HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1992-06-30 12147
MINUTES OF THE 645th REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, June 30, 1992, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 645th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive,
Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Gniewek, LaPine, Alanskas, Fandrei, Engebretson
Members absent: Tent, McCann, Morrow
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director
and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda was a Motion by the
City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the question of
whether or not to rezone certain property located south of Eight Mile
Road extending to the Clarenceville High School property between
Middlebelt Road and Oporto in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2 from RUF to
R-1 and R-2.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
`. #6-398-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section
23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia,
as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be
held to determine whether or not certain property located south of Eight
Mile Road extending to the Clarenceville High School property between
Middlebelt Road and Oporto in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, should be
rezoned from RUF to R-1 and R-2; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a Motion by the
City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #398-92, to
hold a public hearing on the question of whether or not to rezone Lot 8,
except the north 22 feet and except the west 70 feet, of Horton's
Subdivision located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 from R-1 to C-1.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
12148
#6-399-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution
#398-92, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone
Lot 8, except the north 22 feet and except the west 70 feet, of Horton's
Subdivision located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 from R-1 to C-1;
and
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Request by Kok Va
Chhan for removal of "No Left Hand Turn" signs in connection with
Petition 91-3-2-10 by Kok Va Chhan requesting waiver use approval to
operate a donut shop with customer seating in an existing building
located on the southwest corner of Six Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 14.
Mr. Engebretson: This is a petition to remove one of the conditions that we had
placed on the Yum Yum Donut Shop at the location the secretary
read. Mr. Nagy, we had asked you to correspond with the Police
Department, which precipitated the original action that we took,
and we have asked you to communicate with them to see if they have
any room to accomodate this request or do they still stand firm?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, they do stand firm on it. To that extent they submitted a
letter to the Planning Commission dated June 30, 1992, which says
in part "In response to Mr. Shane's request for a written
description of our recommendations, the followiing is submitted for
your consideration. In the interest of public safety, the manner
in which vehicular traffic enters and exits this business must be
regulated. With consideration to the speed limits on the
intersecting roadways and the close proximity of the business to
the intersection, left turns by exiting vehicles must be
prohibited. Further - vehicles travelling west on Six Mile Road,
which do not have use of a left turn lane available, must be
prohibited from making a left turn into the business". This was
signed by Arthur Cheney, Police Office, Traffic Bureau; Kevin
Dawley, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau and Lee B. Grieve, Chief of
Livonia Division of Police. They did indicate, however, that they
do not have actual accident records of any accidents as such at the
intersection.
Mr. Gniewek: The previous business that was there, that had no prohibition
against left hand turns, did it?
Mr. Nagy: That is correct.
Mr. Gniewek: This parking lot is also used by the Shooters Service. Is that
correct?
12149
Mr. Nagy: Yes it is. It is used mutually by both businesses.
Mr. Gniewek: That business has been existing there for a long time and also was
able to exit onto Six Mile Road without any apparent accidents
reported by the Police Department?
NINNY
Mr. Nagy: Exactly.
Mr. Gniewek: Most of the gas stations in the City of Livonia that are on
corners, is there any prohibition of left hand turns on any major
thoroughfare on any of those gas stations?
Mr. Nagy: If there are, they are the exception rather than the rule. I
cannot recall of any. The only one that I can recall might be the
station at Eight Mile and Middlebelt Road and that was only in
connection with the car wash that was added. I think there is a
restriction on a left turn there.
Mr. Gniewek: Generally any business that is on any of the major thoroughfares
that we have in the City of Livonia is really not prohibited from
making left hand turns. Although I agree that is probably the
safest method of preventing any accidents by preventing left hand
turns, it does limit the access to the businesses if we did that
and the exits from that particular business by locals who are
living in that area who want to turn in either direction to go to
their subdivision. That would limit that. There is no other way
to get to those subdivisions other than make a left turn out onto
Six Mile Road?
Mr. Nagy: They would have the option of crossing over to Shooters Service
property going west. They would then have to cross over the strip
of the adjacent commercial development and then access to Six Mile
Road.
Mr. Gniewek: So it would be behind the particular businesses?
Mr. Nagy: It would be three businesses over. There also is some integration
between the parking lots.
Mr. Gniewek: Is that generally the policy of any Police Department to use other
properties to exit in any particular direction or is it generally
expected that people would exit from their own property rather than
transverse adjoining properties?
Mr. Nagy: I think it is always the preferred policy to have patrons that use
your place of business to have access from your property rather
than to share off-street parking with adjoining properties.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to indicate that although I
understand the Traffic Bureau's position as far as making the
maximum safety factor at that particular location by adding "No
Left Hand Turn" signs, I really think we are hindering this
particular business owner by denying him the privilege of having
his particular customers exit towards their particular subdivision
12150
and having normal access onto the roadways. There aren't any
businesses that Mr. Nagy could bring to mind that do exist on major
thoroughfares that have this limitation. Although I do agree that
this is probably the safest, I am not sure it is the fairest for
that particular business that is existing at that location.
Perhaps we could come to a compromise and maybe eliminate just one
" No Left Hand Turn" sign. The major thoroughfare at that point is
Middlebelt Road. We could leave that "No Left Hand Turn" sign in
and eliminate the "No Left Hand Turn" sign onto the Six Mile
section. That would be what I would support. That way we would
try to live with the Traffic Bureau's expertise and yet we would be
fair as far as the business is concerned.
Mrs. Fandrei: John, I don't recall having the three signatures on a Traffic
letter, especially the Chief's. That is not normal, is it?
Mr. Nagy: It is unusual but I think the Traffic Bureau is aware of the
unusual situation. I think they were aware this applicant was
having difficulty. The people that were patronizing not only his
facility but Shooters Service were concerned. Suddenly with this
donut shop opening up there, they were now being restricted from
making those left hand turning movements, so Traffic was aware of
the concerns that these patrons were having. I think they merely
wanted to re-enforce that their position on this was not taken
lightly. They are aware of the public sentiment. They are aware
of the views of the people that patronize these facilities. I
think they wanted to let you know they thoughtfully evaluated it
and it doesn't come from just one individual. The full bureau
evaluated it. It was a mutual decision on their part.
Mrs. Fandrei: So it is a strong emphasis on the denying.
``.
Mr. Engebretson: Please follow up on that, was it signed by the Chief of Police or
for the Chief of Police?
Mr. Nagy: There were three signatures including the Chief of Police.
Mr. Shane: Just a bit more information here. When I talked to the Traffic
Bureau, Art Cheney is the individual I talked to and he did
indicate to me that on two occasions lately they have prevailed
upon certain businesses on Plymouth Road and on Merriman Road to
construct "No Left Turn" signs in a similar situation. One of them
is Taco Bell on Merriman Road north of Plymouth, and the other one
is the 7/Eleven at the corner of Plymouth and Merriman. He just
used that as an example where they have gone back to businesses
where they had not originally required a particular "No Left Turn"
sign. They have gone back and are finding problems and have
determined it is in the best interest. He indicated to me that you
may find some of these things happening in other locations, maybe
even a gasoline station or two. He further indicated to me that
had they had an opportunity to comment on Shooters Service when it
began operation, they would have absolutely indicated a "No Left
Hand Turn" sign at that time. They don't always get a chance to
comment on every one of these businesses that go in and it is one
thing that should be kept in mind.
12151
Mr. Alanskas: I went out to the site last Friday and I was there from 7:30 in the
morning until 9:30 and I logged 62 cars exiting onto Middlebelt
Road and of the 62, 51 of them turned right. At the present time
there was no "No Left Turn" sign there. It must have been taken
down by somebody. The biggest majority of cars still did turn
`44111. right. Going onto Six Mile Road there were 11 cars. Out of the 11
only 2 turned left. So it is surprising that many cars are still
turning right and not turning left. I really don't think it is a
big problem. I was also there on a Wednesday from 3:00 to 5:00 and
there was only a total of 14 cars that went through and they all
turned onto Middlebelt Road and they all turned right. I don't
think it would be a big problem whether the signs are there or not.
Mr. Nagy: We do have a petition here signed by 54 individuals indicating "We,
the undersigned, petition the City of Livonia Zoning Board to order
the removal of the 'No Left Turn' signs from the exit driveways
located at the southwest corner of the 6 Mile-Middlebelt
intersection. It is impossible to proceed west since both exits
now have signs that prohibit left turns. These signs also
interfere with northbound travel."
Mr. LaPine: I agree. The Chairman and I were out there Saturday and the "No
Left Hand Turn" was back up. There is no doubt the lessee of the
building needs some relief but we also have to take into
consideration the Traffic Bureau. They are the expertise in
traffic safety for the City. If we grant this and there was a bad
accident, it would fall back on us because of the fact that we had
strong opposition from the Traffic Bureau, but I am wondering John,
as Mr. Gniewek pointed out, could we give some relief on Six Mile
Road. Could we give them relief for a period of one year, in which
�o► time the Traffic Bureau could see if they have any problems and in
a year's time we could take a look at this?
Mr. Nagy: I don't see any reason why you couldn't.
Mr. LaPine: I think that would be a compromise. Then if we find out there
hasn't been a problem at Six Mile Road and the Traffic Bureau so
indicates, then maybe we could give them a year on Middlebelt and
see how that works out and then in a period of two years, might
eliminate them altogether. I think that might be a compromise.
Mr. Engebretson: There are no dollars involved here, per se, and I think if there
were a trial period like that, it wouldn't work any hardship on the
business owner. I think it would give some immediate relief.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
#6-400-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve removal
of the Six Mile Road "No Left Turn" sign only for a period of six months
in connection with the request by Kok Va Chhan for removal of "No Left
Turn" signs in connection with Petition 91-3-2-10 by Kok Va Chhan
requesting waiver use approval to operate a donut shop with customer
seating in an existing building located on the southwest corner of Six
Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, for the
following reasons:
12152
1) That the "No Left Turn" sign located on Middlebelt Road is needed
to provide for safe and efficient egress from that exit.
2) That traffic exiting left or west onto Six Mile Road from the
subject site will not cause any undue traffic hazard or
New interference with traffic moving east or west along Six Mile Road.
3) That a notification be posted inside the establishment to recommend
to his customers who are turning onto Six Mile Road, if at all
possible, to exit behind the other businesses as far as west as
possible.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Gniewek, LaPine, Alanskas
NAYS: Fandrei, Engebretson
ABSENT: Tent, McCann, Morrow
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-6-8-9
by Antenna Installation Service, Inc. requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a
proposal to install a satellite receive antenna on the roof of a
building located in Victor Corporate Park on the north side of Seven
Mile Road just east of I-275 in Section 6.
Mr. Bakewell: This is a proposal to erect an 8 foot diameter receive satellite
dish antenna on the Victor V building. (Mr. Bakewell displayed the
Nur plans showing the location of the dish).
Mr. Gniewek: There was some discussion as far as the possible painting of this
dish to match the existing penthouse that was there. Is that a
possibility? Did you find if that was agreeable?
Mr. Bakewell: Their specs call for it to match the wind screen. I understand the
wind screen is a sea green.
Mr. Gniewek: So it would be painted to match what is up there?
Mr. Bakewell: Yes.
Ray Hildredth: I am with Victor Corporate Park Limited Partnership. To the
question asked about paining the dish. It has been discussed and
everybody is in agreement the dish can be painted. The question is
the color that it should be painted. We have gone back and
considered the request of the Planning Commission after the last
working session. Actually it would be our preference to paint the
dish the color to match the cast stone, which we have a sample of
the cast stone here tonight, which is a gray value, which is more
of a neutral color. The green that is on the building actually
causes that element to stand out. We thought what would be more
appropriate would be to go to a neutral value, which is still a
12153
color taken from the building, which is to go to the gray and paint
it a light gray tone instead. Yes it can be painted. We would get
away from the traditional beige or black tones you are accustomed
to seeing and we would go to the gray value instead.
`r. Mr. Engebretson: What is the precise description of that gray?
Mr. Hildredth: It would be done to match the cast stone.
Mrs. Fandrei: The utility screening. I understand there are three satellite
dishes in that screened unit?
Mr. Hildredth: That is correct.
Mr. Fandrei: This one couldn't be accomodated?
Mr. Hildredth: It could not fit within the screened area. The capacity of that
screen is full.
Mr. Alanskas: Once again, could you give us what the weight will be on the frame?
Mr. Hildredth: I am not the technical person on this. I understand it is 2,600
pounds.
Mr. Alanskas: That is no problem as far as the roof structure?
Mr. Hildredth: No that is no problem. It has been completely reviewed by a
structural engineer and he has issued a letter certifying as to the
capacity of the structure to support the antenna. It has to go
over a specific column location however.
Sur Mr. LaPine: I assume you have a five or ten year lease with Tandem. When the
lease runs out and they decide to move into a bigger location, they
will at that time remove the dish?
Mr. Hildredth: That is correct. That will remain their property. They will take
it off the property.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-401-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 92-6-8-9 by Antenna Installation Service,
Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of
Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to install a
satellite receive antenna on the roof of a building located in Victor
Corporate Park on the north side of Seven Mile Road just east of I-275
in Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Roof Top Site Plan prepared by Antenna Installation Service,
Inc. for Tandem Computers located at 19500 Victor Parkway is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to.
12154
2) That the color of the dish shall be gray to match the existing
color of the cast stone of the building.
for the following reason:
1) That this proposed installation has no negative aesthetic impact on
the neighborhood.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
92-6-8-10 by Victor Corporate Park, L.P. requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to install a satellite receive antenna on the roof of a
building located in Victor Corporate Park on the north side of Seven
Mile Road just east of I-275 in Section 6.
Mr. Bakewell: This antenna will be 22 feet due east from the previous one and two
foot less in diameter. Here we are talking about a six foot
diameter dish for the Toyota Motor Credit Corporation. The same
things would apply to this dish except it is slightly smaller in
diameter.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-402-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 92-6-8-10 by Victor Corporate Park, L.P.
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning
Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to install a satellite
receive antenna on the roof of a building located in Victor Corporate
Park on the north side of Seven Mile Road just east of 1-275 in Section
6, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Roof Top Site Plan prepared by Victor Corporate Park, L.P. on
behalf of Toyota Motor Credit located at 19500 Victor Parkway is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to.
2) That the color of the dish shall be gray to match the existing
color of the cast stone of the building.
for the following reason:
1) That this proposed installation has no negative aesthetic impact on
the neighborhood.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Perry Drugs requesting approval to erect two new wall
signs on a building at 33480 Seven Mile Road.
12155
Mr. Bakewell: The sign proposal here is to erect two wall signs, one sign being
on the south elevation of the store that faces Seven Mile Road.
That would just be the Perry logo that is approximately 5' x 5' .
The other one is the east elevation, which would be at the front of
the store entrance. They also have a service which is Lotto and
they are proposing to put that up on the store front. Both of
these signs are approximately 90 square feet. Twenty-five square
feet on one and 65 square feet on the store front sign.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, we are speaking as if these signs aren't up. Aren't
these signs, in fact, already placed?
Mr. Nagy: That is true. They were issued permits and installed. They are
up.
Mr. Gniewek: They were issued permits to install them?
Mr. Nagy: Yes they were.
Mr. Gniewek: And we are voting on whether they can have them or not?
Mr. Nagy: That is correct. The Building Department felt they were part of
the original sign package and they issued sign erection permits
accordingly. There has been a different interpretation made since
the issuance of those sign permits but to answer your question, yes
you are voting on something that is already up.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Gniewek brings up a very good point. I was going to work
Monday morning and I saw them putting up those signs and I said
they haven't had permission to put up those signs yet. They
haven't been to the Council. They haven't been anywhere. I intend
to vote against them based on that reason. Let the Building
Department fight it out. I just can't vote for something that is
already there and, in my opinion, had no business being there until
it is approved by this Commission and by the Council. I won't vote
for it tonight.
Mrs. Fandrei: There is also a Grand Opening sign up. Did they have a permit for
that?
Mr. Nagy: A temporary permit.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come down.
Jim Fowler: I am the Director of Facilities for Perry Drug Stores. I would
like to give you some history on how this sign came to be approved
and just try to enlighten you. I know the information was not
accurate at your last study group. When we originally worked on
the relocation of Perry Drug Store we were given the indication
that two signs would be allowed and two signs were adopted and
approved by Schostak Brothers and it was so stated. I have given
you a copy of our original lease and it does say "after obtaining
local government will approve it". At that time when we were
originally negotiating it, we were not aware that if a pylon or
`'rr.
12156
monument sign was installed that this would negate the possibility
of a second sign. We therefore submitted for our sign approval
showing the two signs on the building. At that time they were two
identical signs. It was the logo Perry Drugs and we had at that
time Liquor - Lotto shown on the signs as we always do to make sure
i`, we fit within the square footage allotment should we be able to get
a liquor license in the future or a lotto license. So we always do
it so we stay within the square footage that is alloted for the
store without exceeding it. We will decrease our size of Perry
Drugs to make sure that if those signs come in the future, we are
not going for overage. That is the purpose for showing it.
We took our signs to the City. The City in turn denied them and
instructed us to go to ZBA. We applied at ZBA and we were approved
by ZBA for 95 square feet. That is 15 square feet more than the 80
square foot at the front. Of that 95 square feet, 30 could be used
on the side wall which could either say a logo or Perry Drugs but
no other information. They denied us Lotto or Liquor or anything
else in the future. We abided by that and we submitted for a
permit and we were granted a permit. In your handouts is a copy of
the permits that we obtained. That is the reason why the sign is
up today because unfortunately when we requested to come back
through the Planning Commission our dating and timing and lease
factors, we had to be out of the original store by tonight. We had
set Monday morning to open and how do you open without a sign? We
had a permit to put the sign up. We discussed this with
administration. That is the reason why the sign is up.
I would like to go on, if I have your permission, and describe the
reason why we feel very strongly that a second sign is necessary.
If you would go to your photographs, the first photograph, I drove
and made a left hand turn off Farmington onto Seven Mile. The
first photograph is in the turning lane to go into the K Mart
entrance. The second photograph is at the entrance. If you look
carefully, you might see the original Perry Drug Store sign but
that sign is no longer there and it is behind the trees in the new
location. In the third picture there is no signage visible. There
is no signage in the fourth picture. When you come within 50 feet
to the approach you see the logo and probably the PE of Perry. As
you just turn in, then you can see both signs. If you see the date
on the pictures, those are the signs that are up and were installed
within ZBA approval and were installed in accordance with the
permit that we have.
Mr. Alanskas: I am reading a report that says the ZBA did grant the petitioner 95
square feet of total sign area with no more than 30 square feet to
be used on the south side. The sign could either be their logo or
store name not a product liquor or not service lotto.
Mr. Fowler: This is the side wall sign they are referring to. That is exactly
what we abided by.
Mr. Engebretson: It appears that they have complied with the conditions of the
Zoning Board.
12157
Mr. LaPine: You said your opening was Monday, which it was, but your sign on
the south elevation has been up there at least two, maybe three
weeks. They were still renovating inside the store when that sign
went up.
fir. Mr. Fowler: That is correct. We had a permit to put that sign up and we went
ahead and put that sign up.
Mr. LaPine: Now you are a Project Manager and you know the rules. You knew you
had to come before the Planning Commission. You knew you had to
have approval of City Council. Why would you go ahead and put up
the signs without going through the whole process?
Mr. Fowler: At that time I did not know that we were going to have to come
through the Planning Commission. The administration directed us
through ZBA and we at no time, until we came for the approval of
our beer and wine license, were we aware that there could be a
problem here. That was the first indication and that sign was up
at that time.
Mr. LaPine: Doesn't the Inspection Department know what the other Commissions
in the City are doing? Didn't they have any indication that this
had to come through us and City Council?
Mr. Nagy: The Building Department still to this day believes that Planning
Commission's and City Council's prior approval for the renovation
plans for that center and the master sign package that was approved
for that center allowed Perry Drugs to have the signs that they
have today pursuant to the control ordinance.
Mr. LaPine: Have Jack Fegan come to this board. I would like to talk to him.
Mr. Nagy: The only reason it went to Zoning Board of Appeals was, prior to
the renovation of that building, this shopping center did not have
a free standing sign. Therefore, they could have two wall signs on
that corner building. In fact, the records will show and
photographs will show that when Clock Jr. Restaurant was in that
center they had an elevation sign on both the east facing side of
the building facing the parking lot as well as the south side on
Seven Mile Road. So there were two signs there. By virtue of the
center now having the free standing sign that they have there now,
the Zoning Ordinance then restricts the center to have only one
wall sign, not two on the corner location. So when they went in to
try to comply with whatever was already approved, the two wall
signs, it was part of the master sign package that Clock Jr. and
now this new tenant could try to take advantage of it like any
tenant would. Tenants come and go. They were then directed to the
Zoning Board of Appeals to obtain the second wall sign. They went
to the Zoning Board of Appeals and got relief from that
restriction. The Building Department issued them the sign permits.
That wall sign on the south elevation was lawfully granted on the
basis of a valid permit that was issued by the Building Department.
When the transfer from the waiver use was going through the
process, the City Council was aware there is now a sign for Perry
12158
Drugs and they questioned that. Then there was an administrative
review. The Law Department was involved in it. The Law Department
made the determination that they had to go through the control
ordinance. The Building Department, to this day, feel that they
acted correctly on the basis of the policies that were adopted by
',ourthe City up to that point in time.
Mr. LaPine: My recollection is when Schostak came in here and renovated that
whole center, we had some long discussions about signs. As a
matter of fact, we didn't want them to put up the old K Mart sign
until such time as K Mart came in with a plan for a new sign.
There was a discussion about the two ground signs that they wanted,
the one on Seven Mile Road and one on Farmington Road. They
originally wanted it on the corner. I don't remember anything
about any sign package. That is all news to me. That isn't the
point. The point is the signs went up and, in my opinion, they
never should have gone up. If the Inspection Department did
something wrong, the Inspection Department should be called upon
the carpet as far as I am concerned.
Mr. Fowler: I would like to add the need in retail for signage. We have
noticed a considerable increase in sales since we put that logo up
on the south elevation of the building. It is representing
approximately a 20% increase. We have people coming in saying we
didn't know you were there. We know the signs work. We feel our
logo, on its own, does the job. We are quite satisfied with the
signage we have.
Mr. LaPine: I would like to take issue with that. I happen to live in the
area. I have lived there for 12 years. I was there before the
shopping center was built. People that don't know Perry Drug
Stores is in that shopping center, I can't believe that. K Mart
gets a lot of business. Probably 75% of your business is probably
from local people. Telling me that they don't know Perrys is
there, is unbelievable.
Mr. Fowler: It is very possible there are people who are driving Seven Mile or
driving Farmington Road from outside Livonia who are saying that.
I can't say who they are but it is happening. We know it has made
a difference in our sales.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Fowler, we are very aware the impact signs make. We have
requests for more signage all the time. This isn't new. To say I
have had negative feelings about seeing that sign up before we
heard this petition tonight, is a big understatement. Negative is
putting it mildly. I am very unhappy about this but if what I am
hearing from Mr. Nagy is this is not a fault of yours, it is
internal here, then I understand and you cannot be penalized for
something you were not aware of. That was done incorrectly through
our administration. Am I hearing you correct John?
Mr. Nagy: That is true.
Mrs. Fandrei: The bottom line is it is not their fault?
Mr. Nagy: That is correct.
12159
Mr. Alanskas: Where the south side signage is, you don't have any plans on
taking those trees down, do you?
Mr. Fowler: Definitely not.
fir. Mr. Gniewek: John, just for clarification. Control zone, no matter what
signage, any signage that is taken down and any new signage put up
is subject to Planning Commission and Council approval. Is that
correct?
Mr. Nagy: No that is not correct. When they designed this K Mart center they
asked to have approval of a master sign package . That sets the
criteria for all tenants, either then or subsequent tenants, to
adhere to. If Perry Drugs goes out and Arbor Drugs goes in, or
Arbor Drugs goes out and PharMor Drugs goes in, etc. , where there
is a previously approved site plan that sets the parameters for the
signs at that center, as long as there is adherence to that sign
package they do not come back to the Planning Commission or the
City Council. That was the case with the K Mart center and has
been that way since the time it was originally approved. Only when
they alter that. Only when they go beyond the bounds of that sign
package. When they renovated that center then the new sign package
came through. They are now on file with the City. That is the
criteria upon which the Building Department has been operating.
That has been the policy from the time we enacted the vicinity
control ordinance. Not all centers have sign packages.
Mr. Gniewek: Did we not approve the K Mart sign?
Mr. Nagy: Yes you did.
�► Mr. Gniewek: Did we not approve the Star Furniture sign?
Mr. Nagy: Yes you did.
Mr. Gniewek: Any other signs that are going up, are we going to approve those?
Mr. Nagy: I am talking about that row of stores on the west side of this
shopping center. Not the K Mart store. Not the Star Furniture
store. I am talking about this row of specialty stores and shops.
Mr. Gniewek: Any future stores that go in and they put signs up, they will not
have to come in?
Mr. Nagy: As long as they adhere to that master sign control package, they
will not. If they go beyond that, yes.
Mr. Gniewek: Let's say we get a brand new store, say the XYZ store, and they are
going to go into that particular center. We will have no control
over what type of sign goes up on that building?
Mr. Nagy: You already pre-control them by virtue of approving that sign
package. You have already set the criteria upon which those signs
will be regulated.
12160
Mr. Gniewek: Are all the signs going to be red? Are all the signs going to be
90 square feet? Are all the signs going to be 60 square feet? Are
they all going to be only the name of the business? I am just not
real clear. I am not holding for Perry Drugs. Perry Drugs needs
the signage and I am for their signs and I will vote for their
`, signs. This is more of a internal thing. Maybe it should be
discussed at the next study and at the next study meeting I would
like to see the sign package that we approved for this center.
Mr. Nagy: I think that would be the appropriate thing to do.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was
#6-403-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Perry Drugs requesting
approval to erect two new wall signs on a building at 33480 Seven Mile
Road, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Plan for Perry Drugs at 33480 Seven Mile prepared by
Signart Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That this approval is subject to the same conditions as set forth
in Appeal Case No. 9202-020 by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
3) That any additions to this particular sign shall be reviewed by
the City Planning Commission prior to any installation.
Mr. Engebretson: I would just like to say that I think a lot of the frustration
that we hear tonight isn't really Perry's fault. I think there is
some internal procedural difficulties that have caused some of
these points of frustration and I am certainly going to keep that
in mind as I cast my vote.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Gniewek, Alanskas, Fandrei, Engebretson
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: Tent, McCann, Morrow
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Perry Drugs requesting approval to erect three wall and
one ground sign at 29350 Plymouth Road.
Mr. Bakewell: This particular location is at the northeast corner of Plymouth and
Middlebelt. What they are proposing here is to utilize the
existing ground sign, which is out in front, and put a new letter
panel in. In addition they are asking for three wall signs. (Mr.
Bakewell displayed the signs). All of this, I believe, totals
around 280 square feet of sign area.
Via.
12161
Mr. Gniewek: What is the amount of signage that is allowed for Perry Drugs at
that location? There is a Zoning Board of Appeals case that spells
out what they are allowed.
Mr. Bakewell: From the Bureau of Inspections case they state what is existing,
what is proposed, what is excessive and what is over. In this
particular case, existing is one ground sign 109 square feet at 2
foot setback. What they are proposing is one ground sign 88 square
feet at 2 foot setback using the existing base. Allowed is one
ground sign at a 10 foot setback. The deficiency here is 8 feet in
the setback. In regard to the wall signs, existing now are two
wall signs, 224 square feet total area. What they are proposing is
three wall signs, 265 feet total area. What they are allowed is
one wall sign, 80 square feet in area. So they are in excess of
two signs plus 185 square feet of sign area. That is how the case
was written up to go before the Zoning Board.
Mr. Fowler: There was some confusion on the square footage of the existing
signs and in the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of May 19, the
opening paragraph in which Mr. MacDonald explained, he said there
has been a lot of numbers here. We have some differences of
opinion and this is how these signs are measured. The existing
signs that Perry currently has is 134 square foot each, or 268
square feet. We are asking to make it three signs at 265 square
foot total. So we have negative of 3 in the new proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Fowler, could you clarify what you just said?
Mr. Fowler: The existing signs are 134 square foot each. That is one on the
south elevation and one on the west elevation. They are both
identical signs. We propose to re-use the existing sign but take
``r► the old box and change it to individual letters to upscale and give
it a more modern look. We then propose to take the entire west
wall sign down and make up two signs, which say logo, lotto,
liquor, 24 hours. Each of these signs is 80 square foot. The
store front sign is 105 square foot. That is 265 square foot.
This was confirmed by Mr. MacDonald. We are 3 square foot less but
we are asking for 3 signs on the building. The reason for this is,
again, that building is encased in trees. The landscaping has
matured and you cannot see the store properly from the road. We
have looked at the openings and done photographic studies and we
find the best way to get good signage and let drivers know in
advance and not have them abruptly change their minds, we find that
the sign on the north elevation is important. We suggest that we
move the sign in to the south end of the west so it is more exposed
to the approach of the store. The store front, we have just tried
to improve it and bring it up to the signs of the 90's. The
existing logos will be retained and just cleaned up. The existing
Perry Drugs letters are going to be refaced in red. It is just a
clean up of signage. However, that store is located well back, 540
feet back from Plymouth Road. It is not seen from Plymouth Road
and we are requested to use the existing pylon sign. This pylon
sign is 109 square feet as it is now and we are proposing to reduce
it to 77 square feet. However, J & W Management Company has given
12162
me a letter saying we would have exclusive use of this sign. No
other tenant will be allowed on it but they would like an
identification of the shopping center. They are suggesting we call
it P M Plaza. I roughly figure that will add 20 square feet to it.
We would be then really asking for 97 square feet instead of the
existing 109. That would rebuild the existing pylon sign in its
existing location. I might add, this store has not had a good
history. This particular corner is rated as one of the most
highest volume corners in your community and probably in Michigan
but yet the sales are not there and Perry Drugs is a well known
name. We believe, from what I have said before and what other
people have said to us "We don't know you are there". We are going
to be very aggressive and we are going to try to take this store to
a 24-hour store. We need the signage to be able to do this. Our
company will have to take a second look at terminating the lease if
we cannot take it 24-hour and we cannot take it 24-hour without
proper signage.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, what about the status of the Zoning Board of Appeals
process. Is that concluded?
Mr. Nagy: It is still in the process.
Mr. Engebretson: When is that scheduled for?
Mr. Fowler: It is not scheduled at this time. It was tabled to have the owner
show at the next meeting. I have the representative of the owner
with me tonight if he can answer any question.
Mr. Alanskas: There are so many figures as far as square footage, I would like to
see this tabled myself to a future date.
ftw
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Fowler, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Fowler: We have been trying to get this store changed for quite a while.
It has been tabled and held. It will take us a while to have our
signs reconstructed and we are looking at trying to have these up
by mid-summer. Tabling is just going to hold it up more. It is
important for us to try and rejuvenate and improve the sales of
this store.
Mr. Engebretson: When are you scheduled to appear before the Zoning Board of
Appeals?
Mr. Fowler: I am not at this time because it was held by Council.
Mr. Engebretson: Then if we were to table it, we really wouldn't be working any
hardships or causing any delays in the process because the Zoning
Board of Appeals will have to act on this and I believe the Council
itself because it is a control zone.
Mr. Fowler: Will we be allowed to proceed through ZBA.
Mr. Engebretson: Yes.
12163
Mr. Fowler: If we are allowed to do that in unison with this, it will be fine.
Mr. Engebretson: We would not be holding you up at all in that regard. They
schedule their cases separately and any approvals that we give
here in the case where the signage exceeds the amount permitted by
'411m. ordinance, it would have to be subject to Zoning Board approval in
any case.
Mr. Gniewek: I agree with Mr. Alanskas that we need some more information and
actual figures of what we actually have here. However, I would
like to have some sort of recommendation on the record before it
goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals so that at least they are aware
that we do have some concerns as far as the number of signs. I
would rather not have us look at these signs after the Zoning Board
has approved 360 square feet and have the Planning Commission say
it is fine that they approved that much but we would rather
recommend 290. I would like to let the Zoning Board of Appeals
know we would rather have 290 square feet before they vote on this
but I don't know if that is possible. I really think we haven't
got a true picture of the amount of square footage that we really
have at this time.
Mr. Fowler: Two comments. One, the original signage the Cunningham Drug Stores
enjoyed was 440 square feet with three signs. That was on that
building for some time. It was changed when it went to Apex Drugs.
That is when it was reduced two signs and I am not sure if it came
to Council at that time. To try to hasten this, if we could have a
motion tabling for your side but allowing it to proceed to ZBA
would be most important and helpful to us.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Fowler, we are not looking to be troublesome here. If we
were to table it as I said, that has no bearing at all on on what
goes on at the Zoning Board of Appeals. They would proceed if you
have met all the conditions that they have asked for, for the next
meeting that will go on.
Mr. Fowler: We were programmed to be on the last ZBA meeting and I am sorry but
I can only say Karen instructed the Secretary of ZBA to remove us
from the agenda and, therefore, I am held in her office, per se, in
allowing it to proceed to ZBA. That is why I am asking to get some
direction to allow it to proceed into ZBA.
Mr. Engebretson: Karen who?
Mr. Nagy: Karen is their Director of Legislative Affairs but I would advise
you, in lieu of the letter I just read from Earl Thomas, that your
freestanding sign proposal is now being changed and enlarged by
virtue of the fact that the owner of the center wants to identify
the center on that sign. So that is an enlargement. You may have
a necessity to re-advertise because the sign area of the sign is
increased. You should go back to their office and advise them that
the freestanding sign proposal is being altered and that may
require you to be re-advertised and rescheduled for a hearing.
Mr. Fowler: I shall handle that tomorrow.
12164
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
##6-404-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table the Sign Permit Application by Perry Drugs requesting approval to
fir• erect three wall and one ground sign at 29350 Plymouth Road until the
study meeting of July 14, 1992.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Paddy Sign Co. requesting approval to replace sign faces
for Corey Home Furniture at 19711 Middlebelt Road.
Mr. Bakewell: This is just a face change on two existing signs. Corey Home
Furniture is taking over the building and they want to re-face the
existing ground sign and existing wall sign with their own
particular logo.
Mr. Engebretson: So it is fair to conclude, Mr. Bakewell, that these signs meet
the ordinance.
Mr. Bakewell: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: Ralph, it appears that this tenant is going to occupy half of
that building. Do you know whether or not that is the case?
Mr. Bakewell: I don't know if that is the case. I thought they were going to
occupy the whole building. It was not indicated to me by the
Building Department that there was any difference.
`r•
Mr. Engebretson: I guess my concern is that while I have no problem with this
proposal, that it has to be understood that if another tenant comes
in there, they may have to rework that sign.
Mrs. Fandrei: We don't have a petitioner here tonight John?
Mr. Engebretson: He was at the study meeting.
Mrs. Fandrei: My concern is that this sign is high enough that it is screened
from the north by trees. I am wondering if the petitioner is aware
that half of his sign is screened.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-405-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Paddy Sign Co. requesting
approval to replace sign faces for Corey Home Furniture at 19711
Middlebelt Road, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Plan for Corey Home Furniture at 19711 Middlebelt Road
prepared by Paddy Sign Co. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
fir•
12165
2) That the existing building and landscaping be upgraded to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department prior to the issuance of the
occupancy permit.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-6-8-8
by Kamp-DiComo Associates, P.C. requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance ##543 in connection with a
proposal to construct a new clubhouse/banquet facility for the Italian
American Club of Livonia on the north side of Five Mile just east of
I-275 in Section 18.
Mr. Bakewell: What they are proposing here is to utilize approximately five acres
of land between the Five Mile Road overpass of I-275 and the
existing church building. (Mr. Bakewell showed the site plans to
the Commission).
Mr. Gniewek: There is not a lot of impact upon the residential area at that
particular location where they are planning on placing the building?
Mr. Bakewell: No. I will turn the mike over to the architect.
Dan DiComo: (Mr. DiComo presented the elevation plans)
Mr. Bakewell then presented the landscape plans.
Mr. Alanskas: Is that parking lot going to be lighted?
Mr. DiComo: Yes it will be lighted.
Mr. Alanskas: How many lights are you going to have there?
Mr. DiComo: I am not sure of the number but what we usually try to accomplish
is one candlepower levels throughout the entire area. It would be
the minimum number of light fixtures and it would be the normal
expected level for a parking lot area due to the fact we are
dealing with residential off to the east. I am not sure of the
exact number of poles at this time.
Mr. Alanskas: Are you going to have any signs on the building?
Mr. DiComo: We will not have any signs on the building but we will be coming
back to you with a main building sign, which I imagine will be
located at the entrance to the property.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. DiComo, how deep is the treed area along the south border? You
said you were leaving some of the trees.
Mr. DiComo: It varies from the point where we do have the entrance into the
property. At that point I am almost positive it is 40 to 50 feet,
and then it gets wider down at the end where it gets 80 to 90 feet,
down by the expressway.
12166
Mr. Engebretson: What we are acting on here tonight is what you have depicted on
your board there right?
Mr. DiComo: Yes.
h_. Mr. Engebretson: It does not represent what you will ultimately work out with the
church. Presently, is there a common cut to Five Mile where there
is an ingress, egress pattern?
Mr. DiComo: The church has been very favorable to using their ingress, which is
presently there, for us to share that and to have a combined
egress. They have some problems with drainage, which we hope we
can take care of for them so we have talked about alleviating some
problems together and working the ingress and egress together.
Due to our engineering difficulties with having this small
detention area, we had to move our ingress road and this has all
come about in the last week and a half. That is why we have not
had a chance to go back to them and we did not want to present
something that they have not seen.
Mr. Engebretson: So what we have before us is the original plan but you are
actively working towards a modification that will be that shared
ingress and egress.
Mr. DiComo: Yes. I would like to ask one thing. We would like to get on the
Council meeting of the 13th and that would be before approval of
minutes. I think we have to ask for a waiver of the 7-day waiting
period.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-406-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 92-6-8-8 by Kamp-DiComo Associates, P.C.
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning
Ordinance ##543 in connection with a proposal to construct a new
clubhouse/banquet facility for the Italian American Club of Livonia on
the north side of Five Mile just east of I-275 in Section 18, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That Site Plan 92.04 Sheet A-1 prepared by Kamp-DiComo Associates
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That Building Plans 92.04 Sheet A-2 prepared by Kamp-DiComo
Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That Landscape Plan 92.04 Sheet L-1 prepared by Kamp-DiComo
Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
4) That the proposed drive approach to Five Mile shall be constructed
in full compliance with both City and County standards for ingress
and egress.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
12167
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-407-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning
`�. Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period
concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in
connection with Petition 92-6-8-8 by Kamp-DiComo Associates, P.C.
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning
Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a new
clubhouse/banquet facility for the Italian American Club of Livonia on
the north side of Five Mile just east of I-275 in Section 18.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 645th Regular Meeting
held on June 30, 1992 was adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Brenda Lee Fandrei, Secretary
ATTEST: C4g,k, /,'IS
Jaclt Engebreson, hairman
`w jg