HomeMy WebLinkAbout1,176 - September 21, 2021 signedMINUTES OF THE 1,1761h PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, September 217 20211 the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 1,176th Public Hearing and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall,
33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Ian Wilshaw, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
Members present: David Bongero Sam Caramagno Glen Long
Betsy McCue Carol Smiley Peter Ventura
Ian Wilshaw
Members absent: None
Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Stephanie Reece, Program Supervisor,
were also present.
Chairman Wilshaw 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 turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a
petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective
seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the
professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. 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 2021-08-02-15 Speedway
Jr.
Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2021-
08-02-15 submitted by CESO, Inc. requesting waiver use
approval of all plans required by Section 6.26 of the Livonia Vision
21 Zoning Ordinance, in connection with a proposal to redevelop
the properties at 13950 Merriman Road and 31324, 31330 and
31374 Schoolcraft Road, to allow for the redevelopment and
expansion of an existing Speedway gas station, located on the
September 21, 2021
30168
northeast corner of Schoolcraft and Merriman Roads in the
Southwest'/4 of Section 23.
Mr. Wilshaw: We did receive a note, Mr. Taormina, that this is to be tabled
indefinitely, correct?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. Wilshaw: This item was tabled already, and the petitioner has asked for it
to remain that way for now, so we will pass this item, and this will
be coming back to us at a future meeting where will give notice
to anyone as required.
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. With that we can move on to Item
number two, Mr. Secretary.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2021-08=02=16 Kidventure Child Care
Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2021-
08-02-16 submitted by Mellodie Hastings requesting waiver use
approval pursuant to Section 6,13 of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning
Ordinance, to operate a day care nursery (Kidventure Child Care
Center) at 10531 Farmington Road, located on the west side of
Farmington Road between Orangelawn Avenue and Plymouth
Road in the Northeast % of Section 33,
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to operate a daycare center on property that tis
located on the west side of Farmington on south of Plymouth
Road. The zoning of the property is C-1 (Local Business). The
parcel size is roughly 0.6 acres with 100 feet of frontage on
Farmington Road and parcel depth of 286 feet. The site contains
a one-story office building that measures roughly 4,100 square
feet in size. It includes 23 off-street parking spaces currently.
This is one of three buildings that is part of a multi -tenant medical
office complex, known as Orangelawn Professional Center. The
subject building was constructed in 1963. The regulations
pertaining to daycare nurseries fall under Section 6.13 of the
zoning ordinance. The petitioner has applied to the State of
Michigan for a license to operate a childcare center and is
awaiting an inspection to confirm the maximum number of
children that will be allowed at the facility. The ages would range
from infant to 12 years. Based on the submitted floor plan,
Kidventure would occupy the entire building. The interior layout,
which is shown here, includes a large lobby area, as well as a
September 21, 2021
30169
reception, several classrooms, kitchen, and restrooms. The site
is accessible by a single driveway that extends from Farmington
Road. This driveway runs along the south side of the property
and extends further west, providing access to the building at the
rear which is 10533 Farmington Road. The petitioner has
informed us that the properties operate under a cross -access and
parking agreement. In fact, we received correspondence from
the property owner verifying that. In terms of an outdoor play
area, the zoning ordinance requires an area of no less than 5,000
square feet. In contrast, the State requires a minimum of 1,200
square feet. The proposed play area shown on the plans
measures roughly 3,000 square feet. So, it is between the State
requirements, and the City requirement. The reduction from the
City's requirement is something that can be waived by City
Council. The outdoor play area is shown occupying a portion of
the parking lot behind the building and would be surrounded by
an obscuring vinyl fence. In your packets, there is new
information regarding what the fence would look like. In terms of
parking for childcare centers, the requirement is one space for
each employee plus enough off-street space for the safe and
convenient loading and unloading of students. The revised plan
shows 14 parking spaces with a one-way circulation pattern. You
may recall from the previous plan, there were 11 parking spaces
and all 90-degree parking. What has changed with this plan is
the play area is shown in the northeast portion of the parking lot
directly behind the building. There would be a single driveway
that would be located in the southeast corner of the building, so
when vehicles come in off of Farmington Road, they would pull in
this driveway here. They would then have the chance to offload
or pickup the children closest to the door which is behind the
building. They would then proceed along this drive aisle. This is
a one-way circulation and then exit out at the southwest corner of
the site and then have the ability of turn left and then proceed out
on to Farmington Road. There are nine angled parking spaces
located along the south side of the property and there are an
additional four or five parking spaces located here in the
northwest corner. That is the most significant change from the
pIan that you reviewed at the study meeting. There are no trash
enclosures shown on the site plan. All trash would be disposed
of via curbside pickup. There are no exterior building
modifications shown. The site would be allowed one wall sign
with a maximum of 36 square feet in area. With that, Mr.
Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence.
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please.
September 21, 2021
30170
Mr. Taormina: The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated August 30,
2021, which reads as follows: `In accordance with your request,
the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced
petition. We have no objections to the proposed waiver use at this
time. The parcel is assigned the address of #10531 Farmington
Road. The existing building is currently serviced by public water
main, storm sewer and sanitary sewer. The submitted drawings
do not indicate any modifications to the existing leads, and we do
not believe there will be any further impacts to the existing
systems. Should changes to the existing services be required, the
Owner shall submit revised plans to this office to determine if
permits will be required. It should be noted that the developer
may be required to obtain a permit from the Wayne County
Department of Public Service, should any work occur within the
Farmington Road right-of-way. "The letter is signed by David W.
Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer The next letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated August 26, 2021, 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 Greg
Thomas, Fire Marshal. The next letter is from the Division of
Police, dated September 15, 2021, which reads as follows: "I
have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no
objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Scott
Sczepanski, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated September 13, 2021, which reads
as follows: " Pursuant to your request, the above referenced
Petition has been reviewed. This petition is a change of use and
would require that the building meet all current Michigan Building
Codes including the Michigan Barrier Free Code. This will be
addressed further at the time of our plan review if this project
moves forward. Signage was not reviewed at this time. This
Department has no further objections to this Petition." The letter
is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection. The next
letter is from the Finance Department, dated September 13,
2021, which reads as follows: " I have reviewed the address
connected with the above noted petition. The following amounts
are due to the City of Livonia: Unpaid water and sewer charges:
$227.72 Total Due the City of Livonia. $227, 72" The letter is
signed by Connie Kumpula, Chief Accountant. We did receive
confirmation that payment was received for that charge. The next
letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated August 25, 2021,
which reads as follows: `In accordance with your request, the
Treasurer's Office has reviewed the name and addresses
connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are
taxes due, but they are not delinquent, therefore I have no
September 21, 2021
30171
objections to the proposal."The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel,
Treasurer. We had some correspondence come in. The first one
is dated August 16, 2021, it reads: "To Whom it May Concern,
The staff and visitors of Kidventure Childcare Center, Inc., have
my permission to use parking spaces at 10533 through 10535
Farmington Road, Livonia, Mi 48150. Sincerely, MH Neal, MD.
