Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2014-01-28MINUTES OF THE 1,049rH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,049" 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: Scott P. Bahr R. Lee Morrow Carol A. Smiley Ian Wilshaw Members absent: Gerald Taylor Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in wniing, 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 2013-12-0232 TENNYSON CHEVROLET Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2013-12-02-32 submitted by Jay Feldman requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(8) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to demolish an existing commercial building (32590 Plymouth Road) in order to expand a parking lot for the purpose of displaying vehicles for the existing auto dealership (Tennyson Chevrolet) at 32570 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Hubbard Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27. January 28, 2014 26223 Mr. Taormina: This is a waiver use petition to expand an existing automobile dealership, Tennyson Chevrolet. The request would demolish an existing commercial building and expand the vehicle storage and display lot located at the Tennyson facility, which is on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Hubbard Avenue. The overhead shows the location of the property in relationship to the current zoning as well as the surrounding properties. This is a narrow parcel. It's about 0.4 acre in total area. It includes about 55 feel of frontage along Plymouth Road and has a depth of 315 feel. The red color represents the G2, General Business, commercial zoning district that not only encompasses this property but also the surrounding properties to the east and west. Lying immediately to the north is the M-1, Light Manufacturing district. Interestingly, Tennyson owns all the property to the east, west and north of this particular site. This is the site of a small commercial building that is occupied by a barbershop, Naimola's. Located at the rear of the commercial building is a single family residential dwelling also on the same parcel of land. In April of Iasi year, Tennyson received site plan approval to renovate the dealership by partially demolishing the main structure and constructing four separate additions to the existing dealership buildings. The plan that is before you would demolish the barbershop building as well as the residential structure. They would grade and level the site to correspond with the adjacent parking lots of the dealership and then the entire area more or less would be covered with asphalt and stuped in order to accommodate roughly 42 vehicles that would add display space for both the new and used vehicles. This is the new car dealership operation of Tennyson, which is to the east of the site in question on the right hand side. Then to the left or immediately adjacent to this parcel on the west side is the used car dealership operation. The area behind the properties is used primarily by Tennyson for vehicle storage for most of their car inventory. The plan shows that the existing driveway off Plymouth Road would be removed and replaced with landscaping, both within the right-of-way and slightly outside of the right-of-way. Waiver use requirements for dealerships have a couple special requirements. One of those is that no vehicles can be parked within twenty feel (20') from the front lot line. The proposed parking layout includes four spaces that run immediately adjacent to the Plymouth Road right-of-way and those spaces would be located about 5 feet from the actual property line. So they are within that 20 foot setback and that is similar to what was approved for the new car dealership immediately to the east. There are some changes that took place when we reviewed the site plan for the new car dealership January 28, 2014 26224 that pulled some of the parking out of the right-of-way and positioned those parking spaces about 5 feet along the right-of- way of Plymouth Road with some landscaping added between the sidewalk and the curb where those spaces are located. The same treatment would lake place here. But it is going to require that the City Council waive or modify that special requirement by a separate resolution in which at least two-thirds of the majonty of the Council concur. Other requirements are that the total number of vehicles proposed to be displayed or stored shall be subject to recommendation by the Planning Commission and approved by City Council; and, any outdoor storage of disabled, damaged or unlicensed vehicles is prohibited. Those are the three special requirements that apply to new and used car dealership operations. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Please Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated January 3, 2014, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced planning petition. The legal description provided with the petition appears to be correct and is acceptable to this office. The address of 32590 Plymouth Road should be used in conjunction with the parcel. The proposed plan indicates that project will consist of removing the existing structures and associated paving within the site and repaving the property to provide additional parking for the abutting automotive dealership. We have no objections to the proposed site renovation at this time. The owner will need to submit plans to the City of Livonia Engineering Department, as well as to The Michigan Department of Transportation, to obtain permits for the proposed work. It should be noted that the existing structures art; currently serviced by public utilities, which will need to be terminated at the property lines during the removal process. Also, the owner will need to provide drainage and storm water treatment details for the proposed parking areas prior to obtaining permits." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer 11. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 8, 2014, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a commercial building on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 3, 2014, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with January 28, 2014 26225 the petition. 1 have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Joseph Boilos, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 13, 2014, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, 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 of the Planning Director? Seeing none, we'll invite the petitioner to come forward. Tom Gizoni, Alpine Engineenng, Inc., 46892 West Road, Suite 109, Novi, Michigan 48377. Good evening. We are the civil engineers for the project. I really don't have much more to add. I will try to answer any questions you may have at this time. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the petitioner? Mr. Wilshaw: Its a very small detail, but looking at the plan that's on the screen before us, there's an extra curb being shown on the area that should be landscaped. Is thaljusl an oversight or typo? Mr. Gizoni: Yes, and that will be removed. That's a portion of the existing driveway that is to be removed. Mr. Wilshaw: So the rest of the landscaping in that area would be extended to be consistent with what's currently proposed and going to be built? Mr. Gizoni: That's correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Those are all the questions I have. Mr. Morrow: Anyone else? Its a fairly clean request. You've done a fine job for this particular one. I'm going to ask the audience if there is anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and request a motion. On a motion by Bahr, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-01-2014 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Heanng having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 28, 2014, on Petition 2013-12-02-32 submitted by Jay Feldman requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(8) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with January 28, 2014 26226 a proposal to demolish an existing commercial building (32590 Plymouth Road) in order to expand a parking lot for the purpose of displaying vehicles for the existing auto dealership (Tennyson Chevrolet) at 32570 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Hubbard Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27, which properly is zoned G2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013-12-02-32 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked C-1 dated December 9, 2013 prepared by Alpine Engineering, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the number of vehicles to be displayed outdoors shall be limited to a total of forty-two (42) vehicles, and that no vehicle for sale shall be displayed closer than twenty feel (20') from the front lot line (unless waived by the Council in a separate resolution); 3. That except for what may be authorized under the Zoning Ordinance as part of a temporary sales event, any type of exlenor advertising related to the sale of the vehicles designed to attract the attention of passing motorists, such as promotional flags or streamers, shall be prohibited; 4. That the display of any vehicles on car lifts is strictly prohibited; 5. That there shall be no outdoor storage of auto parts, equipment, scrap material, waste petroleum products, junked, unlicensed or inoperable vehicles, or other similar items in connection with this operation; 6. That all parking spaces shall be double slnped, including the provision of barrier free parking with proper signage, marking and configuration, and all regular customer spaces shall be 10 feet by 20 feet in size as required; 7. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition; 8. That all light poles shall be a maximum of twenty feel (20') high, including the base, and all light fixtures shall be shielded to minimize glare trespassing on adjacent properties and roadways; January 28, 2014 26227 9. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time an occupancy permit is applied for. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Mr. Bahr: I don't have any questions but I'll just make the comment that I think that this change that's happening here really amounts to a cleanup of the site. It's just really consistent with obviously the way it's used and it's definitely an improvement for Plymouth Road. Mr. Morrow: Very definitely so. Anyoneelse? Mr. Wilshaw: Just to say that Joni Mitchell once said that we pave paradise and put up a parking lot, but in this case, I think theyre actually improving the situation by putting up a parking lot. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Yes, I think you're correct there also. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. This concludes the public hearing portion of the agenda. We will go on to the Miscellaneous section of the agenda. January 28, 2014 26228 ITEM #2 PETITION 2014-01-SN-01 PET SUPPLIES PLUS Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the next dem on the agenda, Petition 2014-01SN-01 submitted by Pet Supplies Plus requesting approval to replace two (2) existing awning signs with two (2) wall-mounted signs for the business located at 29493 Seven Mile Road in the Mid-7 Shopping Center, located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Melvin Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Taormina: This is a sign petition on behalf of Pel Supplies Plus. The store is located at the southwest corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt within the Mid-7 shopping center. This is the zoning map that shows you the patchwork of zoning that exists at this shopping center. You'll see three different classifications. The dark red is the C-2, General Commercial zoning. G7 is located at the south portion of the properly and building area and P stands for the Parking classification. The building is located within the C-2 and G7 zoned areas, and the parking lot encompasses most of eastern half of the site as you can see from this aerial photograph. The store that we're considering this evening, Pet Supplies Plus, is located at the north end of the complex. It's an end cap unit. It's about 8,900 square feet in total size. From the information that was submitted, they have roughly 100 feet of building frontage facing Seven Mile and roughly 89 feet of frontage facing Middlebelt Road, with the Middlebelt Road side of the store representing the front of the store. Within the C-2 zoning classification, each business is allowed one wall sign equal to one square feel of sign area for each one lineal fool of frontage. Where corner units exist with exposure on two major roads, there is an allowance for a second wall sign. The second wall sign can be one half of the total allowable area of the first permitted sign. When we consider the Middlebelt Road side as the front of this unit, with 89 feel they would be entitled to 89 feel of signage facing Middlebell Road and then half of that or 44.5 feel facing Seven Mile Road along the north facade of this unit. Back in 1993 is when the City last considered signage for this establishment. Ultimately what was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals were two signs of equal area each measuring 60 square feet. These were in the form of awning signs, one facing Seven Mile, one facing Middlebell Road. This graphic shows you what exists as well as what is proposed. The lop half of the drawing shows you what is there currently, these green awnings with the identification sign. This would be the side of the building facing Middlebell Road. So this is the front of the building and you can see the awning and Pet Supplies Plus, and then with the awning removed and the facade January 28, 2014 26229 underneath. They would install a new channel sign that would measure roughly 105 square feet in total area. If you scroll to the next page, you'll see a very similar graphic that illustrates what the signage would like on the north side of the building facing Seven Mile Road. Again, you'll see the green awning on the lop. It wraps around both sides of the building. With that removed, you see a similar sign being placed on that side of the building, again facing Seven Mile, equal in area, about 105 square feel. Because both sides exceed what the ordinance allows, it would require approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Very good Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated January 23, 2014, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the above referenced Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required for the excess number of signs. 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 of the Planning Director? Seeing none, is the petitioner here this evening? Welcome. Joe Hochendoner, Pet Supplies Plus, 17197 N. Laurel Park Drive, Suite 402, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Just to add a few things here briefly. One of the things we're looking to do, as you can tell from the illustrations, is to update the rest of the building, or the fascia, if you will, to match the rest of the building. In so doing, because our signage is part of the awning, when that comes down we would end up putting new signage up. Roughly the fascia that is shown in the photograph is seven feel tall. With our corporate headquarters located here in Livonia, it would be a good opportunity to update our signage to our standard signage package. So that's another important thing for us. Typically, as a tenant, we wouldn't be renovating the exterior of the building, but that's something we're willing to take on to update the building to match it. I know there's been some, not necessarily controversy, but the look of the building. There's been a lot of discussion about bringing it up so that it matches with the entire plaza that's there. So that's something that we're looking to do. The other thing, depending on how things cost out, we're looking to also update the storefront facade. The glazing has seen its day and that's something else that we're looking to January 28, 2014 26230 update as well with this potental renovation. That's pretty much it. If there's any questions that the Board has, we'd be happy to answer those. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Are there any questions of the petitioner? Mr. Bahr: This is more just a point of history for me. You said to bang it into compliance with the rest of the building, the green awning, that's always been unique, hasn't it? Mr Mochentloner That's always been unique but from my understanding, as you move south, you have Dollar Tree and you have the other tenants in there. From my understanding, they've eventually renovated continually up to this point that we're sort of the only niche that doesn't have the standard fascia with the siding colors. Mr. Bahr: Okay. I was just trying to make sure my memory served me correctly. Thanks. Ms. Smiley: Were you aware of what the City allows in the way of signage? Mr Mochentloner Yes, we are. Ms. Smiley: What you're asking for is a lot. Mr Mochentloner Yes, and we understand that. Again, one of the things, our customers are sort of used to this iconic green sign. The one thing we just want to make sure is that, as we renovate this building, that are customers know that we're still there. Of course, signage is always important to us. I know there's always the balance between large signs and fascias and all that, but with having such a tall fascia, around 7 feet, we think that the signage will still work in proportion with the building as a whole. Ms. Smiley: You're not having trouble having people find you now, are you? Mr Mochentloner No. Not right now. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Typically what's allowed, as Mr. Taormina staled, the way our ordinance normally works is we allow, because you're a comer lot, the sign on the frontage that's equivalent to your lineal square feet of your building and then a sign that's half that size on the other side. In your case, your frontage can be debatable. January 28, 2014 26231 Obviously your door is on the Middlebell Road side, but you have significant frontage on Seven Mile. It's rather important to the visibility of your store as well, and I think customers use that side as they come along Seven Mile to find your store. I do think that side is also important. One thing that we discussed at our study meeting was the possibility of allowing you to use that linear footage along Seven Mile, which is actually a little bit more, as a calculation point, and then lake that space and divide it equally among the two sides so that essentially what you'd end up having is a total of 150 square feel of signage allowed, which if you wanted to do equal side signs, that would be 75 square feel signs on both sides, or of course, you could still, if you wanted to have a larger sign on Middlebell Road and a smaller one on Seven Mile, you could do that. But that's something that we talked about at our study meeting and I wanted to see what your thought was about that. It's more than what you currently have. You have 120 square feet. Its less than what you're proposing but it's sort of a compromise in between. Mr Mochen ner I mean if that's something the Board is just not going to allow us to go forward with the 36, that's something that we would be willing to entertain. Or even if there's a medium between that, if even we looked at a 33 inch sign. A 33 inch sign would be 87 or 88 square feet per sign to give a little bit more of a bump. That would be great as well. We're just trying to make sure, again, visibility and clearance of the sign is easily legible. Mr. Wilshaw: And I understand that. That's definitely important. One could certainly argue that the removal of your green awning makes the sign a little less significant in the sense that you're green awning across the entire length of your store is in itself an indicator of the store. Mr Mochen ner And it does stand out if you're on the comer on the Sears side. It definitely stands out compared to the rest of the building. Mr. Wilshaw: And I agree. I think that holding you exactly to the letter of our ordinance may do a disservice to the store, but allowing you something a little beyond what our ordinance would normally allow, I think is reasonable. Is it 210 feet reasonable or is it 150 square feet reasonable, is really the question. And realize that we're a recommending body to the Council, so whatever we come up with, you're going to go to the Council and if you want to try to convince them you have circumstances that are above and beyond what we're coming up with, that's certainly your prerogative, but I certainly would feel comfortable with 150 square feel of signage for your store. I do think that you're January 28, 2014 26232 upgrading the appearance of it with the proposal you have before us and I think that's an excellent thing for the community. I think it's good for the area and I think it's great that Pel Supplies Plus is now a Livonia based business and you're coming to the community to invest in it being you're a corporate citizen here as well. I appreciate that very much. Thank you. Mr. Bahr: I just remembered there's a question that came up Iasi week, and I was just going to confirm for the sake of my fellow commissioners that there are two pylon signs on this property as well, both of which have Pel Supplies Plus on them. There's certainly plenty of signage. I would concur with what Commissioner Wilshaw said, but I just wanted to point that out for everybody in case somebody was still wondering. Mr. Morrow: Thank you for that comment. Anyone else? I know the store has been there for quite some time. Can you quantify the length of lime that theyve been there? Mr Mochen ner Yes. We've been there since 1993. So roughly a little over 20 years. Mr. Morrow: So you've probably built up a pretty significant trade in that area. Mr Hoche ner Yes. Our customers know that we're there but we're also always reaching out to those new customers too, which are important to us as well. Mr. Morrow: I would imagine a lot of it is word-of-mouth loo. If you have satisfied customers and they're pet lovers, I'm sure they like to go where they're well taken care of. Mr Mochen ner Coved. And the quantity I can't speak to. I'm not sure what those numbers would be. Mr. Morrow: I didn't want to dwell on that, but I just wanted to quantify it for how long you've been there. Mr Hochen ner Sure. Mr. Taormina: Just a quick question because the petitioner mentioned an alternative letter height of 33 inches. I'm just wondering why 33 as opposed to 32 inches? Are these patterns that have already been established by the sign maker? Can you shed some light on what options are available because I know a lot of these are standards sizes that are used with your other stores? January 28, 2014 26233 Mr Hochen&ner Thats correct. We have a specific sign package or criteria that we go to and basically, its 30, 33 and 36. The next bump down from our typical sign would be a 33 inch sign from the 36. Mr. Morrow: And these are 36? Mr Hochen ner That's a 36, correct. Mr. Morrow: And the bottom is 30. Mr Hochenroner Cortect, 30. Mr. Morrow: Thankyou. Mr. Taormina: When you say 7 feel, how are you measuring that? Mr Hochenroner From the bottom of the soffit to the top of the parapet. Mr. Taormina: Not this back parapet? Mr Hochentl ner No, that back piece is actually set back further from the building. Mr. Taormina: So it would actually be from this point to the lop. Mr Hochen&ner Correct. Mr. Morrow: Can that be adjusted by the width or the contraction of it? Is that how its measured? Mr. Taormina: I'm sorty. What do you mean? Mr. Morrow: I mean if you draw it out, that increases it, or you bring it in, that decreases what we measure as a sign, nghl? Mr. Taormina: I'm guessing that if the depth goes down, these are all proportional, so it probably has a slight adjustment in the overall length. Mr Hocken ner That would be correct. Mr. Taormina: Do you know what those other dimensions are with the 33 and the 30? Mr Hochen&ner So a 33 would be roughly 32 feel long. Mr. Taormina: And then the 30? January 28, 2014 26234 Mr Hochen&ner That would be roughly 30 feel long. It's about a 2 fool difference. Mr. Morrow: I guess the question is, can you work with that 50 and the 100 or the 275's. Would that meet your crilena? Mr Hochen&ner We would work with that. Mr. Morrow: And still maintain one of your standard letter sizes? Mr Hochen&ner We could probably gel that to work out, but again, if we could compromise and look at 33 as a middle, that's what we would like to try to do if possible. Mr. Morrow: And as Mr. Bahr pointed out, you do have a couple pylon signs which would augment the signs as far as the visibility of that. Mr. Bahr: A question probably for Mark. If this step mall was ever redone on a large level, would those pylon signs come under our review or are they pretty much grandfathered in regardless what they do here? Mr. Taormina: They are always subject to discussion depending on the extent of remodeling. They could very well be part of the discussion as we've done on other sites. Mr. Bahr: Okay. Then I just want to make sure I'm clear. So this 33 inch tall sign that you're talking about, what would the square footage of that end up being? Mr Hochen&ner.- A 33 inch sign is 87.91, 88 square feet. Mr. Bahr: So that's what you're asking for. Do you know what the 30 inch tall sign would be, the square footage? Mr Hochen&ner A 30 inch would be roughly 70. Mr. Bahr: Is that right at the 75? Mr. Taormina: Yes Mr. Morrow: Is that is, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: Yes. I'll just point out that the 87 is consistent with what the Planning Commission approved in 1993 but it was adjusted downward by the Zoning Board of Appeals, probably down to 60 which is representative of what you have on the awnings today. January 28, 2014 26235 Mr. Morrow: You said the 87 inches? Mr. Taormina: Our notes indicate that's what the Planning Commission approved back in 1993. Mr. Morrow: Is that on both sides? Mr. Taormina: That was two signs at 87 square feet. Mr. Morrow: And that was a new store at that lime? Mr. Taormina: Yes. It sounds like it was. Mr. Wilshaw: Through the Chair to Mr. Taormina, so the yellow lettering that's on the current sign is essentially a 30 inch high letter? Mr. Taormina: I don't know what the actual dimensions of that are. I don't know if that's 30 inches or not. Mr Mochen loner I'm not sure to be honest with you what the existing letter size is. I don't have any existing documents as to what that was when it was placed. Mr. Taormina: Its 60 square feel. So the fad that it's 60 square feet would probably be an indication that its even less than the 30 inches. Its probably somewhere 26, 27 or something would be my guess. Mr. Wilshaw: So 30 is probably somewhere in between those two signs that we see in the picture. Mr. Taormina: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Ms. Smiley: I have one more question. Just for clanfcation then, they're allowed a 60 and a 60 or 120. Right? Mr. Taormina: Theym allowed 89 and 44. Ms. Smiley: Which is 133. Mr. Taormina: What he's suggesting is a 33 inch sign. That's what they'd be entitled to along the Middlebell Road side. Then on the Seven Mile Road side, they're only allowed half of that or 44.5 square feel. January 28, 2014 26236 Mr. Morrow: But we're willing to count the Seven Mile side as the front of the store. Mr. Taormina: That's what we discussed at the study meeting as being a fair compromise. Ms. Smiley: They allowed 133.5. Mr. Taormina: I think these stores when they have frontage on two roads, they probably want signs of equal size. It's probably to their advantage. The question is between the three different sizes, or at lead the two, the 30 or the 33. A 30 inch tall sign brings it right up to the dimensions we talked about at the study session. The 33 inch tall sign brings it up a little bit more than that, equal to what they would be allowed on at least the Middlebelt Road side of this building. They just want to duplicate that on the other side. Mr. Morrow: And that was the 89? Mr. Taormina: Yes. I think 87 or 88. Mr. Morrow: Okay. I wrote 0 down wrong. Mr. Bahr: I think the discussion we're having here, what's being proposed, I can certainly understand it and I don' think its an unreasonable request, but I also think we have a city ordinance in place that was designed specifically for this situation and has served us well. While I think it's a reasonable request, I think our compromise is reasonable in light of that as well. Mr. Morrow: Yes, and as Mr. Wilshaw pointed out, this is a recommending body to City Council who will ultimately make the decision. Is there anything else of the commission? 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 ask for a motion. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Bahr, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-02-2014 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2014 -01 -SN -01 submitted by Pel Supplies Plus requesting approval to replace two (2) existing awning signs with two (2) wall -mounted signs for the business located at 29493 Seven Mile Road in the Mid -7 Shopping Center, located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Melvin Avenue in the Northeast January 28, 2014 26237 1/4 of Section 11, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the two (2) wall signs shall be installed in accordance with the Sign Plan submitted by Pel Supplies Plus, as received by the Planning Commission on January 9, 2014, except for the fact that each sign shall not exceed 75 square feel in sign area or a total of 150 square feel for both signs; 2. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive sign area and any conditions related thereto; 3. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on the building or around the windows; and, 4. That the signage shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this business center closes. 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 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,047m Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,047 1h Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on November 19, 2013. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Bahr, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-03-2014 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,047 1h Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on November 19, 2013, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, Bahr, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Wilshaw Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. January 28, 2014 26238 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,049'" Public Heanngs and Regular Meeting held on January 28, 2014, was adjourned at 7:42 p.m. CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Acting Secretary ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman