions?
Mr. Wilshaw:
The new site plan indicates that the dumpsler enclosure is going
to be a wood fence enclosure. Typically, we ask for a brick or
masonry enclosure.
Mr. Neuland:
Okay. That is not an issue. Typically, a lot of the new
construction that we do, we can go either way just depending on
the municipality that we're addressing. So some sort of
masonry block to match the exterior of that building would not
be a problem for us.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Yes. I, as one commissioner, would like to see it match the
building and also have a steel gate.
Mr. Neuland:
We had noted that from a previous petitioner.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The only other issue I have is the pole sign. Is that still
mandatory that you have this 24 foot pole sign?
Mr. Neuland: We went out and took some measurements of the existing sign,
and it's roughly 30 feet tall and 20 feet in length. We talked to
our prospective tenant about that. They would like to see as
much height as we possibly can have, and we have brought the
tenant representative with us this evening. We kind of went out
there and looked at it, drove up and down 96. We are willing to
reduce the actual overall square footage of that sign; however,
we'd like to try and keep as much height on that sign as we
March 6, 2007
23896
possible can. Headed westbound on 96, there's very little
exposure to that center unless that sign is there. So the sign,
that is a big deal for this project here to make it functional for us.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I see that the revised sign, which is currently on the screen
there, shows three panels. Besides Dollar Tree being
advertised on there, what are the other two panels for?
Mr. Neuland:
That building is actually going to be divided up into three tenant
spaces, and currently those two other spaces have not been
leased out.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. All right. That's it for me.
Mr. La Pine:
I was the one that brought up the sign at the Iasi meeting, and
I'm still not happy with the height of the sign. Do you honestly
believe that sign being visible from the expressway, that people
are going to drive by and say, "Oh, there's a Dollar Tree. I'm
going to get off the next exit and go to the store" I don't believe
that. We already have a Dollar General there. They don't have
a big sign out there. I dont know how they're doing. I have no
idea. But it seems to me that we dont need a sign that large.
I'd be willing to compromise if you knock it down another five
feet and make it 15 feet high instead of 20, but to have that big
sign out there because you believe, and you may have some
data that backs you up, that it's going to cause people on the
expressway to get off and go there, it's hard for me to believe,
because we've got a number of these stores throughout the city,
and none of them have any big signs. We have one at Five Mile
and Middlebelt; we have one on Merriman and Five Mile Road;
and none have any big sign. So I think dollar stores generally
cater to say people in an area of three to four miles around the
center. Now maybe you can convince me otherwise, but at this
point, that's my feeling.
Mr. Neuland:
I'd like to have Russ address that.
Russ Hire:
I'm the Real Estate Manager for the Dollar Tree stores, and my
role in this particular site is identifying the real estate and
presenting it to my real estate committee for approval. I can
assure you that this, for Dollar Tree anyways, this is a very
untraditional type of location in that it's hard to access. You've
got a one-way. Its a difficult location, and I can tell you that we
would not have approved this location without this sign. These
are some of the pictures that I actually showed my real estate
committee, and I highly emphasized that pylon sign in my real
estate presentation. Without that sign, number one, I don't
know that I would have taken the deal to my real estate
March 6, 2007
23897
committee in the first place, and I can tell you for sure it would
not have gotten approved without that sign. I understand what
you're saying, does the sign mean that customers will come in.
Maybe, maybe not. But I can tell you that it would not have
gotten through without that sign.
Mr. LaPine:
That may be true. I take you for your word. But as one
commissioner, I still don't believe that big sign is going to draw
customers off the highway. I mean I just dont believe it. I can
see your point because you're on the expressway and you have
Schooksaft west one way and then the other side goes east. It
probably could be seen from the east side better than from
people going west, but that doesn't change my posifion. We
have tried to lower every large sign in the city that comes before
us when a developer is changing the complex or something like
that. We want lower signs. We don't want these big signs
standing there. From my years of experience, once I lel you
have a large sign, then the guy up the street builds a building
and oh, I have to be higher than this guy because I got to be
able to see over the lop of him, and then we end up having a
step-up type of signs. You've probably seen that.
Mr. Neuland:
No, and I completely understand. In this case, we're actually
agreeing to reduce what is already there.
Mr. LaPine:
I grant you and, to be honest with you, I wasn't here when that
sign was approved. I can't talk to the fact as to why it went up
that high. If I would have been there, I would have voted
against it, but that's my personal opinion. I don't see where
lowering it another five feet is going to hurt it, but I'm only one
vote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Morrow:
Continuing the same subject, you had indicated you might
possibly reduce the height of that sign.
Mr. Neuland:
The existing height of it right now is actually 30 feet. There are
two support posts there, its 20 feel tall, and then the existing
sign on lop of that is another 10. What we have proposed is
actually to lower the sign 30 percenldown to about 20 feet.
Mr. Taormina:
If I can just clarify this. You'll see the photograph. The lop of
new sign as proposed would be at a point equal to the bottom of
the existing sign, and the width of the sign would not extend
beyond the area between the two poles. So Scott if you could
switch over now. That would be the lop of the new sign. Is that
accurate?
Mr. Neuland:
Yes, sir.
March 6, 2007
23898
Mr. Taormina:
And then the sign frame ... so the new box would be right in
that area that Scott is showing, if you can see that laser pointer.
And now Scott, if you can just go to the diagram that shows the
news sign. That's what it would look like, just to give you a
sense of the scale of the reduction.
Mr. Morrow:
Well continuing on with what I was saying, so if I'm reading that
correctly, its now going to be 20 feet instead of 30 feet. Is that
what I'm seeing?
Mr. Neuland:
Yes, sir. That's correct.
Mr. Morrow:
And if my memory serves me correctly, that sign is
Mr. Hire:
grandfathered in as far as having approval at one time. I feel
like Mr. LaPine; however. I guess that's one of the details that
slipped through the crack when you were making your
presentation that the city might ask you to reduce the size or the
height of the sign. My feeling is that the area certainly needs
some help, and I think if we can upgrade that particular building
and make it presentable to the city as a whole, then because
Mr. Walsh:
the main street is an expressway which is recessed, as one
Mr. LaPine:
commissioner I can go along with what I see up there.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The only comment I want to make is based on the conversation
so far I heard today about this pylon sign, and the diagram that
I've seen presented by the petitioner. I'm still not convinced that
there s a need for a pylon sign there. Lowering the sign only
further blocks visibility to other retailers in the area from a
distance. I'm not terribly impressed by any need to have that
sign remain there. I think the upgrades to the building look
excellent. I think the building itself looks excellent. I certainly
am sure that the Dollar Tree would attract customers from the
area with or without that pylon sign.
Mr. Hire:
If I may speak to that. I'll just say this. I've had the discussion
with the people on my end internally, and if that sign goes away,
we will probably not proceed, in which case he won't buy the
building. So you have to make whatever decisions you have to
make, but without that sign, if that goes away, we will probably
pull our deal off the table, in which case they won't buy the
building.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, sir. Any additional questions or comments?
Mr. LaPine:
I just want to ask Mark if anything has been done yet about
cleaning up behind that building? Mr. Morrow and I went out
there last week again. Al one time there was a Salvation Army
March 6, 2007
23899
store here, and it looks like when they moved out, they just
opened the back door and pushed all the garbage out in the
back of the building and there it lays. Has anything been done?
Have we contacted the owner of that property to get that
situation cleaned up out there?
Mr. Taormina:
I drove the alley today, to answer the first part of your question,
and the debris is still behind that store, which is not this
property.
Mr. La Pine:
I understand that.
Mr. Taormina:
So that you understand that's the responsibility of a separate
owner. Its my understanding that there's pending enforcement
action involving that and maybe other properties, and I
apologize I don't have the latest status of that.
Mr. La Pine:
Well, lel me ask you one other question. The concrete driveway
behind that building along the whole length is in bad shape. To
gel that repaired, does that mean if we require this petitioner to
fix the concrete behind his building, then we'd have to have the
other ones do it as we go along? Who would be responsible to
repave that whole thing? Its in terrible shape, and the wall
looks likes it's going to fall over in some locations.
Mr. Taormina:
Its not part of a public alley so the responsibility is bome by the
individual property owners. Yes, we could attach conditions to
the granting of this petition for any necessary repairs to the
pavement back there, but it is not going to affect the properties
further to the east. That has to be done separately. Again, that
would also be part of what's currently involved in the pending
enforcement action, but I don't know the details of all that. I
apologize.
Mr. LaPine: If I may follow up on what you just said. I want that building
renovated. No doubt about it. It's in bad shape. But I don't like
the idea of somebody telling me if we don't get what we want,
we may walk away and the building stays there, which I don't
want. I want the building up there. I'm not asking you to do loo
much here. If you lower the sign five more feel, you could gel
my vote. That's all I'm asking. I'm torn here because I know we
need to upgrade that shopping center, and if we don't do it to
you, maybe the next guy will want the sign loo. So I'm trying to
cooperate with you as much as I can. If you go down to 15 feel,
then I can buy it.
Mr. Hire: Just so you know, I'm not the final decision maker. There is a
chain of command that I follow up the line. Okay?
March 6, 2007
239W
Mr. LaPine: I understand
Mr. Hire: What I guess I would ask for is whatever conditional approval
you give, I vnll lake it up the ladder and see what they say.
Mr. LaPine: Okay.
Mr. Hire: But I will tell you that if that sign weren't there, I would not have
even taken it into my real estate committee in the first place.
That much I had control over.
Mr. LaPine: Well, it's unfortunate that you didn't check out the ordinance and
everything at the time because once a building is vacated,
basically, as I understand the ordinance, most of the variances
that were granted on that property are null and void.
Mr. Hire: I've learned since. I'll put it that way.
Ms. Smiley: I will say that before, I thought it was a billboard. Now, at least
It's starting to look like a sign, and I appreciate that you lowered
R 10 feel and that you made it smaller in size. It does look more
like a sign to me. Truthfully, I though it was a billboard, and I'm
totally against billboards. Ithink you did an excellent job on the
building.
Mr. Neuland: Thank you.
Mr. Taormina: If I may ask a question of the petitioner and possibly otter other
suggestions relative to the site plan. Scott, please put up the
site plan. The area to the east of the building where the parking
field is shown, that would be new parking provided where the
outdoor display area used to be located for the Frank's Nursery.
That area is going to be completely repaved. Would the entire
lot be repaved along with that?
Mr. Neuland: Yes. Do you mean the parking to the south as well?
Mr. Taormina: All the parking to the south, the entire parking lot. What are
your intentions in terms of improving the areas?
Mr. Neuland: To be quite honest with you, that whole east side, yes, that's all
new pavement.
Mr. Taormina: Because it has concrete now.
Mr. Neuland: All that will be demolished and removed. You know, whatever
requirement for asphalt paving would be. As for redoing what
March 6, 2007
23901
I'd call the south side or the side along SchoolcmR, the answer
is mostly likely it will be done. However, I don't want to be held
to that at this time because there's still some evaluation left on
that site to do. A good portion of that will be done because you
can see we've installed a couple landscape islands. So part of
that will be demolished. So any improvements to that parking
lot that need to be made we will make them at lhallime.
Mr. Taormina:
And another question, if I may, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Walsh:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
Regarding the amount of parking, Do you feel the parking
spaces shown on this plan are adequate or more than
adequate? I guess that would be a question first to Dollar Tree
and what their requirements normally are, but also recognizing
that you have two other potential tenant spaces in the building.
If there is excess parking, there is a provision in the ordinance
that allows for Iandbanking, so we could actually remove some
of those parking spaces, for example, along the east side of the
site adjacent to the existing building, and we could have him
provide additional landscaping in that area. Then in the event
those parking spaces are needed in the future, you could
convert those over. It's a means by which we can reduce the
amount of impervious area on this site in favor of landscaping
where there's a recognition that maybe our ordinance is
demanding more parking than might be necessary for the
particular use that is being proposed. That's just something I
wanted to mention as a possible compromise issue involving the
sign.
Mr. Neuland:
I would tell you this relating to the number of spaces, I think
there's more than adequate out there. We do a number of
these sites across the country and typically our ratio is 5 to
1,000, so this far exceeds that. I believe there's more than what
we typically would have proposed. We proposed that simply
because the ordinance required that.