Next we have email correspondence dated September 19, 2021
and it reads: "Dear City of Livonia Planning Commission, I am
writing to ask that you please grant Mellodie Hastings permission
to operate a day care nursery (Kidventure Child Care Center) at
10531 Farmington Road. ", signed Sandra Neal, MD, 10533
Farmington Road. The next email reads as follows: "Dear City
of Livonia Planning Commission, I am asking for approval of
Mellodie Hastings' request to operate a day care nursery
(Kidventure Child Care Center) at 10531 Farmington Road.",
signed by MH Neal, MD, 10533 Farmington Road. The last email
reads as follows: "Dear City of Livonia Planning Commission, I
have no objection to Mellodie Hastings' petition requesting
approval to operate a day care nursery (Kidventure Child Care
Center) at 10531 Farmington Road.", signed Louise Neal, 1797
Alexander Drive, Bloomfield Hills, MI. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director?
Mr. Caramagno: Mark,
I noticed there are 9-foot-wide
parking
spots here on the
plan.
What
is normal? What do
we normally
ask for?
Mr. Taormina: Those would typically be 10 feet wide and since those will be
providing parking for both staff and patrons or customers of the
facility, we would ask that those be 10 feet as opposed to 9-feet.
The result could be the loss of one parking space. We sometimes
allow 9-feet for employee parking, but in this case most of those
parking spaces would be used for both employees and parents,
so we would ask that the ones closest to the building be 10-feet-
wide. What this plan doesn't show, and they will have to
accommodate either way, is barrier free parking. She will have
to provide at least one barrier free parking space. Probably that
first space closest to the building.
Mr. Caramagno: Okay, thanks.
I figured that
getting kids in and
out of cars, those
that don't get
dropped off at
the door, you have
to have access to
get a child in
and our of a
car, plus there is cross parking you
said, they can
park
anywhere
on this property,
right, you said?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
What we
were able
to confirm is
that the property
immediately to
the west
and which
has surplus
parking, subject
September 21, 2021
30172
to cross -access and parking agreement. So, customers or
employees would be able to park in the adjacent parking lot and
hence, parking should not be an issue.
Mr. Caramagno: Okay, so parking shouldn't be an issue. an you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Caramagno. Any other questions for our planning
staff?
Mr. Bongero: Forgive me, I wasn't at the study meeting last week, so they are
proposing an outdoor play area of 3,000 square feet, but what is
required is 5,000?
Mr. Taormina: The city requires 5,000 square feet. The State requires 1,200
square feet.
Or. Bongero: Oh, okay. So, this goes to Council.
Mr. Taormina: Yes. Council would have to consider this and does have the
ability to modify that requirement.
Mr. Bongero: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Bongero/ Any other questions? If not, our
petitioner I believe is in the audience. If you would like to come
forward, you can come speak to your petition. Good evening. If
you could start with your name and address for our record.
Mellodie Hastings, 2380 Stockmeyer Blvd., Westland, MI 48186.
Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anything else you would like to add that Mr. Taormina
has not already covered.
Ms. Hastings: I think he did a great job. We are looking to bring affordable
childcare to the Livonia area because that is kind of our goal and
I think that is about it.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, great. If there is nothing else you would like to present, we
can see if there is any questions for you from any of the
commissioners.
Ms. Smiley: I have a couple questions. Ms. Hastings, could you ... have had
any experience with childcare?
Ms. Hastings: Yes.
Ms. Smiley: Can you tell us about that?
September 21, 2021
30173
Ms. Hastings: So, I have... well, we both have, because we are partners,...
Ms. Smiley: Can you give us your name and address?
Angelique Armstrong, 17238 Garfield, Redford, MI 48240.
Ms. Hastings: We have had a previous childcare center and we had that
childcare center for about two years. Prior to that I worked in
multiple childcare centers as a childcare provider. I also received
my CDA for certification to be a program director for childcare and
that is about my experience.
Ms. Smiley: So, you have a CA endorsement, and you have two years'
experience and that was a licensed childcare center, right? I
assume. What ages are you taking?
Ms. Hastings: Two months to 12 years.
Ms. Smiley: Two months to 12 years, wow.
Ms. Hastings: Like before and after school care for the school age.
Ms. Smiley: Do you have like transportation to the elementary buildings or...
Ms. Hastings: I do have my own transportation that I have, but we are licensed
to do ... or will be licensed to do transportation, but I am using my
own personal transportation as of now.
Ms. Smiley: But they could also come by bus?
Ms. Hastings: Yeah. Only like say drop off (inaudible)
Ms. Smiley: Your hours of operation are going to be?
Ms. Hastings: 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
As.
Smiley: 6 to 6:30?
As.
Hastings: Yes.
As.
Smiley: Long days.
As.
Hastings: I know.
As,
Smiley: Okay, and the State will mandate what kind of ratios you would
have.
September 21, 2021
30174
Ms. Hastings: Yes. They have to come out and do their own inspection along
with multiple other inspections. Yes, they do the ratio and the
square footage of rooms of how many you can have things like
that.
Ms. Smiley: Do you anticipate any problems with that size of your outdoor
play?
Ms. Hastings: I am sorry. Can you repeat that?
Ms. Smiley: Do you anticipate any problems with your outside outdoor play
area? It is bigger than what the State mandates so you should
be...
Ms. Hastings: Yeah, yeah, yeah. That should be perfect. We don't plan to have
park equipment anyway. Just, you know, bikes and portable
slides and things like that, that can go out do some hoola hooping
and some jump roping and running around. Just let out some
energy.
Ms. Smiley: Great. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. Smiley. Any other questions for our petitioner?
Mr. Bongero: Just a couple questions. How many employees will you have at
the site?
Ms. Hastings: I plan to have...because we have four classrooms, I plan to have
two teachers in each class, so that is about eight.
Mr. Bongero: That's good. Um, where this playground is proposed, there is a
concrete privacy wall that exists on that property. I was out there
today just checking it out. I have seen it around the city before, it
has vertical steel channels and the fence itself is concrete slabs,
probably eight by eight and four inches thick. One or two of the
sections are failing. So, I think you need to be aware that that
needs to be secured because each slab probably weighs at least
a couple thousand pounds. There is a picture. I had a picture,
but it is giving way. I think that you should... that should be
something you need to address.
As.
Hastings: Oh, okay. Can I see the picture?
Mr. Bongero: Yeah. I think... Mark, do you have it?
Mr. Taormina: I do. Give me a sec and I will show what those are.
September 21, 2021
30175
Mr. Bongero: But it is butting up right where your playground is.
S. Hastings: Okay. It is good to know. Thank you.
Mr. Bongero: Yeah.
Mr. Wilshaw: While Mark works on getting those pictures up, is there any other
questions from any of our commissioners?
Mr. Caramagno: I have a question. How do you access that playground? Is there
going to be a door coming from the building or are you going to
have to come out of the building into the lot and then into the
playground?
Ms. Hastings: We would probably come out the door and then enter like the door
to the gate to get in is what I pictured, but if it can be different
when I talk to the people that are going to install it and that would
be good so that it can already be wrapped around the door, but I
guess it would have to be separate because when the parents
come in they won't have to go in the gate, they can just go in the
door. Probably come out the door and then go in another gated
door.
Mr. Caramagno: Okay.
Ms. Hastings: Is what I vision.
Mr. Caramagno: What is the flooring for the playground? What do you do? That
is asphalt there, so what do you do with that? Tell me a little bit
about what you do there.
Ms. Hastings: I am considering putting in a turf. Either, depending on what is
best as far as budget, like the green turf kind of like on the football
field or I was also looking at kind of a rubber...I had a picture of
it. It is like a rubber... what is it .... like a rubber mesh.
Mr. Caramagno: So, it won't be asphalt. It would be either rubber mat or artificial
turf there?
Ms. Hastings: Yeah. Something soft. They fall a lot I don't want them hurting
themselves. Then grass...you can't ride your bike on the grass
so ... something flat yet safe. Oh, I see the metal ones you were
talking about?
Mr. Bongero: Yeah, if you look to that right corner, it is pulling apart and the
bottom corner is broken too.
September 21, 2021
30176
Ms. Hastings: Okay. I will look into that.
Mr. Bongero: Look right there. See that crack right there? I would at least
secure it.
Ms. Hastings: Like get it sealed or something?
Mr. Bongero: Maybe from the other side.
Ms. Hastings: Okay.
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. Wilshaw:
If I may.
Mr. Taormina.
Mr. Taormina: I am wondering if that would be part of the State's inspection
when they look at the play area.
Mr. Bongero: The play area is right next to that.
Mr. Taormina: So, that is something that maybe you will have to work with the
landlord to get repaired.
Ms. Hastings: Okay.
Mr. Caramagno: Nice catch, Dave.
Mr. Bongero: You guys keep me around for a reason.
Ms. Smiley: I have one more question. What is your security plan for drop-off
and pick-up of children?
Ms. Hastings: Well,
we plan to
meet the parents and
they sign and just drop off
to us
and then we escort them to their
classroom.
Ms. Smiley: So, the parent escorts them to and from the classroom?
Ms. Hastings: The parent will escort them to the door, and we will have them
sign them in and staff will escort them to the classroom.
Ms. Smiley: To keep someone who is not a parent out of there, what is the
plan there?
Ms. Hastings: We will definitely have a buzzer. I have to buzz them in for them
to get in.
Ms. Smiley: Okay, good. Thank you.
September 21, 2021
30177
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. Smiley. Any other questions? All good questions
so far. Anyone else? If not, is there anyone in the audience
wishing to speak on this item. There doesn't appear to be anyone
else. Is there anything else, Ms. Hastings, that you would like to
add before we make our decision?
Ms. Hastings: V. We just hope you guys accept our petition and we are looking
forward to providing affordable childcare within the Livonia area.
We won't let you guys down.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, very good. One quick question from me. One of the
pictures that was sent to us was of the vinyl fence that you are
thinking of. There were two pictures, one appears to be a white
or grey fence and the other one almost appears to be blue. I don't
know if that is just the camera that made it look that way.
Ms. Hastings: They were both white. I was just looking at something...you see
how that one there is kind of like less you can see in and the other
one is kind of like more you can see in... I was just... it will be either
be between something of those two. It will be white.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, I was just more concerned about the color and if it was
going to be a bright blue or not. Very good, thank you. If there is
no other questions or comments from anyone in the audience or
the commission, I will close the public hearing and a motion would
be in order.
On a motion by McCue, seconded by Venturea, and unanimously adopted, it was
#09-49-2021 RESOLVED, That pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on September 21, 2021, on
Petition 2021-08-02-16 submitted by Mellodie Hastings
requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 6.13 of the
Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance, to operate a day care
nursery (Kidventure Child Care Center) at 10531 Farmington
Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between
Orangelawn Avenue and Plymouth Road in the Northeast '/4 of
Section 33, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2021-08-02-16 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
That the Site Plan, as received by the Planning Commission
on September 20, 2021., is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to.
September 21, 2021
30178
2. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for
review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
3. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site, including but not limited to, the building or
around the windows.
4. That the entire outdoor play area shall be surrounded by a
vinyl privacy fence.
5. That the existing concrete protective wall along the north
property line shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the
Inspection Department
6. All parking spaces, except the required handicapped
spaces, shall be doubled striped at ten feet (10') wide by
twenty feet (20') in length as required.
7. That the parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and restriped
to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department,
8. That the hours of operation for this childcare facility shall be
limited to 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
9. The tenants) of this building shall not engage in any form of
solicitation for business within the public rights -of -way of
Farmington Road,
10. That the Petitioner shall enter into a conditional agreement
limiting the waiver to this user only, with the provision to
extend this waiver use approval to a new user only upon
approval of the new user by the City Council.
11. That the specific plan referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time
the building permits are applied for; and,
12. Pursuant to Section 13.13 of Livonia Vision 21 Zoning
Ordinance, this approval is valid for a period of one year only
from the date of approval by the City Council, and unless a
building permit is obtained, and construction is commenced,
this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said
period.
Septemder21, 2021
30179
FURTHER RESOLVED, That notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 13.13 of
Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the
motion is carried and
the foregoing
resolution
adopted. It will go on
to City
Council with
an approving
resolution.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2021-08-08-05 Citizens Bank
Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2021-
08-08-05 submitted by Hellyer Lewis requesting site plan
approval pursuant to Section 5.01 of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior
of the Citizens Bank at 37307 Six Mile Road, located on the south
side of Six Mile Road between Levan and Newburgh Roads in
the Northwest % of Section 17.
Mr. Taormina: This is an after -the -fact request. It involves changes to the
exterior of the Citizens branch bank, located at theNewburgh
Plaza Shopping Center near the southeast corner of Six Mile and
Newburgh Roads. The property in question is located within a
Special Area Development Control Zone. There are seven such
zones throughout the city that are subject to special regulations.
Pursuant to Section 5.01 of the zoning ordinance, which includes
a provision that requires that all building exterior modifications or
alterations first be approved by the City Council upon submission
of findings by the Planning Commission. The changes that were
completed include painting the exterior brick a bright white.
These are photos of the building before the modifications were
made and this is a rendering showing what the changes look like
today. We have a couple photos that we will show you in a
second. The changes that were completed involved painting the
exterior brick bright white. The upper fagade, which mostly
consists of an E.I.F.S. material, was painted a bright green. In
addition, the main entrance that is located on the north side of the
building facing Six Mile has been remodeled. Previously, the
entrance was defined by a brick tower feature that had an arched
roofline. The brick on the structure was covered with a composite
wood siding and the roofline was squared off. This is the tower
element, and you can actually see where that arch was located
previously. This is what it looked like prior to. Here is a side view.
These are some photos that give you kind of an idea of the
changes as well with the painting and the green fagade. With
September 21, 2021
30180
that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental
correspondence.
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please.
Mr. Taormina: The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated August 19,
2021, which reads as follows: `In accordance with your request,
the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced
petition. We have no objections to the proposed project at this
time. The parcel is assigned the address of #37307 Six Mile
Road. The proposed building locations are currently serviced by
public water main and sanitary sewer, as well as private storm
sewer. The submitted drawings do not indicate any modifications
to the existing leads, and we do not believe there will be any
further impacts to the existing systems. Should changes to the
existing services be required, the Owner shall submit revised
plans to this office to determine if permits will be required. It
should be noted that the developer may be required to obtain a
permit from the Wayne County Department of Public Service,
should any work occur within the Six Mile Road right-of-way. " The
letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer.
The next letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
August 26, 2021, 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 Greg Thomas, Fire Marshal. The next
letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 21, 2021,
which reads as follows: `I have reviewed the plans in connection
with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal." The letter
is signed by Scott Sczepanski, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The
next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September
201 2021, 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, Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the Finance
Department, dated August 18, 2021, which reads as follows: "I
have reviewed the address connected with the above noted
petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable (general
or water and sewer), I have no objections to the proposal." The
letter is signed by Connie Kumpula, Chief Accountant. The next
letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated August 25, 2021,
which reads as follows: "1n accordance with your request, the
Treasurer's Office has reviewed the name and addresses
connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are
no taxes due, therefore I have no objections to the proposal." The
September 21, 2021
30181
letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director?
Mr. Ventura: Mr. Taormina, at our study session we had some conversation
about the owner of the shopping center weighing in on the fact
that this building is no longer conforming to the appearance of
the rest of the center, and I wonder if in the interim you heard
anything from the owner of the shopping center?
Mr. Taormina: I did speak to the owner, actually on a couple of occasions. He
made it a point to visit the site. He reminded me of the original
intent when this structure was built. When they relocated the First
Federal that was located near where the Bush's is now to the front
of the shopping center. It was the intent at that time that the
architecture of the bank match the rest of the center, which was
remodeled at the time. He feels that the changes that were made
to the exterior of this building are not consistent with the Planning
Commission and City Council's review and approvals at that time.
He did not object to the fact that there were changes, he just
believes there is a better color scheme. One that would be more
appropriate and consistent with the original approvals. My
conversation with him, and he seemed to object mostly to the
bright green, he felt that is something that should probably be
modified.
Mr. Ventura: Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Ventura. Any other questions?
Mr. Bongero: So, all this work was done. There was a lot of work there and did
the bank...was it required that they get permission from the
land... you know what I am saying? There is like some... where is
it going?
Mr. Taormina: No. Part of it is a little vague. While there is language in the
agreement, this is a land lease. Apparently, there is some
language relative to architectural compatibility. I am not exactly
sure since I haven't seen the language. He, the owner, did not
indicate that per the agreements there was enough in the
agreements for him do anything beyond expressing his opinion
to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bongero: So, is it an option to paint the E.I.F.S. and leave the wood in the
front that kind of matches the mall?
September 21, 2021
30182
Mr. Taormina: He has no control over that, but again, he wanted to remind us of
the original intent which was clearly spelled out in the
proceedings of the meetings when this was approved. It was
clear that it was the intent to match the architecture. Siegal
Toumala was the architect of this building, as well as the
shopping plaza, and it was clear from the design that it was
intended to match. That was something that was pointed out
during the review process and was highly considered at the time
when the decisions were made by both the Planning Commission
and City Council.
Mr. Bongero: This is back, right?
Mr. Taormina: Yeah, I would have
to go back
and look at
the year. I may have
referenced it in the
staff report.
Early 90's
maybe.
Mr. Bongero: So, it really isn't enforceable, or we don't know.
Mr. Taormina: In terms of...enforceable by the landlord?
Mr. Bongero: Yeah.
Mr. Taormina: That I don't know. I got the impression no. This is really on the
City to make the ultimate decision. He is looking for our best
judgement in whether or not we are adhering to the original
conditions.
Mr. Bongero: Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank
you, Mr. Bongero.
Any other questions
for our planning
staff?
If not, we can go
to the peoner. His
representative is
here.
Good evening, sir.
Paul Can gel, Citizens Bank, 27777 Franklin Road, Southfield, MI 48034.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. What else would you like to tell us about this petition?
Mr. Gagel: Well, first of all, as has been mentioned, this was after the fact.
During our due diligence period the architect that we engaged at
the time did not find the ordinance and then we submitted the
plans for review. They went to the city like we normally do for our
review. We received no comments on the exterior that another
step was necessary for the exterior work. So, we proceeded with
the plans. We executed on the plans based on the permit that
was issued. Because the plans included exterior and interior
work, we just proceeded 100% with the plans. During the course
of construction there were multiple inspectors that came out
September 21, 2021
30183
during the course of the project. No one flagged anything or said
anything until after the fact. That is what brought us to where we
are now.
Mr. Wilshaw: We will see if there are any questions from any of our
commissioners regarding the project.
Ms. Smiley: Just to
be clear.
The city inspectors came out and
inspected all
of your
stuff and
your painting and your .... and never
said a word?
Mr. Gagel: Not until after we were done. They were on site for rough
electrical, framing, all the inspections. The final building life, fire,
safety. At the end of the project this came out that we missed a
step. We inadvertently missed a step on both sides. Our side
plus, in my opinion, the city comments during plan review that
while all the details were called out including the paint specs, the
portal that we have talked about, were all called out on the plans,
but we never received any comment back from the plan reviewer
that another process was needed.
Ms. Smiley: Mr. Taormina, who would the plan reviewer be?
Mr. Taormina: I really don't know
who it was
in
this particular
case. There are
three different plan
reviewers,
or
there were at
the time, so who
actually did it...
Ms. Smiley: So, like the Inspection Department?
Mr. Taormina: Yeah. They work for the Inspection Department. It was my
understanding that the permit specifically excluded any exterior
work. That was missed by the contractors so they must have
assumed that the plans were approved as submitted, which did
show the exterior work even thought it was excluded from the
permit. The inspectors would not have inspected the painting.
That is not something that they would do... if you are an electrical
inspector, you are there to inspect the electrical work, not the
exterior. The same thing goes for the other mechanical permits.
I don't know about any building inspectors if they were on the site
when it came to the structural elements like the tower and if they
actually reviewed that or not. I can't answer that. It is water under
the bridge now. We have had that discussion with the Inspection
Department.
Ms, Smiley: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. Smiley. Any other questions?
September 21, 2021
30184
Or. Bongero: So, my opinion, this is an issue that needs to be settled between
Citizens and the landlord, because obviously something must
have been enforceable if the Building Department came out at
the end and said hey, we missed a step. There was some step
that needed to be taken, right? What was the step?
Mr. Taormina: If I may Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Wilshaw: Sure. Mr. Taormina.
Mr. Taormina: The process is to first go before this body and the City Council for
approval. The reason, again, is that this is located within an
overlay district. It is called Special Area Development Control
Zone where exterior alterations to buildings first require the
approval of the Planning Commission and City Council. That is
the step that was missing.
Mr. Bongero: So, is that what we are kind of doing now?
Mr. Taormina: Yes, that is what we are doing now. Again, after -the -fact. It is
my understanding that the landlord does not have direct control
over the exterior alterations.
Mr. Bongero: We can't enforce it we don't think.
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. Bongero: So, are you willing to talk it out with him and come to a resolution?
Mr. Gagel: Yes, actually I had a conversation with Mr. Frankel on this. The
green is a little too much green. He asked if we could soften the
green. The conversation with him was he would look forward to
seeing what the architect would recommend on doing that and
softening the green. I did submit some current photos from last
Thursday. They were submitted to the city for that to show that.
Even on the rendering there, you can see that there is two levels
of green in the E.I.F.S. There is a dividing line. It is something
that we can look at and maybe separate that and find a color that
softens the green but yet matches everything else on the building
plus include the whole center itself, which would be more
amicable to the owner of the property.
Mr. Bongero: That seems like a good move right there.
Ms. Smiley: Can I ask? He likes the painted brick?
September 21, 2021
30185
Or. Gagel: My conversation with him was...I told you its not the white, I don't
like that much green, when I had the conversation with him. He
did not object to the... it is actually a pewter color. It looks white
when the sun hits it, it looks like a white. No, he did not object to
that in my conversations with him.
Ms. Smiley: The brick was in good shape and looked nice before you painted
it. That is my opinion.
Mr. Wilshaw: That is fine. Anyone else with any questions or comments?
Mr. Ventura: Mr. Gagel, at our study session we talked about maintenance and
the fact that we really don't have painted brick in the city because
it ultimately deteriorates, and it does that rather rapidly. So, we
asked for some type of maintenance schedule, and I note that
attached... you provided a schedule here for inspections, but I
don't see any maintenance committed to in the schedule.
Mr. Gagel: You mean as far as repainting or touching up?
Mr. Ventura: Yeah. Exactly.
Mr. Gagel: Well, in the document that I submitted, let's consider it a living
document, which is amendable, but it is in the document that
every two years it would be assessed for repainting if needed.
Then we would submit for our capital budget within the bank, how
we do that, but I have also done some other due diligence through
the architect. The durability of the paint is five to ten years on this
product that we use.
Mr. Ventura: I understand exactly what...and you are telling me what I
understood. So, my discomfort is that this gets lost in the
cornflakes over time and whether or not the inspections are done,
somebody decides you don't have the money to do the painting,
so it doesn't happen, and the building deteriorates. It is not at an
inconspicuous location in that shopping center, and it is
substantially non -conforming with the rest of the center. It is
either something you like, and it is pleasant to look at or it is an
eyesore. It can be a deteriorating eyesore if it is not maintained.
So, what I am going to suggest, or at least ask you is, would you
agree to a commitment to repaint the building every five years?
Mr. Gagel: I would have to take that back as a recommendation. I don't have
absolute control over the budget. I certainly would strongly
recommend and encourage that we do that, but I would have to
go to the powers that be within the bank to get that commitment.
September 21, 2021
30186
Jr. Ventura: I guess another fallback question would be, last week we
discussed other options and what other latitude this board had
and that is to just take that paint off, which would you prefer?
Mr. Gager I would not prefer to take the paint off. I think sandblasting to
remove the paint would be detrimental to the building itself. It
would cause some damage to the brick and the mortar, which
would create pretty expensive repair for us, $50,000 to $60,000
to do all that tuckpoint for the entire building. So, I would be very
hesitant to do that. I would rather strongly advocate repainting
the building every five years and make sure we have something
in our plan within the bank that our facilities department knows
that they need to do that and just automatically put it in the
budgets.
Mr. Ventura: I guess, as you speak, the other thing that occurs to me is that
something could be put over the brick at this point since you
repainted it already. That wouldn't need maintenance. That
might be more acceptable to this body than the painted surface.
Is that an option for the bank?
Mr. Gagel: When you say put something over it, are you talking about a face
brick or something like that?
Mr. Ventura: Yeah. There is thin brick.
Mr. Gagel: There is a thin brick. All of those solutions have pros and cons.
There is no doubt about it. We would have to do some due
diligence to how it is adhered to the brick, what would happen
with freeze thaw expansion in the winter and different seasons.
We would have to explore that. I would have to ask the architect
to weigh in on that for the full pros and cons on that type of
product.
Mr. Ventura: Thank you. Just to be clear, at this point you are not willing to
make any commitment to maintenance at all?
Mr. Gagel: No. I just said that instead of sandblasting I would go back to the
bank and say that we need...
Mr. Ventura: Right. But tonight, for the purposes of this meeting.
Mr. Gagel: For the purposes of this meeting? Yeah, I will commit to painting
every five years.
Mr. Ventura: You will?
September 21, 2021
30187
Mr. Gagel: Sure. I will take that back to the bank, but you are asking me to
commit to something when I don't have absolute control over the
purse strings.
Mr. Ventura: Your right, I am. Got it.
Mr. Gager If I don't have absolute control over the budget, I can't...) can only
take it so far.
Mr. Ventura: Thank you for that clarification. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Understandable. Thank you. Any other questions or comments
from any of the commissioners? No one else? There is no one
else in our audience wishing to speak on this item. Mr. Gagel, I
do have one question for you. You have gone through this
process... you are a project manager, so you have gone through
this process for other sites as well?
Mr. Gagel: We have, yes. We have done other properties like this with the
same paint and finishes and other municipalities local to Livonia,
yes.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, when you have gone through that process, you have
normally had to go in front of a Planning Commission or a City
Council or anything or do you just get a rubber stamp approval?
Mr. Gagel: We have gone through Royal Oak, Dearborn Heights. They did
not call out specifics on exterior of the building as two separate
initiatives. It was all wrapped into one building permit.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, so that may be part of why this process seems a little
different to you than other processes you have experienced
elsewhere.
Mr. Gagel: Correct.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, that is fair enough. Thank you, Mr. Gagel. If there is no
other questions or comments from anyone and there is no one in
our audience wishing to speak on this, then a motion would be in
order.
On a motion by Long, seconded by Ventura, and adopted, it was
#09-50-2021 RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to City Council that Petition 2021-08-08-05
submitted by Hellyer Lewis requesting site plan approval
pursuant to Section 5.01 of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning
September 21, 2021
30188
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior
of the Citizens Bank at 37307 Six Mile Road, located on the south
side of Six Mile Road between Levan and Newburgh Roads in
the Northwest '/4 of Section 17, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Exterior Elevations Plans idened as No. A-1.03
and No. A-1,04, both dated August 13, 2021, as revised,
prepared by Hellyer Lewis Inc., are hereby approved and
shall be adhered to.
2. That the Petitioner shall submit a maintenance schedule to
the Inspection Department indicating the annual inspections
of the exterior of the building, and that the building shall be
repainted at least every five (5) years, or sooner, as may be
determined by the Inspection Department.
3. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department.
Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Bongero: So, with Glen adding the five-year repainting language, I know
you said that you would commit to that, but in the end, you still
have to get approval from the higher ups, right?
Mr. Gagel: Yeah.
Mr. Bongero: Okay, is that good enough?
Mr. Long: I understand that he has to run it up, but if they don't approve it
then this becomes null and void. Actually, I want to amend what
I said, that it has to be painted at least every five years. If the
maintenance schedule... if the Inspection Department indicated
that after three years it was an eyesore, I guess we would want
to be able to revisit that, so I am not sure... how do we
memorialize that?
Mr. Taormina: We would fashion language that would say something to effect
"shall be repainted upon recommendation of the Inspection
Department or at least every five years" Something to that effect.
Mr. Long: Or at least every five years so that is the amendment to my
motion.
As.
Smiley: How about dialing down the green, is that included in the paint
job?
September 21, 2021
30189
Mr. Long: That is not included in the paint. It is not included in my motion.
It sounded like they were working that out and I am not really sure
that...I am more concerned with the brick and the durability of the
paint of the brick. I think that...I mean...I am not saying that I
wouldn't entertain another change to my motion, but that is not
anything that I included.
Ms. Smiley: I guess that is between them and the landlord...the new greens?
Mr. Long: Yeah.
I am fine leaving
that
with them, but you guys can vote me
down
and we can start
over
if you would like.
Ms. Smiley: Nope.
Mr. Wilshaw: That is the whole point of having this conversation, to what else
everyone has to say about it and go from there. Any other
questions or comments? If not, please call the roll.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Long, McCue,
Caramagno,
NAYS: Wilshaw
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Bongero, Smiley, Ventura,
Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2021-08-SN-02 Stark Road Holdings
Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2021-
08-SN-02 submitted by Stark Road Holdings L.L.C., on behalf of
the Livonia Athletic District (LAD), requesting approval pursuant
to Section 11.08 of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance to
install multiple wall signs to the multi -purpose recreational facility
at 14255 Stark Road, located on the west side of Stark Road
between Schoolcraft Road and Lyndon Avenue in the Southeast
Y4 of Section 21.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to install multiple wall signs on a building that is
used primarily for indoor recreation. This is the former YMCA
located on Stark Road. The property was zoned R-2 (Single-
family residential) but is now zoned N1 (Neighborhood District).
September 21, 2021
30190
The YMCA facility dates back to the early 1960's and closed a
year or two ago. Earlier this year a holding company by the name
of Detroit Rising Development acquired the property and set into
motion plans to transform the building into a multi -purpose multi -
tenant facility that is geared primarily for sports and athletic
training. The facility will include indoor turf fields, a pool, other
athletic training facilities, as well as private office space for
physical therapy and sports medicine practices. In fact, a few of
us had a chance to tour the facility this afternoon. The name
given for the new business is the Livonia Athletic District or LAD.
The proposed signs are needed to identify the new use of the
property. Signs for non-residential uses in an N-1 district are
regulated under Section 11.08. The ordinance allows only one
20 square foot wall sign. Proposed on the east elevation, this is
the side of the building facing Stark Road, the plan shows two
main identification signs. The smaller one measures roughly 3'-
11" by 15'-0" for a total area of fifty-nine (59) square feet and it
reads "Livonia Athletic District". That is the sign on the left. The
other and larger sign is the company's logo that reads LAD. That
one measures 11'-4" by 10'-0", and it is roughly 121 square feet
in area. Both signs would be painted on the exterior of the
building, which is brick. Painting signs is prohibited under Section
11.05 and would thus be subject to approval by the Zoning Board
of Appeals. Also shown on the east side of the building are
several vinyl graphics that would be affixed to the existing
windows. These graphics would advertise the building's various
sporting activities. The plans show a total of ten graphics. Each
one measures about 2 '/2' by 2 '/2' for a total of seven (7) square
feet. The graphics themselves would total roughly 70 square feet.
As we look on the north side of the building, there are two signs
as well. One reads Livonia LAD Athletic District, that is this one
shown here. Again, this is the side of the building facing north
towards the parking lot. That sign would roughly be 189 square
feet. Lastly, next to the main entrance is a six-foot by twelve -foot
or 72 square foot sign that would be internally illuminated. This
sign would contain interchangeable panels that would identify the
building's various tenants and uses. Altogether, the proposed
four (4) walls and ten (10) vinyl window signs measure a total of
511 square feet. As I indicated, we did have a chance to visit the
site today and the petitioner is willing to bring forth changes and
is seeking direction from the Planning Commission. With that,
Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence.
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please.
Mr. Taormina: The first item is
from the Inspection
Department,
dated
September 13,
2021,
which reads as follows:
"Pursuant
to your
September 21, 2021
30191
request, the above referenced Petition has been reviewed. A
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required for
the excess size and number of signs proposed. This Department
has no further objections to this Petition." The letter is signed by
Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the
Finance Department, dated September 13, 2021, which reads as
follows: "I have reviewed the address connected with the above
noted petition. The following amounts are due to the City of
Livonia: Unpaid water and sewer charges: $778.78 Total Due
City of Livonia $778.78" The letter is signed by Connie Kumpula,
Chief Accountant. The next letter is from the Treasurer's
Department, dated August 25, 2021, which reads as follows: "In
accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has
reviewed the name and addresses connected with the above
noted petition. At this time there are taxes due, and they are now
delinquent. Due September 14, 2021- $55,145.46 — good
through 9-30-2021" The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel,
Treasurer. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? The
petitioner is in the audience I believe. If you would like to come
forward and we will need your name and address for the record,
please.
Joseph Deverteuil, 3991 Fieldview Ave., West Bloomfield, MI 48234. Good
evening. Thank you for having me.
Mr. Wilshaw: You have a sign package here that you have presented to us.
We had a chance to talk to you a little bit at the study meeting
about it. Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your
request?
Mr. Deverteuil: So, after talking to the partners of Stark Road Holdings, our intent
is to maintain a rapport the city and of course we respect the fact
that, you know, brick is not allowed to be painted on. With that
said, we just want to find out what is allowable from the city, and
we will take measures to make sure that we can fit that need.
Mr. Wilshaw: Excellent. Thank you, sir. Let's see if they are any comments or
questions from the Planning Commission that may help you
along.
As.
McCue: I should have
probably asked this of
Mr. Taormina to
begin with.
Mark, can you
clarify
again what the
allowable square
footage is.
Mr. Taormina: Only 20 square feet.
September 21, 2021
30192
Ms. McCue: Thank you. So, there is probably a couple of things that we need
direction on, I guess. We look at the amount of signage allowable
and then you are trying to figure out what type of signage, so
obviously both of those things need to be taken into
consideration. That is a big difference, so I know that we had
discussed a couple different thought processes as to how signs
could be done a little more cheaply. I think Mr. Caramagno had
come up with a couple ideas last week during our study session.
Sorry, Sam, to drag you into the conversation, but I guess my
question is, have you come up with any other thoughts or
suggestions or any other opinions about what type of signage you
would be able to do rather than painting the brick.
Mr. Deverteuil: Yes, the alternative would be some type of raised sign on some
type of wood backing. That is the only one we could come up
with so far.
Ms. McCue: You found that to be economical for you?
Mr. Deverteuil: Yes.
Ms. McCue: Because we understand the point here of what we are trying to
do, right? Signage is expensive, so I understand that.
Mr. Deverteuil: So, that wood backing would be economical for us, yes.
Ms. McCue: Okay, alright. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. McCue. Any other comments?
Mr. Ventura: 1 will defer to Ms. Smiley.
Ms. Smiley: I was just going to say, speaking of expensive, are you aware of
the tax bill and the other bills?
Mr. Deverteuil: Yes. So, that was taken care of either this week or late last week.
That payment was submitted earlier this week or late last week.
Ms. Smiley: Good.
Or,
Great.
Have you
had any other experience with the
athletic
clubs or
something
like this?
Deverteuil: Myself, yes. I opened up a 9,000 square foot micro facility it was
called in Detroit. It was opened in 2017 through 2019. We closed
in 2020 due to COVID and so forth. There have been several
partnerships with the City of Detroit, the City of Detroit Public
Schools as well. They would bring their students and athletes to
that facility.
September 21, 2021
30193
Ms. Smiley: Okay, and there was some mention of boxing and then we
eliminated boxing?
Mr. Deverteuil: Correct.
Ms. Smiley: Sounds good to me.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. Smiley. That was a good segway on the financial
element as well. Mr. Ventura?
Mr. Ventura: As you know, Mr. Bongero and Mr. Caramagno and I were at the
building today for a walk-through and one of the questions that I
asked was how does this signage function for you guys? And it
was described that this building was really going to be broken
down and sublet to a bunch of separate different businesses
within the building, and so it is not one big business. It will be
three or four or five smaller businesses all under the same roof.
That is accurate. Correct?
Mr. Deverteuil: Correct.
Mr. Ventura: So, I forget the gentleman's name, John...
Mr. Deverteuil: John Hartzel.
Mr. Ventura: Yeah. He told us that the marketing of those buildings would be
Up to the individual businesses. So, you are not going to be
promoting this building as such, but you are going to be promoting
the individual businesses within it. So, as you heard from our
meeting last week, there is considerable heartburn over the
amount of signage. Over 500 vs the 20 square feet. So, I see
your directory signage illustrated on the building which I guess
would be where the individual business that would be in the
building would be identified. Where all the tenants are listed on
the corner of the building. Mark, can you get that one up? That
one. So, I see a real need for that because you are going to have
a bunch of people that are going to want to be identified.
Mr. Deverteuil: Agreed.
Mr. Ventura: Other than that, since that is not a high traffic street, I mean you
aren't going to have a lot of people driving by and going oh yeah
there's that new gym. People are really going to be using their
GPS's I assume to find the building to go to whatever business
they are trying to get to. I would be in favor of, obviously more
than 20 square feet, but something substantially less than the 500
September 21, 2021
30194
square feet you guys are looking for. I don't know if 1 want to
make the suggestion in terms of square footage, I would rather
see you guys come back with a proposal that is says here is
something that is lesser within the new sign format that you have
indicated that you would be agreeable to and let us take a look at
that. Considering that the individual tenant signage, at least I
personally feel, something that you are going to need. Then you
are also going to want to identify the building as LAD I am sure,
but I don't know that we need 500 square feet of it. Thank you.
Mr. Deverteuil: Okay. I understand.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Ventura. Mr. Taormina, was there any thought
you had?
Mr. Taormina: I would like to give the Petitioner some direction and one thought
would be to possibly look at this more from the standpoint of a
commercial use. It is obvious that this is what this is. So, what
would be allowed is one square foot for every one foot of building
frontage. The building frontage, at least the part closest to Start
Road, is about 140 feet in length. If you add the other part of the
building facing east, that is another 40 feet roughly. So, 40 plus
140, is approximately 180 square feet. That might be something
to consider along the east facing Stark Road. If you consider the
graphics and this sign, which is roughly 60 square feet and the
graphics were another 70 square feet, you are at about 130
square feet. That would eliminate the large logo unless it is felt
that something smaller would be appropriate or if they wanted to
rebalance this to include a smaller logo somewhere else on the
building. They have indicated that they don't have any desire to
have a ground sign so that would be removed from the site. That
is just a suggestion when we look at quantity over the type of sign.
Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Ventura.
Mr. Ventura: Mark, so 130 square feet would be the windows, the logo
between the windows, and the Livonia Athletic District sign to the
upper left corner of the building. No, this sign is roughly 60
square feet.
Or,
Ventura: So, then it would be close to 200 square feet.
Mr. Taormina: Then when you add the logos, that is 70. So, 60 plus 70. That is
the 130. Not including this logo. That logo itself is 121 square
feet.
Mr. Bongero: He can get 180.
September 21, 2021
30195
Mr. Taormina: Yeah, 180 if that's what they are willing to consider, that would
leave an additional 50 square feet potentially for another sign on
the building. On the front of the building. They do have, I will
point out, this tenant sign that is on the east entry. This does face
Stark Road. That is correct, Joe?
Mr. Deverteuil: That is correct.
Mr. Taormina: So, that
would
be on...l
would have to zoom in on that part of the
building.
That
would
be here?
Mr. Deverteuil: That's right.
Mr. Taormina: So,
technically that would
face...that
would...you would have to
add
another 6 by 12. That
is another
72 square feet facing east.
Mr. Ventura: So, we would be right at 200 at that point.
Mr. Taormina: That would be...
Or, Bongero: 220
Ms. McCue: You have 130 and 70 I think is what we said.
Mr. Taormina: Yes, 200 is correct. He included just the three (3). The logos,
plus that one main identification sign, plus this sign which would
be right at 200 square feet. A little bit over the 180 feet of frontage
that they have. If you measure the building from this point to this
point.
Mr. Ventura: I guess I would ask the petitioner at this point what you would
prefer. Would you like us to follow Mr. Taormina's
recommendation and somehow provide you with a couple
hundred square feet of signage or would you prefer to come back
to us with your own ideas about how you do the signage.
Mr. Deverteuil: I would have to get feedback from all of the partners in that sense.
In my opinion I would love to have all the signage proposed. It is
Stark Road, and it is a quiet area and anything that we can do to
promote the LAD and then the tenants is a benefit to everyone. I
would have to get feedback from my partners.
Or,
Ventura: So, you would prefer to come back to us.
Or,
Deverteuil: Yes.
Or.
Wilshaw: That is reasonable.
September 21, 2021
30196
Ms. McCue: The other thing is and maybe I am crazy cause I know when you
design something like this and you have a passion for it, but those
decals are repeating themselves. Am I correct?
Mr. Deverteuil: That is correct.
Ms. McCue: Would you be able to minimize some of those potentially?
Mr. Deverteuil: That is a good consideration.
Ms. McCue: Because that just seems like a lot...that is kind of wasting some
of your square footage if you could get representation of the
sports that are in there, but not repeat on the same wall. Just a
thought.
Mr. Wilshaw: That is a good point. Excellent. Any other questions or
comments?
Mr. Caramagno: I have to say, when I was there with my colleagues earlier, I saw
a rendering on the inside of the building that was attractive. I
haven't seen that presented to us last week or tonight. That was
attractive and was eye catching and I liked it. I would say that
I've got to agree with everyone else that painting the brick is not
anything I would like to see, nor would I like to see a sign put on
wood and wood bolted to the building. I don't know, plywood
wood, I don't know. I see that as being a maintenance nightmare.
I think if you are going to put something on that building and it is
not going to be block signs or illuminated box letters, I would like
to see something on an aluminum panel that is screwed to the
wall that doesn't fade, doesn't deteriorate, doesn't need painting.
Something that will last a long time and hopefully this project for
you lasts forever. As far as the square footage goes, I mean a
couple hundred square feet on a building this size to me is fair. I
would almost go to 250. This is a huge building. Huge building.
The only other thing that I would like to comment on is that I don't
recall seeing an address on the building. Is there an address on
this building?
Or.
Deverteuil: There is. It is really small. It is actually near that picture right
there to the right. I don't know if you have a shot of that. It is
where the doors are on the left.
Or.
Caramagno: We don't have to find it now, but my point is if someone is looking
for my house, my house doesn't say Caramagno on top of it. It
has an address. You look for that address on your building. So,
I don't think addresses are used enough these days to find a
September 21, 2021
30197
building. I think your address should be prominent on this
building somewhere facing Stark Road. Facing the parking lot is
no good. So, that is my last point, okay?
Mr. Deve rteuil: Okay.
Mr. Wllshaw: an you,
Mr. Caramagno.
We
will
try to not look for your house
with the big
Caramagno sign
on
the
roof.
Mr. Caramagno: Look for the big American flag.
Mr. Wilshaw: There you go.
Ms. Smiley: I have a smiley face on my door.
Mr. Wilshaw: There you go. Any other questions or comments? If there is
none, then I will say that my general feeling is along the lines of
Mr. Caramagno. That something other than wood that is going
to be more durable material would be preferred, either aluminum
or a plexi material or something that is going to be long lasting
durable, but you can illuminate from ground lights or whatever
you are trying to do within a reasonable budget. I know that
internally illuminated signs are much more expensive, and you
are trying to come up with the best low-cost option you can, so
hopefully that will help a little bit. That also gives you the
opportunity to then change that sign if you upgrade your logo or
other things happen in the future. If there are no other questions
or comments.... Mr. Bongero.
Mr. Bongero: To Sam's point, that building is huge. We were there today, and
it does command 200 to 250 square feet of signage. There is no
doubt and the way it is set up; it isn't flat all the way across. You
can definitely get away with that much for sure. My opinion.
Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Excellent. To that point, the frontage of that building is
significantly less than the depth of the building. It is very
significant in building depth. We aren't even factoring that into
this at this point.
Ms. McCue: This would still, obviously, go
back to
the
Zoning
Board of
Appeals, right? For the signage
after we
have
looked
at it.
Mr. Wilshaw: Anything over 20 feet is going.
Ms. McCue: So, note to self, right? That you will get to do that as well.
September 21, 2021
30198
Mr. Wilshaw: The joy of this process is not only do you go through us, but you
are going to have to go through Council and Zoning Board of
Appeals. You are going to get three shots at this.
Mr. Taormina: You will be an expert at this by the end.
Ms. Smiley: You are going to be loving Livonia.
Ms. McCue: You are going to be our coach.
Or. Wilshaw: Exactly. If there is no other questions or comments, there is no
one else in the audience to speak on this item, so I will look back
to my fellow commissioners to make a motion.
On a motion by Ventura, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#09-51-2021 RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2021-08-SN-02 submitted by Stark
Road Holdings L.L.C., on behalf of the Livonia Athletic District
(LAD), requesting approval pursuant to Section 11.08 of the
Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance to install multiple wall signs
to the multi -purpose recreational facility at 14255 Stark Road,
located on the west side of Stark Road between Schoolcraft Road
and Lyndon Avenue in the Southeast'/4 of Section 21, be tabled
to a upcoming date uncertain.
Mr. Wilshaw: The item has been tabled. That will give you time, sir, to go back
to your partners and discuss what you have heard tonight and
come up with some new plans and some ideas and you can come
back to us, and we will discuss them. Hopefully we can get you
taken care of.
Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,175th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Jr.
Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of
the Minutes of the 1,175"' Public Hearing and Regular Meeting
held on August 31, 2021.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by McCue ,and unanimously adopted, it was
September 21, 2021
30199
#09=52=2021 RESOLVED, That the Minutes of 1,175th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on August 31,
2021, are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Long, McCue, Smiley, Bongero, Ventura,
Caramagno, Wilshaw
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,176th Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on September 21, 2021, was adjourned at
8:19 p.m.
CITY PLADdI�FiNG COMMISSION
�'Sam �magno,
ATTEST:
Ian Wilshaw, Chairman