HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2010-06-08MINUTES OF THE 996m PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, June 8, 2010, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 996th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall,
33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members present: Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow Lynda Scheel
Ashley Vartoogian Carol A. Smiley Joe Taylor
Ian Wilshaw
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program
Supervisor, were also present.
Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on lonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a pefifion is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has len days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these pefifions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2010-04-02-09 J&M BEVERAGES
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2010-04-
02-09 submitted by J&M Beverages, Inc. requesting waiver use
approval to utilize an SDM Liquor License (sale of packaged
beer and wine) and an SDD Liquor License (sale of packaged
spirits over 21% alcohol) at 34730 Plymouth Road, located on
the north side of Plymouth Road between Stark Road and
Belden Court in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28.
June 8, 2010
25321
Mr. Taormina provided background on the item and presented a map showing
the properly under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is
from the Engineering Division, dated May 18, 2010, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. It appears
that no site work will be associated with this liquor license
request. The following legal description describes the property
and the subject premises: Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, Alden Village,
being a subdivision of part of the S. X of Section 28, TIS,
R.9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan, as recorded in
Liber 66 of Plats, Page 78 of Wayne County Records, and more
specifically, the premises located at the west end of the existing
building, assigned the address of 34730 Plymouth Road, with
the internal dimensions of approximately 40 feet by 80 feet, and
containing approximately 3200 square feet The range of
addresses associated with this property is 34706 through 34730
Plymouth Road. The address of the subject premises is 34760
Plymouth Road. We trust this provides you with the requested
information." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E.,
Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Division
of Police, dated May 12, 2010, which reads as follows: We
have reviewed the plans in connection with Party Store -
Plymouth Place Plaza located at 34730 Plymouth. We have no
objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The
letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The
third letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 24, 2010,
which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in
connection with the party store to be owned by J&M Beverages,
Inc. The licenses being requested are a SDD and SDM license.
The business is to be located at 34730 Plymouth Road (North
side of Plymouth Road between Stark and Wayne Roads). We
have no objection or recommendations to the plans as
submitted as long as they comply with all State laws, City
ordinances, and stipulations and conditions set by the Traffic
Bureau of the Police Department." The letter is signed by
Donald E. Boneo, Sergeant, Special Services Bureau. The
fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 28,
2010, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
February 16, 2010, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The toilet facilities must be
accessible to the public and the accessible route must not pass
through storage moms. This will be addressed further at the
time of our plan review if this project moves forward. (2)
June 8, 2010
25322
Approval of liquor license shall be subject to final inspection
approvals. This Department has no further objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant
Director of Inspection. The next letter is from Kin Properties,
Inc., dated June 2, 2010, which reads as follows: "This office
serves as managing agent for Fundamentals Company, Inc., the
owner of the property. In that capacity, we have received Notice
of Public Hearing regarding the application for the sale of
packaged beer and wine and sale of packaged spirits over 21%
alcohol at 34730 Plymouth Road. As representative for the
owner, we wish to express our opposition to granting such
application. In our experience, municipal authorities must be
very careful in granting permission to sell alcoholic beverages. It
is certainly not a necessity, nor may it be good business. Should
any permit be granted, we would hope that it would be subject
to substantial conditions. Then, the situation can be reviewed
within a short period of time to determine whether or not to
extend the permit. Contingent and temporary permits are
effective controls in such situations. Please sham this letter with
the Alcohol License Review Committee and the City Council,
and any and all administrative and elected officials who have
responsibility for this matter. Thank you." The letter is signed
by Allen P. Lev, General Counsel. I believe that he represents
the owner of the adjacent property at 34800 Plymouth Road,
which is idenfifed at the top of the letter. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you. I thought for a minute he was the one that leased
him the property. Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. Taylor:
Through the chair, Mark, where is that located? I thought it was
the owner of the property too the way it was written.
Mr. Taormina:
If you will refer to the aerial photograph on the overhead, it's the
adjacent property to the west of the subject parcel.
Mr. Taylor:
It was an old market at one time.
Mr. Taormina:
I think it was last occupied by Aaron's Furniture.
Mr. Taylor:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
I see the petitioner is already at the podium. Your name and
address for our record please.
Marshall Isso,
J&M Beverages, Inc., 6913 Canington Circle W., West Bloomfield,
Michigan 48322.
June 8, 2010
25323
Patrick Mannor, 5591 Woodfield Parkway, Grand Blanc, Michigan.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you. You heard the presentation by Mr. Taormina.
Would you like to add to that or give us an idea of your
operation?
Mr. Isso:
Its going to be a liquor and wine shop operation. Its very
simple but a very nice place. It's like a high end wine shop.
Mr. Morrow:
This is a chance for you to not only tell us but whoever is
watching in our television audience of the new venture.
Mr. Isso:
Its just going to be a nice wine shop. We own the property and
we
haven't been able to find any tenants for it, so we decided to
put in the wine shop. I've been in the wine business for a long
time. We figured to bring tenants in, we need somebody to
bring traffic in. A wine shop would bring a lot of traffic in. That
would help the whole center so maybe we can get more tenants
into the strip center. Really, that's the whole idea.
Mr. Morrow:
I'll find out if the Commission has any questions for you.
Ms. McDermott:
Mark, could you put the proposed floor plan up on the screen?
Referencing the letter that we just had from the Director of
Inspection, he mentons that the facilities must be accessible to
the public and the route must not pass through the storage
room. Unless I'm reading that wrong, it looks like you have to
pass through the storage room to get to the facilities. Can you
maybe describe that?
Mr. Mannor:
If I may respond to that, this was a very preliminary schematic
plan. This will be revised to meet whatever standards that they
have. It would be easy enough to move the restrooms to make
them accessible to the public without putting them back in the
storage area. It will be a simple change. Again, at this point,
this was kind of a concept drawing just based on another
location that was similar.
Ms. McDermott:
Okay. Thank you. Ihave one other question. You mentioned
that you're already in the wine business. How many locations
do you have and where are they?
Mr. Isso:
Currently, I only have one left in Lake Orion. I had one in
Garden City. I sold it. My brother owns it now.
Ms. McDermott:
Okay. How long has the Lake Orion operation been running?
June 8, 2010
25324
Mr. Isso: I've been there for 12 years.
Ms. McDermott: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Scheel: Could you tell me what your hours of operation are going to be?
Mr.
Isso:
They are going to be from 1000 a.m. in the morning until at
9:00 p.m. in the evening.
Ms.
Scheel:
Is that seven days a week?
Mr.
Isso:
Six days a week, and then Sundays between 12:00 p.m. to 7:00
p.m.
Ms.
Scheel:
Thank you very much.
Mr.
W lshaw:
Besides beer, wine and liquor, what else are you going to sell at
your store? Do you have any intention to sell sandwiches or
food or anything else?
Mr.
Isso:
No. No food.
Mr.
Wilshaw:
Tobacco products?
Mr.
Isso:
Maybe a little tobacco, whatever the customer needs, but no
food. That for sure.
Mr.
Wilshaw:
Would you have a walkin humidor or just over-the-counter
tobacco products?
Mr.
Isso:
We're probably going to have a walk-in humidor. It just
depends.
Mr.
W Ishaw:
The layout of the store shows shelving in the center portion. Is
that where you're going to have the wine?
Mr.
Isso:
Yes.
Mr.
Wilshaw:
And then the liquor would be behind the counter?
Mr.
Isso:
Behind the counter.
Mr.
Wilshaw:
And the coolers would be cased beer and so on?
Mr.
Isso:
Yes.
Mr.
Wlshaw:
Okay. All right. Thankyou.
June 8, 2010
25325
Mr. Morrow: Any olherquestons ofthe petitioner?
Mr. Taylor: If you have these approvals, when do you plan on opening?
Mr. Isso: As soon as we gel the liquor control approval from Lansing.
Mr. Taylor: Okay, but you have to redo the store, right?
Mr. Isso: Oh, of course, of course. But we dont want to spend the money
until we gel the approvals.
Mr. Taylor: I understand that.
Mr. Isso: So we will wail for that.
Mr. Taylor: I just wondered if you had an anticipation of when you might
open.
Mr. Mannor: Its about a 60 -day build out.
Mr. Taylor: Okay. Thank you
Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions before I go the audience? Seeing
no one, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak
for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one
coming forward, any final comments before I close the public
hearing? The public hearing is closed. A motion would be in
order.
On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Varloogian, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#06-34-2010 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on June 8, 2010, on
Petition 2010-04-02-09 submitted by J&M Beverages, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM Liquor License
(sale of packaged beer and wine) and an SDD Liquor License
(sale of packaged spirits over 21% alcohol) at 34730 Plymouth
Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Stark Road and Belden Court in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
28, which properly is zoned C-1, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2010-04-02-
09 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
June 8, 2010
25326
forth in Sections 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That a security device such as a locked case or a closed
off counter shall be provided to restrict public access to
SDD products, as stipulated in Section 10.03(8)(4) of the
Zoning Ordinance;
3. That the issues noted in the correspondence dated May
28, 2010, from the Inspection Department shall be rectified
to that department's satisfaction; and
4. That replacement trees shall be planted at the southeast
and southwest corners of the property per the review and
approval of the Planning Department. Such trees shall be
installed prior to the final inspection by the Inspection
Department.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area; and
4. That the granting of this petition will not increase the
number of SDM and SDD licenses in the City of Livonia.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
June 8, 2010
25327
ITEM #2 PETITION 2010-05-02-10 SCHULTZ AUTO
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2010-
05-02-10 submitted by Schultz Auto Brokers, Inc. requesting
waiver use approval for the outdoor storage of recreational
vehicles at 12641 Stark Road, located on the west side of Stark
Road between the railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28.
Mr. Taormina provided background on the item and presented a map showing
the properly under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated May 25, 2010, which reads as
follows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above-referenced petition. The legal
description contained in the information is correct. The address
for this location is confirmed to be 12641 Stark Road. The only
site work mentioned in the request is to grade and gravel' the
existing storage area located west of the existing building. This
existing area is curently just a dirt surface. This parcel is unlike
most parcels in Livonia, in that it is extremely deep in relation to
its width. There are 8 parcels adjoining the north property line,
and three adjoining the south property line. There are
approximately 2 acres of land that could be involved with
storage. It is very important that the petitioner submit a grading
plan with information about final surfacing before making any
changes to the area west of the building. These plans must be
submitted to the Engineering Division before any site
modifications take place. If the work to be done will cause an
increase in storm water runoff, the Engineering Division will
review it to ensure there is no detriment to adjacent properties in
the form of Flooding and standing water complaints. It should be
noted that this site is bisected by a 102-inch diameter storm
drain known as the Livonia No. 26 drain, which is now under the
jurisdiction of the City of Livonia, and which can be used as a
storm water outlet for this parcel. In addition, due to the size of
the lot, a Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control permit must be
obtained prior to the re-grading operation." The letter is signed
by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 24,
2010, which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site
plan submitted in connection with a request for waiver use
approval for the outdoor storage of recreational vehicles on
property located at the above referenced address. We have no
June 8, 2010
25328
objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1)
Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with a
maximum spacing of 300 feet between hydrants. Most remote
hydrant shall blow 1,500 GPM with a residual pressure of 20
PSI. (2) Any curves or comer of streets shall accommodate
emergency vehicles with a turning radius of fifty-three feet wall
to wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six
inches. (3) Fire lanes shall be not less than 20 feet of
unobstructed width, able to withstand live loads of fire
apparatus, and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical
clearance. (4) An approved turnaround for fire apparatus shall
be provided where access is dead -ended and is in excess of
150 feet in length. The turnaround shall have a minimum turning
radius of fifty-three feet wall to wall and an inside turning radius
of twenty-nine feet six inches. The authority having jurisdiction
shall approve the grade, surface, and location of the fire lane.
(5) T or Y turnaround arrangements shall be permitted." The
letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire Marshal. The third
letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 27, 2010, which
reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection
with Schultz Auto Brokers located at 12641 Stark. We have no
objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The
letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The
fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 28,
2010, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May
13, 2010, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted. (1) The entire lot or parcel shall be hard
surfaced with concrete or plant mixed bituminous material. (2)
The two storage trailers shown on the south side of the building
shall be removed. (3) The storage area must be enclosed with
either a six foot cyclone fence or a fence approved by the
Inspection Department. Fence permits are required. (4)
Adequate lighting facilities shall be provided and arranged to
reflect light towards the storage area. This Department has no
further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. Wilshaw: Mark, I know you're not a Fire Marshall, obviously, but I do have
a question about the Fire Departments letter referring to
turnouts. Is this implying that if a fire truck were to go down the
length of this properly that they would have to have an adequate
turnaround facility at the back of the properly?
June 8, 2010
25329
Mr. Taormina:
I think that's what they are indicating. He would have to leave
an area clear for the full width of the property, which would
enable them to provide a T turnaround.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Because the properly is only 100 feel in width, correct?
Mr. Taormina:
Correct.
Mr. W Ishaw:
So they need 150 feel.
Mr. Taormina:
Right. So he's going to have to accommodate that with a T
turnaround and probably just leave a section of the rear yard
open to allow for them to turn around.
Mr. Wlshaw:
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
Mark, can you help me with what is "plant mixed bituminous
material"?
Mr. Taormina:
Its basicallyjust asphalt surface.
Ms. Smiley:
So the surface has to be either concrete or asphalt?
Mr. Taormina:
That is a special requirement of the waiver use. However, that
can be waived by the City Council. Mr. Schultz is going to
request first your support of his request to waive that
requirement and instead maintain it with gravel. Then he would
need the majority of the Council to approve that by separate
resolution. So they can waive that requirement.
Ms. Smiley:
Environmentally, though, would it be okay to go with the gravel?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. Most certainly.
Ms. Smiley:
Probably even better.
Mr. Taormina:
If he were to asphalt or concrete the entire storage area, he
would be required to install some kind of a storm water holding
basin, either surface or subsurface. With the gravel, he
probably will not have to do that because the rate of discharge
into the storm system will be much less. He won't have the
same runoff factor by maintaining it in gravel. So while he may
have some degree of restriction where he outlets into the storm
drain, it would certainly not be what is needed if it were concrete
or asphalt. Absent any detention, it's actually a better situation
environmentally to have it maintained in some kind of aggregate
as oppose to a hard surface.
June 8, 2010
25330
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Taylor:
Mark, would this be a permitted use if he didn't have the RV
vehicles?
Mr. Taormina:
The previous use was a contractors yard. That existed for a
long time on this site. Certainly we have other industrial users,
and they're entitled to use their rear yards for the storage of
vehicles in connection with their property. There are many uses
that we allow within the M-1 zoning district that have a similar
intensity as this. I think what makes this unique is the public
aspect to it. Its not limited to just the business. There will be
customers coming to and from the site. Maybe it is for that
reason itis felt to be unique and not something that the drafter's
of the ordinance wanted to permit as a right, but instead wanted
a more careful analysis.
Mr. Morrow:
Is the petitioner here this evening? Do you want to add
anything to what you heard Mr. Taormina say or give us an idea
to embellish your operation?
William Schultz, Schultz Auto Brokers, Inc., 5920 Commerce, Westland,
Michigan 48185. He pretty much said it. We want to ran a
existing operation there. We recondition vehicles. That's what
we will be doing at this location so we can send them to our
retail location on Michigan Avenue. We also feel that with the
amount of room there, it would be a great opportunity to provide
storage for RVers.
Mr. Morrow:
We'll see if there's any questions of the Commission for you.
Ms. Smiley:
I went by your place in Westland. It is very nice. Why are you
thinking of vacating that and coming to Livonia?
Mr. Schultz:
I live here.
Ms. Smiley:
Do you own this property?
Mr. Schultz:
This property on Stark Road?
Ms. Smiley:
Yes.
Mr. Schultz:
I am in the process of buying it, yes.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay, so you would be owned and operated here in Livonia?
June 8, 2010
25331
Mr. Schultz:
Absolutely.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor:
Mark, Item 6 on the approving resolution, says that the lights
should not be higher than 20 feel. I can understand that in other
areas, but I was a little surprised at 20 feel in this particular area
with no homes around it.
Mr. Taormina:
I think that was something that was added as our standard
condition. If he adds any light poles or any additional
illumination to the properly, then you could certainly increase
that to 30 feel.
Mr. Taylor:
That was what I was wondering. In that particular area, you'd
gel more light. Thank you.
Ms. Vartoogian:
I was wondering what type of surface material you're planning to
use in the rear yard of the properly.
Mr. Schultz:
Gravel, 21AA fresh limestone. Something that will pack real
light and give me a nice hard surface to be driving on.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay. It's my understanding that you're going to have
customers come to the properly. Does that mean that they will
be walking into the back of the property or will they be pretty
much upfront?
Mr. Schultz:
Mainly, they would be driving if they have a camper or a boat
that they want to store. Drive back, park it, and then drive their
vehicle back out.
Ms. Vartoogian:
So the customer is in charge of parking their vehicle for
storage?
Mr. Schultz:
Well, yes, they'll be parking their vehicles.
Ms. Vartoogian:
What are your hours of operation?
Mr. Schultz:
It will be Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.;
Saturday and Sunday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Mr. Schultz, these hours of access, are they going to be the
same for the public who would be coming to get their boats or
June 8, 2010
25332
RVs? Would they come at the same business hours that you
just gave us?
Mr. Schultz:
Those are the hours, yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. So they won't have aRerhours access?
Mr. Schultz :
Of course, pre -arranged, absolutely. If there was a need, it
wouldn't be a problem.
Mr. Wilshaw:
How are they going to access the yard? Are you going to leave
it open during the day and then they can freely come and go or
do they need to come to your office?
Mr. Schultz:
There will be an access gale and a door to come inside. I'm not
going to have people just driving in and out. I'm running my
other business. I have to keep that secure. It will be secure all
the time. If somebody wants it, it won't be a problem. They'll
just have to come in and say hi.
Mr. Wlshaw:
So they slop at the office and just come in and say, we need
access to the yard to gel my boat or whatever.
Mr. Schultz :
Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Can you tell me a little bit about your business? How long have
you been in operation?
Mr. Schultz :
Brokering, I started in 1991. I work with 47 different banks and
credit unions, several Livonia credit unions. I'm marketing their
repossessed vehicles. I used to be mainly wholesale and now
we went to retail in 2003. That's our Michigan Avenue location.
Mr. Wilshaw:
You said that you recondition vehicles there. What exactly does
recondition mean? Are you doing body work or just detailing
and things like that?
Mr. Schultz :
Light mechanical work, cleaning, detailing. Absolutely no paint
work.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The only other question I had was, do you feel that you're going
to have adequate space given the narrow nature of this property
to park recreational vehicles, boats and so on in the back and
still have access for the fire trucks or anything else that would
need to gel back there?
Mr. Schultz :
Yes.
June 8, 2010
25333
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. As you may have heard earlier when I was talking to Mr.
Taormina, you're going to be able to take a portion of your back
property and allow for a turnaround for the fire vehicles if they
have to gel back there?
Mr. Schultz:
Yes, absolutely.
Mr. W Ishaw:
Just to lel you know, I did speak with a future neighbor hopefully
of yours, the dog daycare that's just south of there. I spoke with
her about this operation and lel her know what's coming and
said, what do you think of it? They seemed to be very
supportive of having you go in there. They said it sounds like it
will be a complementary business so they're looking forward to
it.
Mr. Schultz:
Thankyou.
Ms. McDermott:
Hi, Mr. Schultz. I was out to the site earlier and I notice in the
Inspection letter they mention the two storage trailers need to be
removed. I'm assuming that one of those is the large trailer that
has the Ford emblem on it. That's not related to your business
at all because you're not there yet. Right?
Mr. Schultz:
Correct.
Ms. McDermott:
So who is responsible for removing that, the current owner or
yourself?
Mr. Schultz:
The current owner.
Ms. McDermott:
As far as any other cleanup work that needs to be done along
the fence lines, Mr. Taormina mentioned the fence repair that
needs to be done, but there's a lot of stuff back there too. Will
you be cleaning that up?
Mr. Schultz:
Absolutely. I have been in touch with the owner. We're working
together to get that cleaned up. There is some fencing along
the north side that needs repair. I'll have that repaired and as it
should be, as well as across the west end that needs to be
fenced up. It will be cleaned up along the fence lines both
sides, trees, bushes. All of that needs to be cleaned up.
Ms. McDermott:
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
Recreational vehicles - you're probably talking about boats that
are small enough to be on a trailer, RVs, what?
June 8, 2010
25334
Mr. Schultz:
Mainly, we have inland lakes in Michigan. We don't have really
large enormous boats. Mainly, it's the smaller boats, 24 fool
and less, I would think, and campers and RVs. I guess they
could be up to 40 feel. That would be it.
Ms. Smiley:
Thank you very much.
Mr. Morrow:
Seeing no further questions, I'll go to the audience. Is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the
granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I'll
close the public hearing and ask for a motion.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, d was
#06-35-2010
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on June 8, 2010, on
Petition 2010-0502-10 submitted by Schultz Auto Brokers, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval for the outdoor storage of
recreational vehicles at 12641 Stark Road, located on the west
side of Stark Road between the railroad right -0f --way and
SchoolcraR Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28, which
property is zoned M-1, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2010-0502-10 be
approved, provided that the City Council waives the hard
surfaced requirement as set forth in Section 16.11(d)(3) of the
Zoning Ordinance, and subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan submitted by Schultz Auto Brokers as
received by the Planning Commission on May 13, 2010, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the outdoor storage of recreational vehicles and
commercial vehicles shall be limited to the rear yard
storage area as identified and designated on the above -
referenced Site Plan and shall be maintained in an orderly
manner;
3. That the storage yard shall be hard surfaced with crushed
rock or gravel prior to the issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy by the Inspection Department and shall be
maintained in a dust proof condition, and said storage area
shall be properly graded and drained to dispose of all
surface water in a manner as approved by the Engineering
Division;
June 8, 2010
25335
4. That the entire area utilized for recreational and
commercial vehicle storage shall be enclosed by a fence of
a type approved by the Inspection Department;
5. That there shall be no outdoor storage of vehicle parts,
scrap material and debris in connection with this use;
6. That adequate and properly directed lighting facilities, not
exceeding 30 feet in height, shall be provided for the
illumination of the storage area;
7. That the visitor and employee parking spaces shown on
the site plan shall be double striped, including the provision
of barrier free parking, and all regular parking spaces shall
be 10 feet by 20 feet in size as required;
8. That all existing landscaped areas shall be cleaned up, re -
managed and permanently maintained in a healthy
condition;
9. That the issues as outlined in the correspondence dated
May 24, 2010, from the Livonia Fire and Rescue Division
shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and/or the Engineering Division; and,
10. That the plan referenced in this approving resolution shall
be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of
application for the Certificate of Occupancy.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the
special and general waiver use standards and
requirements as set forth in Sections 16.11 and 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject properly has the capacity to accommodate
the proposed use; and,
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
June 8, 2010
25336
Mr. Morrow:
Is there any discussion?
Ms. Scheel:
I just had an additional question, Mark. I know this says that @'s
for outdoor storage. Do we need to put anything in here that
stipulates to make sure that nobody lives in anything that's
stored out there?
Mr. Taormina:
We dont typicallydo that, no.
Ms. Scheel:
That's just generally an understanding. We don't have to say
anything
Mr. Schultz:
There won't be anybody Irving there.
Ms. Scheel:
I understand that's not what its for. I just didn't know whether
that had to be something that's stipulated
that we make sure
that nobody slays overnight or anything in any of the vehicles.
Mr. Morrow:
That's a good point. Thankyou.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2010 -05 -SN -02 ADVANCE AUTO PARTS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2010-
05 -SN -02 submitted by Advance Auto Parts requesting approval
for wall signage for a tenant unit (30200 Plymouth Road) in the
Woodland Plaza shopping center, located on the north side of
Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Sears Drive in
the Southeast 114 of Section 26.
Mr. Taormina: This is in Section 26 which is a square mile bounded by
Plymouth Road to the south, Middlebelt Road to the east,
Merriman Road to west, and Schoolcraft Road and the 1-96
Expressway to the north. This is a request for two new
identification wall signs for a future tenant at the Woodland
Plaza shopping center, which is located on the north side of
Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Sears Drive.
This shopping complex is about 90,000 square feet in area and
is currently divided into 13 tenant spaces, the major tenant of
which is ABC Warehouse at the north end of the complex. As
you can see from the Zoning map, the zoning of the property is
June 8, 2010
25337
C-2, General Business. Advance Auto Parts, the petitioner,
would occupy the southern end cap of this shopping complex,
which is the unit closest to Plymouth Road. The request this
evening is for two wall mounted identification signs. The first
sign would be installed on the south elevation which faces
Plymouth Road. The other sign would be attached to the east
elevation which faces the main parking lot. The allowable area
of commercial wall signage is based on the length of the store
front, where for each one fool of frontage they are allowed one
square fool of signage. Advance Auto Parts is going to occupy
a unit that has roughly 90 feet of frontage along the south
elevation; thus, they would be entitled to 90 square feel of
signage. If the shopping center has exposure along two major
thoroughfares, the comer unit is permitted a second wall sign
that could be equal to one half the area of the first permitted
sign. While you could argue that this is a corner unit that faces
Tech Center Drive, because Tech Center Drive is not a major
thoroughfare, they are not entitled to the second wall sign. The
two wall signs they are proposing is something that would have
to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval. They
are proposing two signs, each measuring 81 square feel in
area, for a combined area of 162 square feel. They would need
a variance for excessive number of signs. Where the ordinance
allows one, the petitioner is proposing two. Where the
ordinance allows 90 square feel in the form of one sign, the
petitioner is proposing 162 square feet for two signs, and that
would require a variance of 72 square feet in total area. Just as
a point of comparison, the previous tenant at this location,
Waldenbooks and More, had two wall signs. Each of those
measured 31 square feel in area for a total of 62 square feet.
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item from the Inspection Department, dated May
28, 2010, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
May 21, 2010, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is note: The petitioneris proposing two
wall signs and each one is shown at 81 square feet. This tenant
space is only permitted one wall sign not to exceed 90 square
feet. An approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be
required to maintain a second wall sign and the excess square
footage. This Department has no further objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant
Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff?
June 8, 2010
25338
Ms. Smiley:
Aren't they also listed, Advance Auto Parts, on the sign for the
shopping mall?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, they are. You recently approved a new monument sign to
replace the existing monument sign. That sign will have several
tenant panels including one for Advance Auto Parts.
Ms. Smiley:
How far is the monument sign from this?
Mr. Taormina:
The tenant space is located at the end of the shopping center,
and the monument sign is located on the east side of the
easterly driveway approach to the shopping complex. It's at
least a couple hundred feet away.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay, but there's nothing in front of the store between Plymouth
Road and the store?
Mr. Taormina:
In the form of other buildings, no. They would be well
advertised with the signage they have proposed, both from the
east and west.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Scheel:
I know that Mrs. Smiley just asked about the monument sign
that we recently approved. Has it been approved by City
Council?
Mr. Taormina:
That sign is up for a vole tomorrow evening. There are three
prepared resolutions: approving, denying and referral to the
Committee of the Whole. It has yet to be determined.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Just for clarification and confirmation, the prior tenant had two
signs and each measured 31 square feet?
Mr. Taormina:
Correct.
Ms. Vartoogian:
And then there is an Advance Auto Paris store on Seven Mile
and they have one conforming sign?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. That is correct.
Ms. Vartoogian:
And they requested a second sign but that was denied?
June 8, 2010
25339
Mr. Taormina:
As I recall, that was dropped from their proposal. I'd have to go
back and check the records. I'm not sure if it was denied or
simply removed from their proposal.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and
address for the record.
Sean Smith,
Site Enhancement Services, 6001 Nimtz Parkway, South Bend,
Indiana 46628. I'm here on behalf of Advance Auto Parts
located at 30200 Plymouth Road. The Staff gave you a history
of what's out there with Advance Auto Parts looking at this end
cap location within the shopping center. Staff stated that the
Tech Center Road is not a major thoroughfare. However, it
does have access to this facility by Dollar General. To have the
visibility, this particular location is going to have two entry points
for customers located above At and A2, and the property is also
below grade a bit. With the amount of traffic that's on Plymouth
Road, we seek relief for the additional square footage. It
constitutes to a 3:1 ratio is what we look at, the size of the sign
compared to the length of the sign. Unfortunately, Advance
Auto Parts is a much longer name than most throughout that
corridor. For us to get adequate visibility and provide safe
vehicular movement and traffic patterns, we deem that a 27 inch
letter height is adequate to achieve that desired effect. So by
the length of the name, it's 81 square feet. If you do a method
of measurement, if you look at the individual letters around
itself, that square footage is actually 78 square feet. If you just
drew a box around Advance then the Auto and then the Parts
and flag, it would reduce that down to 78 square feel. I know
the method of measurement here, I believe, is the smallest
rectangle. So what you see before you is the 81 square feet,
which is the smallest rectangle around that. And if we could
also count the other frontage as approximately 88 square feet in
length, then we wouldn't even seek a variance for relief. The
other store that was mentioned, that does have a free standing
cabinet sign, which is about 48 square feet in length, whereas
this one is proposed for multi -tenant monument center sign so
other tenants would be on there. The idea is, the way we're set
within this location, and from that sign is approximately 200 to
300 feel from the store, and there's two entry points on
Plymouth Road. So we believe that the advance notification
and allowing drivers to see that at 27 inches is much greater
than if we had to reduce the size to 31 square feel.
June 8, 2010
25340
Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Are there any comments or questions from the
Commission?
Mr. Taylor: When you mention Tech Center Drive, that's actually 300 feet
away, so it's really not right on the corner. Our ordinance says if
the store is right on the comer you can gel a sign on both sides.
You're not really located that way. I understand that you
probably would want a sign on the east side of the building, but
even the way you figure it, you're talking about 156 square feet
of sign and you're only allowed 90 and one sign. So there has
to be some compromise here someplace. I don't know whether
you can do that or if you're willing to do that or not, but for us to
give you that much square footage, it would be wrong to the rest
of the tenants in that shopping center.
Mr. Smith:
We do have a 27 inch channel letter which does reduce the size
to 67 square feel apiece. Its still the 27 inches and the overall
height would allow you to have that and it does reduce it to 67
square feel if you allow just Advance, Auto and Parts being
measured separately. That combined area is about 27 inches in
overall height, 31 feet 8 inches in length. We could look at it at
the 67 square feel loo. So, obviously, yes, we would like to be
at this location. We desire to be at this location and we would
like to be visible at this location.
Mr. Taylor:
You're not that far off of Plymouth Road actually. In fad, it's
only about 100 feet off of Plymouth Road.
Mr. Smith:
Well, I think the two wall signs because the way the site is
situated, you have an ingress egress point right at the store, and
then you have another one down further. It would allow for the
two signs when you're navigating that area, if you miss your
ingress egress point, the driver is allowed to at least a couple
more hundred feet to identify the properly, slow down and hit
that ingress egress point to our property.
Mr. Taylor:
This drawing that we have, you have Advance Auto Parts right
in the center of the store. Is that where you're planning on
putting it?
Mr. Smith:
Yes, sir. Over the doorway.
Mr. Taylor:
On the other one, you're putting it on the end cap, right?
Mr. Smith:
I'd have to see that drawing because I think we're putting d over
the center in between that tenant space as well. Yes, it would
be right where it's located.
June 8, 2010
25341
Mr. Taylor:
So now you're talking about 134 square feet with a compromise.
Mr. Smith:
Yes, sir. I believe we worked with Staff. We could gel 90 on
one elevation, maybe 45 on another. So it would be around the
135 square fool area.
Mr. Taylor:
So many times we hear that, well, this is the only sign that we
have. You're telling me now that you do have another sign.
Mr. Smith:
Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Taylor:
That's all I have right now. Thank you.
Ms. Vartoogian:
I'm just wondering why the prior tenant was able to gel away
with 31 square fool signs on both sides and why do you feel that
you need something larger? There's the same number of
characters in both store names, so what makes your situation
different?
Mr. Smith:
I believe Advance Auto Parts is a nationally recognized auto
parts store. The way we design it, 10 percent of the population
is in transit, so this allows us to come to a new facility, outfit that
facility and bring in some more traffic to that facility, into that
shopping center. Advance Auto Parts, this is deemed as their
3:1 ratio. Books a Million is no longer there. I don't know why,
but Advance Auto Parts is encouraged to come there and they
would like to be recognized there. So I don't know what would
be any more different than Books a Million, but I do know that
we were planning on coming to this location for a long term.
Ms. Vartoogian:
I just think that there are other ways to attract people to a site
just so they know you're there. A sign is just for recognition. So
when you know you're going to the store and you're driving
down the street, you can find it. And there's the monument sign
and then you're asking for two very large signs on the building.
To me, it seems excessive.
Mr. Smith: I think the monument sign, the think the panel is approximately
one fool four inches by six feel. I don't know exactly the design.
I haven't seen it, but I'm thinking it's roughly in that area and
that lowers the letter height. That particular monument sign is
set back from the road. I believe it's nine feel in overall height.
There's a lot of clutter in there. The 27 inch letter height allows
us to have the ability to provide safe signage when people are
trying to identify and navigate the surrounding area.
June 8, 2010
25342
Ms. Vartoogian:
With the GPS these days and all the Mapquests and the Yahoo
maps and all that, I don't think this much signage is required,
but that's just one individual's opinion.
Mr. Smith:
I appreciate it.
Ms. McDermott:
I may have missed this, but is the 27 inch height lettering the
only size lettering that you have?
Mr. Smith:
They do a 3:1 ratio, so that would come down incrementally. So
you'd go down to a 24 inch letter height.
Ms. McDermott:
And 24 would then require how much in length?
Mr. Smith:
Approximately 28 feet 2 inches in length.
Ms. McDermott:
That's 28 feet?
Mr. Smith:
Yes, ma'am.
Ms. McDermott:
Well, I'm another Commissioner who is not fond of the
excessive signage. We already have excessive signage with
the monument sign. I dont think that we need that large of a
sign on both sides of the building. Obviously, you wouldn't be
here if you didn't think that you did, but I agree there are other
methods to find the store and it just seems like it's overkill.
That's my opinion. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I have a question for you, Mr. Smith. The proposed elevation
shows a red box around the sign as a background. Is that what
you're proposing to have, a red box accenting this sign?
Mr. Smith:
That would not be illuminated. They call that access panels.
That would either be a panel design or that would be painted
behind it.
Mr. Wlshaw:
Painted on the facade?
Mr. Smith:
Yes. I'm not sure if theyre going to do panels here or if they
would do the paint behind it.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Then a question to Mr. Taormina. Would that type of
accenting of the sign be considered part of the signage?
Mr. Taormina:
Our Staff checked with the Inspection Department and it would
not be included in the total area. We measure only the
rectangle that encompasses the lettering and the flag logo on
June 8, 2010
25343
the right hand side. We would use that to calculate the total
area of the sign, not the red background.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Very good. As it is proposed right now, just my comment
to the petitioner, you're asking for a sign on each side of your
frontage. Essentially, that is over a third of the size of the entire
frontage on each of those sides. To me, that's not something I
would support either. This thing needs to come down in size.
Thankyou.
Mr. Taylor:
With the 24 inch letter you were talking about, what is the
square footage of the total sign?
Mr. Smith:
You'll have to give me one second. 24 inches in height by 28
feet in length, would be 56 square feel.
Mr. Taormina:
Does that include the flag?
Mr. Smith:
Yes.
Mr. Taylor:
So now we're talking about 112 square feet. That's a little
different loo.
Mr. Smith:
I would say that, in theory, we could put a 90 square fool wall
sign on the east facing facade as well. Its a 1:1 ratio, one
square fool per lineal fool of building frontage.
Mr. Taylor:
What are you saying, that you'd only put one sign up?
Mr. Smith:
No, I'm just saying, if I'm understanding correctly, we could
probably put a 30 inch cloud sign on one elevation because
you're allowed 90 square feel.
Mr. Taylor:
You're talking about a second sign also.
Mr. Smith:
True. I was under the impression that we might be able to get a
45 square fool bonus for that second elevation. That's where if
we came down to 27 square feet, which is ... the 27 square
foot lineal Ietler size was 67 square feet ... let's see.
Mr. Taylor:
You have to understand that we are only a recommending body.
Whatever we give you, if you want a second sign, you're going
to have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals after you go to the
Council. I don't know what this body feels like. I think you need
another sign along the edge. The way the shopping center is
set up and you have two entrances, so that makes a difference,
June 8, 2010
25344
but you're going to have to compromise on them a little bit.
That's all.
Mr. Smith:
We have three entrances to that shopping center. I'd have to
argue the setback of that freestanding sign and that
thoroughfare. It's four lanes and then you have a grass median
in between that and the traffic and the speed out there is
approximately 40 to 45 miles per hour. That's the speed limit.
You're already approximately 60 to 70 feet from eastbound
traffic on Plymouth and then maybe another 100 feet from the
westbound traffic. So you're not allowing the business to
identify itself if we reduce the letter height.
Mr. Taylor:
I would be willing to offer you 112 square feet, but I'm only one
vote. You can break it up however you'd like to do it, but I'm not
sure that you have the support of this body either.
Ms. Scheel:
You have two entrances to your particular building, right?
Mr. Smith:
Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. I think that's what Mr. Taylor was referring to. There are
two entrances, one on each side. Mr. Taylor, that's what you
were referring to, why you'd do a sign on each side to go over
each entrance, one on each side of the building. Right?
Mr. Taylor:
Yes, there's one on the east side of the building.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. I just wanted to verify that. Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
I do have one comment to make. Mark, in any event regardless
of what this body does or the City Council does, the ultimate
decision maker will be the Zoning Board of Appeals. Is that
correct if he requires anything other than conforming signage?
Mr. Taormina:
The Zoning Board of Appeals certainly cannot grant approval for
any sign that exceeds what the City Council approves. So while
they are the final approving authority in this case, it has to be
consistent with or less than what is approved by the Council.
Mr. Morrow:
Equal to or less than what the Council approves.
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. Morrow:
So they are the final authority.
June 8, 2010
25345
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. If I may, Mr. Chair, I have some questions and comments
back to the petitioner.
Mr. Morrow:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
On this particular sign, and this is the one that was submitted
with your original request, it does show a letter height of 27
inches, and then it has a second dimension of 30-5/8 inches.
Does that extend to the lop of the flag?
Mr. Smith:
That's your trim cap. The letter height is 27 inches and then
how a sign is designed, there's a trim cap on it so that's where
you get the 30-5/8 inches. It keeps the flex in place.
Mr. Taormina:
And the alternative that you're proposing would be the 27 inches
to the lop of the trim cap?
Mr. Smith:
What we're proposing is what you see here. By putting a box
around Advance and laking that square footage, and then
around Auto, and then around Parts.
Mr. Taormina:
Okay, but that's not how we calculate sign area. So what you're
proposing is no change from what we're looking at.
Mr. Smith:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
You just want to calculate the area differently and not in
accordance with how we calculate it with our ordinance.
Mr. Smith:
It's just to give you an idea of what it would be.
Mr. Taormina:
I understand but there's no change. I guess I was under the
impression, as you were describing the altemative, that there
would be some reduction in what we're looking at.
Mr. Smith:
You can look at a 27 inch channel letter. It takes out the trim
cap and it's 27 inches, and then the channel letter itself is 31
feet 8 inches, which is a reduction of 10 square feet of what you
see there.
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not following you.
Mr. Smith:
Okay. This is a cloud sign. What this has is, that is three
separate boxes that are illuminated separately, mounted either
flush mounted or on a raceway with boxes behind them, about
120 volts on each side. A channel letter is obviously mounted
on a raceway, individual letters, in a channel that are illuminated
Mr. Smith: Yes.
Ms. Smiley: Have you ever done that?
Mr. Smith: No. It's a trademark. This is federally trademarked
June 8, 2010
25346
LED. Each letter would be internally illuminated and it would
have a circuit behind it. So they would be mounted on a
raceway. They'd come off an addifional maybe 6 to 8 inches of
how they're mounted. So that does change. It shrinks the
length of the sign because of how they're mounted and how
they're constructed.
Mr. Taormina:
Okay, but we don't have a plan showing what the difference in
dimensions are.
Mr. Smith:
No. I can provide that though.
Mr. Taormina:
One of the suggestions that was made as an alternative was to
how we typically calculate signage when it involves a business
located on the corner of two major thoroughfares. While they
are allowed a second wall sign equal to half the area of the first
wall sign, companies have requested that we just take the total
area and split that in two. Then they have two signs of equal
size, the combined area of which is no more than what they
would be entitled to. So the suggestion that he would have two
67 square fool signs, bringing it up to about 135 square feet,
well, that's what he would be entified to if this were a business
situated on the comer of two major intersections, and that would
have been a reduction overall of the sign area to some extent
and consistent with what we've approved in other cases. He
still has to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and get their
approval, but at least we're applying similar standards in those
cases. That's where that came from.
Mr. Morrow:
If we take that drive going through to the Tech Center as a
major road, right?
Mr. Taormina:
That's if you would consider applying the same standard. We
wouldn't classify Tech Center as a major thoroughfare in this
case. We would just look at the signage and apply the signage
as if it were. That's correct.
Ms. Smiley:
Have you ever done a wrap sign where you could put Advance
and then Auto Parts, you know, like Advance comes to the
corner and Auto Parts. You'd read it on an angle. Do you know
what I'm saying?
Mr. Smith: Yes.
Ms. Smiley: Have you ever done that?
Mr. Smith: No. It's a trademark. This is federally trademarked
June 8, 2010
25347
Ms. Smiley:
Didn't you say there were three separate boxes, Advance, and
then Auto Parts down the side. Advance on the north and then
Auto Parts...
Mr. Smith:
They do not like to break them up because that's their identity.
They can slack them. It's another alternative they do have.
This obviously wouldn't allow that here. They could slack
Advance and then Auto Parts underneath it, but those are the
only two branding design standards that they do have. They
don't like to separate Advance because there are Advance
places and there are also places called Auto Parts. So its
Advance Auto Parts.
Ms. Smiley:
If you did them in the corner, it would be like one ...
Mr. Smith:
I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think that's . .
Ms. Smiley:
That wouldn't be acceptable. Okay. Mark, the last thing you
said, could you say that again? If we were applying this as if
that road was a major road, and they would have a sign in front
and then half the size of the sign on the side?
Mr. Taormina:
That's what the ordinance would allow, but companies like
Walgreen have come in and said, well, instead of having one
large sign and one half that size, all things being equal, they're
on the corner of two major thoroughfares, they would like the
same size sign on both sides of the building. The approach
taken is just give us the total square footage and we will
split it
equally. So rather than having one sign that is half the size of
the first one, we'll just do two that are the same size.
Ms. Smiley: Like on Plymouth and Farmington, for example
Mr. Taormina: That's correct. And that's worked out well. Al least my take on
this sign is that the larger sign, and he's right - he'd be entitled
to a single 90 square fool sign on the south face of this building.
Its probably there where he needs the bigger sign anyway.
That's where he's going to have a visibility issue with traffic
coming from the west because it's going to be a little tougher
from a visual standpoint. If you're westbound on Plymouth
Road, you're first going to be able to see the monument sign
which will advertise Advance Auto Parts. And because this is
an end cap unit, you're going to be able to see any sign on the
east elevation. You can actually see the east elevation and the
south elevation when you're westbound. So I think the difficulty
is with eastbound traffic on Plymouth Road in seeing that in time
June 8, 2010
25348
to be able to make the tum, possibly in the first driveway, and
then the second option. So what you might want to consider is
the 67 square foot sign on the south elevation and maybe the
smaller sign that he is suggesting with 24 inch lettering on the
east elevation. That's another option you might want to look at.
Ms. Scheel:
The south elevation, that's At?
Mr. Taormina:
The south elevation is facing Plymouth Road. Yes, Al, correct.
Mr. Taylor:
That's what I was saying, Mark. I was willing to give him 112
square feet. He can do whatever he wants to do with R. Now,
the other way you're talking about, is 124 square feet.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, that would be 67 square feet plus 56, for 123 square feet.
Mr. Taylor:
Let them do whatever they want to do with it. Again, we're not
the final say so anyway.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any other questions of the staff or the petitioner? Is
there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming
forward, a motion would be in order.
Mr. Taylor:
The way the resolution is written, only a conforming sign is
approved. So I'll ask for an approving resolution with the 123
square feel of signage, and it will be reviewed and approved by
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
On a motion by
Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and adopted, it was
#06-36-2010
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2010-05SN-02
submitted by Advance Auto Parts requesting approval for wall
signage for a tenant unit (30200 Plymouth Road) in the
Woodland Plaza shopping center, located on the north side of
Plymouth Road between Middlebell Road and Sears Drive in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2010 -05 -
SN -02 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the petitioner shall be allowed the opportunity to seek
a second wall sign upon review and approval by the Zoning
Board of Appeals, provided that the total combined area of
both wall signs shall not exceed 123 square feet, and
further provided that in no case shall the size of either sign
exceed 90 square feel;
June 8, 2010
25349
2. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on the building or around the windows; and,
3. That the signage shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour after this business center closes.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Taylor, when you give them the total square feel, it can be
divided between the south and east side?
Mr. Taylor:
No, I told them, as far as I'm concerned ...
Mr. Morrow:
But you're giving them two signs?
Mr. Taylor:
Yes, two signs.
Mr. Morrow:
That's what I wanted to gel at. However they want to keep that
square footage but two signs.
Ms. Smiley:
That's not what it says. Is that what you're doing?
Mr. Morrow:
Is that the intent of your mofion?
Mr. Taylor:
Yes, it is.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Does everybody understand that? Is there any
discussion?
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. Chair, would the maker of the motion consider a proviso in
which no single sign could be greater than 90 square feel? If I
understood you right, they could have whatever they want as
long as the total doesn't exceed 123 square feet, but if they
opted for one sign at 123 square feet, I don't think that's what
we would allow.
Mr. Taylor:
No, no.
Mr. Taormina:
So in no instance would we allow a sign over 90 square feel.
Mr. Morrow:
This is based on the fact there's two signs, but in no case will
they exceed the ordinance.
Mr. Taormina:
A conforming sign of 90 square feel. That's fine.
Ms. Scheel:
I'm good with it.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
June 8, 2010
25350
AYES: Tayor, Scheel, Varloogian, Smiley, Morrow
NAYES: McDermott, Wilshaw
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Mr.
Morrow:
Do you understand what we've approved here tonight to send to
City Council?
Mr.
Smith:
123 square feet between two elevations, one sign not to exceed
90 square feet.
Mr.
Morrow:
This will be sent to the City Council. They will make the final
determination.
Mr.
Smith:
No LED. Was that part of it too? No LED band?
Ms.
Scheel:
Correct.
Mr.
Wilshaw:
Nothing exposed.
Mr.
Smith:
Nothing exposed. Got it.
Mr.
Morrow:
As we indicated tonight, eventually you're going to wind up at
the Zoning Board of Appeals if you exceed a conforming sign.
Mr.
Smith:
Okay. So that's two more City meetings, City Council then
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr.
Morrow:
That's right.
Mr.
Smith:
Three more?
Ms.
Smiley:
Al least two more.
Mr.
Morrow:
But the Zoning Board is set up to monitor the signs and in some
cases to give you relief.
Mr.
Smith:
I'll get to know the town. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr.
Morrow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
June 8, 2010
25351
YY:11i FE, l9:kIYI[a]C IP411 11[a] i! I=19 IC IX4Z97:1:1aU
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 201004-
02-06 submitted by Lone Pine Corral, Inc. requesting approval
of site landscaping, lighting and building elevation changes as
required by Planning Commission Resolution #0528-2010 for a
full service restaurant (Time Out Bar & Grill) at 36480 Plymouth
Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Levan Road and Newburgh Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 29.
Mr. Taormina: At the May Planning Commission Public Hearing, you approved
a Class C Liquor License in connection with the full service
restaurant at the Time Out Bar & Grill located at 36480
Plymouth Road. The Class C license will entitle the petitioner to
serve alcoholic beverages, including beer, wine and mixed spirit
drinks for consumption on the premises. This is the former
Silverman's restaurant. There were a couple of callback items,
landscaping and the changes proposed to the exterior of the
building. With respect to the building elevations, some
additional information has been provided that shows what those
improvements will look like. Basically, they include smaller
window openings on the south and east sides of the building.
The front entrance would be relocated just a few feel. He would
repaint the stucco and EIFS on the exterior with a new color
scheme as shown on the renderings. New awnings would be
installed as well as some light fixtures. He would add permanent
wall signage to the front of the building. In addition, as far as
landscaping, the petitioner has worked closely with our
Executive Director of the Plymouth Road Development Authority
to come up with a plan that actually includes two segments of
wall and fencing consistent with the PRDA streetscape
improvements. Those will be located on the central island
adjacent to the sidewalk. This is a blowup of that area, and what
it shows is the plan view of the three piers and the two sections
of fencing. Altogether, it is about 38 feel in length and it would
be located right in the middle of the site. I know they talked
about possibly flanking the property with sections of the wall and
pier, but there was concern about how that would affect the
visibility of the sign. Instead, they opted for two sections
combined located near the middle of the property. He would
also retain some of the existing shrubs and trees that are on the
property, but all of the landscaping along the front would be
replaced. He will pull out the ground cover that is there currently
and replace it with day lilies and Plantain lilies, which is some of
the material that is consistent with the PRDA's landscaping.
With that, I'll answer any questions you may have.
June 8, 2010
25352
Mr. Morrow:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated May 28, 2010, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of May 21, 2010, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome
Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. W Ishaw:
Mark, I have kind of a brown thumb, so you'll have to enlighten
me a little bit. How big is a Plainlain lily versus a yellow day lily?
Mr. Taormina:
That, l dont know.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. You're gardening skills are about as good as mine.
Mr. Taormina:
Well, we all know what a standard day lily is like. I'm not sure
about the Plainlain. Unfortunately, this was a plan that came in
Tale, based on the conversation with Mr. Nagy. Scott had all the
landscape material shown on the original plan for you to review,
but he did not have time to update that unfortunately.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The boxwoods and sluff will also be there. That hasn't gone
away?
Mr. Taormina:
If they are existing, they are going to slay. I think some of the
creeping juniper is going to be pulled up and replaced with
these flowers. The Plainlain lilies should be a little taller
because they're going to be at the back of some of these
improvements. I'm sure we could substitute those if we find that
they're not going to be adequate for where he has them shown
on the plan.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Maybe Dan knows. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
We'll need your name and address for the record please.
Danilo Josifoski,
Lone Pine Corral, Inc., 37630 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan
48150.
Mr. Morrow:
Any comments from what you heard from the staff?
June 8, 2010
25353
Mr. Josifoski: The day lilies, their growth size are 20 inches in width by 15
inches in height. The other lilies, which are in the background,
they're going to be 18 inches in width and 24 inches in height.
That's why we put those in the background so that way they
show from the front view. You can see them too.
Mr. Morrow: Any olherquestions ofthe petitioner?
Mr. Taylor: The thing that bothers me a little bit is the lighting. Do you think
you're going to have enough lights there?
Mr. Josifoski: I think we're going to have enough lighting. We gel half of the
lighting from next door, the gas station. There is a lighting pole
right in the ...
Mr. Taylor: Yes, I know there's one in the back.
Mr. Josifoski: On the north side, which Edison is going to install the light over
there.
Mr. Taylor: Have you thought about putting coach lights along the side of
the building?
Mr. Josifoski: On the building itself, there are three lights.
Mr. Taylor: There are three coach lights?
Mr. Josifoski: There are three lights right on the building.
Mr. Taylor:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Josifoski:
Also, I would like to continue talking to Mr. Taylor. Last time you
asked the question about the wall signage on the building. I
thought you were talking about the banners, the existing
banners. I said there would be no banners there. I was
referring to the banners, not to the wall signs. I'm going to be
much shorter than Advance Auto Parts.
Mr. Taylor:
I understood what you meant.
Mr. Josifoski:
We would like to have a wall sign, whatever the ordinance will
allow us. I think we have 40 feet of frontage of the building, so
that will lel us have 40 square feet of signage. If that is the
case, we're going logo with it.
Mr. Taylor:
Well, whatever the ordinance calls for is what you can have.
June 8, 2010
25354
Mr. Josdoski:
I just want to make sure for the record that ...
Mr. Taylor:
You're going to meet the requirements of the ordinance. Is that
what you're saying?
Mr. Josdoski:
Yes. We won't be asking for anything bigger than whatever is
the ordinance.
Mr. Taylor:
That's fine.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Just a comment that I think this new landscaping plan that we
received looks nice. It has quite a bit of plant material on it. It
has the fence and piers of the PROA, which is a really nice
addifion. I think between that and the colors that you propose
for the building, I think it will be a very attractive site.
Mr. Josdoski:
Thank you. We're trying to do the best we can, and we want to
make sure the place looks nice, the appearance, and then also
inside too.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Great.
Mr. Morrow:
I see no further questions. Is there's anyone in the audience
wishing to speak for or against the granting of this pefifion?
Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was
06-37-2010
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2010-0402-06
submitted by Lone Pine Corral, Inc. requesting approval of site
landscaping, lighting and building elevation changes, as
required by Planning Commission Resolution #05-28-2010, for a
full service restaurant (Time Out Bar & Grill) at 36480 Plymouth
Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Levan Road and Newburgh Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 29, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan submitted by Lone
Pine Corral, Inc. as received by the Planning Commission on
May 21, 2010, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan submitted by Lone Pine Corral, Inc.
as received by the Planning Commission on June 7, 2010, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
June 8, 2010
25355
3.
That all existing landscaped areas shall be cleaned up, re -
managed and permanently maintained in a healthy
condition;
4.
That the landscape areas along this property's Plymouth
Road street frontage shall be planted and coordinated
according to the Plymouth Road Development Authority's
(PRDA) directions and specifications;
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 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;
7.
That no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
8.
That the plans referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the
time of application for the Certificate of Occupancy
amendment; and,
9.
Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of one year only from the 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. Morrow, Chairman,
declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
June 8, 2010
25356
ITEM #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 999" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 995th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held
on May 11, 2010.
On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#06-38-2010 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 995th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on May 11,
2010, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following
AYES:
Smiley, Morrow
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 996th Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on June 8, 2010, was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
R. Lee Morrow, Chairman