Mr. Morrow:
So I guess what you're saying, you'd be willing to landbank
some of that?
Mr. Neuland:
We'd be willing to. Yes, sir. If you'd prefer to have that as a
greenbelt or green area or reduce the number of parking
spaces, we'd be more than happy to do that. That's not a
problem.
Mr. Morrow:
And the other thing I wanted to mention was that, based on
what the gentleman from Dollar Tree had indicated, that there's
March 6, 2007
23902
a chain of command, and I'm sure you know it, and if you don't
I'm going to say it anyway, this is just a recommending body.
Mr. Neuland:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Morrow:
In other words, this will advance up to the City Council who will
make the final determination. So depending on how the vole
goes tonight, whatever that is will go forward to the Council for
their consideration.
Mr. Neuland:
Okay. I would just like to add one further comment to kind of
address what Mr. Hire has said. The reason we became
interested in this particular parcel was because our prospective
tenant here is interested in it, and we do a lot of business with
these folks. It makes it economically feasible for us to do this
particular job if this particular tenant is involved. I would just like
to reiterate what he said. If they decide to pull out of this
particular project, and I don't mean to say, hey, I want to take
my ball and go home. That's not what I'm getting at. I'm just
throwing that fact out that we would probably at that time
withdraw as well. So I just wanted to reiterate that.
Mr. LaPine:
What are the hours of operation? Are you open seven days a
week?
Mr. Hire:
Yes, we would be open seven days as week, generally 10:00
a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Sundays typically noon to 6:00 p.m.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. I just was curious.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
would be in order.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Morrow, and adopted, ilwas
#03-21-2007
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-02-08-05
submitted by Livonia DT Associates requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of a portion
of the commercial shopping center (Buckingham Village)
located at 27650 SchoolcraR Road, on property located on the
north side of SchoolcraR Road between Inkster Road and
Cardwell Avenue in the Southeast % of Section 24, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
March 6, 2007
23903
1. That the Site and Landscape Plan marked Sheet C1.1
dated March 5, 2007, as revised, prepared by Ireland
Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That a full detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for
approval by the Planning Commission and City Council
within 60 days following approval of this petition by the City
Council and shall include landbanked parking spaces as
deemed appropriate through the direction of the Planning
Staff;
3. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet
A1.3 dated January 29, 2007, prepared by Ireland
Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
5. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of building materials that shall complement
that of the building, and the enclosure gates shall be of
steel construction and maintained, and when not in use
closed at all times;
6. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary permits,
including storm water management permits, wetlands
permits and soil erosion and sedimentation control permits,
from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the Slate of
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality;
7. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20') feel in
height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize
stray light trespassing across properly lines and glaring
into adjacent roadway;
8. That the pefitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the
correspondence dated February 9, 2007;
9. That the ground sign shown on the approved site plan is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
10. That only conforming wall signage is approved with this
petition, and any additional signage shall be separately
submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of
Appeals;
March 6, 2007
23904
11. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
12. 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,
13. 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. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Ms. Smiley:
Now, we need to add something about Iandbanking the parking
spots and worlang with you on landscaping. How would you like
to word that?
Mr. Taormina:
If I may, Mr. Chair?
Mr. Walsh:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
I would suggest that the landscaping be a callback item to this
Commission. That within 60 days after the Council's action on
this item, assuming its approved, the petitioner would have to
submit a new landscape plan. And we'll work with them on the
details of that plan. That's something that would have to come
back. And I know that affects their site layout, but I think at least
what that would do is allow them to gel started on the building
and other improvements to the site that would not be affected by
the landscape plan.
Ms. Smiley:
Do you have a question?
Mr. Neuland:
Yes, l do actually. How would that affect the approval process?
Mr. Taormina:
Actually, going to the Council with that recommendation, if the
Council fell satisfied, they could move forward with it and then
the permits could be issued for the building renovations.
Mr. Walsh:
I'd rather we proceed with the landscape as a callback item, but
with the comments on the records that should this pass, Council
will be able to move forward when it comes before them so it
doesn't slow you down.
March 6, 2007
23905
Mr. Neuland: Okay. And then we had heard something about the ground
base sign?
Mr. Walsh: Its on the table at the moment to be seconded.
Mr. Morrow: I'll support it.
Mr. Walsh: We have support from Mr. Morrow. Is there any further
discussion?
Mr. LaPine: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make a substitute motion that
Item 10, that the ground sign shown on the approved site plan is
hereby approved but shall be no higher than 15 feet.
Mr. Walsh: There is a substitute motion. Is there support? Calling again
for support, seeing none, the motion fails. That leaves us with
the resolution presented by Ms. Smiley and seconded by Mr.
Morrow. Is there any discussion on Hal item? Hearing none,
would the Secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Smiley, Morrow, McDermott, Walsh
NAYES: LaPine, Wilshaw
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#5 PETlTION2007-02-SN-01 WAIL-MARTSIGN
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
02SN-01 submitted by pb2 Architecture & Engineering, on
behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, requesting approval for wall signage
for the new Wal-Mart Store in the Wonderland Village Center,
on property located on the southwest corner of Plymouth Road
and Middlebelt Road in the Northeast % of Section 35.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval for wall signage for the
new Wal-Mart store located in the Wonderland Village Center.
This store is presently under construction. Wonderland Village
is considered a Regional Shopping Center. A Regional Center
March 6, 2007
23906
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. Wonderland Village is comprised of the
subject Wal-Mart store, a Target store, the Village Shops, and
an anticipated large -formal retail building where the existing
Target store presently sits, all of which equals over 500,000
square feet 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 the amount
of square footage in sign area that the building is allowed as
long as it is not over 500 square feet. The storefront of the Wal-
Mart store is 560 feel across. Therefore, Wal-Mart would be
permitted the maximum 500 square feel of wall signage. Wal-
Mart is proposing 10 wall signs for a total of 622 square feet in
area. On this drawing you can see the north elevation, which
faces Plymouth Road. They are requesting signs that say Wal-
Mart Supercenter, Food Center, Retail Center, Garden Center,
Tire Lube Express with an arrow and Lube Express. On the
west elevation, which faces Middlebell Road, they have Wal-
Mart Tire & Lube Express, and then on the east elevation and
on their canopy for their drive-thru, they have a sign that says
Pharmacy Drive-lhru. They are requesting 622 square feel in
area; they are allowed 500 square feel. Because the proposed
signage is in excess of what is allowed by the sign ordinance by
122 square feel, a variance would be required from the Zoning
Board of Appeals. That is the extent of the request.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated February 21, 2007, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of February 9, 2007, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) As part of a Regional Shopping Center, this building is
allowed any number of wall signs with total square footage
equal to one square foot of signage per one lineal foot of
building frontage with the maximum footage being 500 square
feet. (2) This building is entitled to 500 square feet of wall
signage. This Department has no further objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director
of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening. Is there
anything you'd like to add?
Kim Wyman, pb2 Architecture & Engineering, 710 West Roselawn Drive, Rogers,
Arkansas 72756. Good evening. Well, yes, I would actually. I
visited with our client and after the study meeting, we made
March 6, 2007
23907
some changes to the elevation. We've replaced the Low Prices
sign with the Retail Center sign at the middle entrance, which
makes it more directional in nature versus the initial sign. We've
removed all the ancillary signs on the front of the building, which
were Bakery, Deli, Meal, Produce, One Hour Optical and
Pharmacy. I believe that was approximately 65 square feel,
which brought us down from 699 square feet to 634 square feel.
We understand that we are outside of what the ordinance allows
with regard to the signage, but respectfully request that you
consider allowing the additional signage due to the hardships on
the side, one being the setback, another being the size of the
development and the last being the multiple entries into the
store. We believe that the signage is needed for the customers'
convenience and for their safety.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions?
Mr.
LaPine:
I have the old plans here and I have a magnifying glass looking
at the two. Can you again go over the signs with me? Now, I
understand you eliminated the sign Bakery. Is that correct.
Ms.
Wyman:
Yes, sir.
Mr.
LaPine:
Okay. That one is gone. You eliminated the Deli sign. That
one is gone. Right?
Ms.
Wyman:
Right.
Mr.
LaPine:
Food Center slays. Now, Low Prices. That's gone. Right?
Ms.
Wyman:
We changed it to Retail Center.
Mr.
LaPine:
That's okay. Now, to the right of that, it looks like there was
some signage there before. It looks like they are gone on the
new plan because I can't read them.
Ms.
Wyman:
Right. That was One Hour Photo, Optical, and Pharmacy.
Mr.
LaPine:
Okay.
Ms.
Wyman:
Those were removed per the Council's suggestion.
Mr. LaPine: Then you have Tire And Lube Express with the arrow, and the
Garden Center. Now, you have one that I think is redundant but
maybe there's a reason. On the west elevation you have
another one that says Wal -Marl Tire and Lube Express. Okay.
Then up above you have Tire and Lube Express. Its just a
minor question. I'm just curious. Why do you have to say Wal-
March 6, 2007
23908
Mart? We're at Wal-Mart so we know its a lire and lube
express.
Ms. Wyman:
That's just the pro -typical sign.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, why doesn't the one Tire and Lube Express with the arrow
have Wal-Mart in front of it?
Ms. Wyman:
Well, because the Wal-Mart is already on the front of the
building.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, that's the point I'm making. Wal-Mart is on the front of the
building. Why are you duplicating the word Wal-Mart on the
west side of the building?
Ms. Wyman:
Just additional identification.
Mr. LaPine:
You're right on the comer of Middlebelt and Plymouth Road.
Nobody is going to miss you, believe me. Okay. I was just
curious why it was there. I'm happy with what you've done
here. I'm really thrilled that you listened to us and came up with
what I consider a lot better situation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I'd just like to comment that at our study meeting we did talk
extensively with you about signage and all these ancillary signs.
The two concerns that we raised were the Low Prices sign
which you changed to Retail Center and then the ancillary signs
which you've removed completely. You addressed our
concerns and I appreciate that. I think it's a much more
attractive sign package that we have now.
Ms. Wyman:
Thank you.
Mrs. McDermott:
I just want to make an additional comment. I really appreciate
the changes. It looks much cleaner and it's a very attractive
building.
Ms. Wyman:
Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
I want to thank Wal-Mart. I'm not an expert on Wal-Mart but
that's a beautiful looking building you're putting up there. You
haven't spared any expense, and because of what you
mentioned, the setback from Plymouth Road and the size and
length of the building, even though you are in excess, I don't
think that it will be perceived as excess signage. Again, thank
you.
Ms. Wyman:
Thank you.
March 6, 2007
23909
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
would be in order.
Mr. Wilshaw: I would like to make an approving resolution. I believe that the
petitioner has adequately justified the signage that is there and
the 634 square feet of signage, while it is slightly over the
allowed amount, I believe the petitioner does have some valid
reasons why. So with that, I'm going to offer an approving
resolution.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#03-22-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007 -02 -SN -01
submitted by pb2 Architecture & Engineering, on behalf of Wal-
Mart Stores, requesting approval for wall signage for the new
Wal-Mart Store in the Wonderland Village Center, on properly
located on the southwest corner of Plymouth Road and
Middlebelt Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 35, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by pb2 Architecture &
Engineering, as received by the Planning Commission on
March 1, 2007, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
2. That these wall signs shall not be illuminated beyond one
(1) hour afterthis business closes;
3. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
4. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from tie Zoning Board of Appeals for excess
signage and any conditions related thereto; and
5. 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. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Before we go on to a vole, I'm just
going to add that I'm thankful as well. I appreciate the time that
you look to listen to us. We're going to see a few more items on
the entire site tonight, and with every issue that we looked at,
I'm becoming more and more excited. I can tell you that
March 6, 2007
23910
businesses up and down Plymouth Road and the residents are
as well. We're loolang forward to this opening up and becoming
a nice addition to our community. So thank you for taking the
time with us tonight.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#6 PETITION 2007 -02 -SN -02 TARGETSIGN
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the mxl item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
02SN-02 submitted by Aver Sign Company, on behalf of
Target, requesting approval for wall signage for the new Target
store in the Wonderland Village Center, on properly located on
the southwest corner of Plymouth Road and Middlebell Road in
the Northeast % of Section 35.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval for wall signage for the
new Target store located in the Wonderland Village Center.
Wonderland Village is considered a Regional Shopping Center.
A Regional Center is a planned complex of buildings containing
a total gross leaseable area of 500,000 square feet. The Target
building has a frontage of 405 feet; therefore they are allowed
405 square feet of signage. They are requesting five wall signs
at a total of 363 square feel, so the signage falls within the
maximum square footage allowed. On the north elevation, they
have a Target sign, a 12 fool logo sign and a pharmacy sign.
On the east elevation, they are showing a 10 foot logo sign and
8 fool logo sign, and on the west elevation they have an 8 fool
logo sign.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated February 21, 2007, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of February 9, 2007, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) As part of a regional shopping center, this building is allowed
any number of wall signs with total square footage equal to one
square foot ofsignage per 1 lineal foot of building frontage with
the maximum footage being 500 square feet. (2) This building
is entitled to 405 square feet of wall signage. This Department
has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent
of the correspondence.
March 6, 2007
23911
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Brook Meyer,
Philadelphia Sign Company. I came with Aver Sign Company.
We're the official sign vendor for Target. Basically, we're
proposing a very modest sign package of a total square footage
of 364 square feet. We're allowed 405 square feel, and that's
basically where we're at with it. I just want to make a note that
we did get the letter that we were allowed to go to 500 square
feet, but at that point, we did not try to exceed any more. We
kept with our plans, the proposed sign package, from day one.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners? I don't
believe there is anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or
against this petition, so we'll go right to a resolution.
Mr. LaPine:
Anytime I can make a motion where somebody is giving me less
signage than they're allowed, I'm all for it, and I want to be on
record.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#03-23-2007
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007 -02 -SN -02
submitted by Aver Sign Company, on behalf of Target,
requesting approval for wall signage for the new Target store in
the Wonderland Village Center, on property located on the
southwest corner of Plymouth Road and Middlebelt Road in the
Northeast % of Section 35, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Aver Sign Company,
as received by the Planning Commission on February 8,
2007, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That these wall signs shall not be illuminated beyond one
(1) hour after this business closes;
3. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site, including but not limited to, the building or
around the windows; and
5. 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.
March 6, 2007
23912
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #7 PETITION 2007 -02 -SN -03 WONDERLAND SIGN
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
02SN-03 submitted by Middlebelt Plymouth Venture, on behalf
of Wonderland Village Center, requesting approval for ground
signage for the commercial center located on the southwest
comer of Plymouth Road and Middlebelt Road in the Northeast
%of Section 35.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval for ground signage for the
Wonderland Village Center. A Regional Center with more than
200 feel of frontage on each of two thoroughfares is permitted
two freestanding business center signs. Wonderland Village
has approximately 1,890 feel of frontage along Plymouth Road
and 1,360 feel of frontage along Middlebelt Road. A business
center sign is a sign that gives direction, name and idenlifcation
to a business center. Therefore, they are permitted two free-
standing business center signs, each not to exceed 100 square
feet in area and 20 feel in height. They are proposing five
freestanding signs; two are located along Plymouth Road, two
along Middlebelt Road, and a center identification sign at the
intersection of Plymouth and Middlebelt. They are proposing
four business center signs at 63 square feel and 16 feel in
height, and one center identification sign at 174 square feel at
20 feel in height. Because the number of proposed monument
signs is in excess of what is allowed by the sign ordinance by
three freestanding signs, a variance would be required from the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated February 20, 2007, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of February 9, 2007, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) If this complex of buildings will be built with 500,000 square
feet of gross leasable area and common parking, then it may be
reviewed as a regional shopping center. As such, because of
the frontage along major roads, it would be permitted two
ground signs of 100 square Let each, 20 feet tall, setback a
minimum of 10 feet from any property line. Because the one
sign is triangular (3 sided), the amount of calculated signage is
March 6, 2007
23913
3 times one side. So this sign alone would have approximately
174 square feet of signage (and fie total maximum height with
roof is 20 feet). In a two sided sign where two sides are back to
back and less than 24 inches apart, only the largest side counts
in terms of signage square footage. Therefore, any ground
signage in excess of 2 signs located a minimum of 300 feet
apart as measured along the property line with 100 square feet
of your signage each, 20 feet tall maximum will require
variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. This Department
has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent
of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
William Cote, Middlebelt Plymouth Venture, L.L.C., 17672 Laurel Park Drive
North, Suite 400E, Livonia, Michigan 48152. If you could bang
up the site plan, Mr. Miller, I'd appreciate that. We fully are
aware that the ordinance allows us two 20 fool high monument
signs, but I would like to maybe briefly go through some of the
reasons why we've gone to four monument signs that show the
occupant. The reason we went to four was the fact that we
have approximately 2,800 lineal feel of frontage, which is about
half a mile. If we put in two 20 fool monuments, we believe
we're trying to cover an awful large area with two monuments.
That's part one. Another part to that is that we have five
entrances to this complex, and with the five entrances and the
Plymouth Road Development Authority improvements, we're
counting on the signage, for Target and Wal-Mart especially, to
use as way -finding. What I mean by way -finding is the fad that
with almost half a mile of frontage, disregarding the fact that the
people in the area will know that Wal-Mart is there, we believe
other people that are just driving by will have a difficult time
finding entrances. As I've driven myself along that stretch of
road, the Plymouth Road Development Authority improvements,
which I think are beautiful, but they do hide the entrances. You
have to search for entrances. You can't see the curb cuts until
you're right on them. We have a clock lower here, which will
identify an entrance, but all the entrances can show is that Wal-
Mart and Target are behind the Village Shop buildings, which
brings up another point. Wal-Mart and Target are about 900
feel away from Plymouth Road. Our Village Shop buildings are
about 25 feet high. A person in an automobile driving by won't
be able to see clearly Wal-Mart and Target identifications, not
as good as they would if these buildings didn't exist, i.e.,
Millennium Park. Millennium Park is interesting. As you drive
down Middlebell and look at Millennium Park, you can see the
Home Depot out in the distance and you can see Meijers. If 25
March 6, 2007
23914
foot high buildings were placed in front of them, that's why this
development is more unique than Millennium, you wouldn't be
able to see that clearly the Home Depot sign 800 feel back or
Meijers 600 feet back. So we think that this way -finding is
important to Wal-Mart and Target more so than the Village
Shops. And both Wal-Mart and Target are laking the majority of
that signage. Another point, instead of going 20 feel high with
these, we've asked for 16 feel, which is only really giving us 12
feel. What I mean by that is. . . the Plymouth Road
Development Authority spent a lot on improvements at these
two roads. Those improvements, which we like, those
improvements are fencing, shrubbery, walls, masonry piers -
those average about 4 feel high. They automatically penalize
the sign on site by four feet. So we're asking for 16. If it wasn't
for that, we'd ask for 12. So we have to ask for 16 because it
helps pick up that 4 feet. So what we're really trying to get is a
12 fool height that's visible to put the three panels on, which will
be Target, Wal-Mart and the Village Shops. So that's another
reason we've gone to that particular height instead of going to a
20 fool height. Moving over to this identification sign, it really
doesn't do that much for the tenants or Wal-Mart. It doesn't
display their name; it doesn't draw business to them. We put t
on the corner because of nostalgia to be honest with you. We
took down a 63 fool high sign that was there for I don't know
how many years that really had about 1,525 square feet of
signage on it - taking all the tiers into consideration. We just
duplicated that small sign, which is 20 feet high, and we made
this up. Ms. Smiley asked for it in the study session. It was a
good idea; it shows it quite well. That this is what was there;
this is what we're proposing. You can't see it from a long
distance. It just kind of picks off the name. It's the only place
we're going to be displaying the name Wonderland because
Wal-Mart and Target have their identity, the Village Shops all
have their signage for all the individual tenants. So we placed it
there. We dont think it's obnoxious. Its not big, and it doesn't
make a big different to Wal-Mart and Target and the Village
Shops. There's a little more nostalgia, a Title more something
that carries on from a long time ago. That was our thoughts on
R. It will be dryvil with a little green metal roof on it, three sided.
It's on a comer so the pedestrians will see it, I think more than
anybody else, or cars that are in the local intersection. We
thought a lot about his. This complex to us, and I'm sure to
you, is a little bit unique in the city in that it has all these shops
in the front. It's like Millennium with buildings in the front, which
is problematic. It causes some problems, but the identification
for Wal-Mart and Target is very important to us and to them. It
helps a little bit with some of the traffic. They don't slow down
as much. I think they know where they're going. A last item is,
March 6, 2007
23915
we know that the original signage, which was very excessive,
and that was done a long lime ago, probably before the
ordinance was ever written, but there was about 1,330 square
feet of occupant signage along Plymouth and Middlebell. We're
proposing about 252 square feel of idenlifcation compared to
the original 1,330. And the existing sign on the comer was like
1,525 square feel; we're proposing 174 square feel. We are
prepared to go to the ZBA. We think that two 20 fool high signs
over a half mile doesn't look right architecturally because of the
height. Secondly, we don't think it does what a sign should do.
I don't think you would like two 20 fool high signs, one on each
street. It doesn't work proportionately with the buildings and so
on. I just wanted to throw those thoughts out to you and request
that you approve this.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Wilshaw:
I have three questions for you, Mr. Cote. The first is regarding
the monument sign, which is at the boulevard entrance to the
development. You have a clock lower here plus a monument
sign. Do you think that those two objects will be in conflict with
each other?
Mr. Cote:
No. The clock lower has no signage. It has a clock on it. You
can walk under it. You see it from a distance. Its an
architectural feature. It plays into anybody who walks over in
the corner. It adds some interest to the entrance. Its a
boulevard entrance. The actual sign, the occupant sign that's
put in the island, has a purpose. We kept it subtle using
masonry instead of steel posts that are painted and things like
that because we have masonry on the buildings. We thought
we'd keep it brick. It has landscaping around it. So we're trying
to get the signage in place but not make the monuments loo
strong. So we think the two have different uses. This is quite a
big area. I would say from the face of the building to face of the
building, the area is about how many feel? It's about a 200 fool
distance across here. So we think these two items are not
overpowering because of the space.
Mr. Wilshaw:
What's the height of the clock lower?
Mr. Cote:
Approximately 30 feet.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. I'm just concerned a little bit about clutter at that
particular intersection when you gel multiple high objects where
you can't see one of the signs or the clock because of the
obstruction.
March 6, 2007
23916
Mr. Cote:
The clock will be on top of the clock tower. The top of the
monument is 16 feet, but the panels are less than that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
Mr. Cote:
That's when you pull up. If you travel eastbound on Plymouth
Road, you'll see the Wal -Marl and Target identification and also
what we call the Major A idenlificafion, and that was the purpose
of that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. The three -sided sign that's going to be at the comer, is
that illuminated?
Mr. Cole:
It will be done with ground flood lights.
Mr. Wilshaw:
So it won't be internally Id?
Mr. Cote:
No, it won't.
Mr. Wilshaw:
And can you, just for the benefit of the Commission and
anybody listening, explain to us what's going to be on each of
those monument signs? You have some different panels for
different signs.
Mr. Cote:
We do. The boulevard entrance sign would have Wal-Mart on
the lop on this panel, Target on this panel, and then whomever
the major A tenant would be in the existing Target location.
We're preserving that for a larger user. That would be the
entrance. If you go back to the site plan, Scott, I'd appreciate it.
That's this area. Right now we're in the process with Wal-Mart
and Target working together. We've had a Iitfle bit of a
disruption, but we're kind of settling it. What we may do at the
end of the day, it's really up to those two parties to settle that, is
that Wal-Mart and major A would be on this side together, Wal-
Mart and major A would be on this side together, and Target
would be on this side by themselves. That's by their choice.
We gave the opportunity but right now they're working on
positioning to maybe do that, being that this is on Target's
property. They fell that they want to be solely on their own
property wth just their name, and lheyre offering right now to
give up their rights to be on these two signs, and that Wal-Mart
and the major A tenant would be on that, and all three would be
on this one. That's why we had them submit their panels.
We're handling the monuments. As we conclude this, once the
monuments get approved, then we can settle with them as to
these three signs.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Thank you. That's all l have for now.
March 6, 2007
23917
Mr. LaPine:
As you know, I'm not in favor of the Wonderland sign, but I've
been out there on a couple occasions now and looked at that
corner, and I have a proposal for you. You may not like it but
I'm going to make the proposal anyway. As far as I'm
concerned, the most important focal point of this whole
operation is the southwest corner of Plymouth and Middlebelt.
That's the focal point of that whole shopping center. You take
the clock tower and you move it down the center, and on four
sides of the clock lower you have Wonderland Center on all
sides of the clock. Now I base that on this assumption: I
remember when I was a kid many, many years ago that when I
got lost, my mother always said, I'll meet you under the Kerns
clock tower. To me, that could be the focal point of the
operation. It would dean up the situation, and I have to agree
with Mr. Wilshaw on the fact that the clock tower, plus the sign
there at the entrance to the west, is kind of cluttering up the
situation. I don't know if that's feasible, if it can be done, but I
think it would make the focal point, and you can light that clock
up during the day and night. People coming from all directions -
oh, there's the clock; that's where the shopping center is. To
me, that's the ideal situation. I could go along with that. That
way you gel your Wonderland name up there, and I think it
would do a better service for the clock to be at that location, for
people going east, north, west and south can see that clock.
What's your take on that?
Mr. Cote:
Well, sir, I appreciate and I respect your opinion on that. I do.
However, we spent a lot of time with a lot of designers and folks
and so on this, and we believe that this isn't as congested as it
may seem.
Mr. LaPine:
Its what? Ididnt gel that - it's congested?
Mr. Cote:
Isn't as congested or crowded.
Mr. LaPine:
Oh. Okay.
Mr. Cole:
In that this area, being approximately 200 feet across, and the
size of this area, we don't feel it is. We feel that it needs
something over there. This is quite a large open area. We had
a lot of pavers or paving area for the pedestrians. These are
quite large. Gary, what size do you think one of these paved
padded areas would be? Its like 30 by 30 pad areas alone. So
that's how big these are. This is quite a large area. We need
something at that boulevard entrance. Architecturally we need
R. We think it would be a boring entrance without something
March 6, 2007
23918
large there. This sign is not that large. The clock tower is. It's
going to have some height to it.
Mr. LaPine: In my opinion, this sign here does nothing for that corner. That
doesn't do anything for this comer. It doesn't do anything.
Wonderland is there. It's been buried. We're starting a new
proposal here. I'm trying to find a solution so you can keep the
words and apparently you're not in favor of it. So that's all I
have to say.
Mr. Morrow: First of all, I think you made a good presentation outlining the
site plan and the reasons you were indicating this is what you
wanted. I'd be afraid to estimate the number of hours that were
spent planning, negotiating, trying to serve three masters, to
come up with a plan for something this size. I've always felt
Wonderland was one of the anchors in the city that held up that
end of town. When it went derelict, I don't think there was
anybody in Livonia that didn't wonder what's going to happen.
So now we've taken a shopping center, roughly one million
square feel, cul it in half, and have come in with something I
think is first class. And because of the magnitude of it and the
hours spent, I don't have any problem with your plan as far as
one commissioner. You made your case to me as far as scale
versus the amount of signage and what's in there. As far as the
Wonderland sign, you call it nostalgia, you know. But I think
that comer will always be known as the Wonderland site even
though it has changed appreciably. I don't have any problem
with keeping that name because it was a fixture in Livonia for
many years. It serves as a re -birth to what it was formally there.
Those are my comments.
Mr. Cote: If I may add, please, that is very interesting. When we were
tearing down the mall, I got a phone call from a lady who's
mother lives in Livonia. She grew up in Livonia but lives in
Ohio, and has to drive up to pick her mother up to lake her in for
doctor appointments and so on. She called me and asked if she
could have a brick from the mall. We said, why? And she said,
my mother said its being torn down and this is something that
she grew up with. And I said, these bricks aren't real expensive.
There's nothing real exciting about them, but she'd like one. I
was kind of surprised. So we went out and got one and she
came over and picked it up. I was a little surprised. It dates a
long time ago, and it means a lot to some people.
Mr. Morrow: You call it nostalgia. I might call it a landmark, but what's in a
name?
March 6, 2007
23919
Mr. La Pine: When we talk about landmarks, I remember not loo long ago
when the Terrance Theatre was the first theatre in the City of
Livonia. When Bill Brown bought up the Terrace Theatre, they
wanted to keep that landmark there too. The landmark to me
really doesn't mean too much.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one come forward, a motion
would be in order.
On a motion by McDermott, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, 0
was
#03-24-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007 -02 -SN -03
submitted by Middlebell Plymouth Venture, L.L.C., on behalf of
Wonderland Village Center, requesting approval for ground
signage for the commercial center located on the southwest
comer of Plymouth Road and Middlebelt Road in the Northeast
I/ of Section 35, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That tie Site Plan dated February 4, 2007, prepared by
Hubbell, Roth & Clark, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2. That the Site Monuments Plan marked Sheet No. A4.1M
dated February 1, 2007, as revised, prepared by Schostak
Brothers & Company, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
3. That the brick used in the construction of the signs shall be
full face four (4") inch brick;
4. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess
signage and any condifions related thereto; and
5. 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. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Wils haw: A very minor typo on approving condition #1, Hubbell, Roth and
Clark, I believe it what it should be.
Mr. Walsh: So noted unless there's an objection.
March 6, 2007
23920
Mrs. McDermott: No. If you want to correct the spelling, you go right ahead
Mr. Wilshaw: The only other thing I'd like to do is make one comment. I do
have a bit of a concern still about particularly the main entrance
and the clock lower along with that monument sign. I do think
that Mr. LaPine's idea of moving the clock tower to the corner
and incorporating it into the Wonderland sign that is proposed is
an interesting one, and I think would actually be quite attractive
for that corner. As people sit at the red light, they could check
and see what time it is. With that being said, since we have an
approving resolution on the floor, I'm going to cautiously support
it.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#8 PETITION 2007 -02 -SN -04 CHILI'S SIGN
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
02SN404 submitted by Brinker International, on behalf of Chili's
Grill & Bar, requesting approval for wall signage for the new
Chili's restaurant in the Wonderland Village Center, on properly
located on the southwest corner of Plymouth Road and
Middlebelt Road in the Northeast % of Section 35.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval for wall signage for the
Chili's Grill & Bar located in the Wonderland Wage Center.
This restaurant would be occupying one of the units of Building
"E", which is one of the buildings that make up the Village
Shops. The total building frontage of Building "E" is 170 feet
across. Therefore, the entire building would be allowed a
maximum of 170 square feet of wall signage. Chili's is
proposing two wall signs at 108 square feet. One sign would be
on the north elevation facing Plymouth Road. It would say
Chili's and would have a pepper logo at 84 square feet. On the
west devation, they would have a pepper logo at 24 square
feel. Therefore, they are asking for 108 square feet; the
building is allowed 170. It is therefore a conforming sign
package.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence. I'll note right from the
beginning, however, that this letter was based upon a review of
March 6, 2007
23921
the previous plan. The letter is from the Inspection Department,
dated February 21, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request of February 9, 2007, the above -referenced petition
has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This petition has
been reviewed as it is part of a regional shopping center that
has common parking and 500,000 square feet gross leasable
space. (2) As reviewed above, this building (not just Chili's)
would be allowed any number of wall signs with a total square
footage equal to the lineal front footage of the building with a
maximum 500 square feet Building E is approximately 170
lineal feet, so therefore a total for the entire Building E is 170
square feet of wall signage. At approximately 224 square feet,
Chili's is 54 square feet over the maximum with no allowance for
the balance of Building E. This should be determined so that if
not adjusted downward, a variance with all pertinent information
could be applied for at the Zoning Board of Appeals for the
excess wall signage taking the entire building into account. This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That
is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from staff? Mr. Miller, I want to be
clear. This is now a conforming sign package with the latest
submission?
Mr. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Taorrrina: That is correct. There has been a lot of discussion as to how
this relates to the Regional Shopping Center designation and
the fact that we don't calculate the permissible signage on a
tenant by tenant basis, which is what is normally done with a
Group Commercial Center. Instead, the wall signage is
calculated as a total for the building. While 170 square feel is
the permissible signage, its for the building as a whole, not just
Chili's. This building will have several other tenants. As
proposed, Chili's would consume 108 square feet of the total
170, leaving approximately 62 square feet for the other tenants.
That's probably not going to be adequate to serve the needs of
the other tenants. If this passes, both here and by the Council,
the owner, Schostak, will submit for a variance that will entitle
the other tenants signage at an allocation equal to a ratio of one
square foot for every one foot of building frontage. Basically, he
would preserve the other tenant's rights to an amount of
signage equal to what would be considered adequate under the
Group Commercial standards. In effect, what we're saying is
that we don't want this approval to preclude the owner from
obtaining a variance so as to preserve the rights of those other
March 6, 2007
23922
tenants to equal signage. Even though its conforming, its
going to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals as I described.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you for that clarification. Are there any questions for staff
before we go to the petitioner? Good evening, sir.
John Civzio, Brinker International, 212 Bridges Street, Metuchen, New Jersey
08840. I'd like to thank the Board for the work that we've done
together to try and come up with a compromise on the signage.
As I've staled a number of times, the chili pepper identity is
critically important for Chili's. I think we've got something here
that is going to meet everybody's needs. I just wanted to find
out how, if you approve the signs tonight, and Council approves
the signs, how would that then be ... how is that affected by
signs for the rest of that building E. If we approved, we're
approved, and then Schoslak is ...
Mr. Walsh: You would have your approvals, and then they would have to
come forward for a variance later for others. It would not impact
your signage.
Mr. Civzio: Okay.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. LaPine: Quite frankly, I think the sign is a better looking sign with the
chili pepper integrated into the actual sign. I think it looks a lot
neater and a lot cleaner than the original one where you had the
pepper there all by itself. I am well satisfied with what you've
done here, and I think you've done a good job. Thank you.
Mr. Cizvio. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: When we first saw the pepper, it was sticking out five feet away
from the building. Is the pepper the same as the sign itself as
far as it protrudes from the building?
Mr. Cizvio: No, there is no projection on this sign. It is integrated within the
sign cabinet
Mr. Morrow: I agree with Mr. LaPine. I think that's a very clean looking sign,
and I'm happy that the pepper is not sficking out any further
than the sign. I think it will accomplish the same thing and it
looks a lot deaner.
Mr. Cizvio: I appreciate your comments.
March 6, 2007
23923
Mr. Walsh: I don't believe there is anyone in the audience. A motion would
be in order.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#03-25-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007 -02 -SN -04
submitted by Brinker International, on behalf of Chili's Gn11 &
Bar, requesting approval for wall signage for the new Chili's
restaurant in the Wonderland Village Center, on properly
located on the southwest corner of Plymouth Road and
Middlebelt Road in the Northeast % of Section 35, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Brinker International,
as received by the Planning Commission on March 2,
2007, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That these wall signs shall not be illuminated beyond one
(1) hour after this business closes;
3. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
4. That this approval shall not preclude the owner from
obtaining a variance for excess signage for the building;
and
5. 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. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, if we could add one condition: That this approval
shall not preclude the owner from obtaining a variance for
excess signage for the building.
Mr. Walsh: Is that acceptable to Mr. LaPine and Mr. Wilshaw?
Mr. LaPine: That's fine with me.
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes.
Mr. Walsh: It is so amended. I would just like to say, Mr. Cizvio, I think you
weighed a very frank conversation at our study session, and I
think you clearly heard what our concerns were and you mel
March 6, 2007
23924
what all our expectations were and I appreciate that. I have
been talking to some of my colleagues here and a number of
the people in the city. This project is big, and it's had some
difficult points, but I have to say that at every given critical point,
Schostak Brothers, Wal -Marl, Target and now Chili's has
worked with us. I think that's sometimes lost in the grand
scheme of things and we truly appreciate that. So thanks for
coming back. We look forward to working with you.
Mr. Cizvio: I appreciate that.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#9 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 938"' Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 938"' Regular Meeting held on January 30, 2007.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#03-26-2007 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 938" Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on January 30, 2007, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Wilshaw, McDermott, Morrow, Smiley,
Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 940" Regular
Meeting held on March 6, 2007, was adjourned at 9:38 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman