HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2001-10-1618872
MINUTES OF THE 833rd REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 16, 2001, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 833rd Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic
Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane
Robert Alanskas William La Pine Linda Dolan
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; Bill Poppenger, Planner I; and Scott
Miller, Planner III, were also present.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating pefifion. 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 hasten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome ofthe proceedings tonight. We will begin with the Miscellaneous Site
Plan section of our agenda. Members of the audience may speak in support or
opposition to this item.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2001-09-08 26 Rocky Zabari
(Kim's Auto Repair)
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
2001-09-08-26 by Rocky Zeban, on behalf of Kim's Auto Repair,
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the
exterior building elevations ofthe commercial building located at
29623 Eight Mile Road in the Northeast%of Section 2.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between
Middlebelt and Beatrice Avenue. The petifioner's request is to
renovate the exterior of the building. The front elevation, which is
the north elevation, and the east and west elevations, would have
brick up the first 7 feet and then 8-1/2 feet of dryvit along the top.
The rear elevation, or the south elevation, would be a painted
concrete block. The front or north elevation, which faces Eight
Mile, would have the main pedestrian entrance and some
windows. The east elevation, which faces the parking lot, would
have four large garage overhead doors. The south or rear
elevation would have three large garage -type doors. The west
elevation, which faces Beatrice Avenue, would not have any type
of entrance except maybe an emergency door.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. Ilfrsl letter is from the
Engineering Division, dated October 8, 2001, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time." The letter is signed by David Lear,
P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated October 12, 2001, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of October 4, 2001, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The folloming is noted.
(1) Although this petitioner has been issued a permit for
alterations, the permit states minor exterior repairs and has a
value (from the petitioner) of $7,000.00. The scope of work
exceeded that which was approved. (2) The pedestal sign at the
northeast comeris in disrepair and beyond its useful life and
should be removed. (3) The landscaping is poorly maintained
and wild growth exists along the eastproperty line. (4) The
parking lot needs some repaving, repair, resealing and proper
double striping. (5) The dumpster enclosure gates are in disrepair
and falling off. There is trash inside the enclosure and storage
outside the enclosure. (6) The existing block on the building is
poorly maintained and needs maintenance and repainting. (7)
The existing window on the west elevation should be removed, as
the wall is less than five (5) feet from the lot line. (8) A violation
has been issued to Rocky Zebari to obtain proper permits, obtain
required approvals and to clean up and secure the site. The site
has not been cleaned up or secured. This Department has no
further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex
Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
,f:1:iL'I
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Rocky Zebari,
37731 Stableview, Farmington Hills.
Mr. McCann:
Do you want to tell us about your project and why the conditions
from the Inspection Department are so bad?
Mr. Zeban:
The building inside is already dean. There is nothing inside left.
I don't know, Mark, when the last time it was that you saw the
building.
Mr. McCann:
Address the Planning Commission if you will.
Mr. Zeban:
Okay, the building is already clean.
Mr. McCann:
Inside.
Mr. Zeban:
Yes.
Mr. McCann:
What about outside?
Mr. Zeban
Outside there is sand and a few things that they removed from the
building which there is no problem getting rid of. And the
dumpsler endosures wererepaired. I dont know anything about
it.
Mr. McCann:
You don't know anything about it?
Mr. Zeban:
No. If t was just open, but l don't know if its broke.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
I'm a little confused. I went out and saw Mr. Kim today. And he
said that it's his intention, and your intention, for the south
elevation, where the three doors are, to block it in. Is that true?
Mr. Zeban:
No, not block it. He will move his operation to the new garage
and leave that one for emergency or storage vehides. If we block
it, we cant use it.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you're going to keep those three doors there?
Mr. Zeban:
There are only two doors and a small door to get in.
iffi4y
Mr. Alanskas: Also he said that he was talking about possibly wanting to put a
fence or wall along Beatrice Avenue?
Mr. Zeban: I have no problem putting up the fence if I'm allayed to. The last
time we were here, they requested we put up a fence. And then
for some reason, the Building Department said you can't put up a
fence because of the way the building is set close to the street
and the fence has to be so far from the street. The fence will fall
like 20' inside the properly, 25'.
Mr. Alanskas: You know when you were here before us last time, you had a
bunch ofviolations -lo repair the landscaping, and soon and so
forth. You said you were going to do that, which you did partially.
When I was there today, there were two or three carts from
supermarkets in the back. There were two old tires. There were
three oil drums. It is a mess backthere. And it's supposed to be
maintained in a proper condition. On the east side, the
landscaping is all weeds. That hasn't been maintained.
Mr. Zeban: Because construction has been going on for almost for a year.
Mr. Alanskas: I know that. But even before the construction started, it was
maintained in a very poor condition.
Mr. Zeban: I promise to maintain it and do a beflerjob.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. La Pine: Mr. Alanskas has probably brought up all the items I would. And I
have to agree with him. When I was out there Saturday, I was
very disappointed in the condition of the property. But we brought
up a point here. I go by that place everyday and you've been
working on that building for six months to a year, I guess. I don't
know how long it's been, but you've been renovating that building
fora long time. It seems like it has moved along pretty slowly.
And then the Building Inspection Department stopped you. Is that
what happened, Mark? Washeslopped?
Mr. Taormina: Certain work was alloyed to continue on the interior of the
building. What we discovered was that the extent of changes to
the exterior of the building would need to be reconsidered by the
Planning Commission through the site plan process. Looking
back at the conditions that were imposed by the Planning
Commission and the City Council last June in connection with his
request to make improvements to the site, there were certain
limiting conditions. One, that the repair shop area would be
if.1S(1
confined tothe area where it is presently within the building. And
secondly, and most importantly, that there would be no additional
changes to the exterior ofthe building unless itwas approved by
the Planning Commission and the City Council. But you will recall
that another condition which was imposed was a prohibition of
any outside storage of vehicles on the site. In fact, we
encouraged him to utilize the existing building for that purpose—
the additional space that was provided in the remaining portion of
the building that was not going to be utilized for either display or
parts storage. In order to do that, he would have to make some
openings on the easlside ofthal building. So reallylhe permit
that was considered by the Building Department was to allow just
that, to permit the roof to be raised to the extent that it would
accommodate the overhead doors for inside storage of vehicles
which was something that was authorized by the Planning
Commission and City Council when they approved the expanded
use last June. But again, I'd like to point out that this evening's
review is limited only to the exterior building modifications To the
extent that they would like to move the auto repair operation to
the east side of the building, that is something that will have to be
reconsidered by the Planning Commission and the City Council
as an amendment to his prior waiver use approvals. This is
something that we are encouraging, and we are discussing with
both the tenant and landlord, as to the feasibility of doing that.
We do believe there is merit in making that change because of
the benefits not only to the site but also its impact on the
surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. La Pine:
A couple other questions. You're the owner of property; maybe
you can't answer these questions. What type of repair service is
he doing? Tune-ups? Is he going to pull motors?
Mr. Zeban:
No, he doesn't pull motors. Just tune-ups, minor repairs.
Mr. LaPine:
Is he going to have any hydraulic lifts or anything like that?
Mr. Zeban:
He's got three.
Mr. LaPine:
So at this point, we dont know if they're going to be moved into
this new location or not. He can't do any of that until we amend
the previous motion. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina:
Correct.
Mr. LaPine:
And its my understanding, if he does do that, then these three
doors on the south elevation are going to be used strictly to store
,f:1:iI1
cars instead of storing them outside? Is that what you're telling
us?
Mr. Zeban:
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchr
I notice at the last Study Meeting, the landscaping was discussed.
How can this gentlemen verify thatthatwill be amended so we
don't have that problem in reference to landscaping? I don't know
exactly what the percentage is, but I dont see it in the notes here.
Any idea, Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
I think it was 12%.
Mr. Miller:
Its very little. I'd say he has probably 5% at the most.
Mr. Piercecchr
Five percent at the most. Well, 15% is what we like, right? Is
there any chance of you upgrading the landscaping?
Mr. Zeban:
No way. Last time I was here, they made me tear the sidewalk
and l put a few trees in. Now there is no place to go.
Mr. Piercecchi:
What about the dead or the dying trees or shrubs and that?
Mr. Zeban:
I already have trees. They ask me to put the trees last time I was
here a year ago. And I already did. There are shrubs in the front
ofthe building, and I'll add more shrubs. Some of them are dead
because ofthe construction. And I'm going to re -sod the front of
the building. And I already have fourtrees. When these are full
grown, probably the building will never show up on Eight Mile.
Mr. Piercecchr
So we have your assurances that the landscaping will be
upgraded?
Mr. Zeban:
100%.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Zeban, I do rememberthis. Evidently Mr. Kim's auto business
is doing very good. But the last time you came before us, one of
the concerns was maintenance of the properly and the outside
storage of vehides. We come back and have reports from the
Inspection Department with all these violations. We have
problems with oil drums being out there. Cars continue to park
outthere. Mr. Alanskas said he saw tires out there. Tome, what
we're trying to do here is expand the use. He's doing well; he's
going to add more bays; he's going to add potential for adding
more vehicles. Around the Citywe have numerous auto repair
facilities. Some of them are just amazingly clean with beautiful
ifi:►fl
flowers and gardens and they are very nice. We've got other
ones where, I won't mention their names, there are cars parked
everywhere and there are problems. There's no greenery; they
don't do anything but the upkeep. Unfortunately, they were
grandfathered in or we'd make those changes. What I have is
fears that the looks of the outside of the building aren't a great
priority to you. It's getting it fixed up so you can lease it out and
then walk away.
Mr. Zeban:
No, that's not a question. I'm sorry to say that. First of all, the
reason you see cars there, because his space inside was limited.
He only had less than one-third of the building.
Mr. McCann:
He said that he could survive with that. He told us when you were
before us last time, 'That's enough. I won't alloy people to leave
their cars. If I can't work on it for a week, theyll have to bang it in
a week. I won't let them sit out there"
Mr. Zeban:
I check the property almost nightly because that's the way I go
home. And the most I see is one or two cars lett over there. And
there is no problem with storing his cars inside.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. What about who's going to maintain the outside of the
building?
Mr. Zeban:
I will.
Mr. McCann:
Whds going to maintain the grass and the shrubs?
Mr. Zeban:
I will. That's my responsibility. The only reason we have
neglected it is because with all this construction going on, its
useless to do anything. We want the property to look good. I'm
spending enough money and I don't think maintaining the
landscaping would be any problem.
Mr. McCann:
Mark, how wide is the east drive there? He's got quite a bit of
parking to the rear. We're talking about landscaping. On the
northeast corner, is there something that could be done to dean
that up?
Mr. Taormina:
That's difficult to say. If I'm reading this plan correctly, it maybe
about 25', maybe 30'. It would not allow for very much room
along the east property line for landscaping. However, since he
now has the overhead doors on that side of the building, possibly,
with a Iitfle bit of reconfiguration of that entry drive, we could
utilize some space along the east property line for landscaping.
,lf:.�t
I'm looking at an old landscape plan where he used to have
parking along the east side of the building. Sincethat's now
removed, and he has the overhead doors, it should flee up some
space. I'd like to point outthatthere is a plan on file with the City
that was approved in connection with the original Kim's Auto
Repair petition. It details across the entire site all of the required
landscaping including the species oftrees and shrubs, their
location and minimum sizes.
Mr.McCann: And that was part of the original approval. Islhalcorect?
Mr. Taormina: Thal is correct.
Mr. McCann: Since he was in operation, I guess there was no certificate of
occupancy until that was done or ....
Mr. Taormina: I believe that most if not all of the landscaping was completed but
has since fallen in a state of disrepair. And those were issues
that were brought up during the Planning Commission and City
CoundI review of the second petition which involved the
expansion of his repair business. It was at that time that he was
supposed to make certain corrections. I think whatwe're
discovering now is that some of the improvements that were done
at that time to satisfy those concerns have once again fallen in a
stale of disrepair. He is before you this evening indicating that he
will have to make those improvements a third time.
Mr. McCann: What about the rear of the property? I'm looking at the aerial
photo. If the property is going to be used as an auto repair facility
and he's not going to have outside storage, he doesn't need near
thaldeep a lot. I don't know what the costwould be fortaking up
old pavement or asphalt and putting in a 15' greenbelt for the
neighbors. But if we're going to expand an auto use in that kind
of an area, I'm trying to think of ways to create a buffer.
Mr. Taormina: Clearly, one of the advantages of moving the auto repair portion
of the operation over to the east side of the building could, in fact,
be the closure of that access to Beatrice Avenue. If that happens,
that would provide opportunity for additional landscaping on the
west side of the property. I would agree with you that given the
current use at the site and the factthat it's no longer a retail
establishment as it once was, that the amount of parking is in
excess of what's required for the type of use that's there now.
That would mean that some of the spaces could, in fad, be
removed and replaced with landscaping.
ifi:I:irl
Mr. McCann: With respect to the northeast comer, it appears that the property
just east to them has a little island right at the northeast comer. I
thought if we took the first two or three spaces there that you
could create an island to match it. Do you have a copy of the
aerial photograph?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. Looking at the aerial photograph, it would appear that the
approach from Eight Mile is more than adequate given
the change
to that side of the building. That is something we could take a
look at. Extending that landscape island to the west to include the
northeast portion of his site would help dress up that area right
along Eight Mile Road and would better define that entrance drive
as well.
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Taormina, is it appropriate to ask this gentleman to submit a
landscape plan at this time detailing any additional changes that
we've been talking about? I'm a little bit uncomfortable with not
having a plan before me and not being able to tie him down to
something.
Mr. Zeban:
Can I say something? I really don't have no plans to make any
more landscaping. Last fime I was here, I had landscaping done
by professionals and they approved and they said that was good
enough for the property. Why now spend any more money to tear
parking lot and put in more landscaping?
Mr. Shane:
Well, for one thing, you haven't taken care of what you have. And
if this parking lot is not being used as some of the other
Commissioners have mentioned, then why not upgrade the site
further?
Mr. Zeban:
I can't afford it. I don't have anymore money to spend for that. I
barely can make it now to finish that part of the building. That's
just extra money. If they're concerned about the neighbors, I'll
block that entrance so the neighbors dont have to look at the
property at all.
Mr. Shane:
What assurance do I have, if we approve this, that you're going to
do the improvements that you agreed to before?
Mr. Zeban:
My word. Is that good enough?
Mr. Shane:
Al this point, it hasn't been because you haven't taken care of the
property.
iffflil
Mr. Zeban:
I did. I just finished saying for last year and a half, I left there
almost two years ago. I dosed the property. We've been in
construction for so long, it's impossible to keep the grass we
need.
Mr. Alanskas:
Rocky, what do you intend to do in the back of the lot for
drainage? A little bit of min and it floods.
Mr. Zeban:
I am going to put in another catch basin and we're going to mise
that section. I know we have a big problem over there.
Mr. Alanskas:
Of course today it mined a lot when I was there.
Mr. Zeban:
We need another catch basin.
Mr. Alanskas:
There was two feet of water. It was just so high. Even with just
little bit of min, it does the same thing. It floods.
Mr. Zeban:
It's very low. We're thinking about raising that one and have
another catch basin to eliminate the water.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you are going to put another catch basin in?
Mr. Zeban:
Absolutely.
Mr. Alanskas:
In due respect, the west side landscaping looks very nice. You
got that done. And that is irrigated too, isn't it?
Mr. Zeban:
Yes.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, the petitioner suggested that it might benefit the
neighbors to close the Beatrice entrance to the facility. Ifwe are
going to expand the automotive use, one of the neighbors'
concerns was the testing of vehicles up and down Beatrice. This
would certainly help to eliminate that problem. Is there any
reason that we would need to keep that entrance open from a
planning standpoint?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't believe that's the case. It's not necessary to keep that
access open to Beatrice. There is presently more than sufficient
space available on the site for vehicles to enter and exit and tum
around. I'm not aware of any requirement for a second access
especially on a residential street. To go back to some ofyour
earlier comments, one of the things that we did want to address
this evening was the extent of change to the exterior of the
building. Because of his ongoing improvements to that structure
iLP.I r]
and to get those addressed first and foremost, the issue of
whether or not to expand or relocate the existing auto repair
business to the east side of the business, we felt was something
we could bang back to the Planning Commission and the City
Council. It maybe appropriate then to consider some of these
more significant changes to the site at that time or to refer those
items back as part of this petition. But one of the things we did
want to accomplish was at least a review of the exterior
improvements ofthe building. Thatwould enable himlogelthal
project underway because we are concemed with some of the
safety issues involved with the situation the building is currently
in.
Mr. McCann:
We'd like to getthis moved forward then to Council this evening?
Mr. Taormina:
In terms of the exterior improvements of the building, yes. There
are certain site issues that I think warrant bringing back for further
review though.
Mr. La Pine:
Assuming we approve it tonight and it goes to Council and they
approve
it, would we want to allow construction to confinue on this
building
until we modify our previous motion? Let's assume that
he was denied, then he might not continue with the project. It
seems to me we should have heard the modification of the
original motion first that he could move it from the west side to the
east side of the building and then hear that part of the case. To
me, that makes more sense.
Mr. Taormina:
To be quite honest with you, that was not part of his original plan.
That was something that we discussed on site after we Teamed
about the extent of changes that were underway on the site. Most
of the changes to the outside of the building are aesthetic only in
nature. They deal with the building materials, the dryvit, the brick,
the windows, all those.
Mr. La Pine:
How high is he going to raise the roof?
Mr. Taormina:
To the height of the existing auto repair business, which is
probably four feet more than the height of that portion of the
building where the market used to be, but no higher than the
southwest comer of the building.
Mr. La Pine:
What l'mtrying to pointouthere is thatthe building is open now.
If he has to move any equipment back and forth, he may want to
do it before he puts the overhead doors and those types of things
ffi:I:Rl
in. And it seems to me that you would do that before you brick it
up and do all your outside exterior of the building.
Mr. Taormina:
The permit will not authorize him to relocate the auto repair
business over to the east side of the building. Those hoists, at
this point, have to remain where they are now.
Mr. La Pine:
We have a file under appeal. We get the Planning Commission's
original motion revised.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
So that's another two, three or four weeks away after he gets
Council approval on this plan.
Mr. McCann:
We're saying he can do the construction.
Mr. Taormina:
That's correct.
Mr. LaPine:
That's very confusing. Okay.
Mr. Zebari:
I'm pretty confused myself.
Mr. McCann:
We're trying to figure out a waylogelyou moving bulthe
Planning Commission has raised some concerns. Mark, we can
pulthe conditions from the Inspection Department in our
resolution. Would it be satisfactory to put in our resolution that
the entrance off of Beatrice be removed and replaced with
landscaping and that there should be some type of comer island
in the northeast comer ... send it on to Council with those two
additions? I'm looking for an alternative to keep him moving but
to make the Council aware of our concerns and to return to those
issues.
Mr. Taormina:
I would limit any action this evening to improvements to the
exterior of the building and any site improvements to cored the
deficiencies as outlined in the Inspection report. Any changes to
the landscaping plan should be referred back to the Planning
Commission for further review.
Mr. McCann:
All right. Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in
audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? A
motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and approved, ilwas
"li:I:LI
#10-160-2001 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-09-08-26
submitted by Rocky Zeban, on behalf of Kim's Auto Repair,
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the
exterior building elevations of the commercial building located at
29623 Eight Mile Road on the south side of Eight Mile Road
between Middlebelt and Beatrice in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
2, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A.2
dated October 2, 2001, as revised, prepared by Chester
Slempien Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face four
(4") inch brick, no exception;
3. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all landscaping shall be
cleaned up and re-established to the satisfaction of the
Inspection Department and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding, and any dead or dying trees or shrubs shall
be removed and replaced with a similar species in size;
5. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in their
correspondence dated October 12, 2001:
- that the existing pole sign shall be removed and replaced
with a conforming monument -type sign;
- thatthe entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and
double striped;
- that all handicap parking spaces shall be identified and
comply with the Michigan Banner Free Code;
- that the dumpster enclosure gates shall be repaired and
maintained and when not in use closed at all times;
if.1h&1
- that the trash inside the dumpster enclosure shall be
cleaned up and all materials being stored outside the
enclosure shall be removed;
6. That all outstanding violations shall be resolved, and the site
shall be cleaned up to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department prior to Final Inspection; and that all these
violations be taken care of before the petitioner applies for a
new petition to revise the original motion made by this
Board;
7. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are
approved with this petition;
8. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at
the time the building permits are applied for; and
9. That the matter of additional landscaping and the possible
closing of Beatrice Avenue and any other site matters shall
be referred back to the Planning Commission for further
review.
A roll call vole
on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Shane, Piercecchi, Dolan, McCann
NAYS: Alanskas
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine:
One question, Mr. Chairman. Regarding the violations that the
Inspection Department cited, they'll be all deaned up before he
comes back with his petition to ask for a revision ofthe original
motion. Is that cored?
Mr. Taormina:
I dont believe that he would be restricted from fling that petition.
Mr. LaPine:
I don't have any problem with that. I want to make sure these
things aredone. Once we approve the moving of the service
bays from the west to the east, and these are not done, then
thafs it. If he doesn't do it, what else can we do?
Mr. Taormina:
Then l would suggest that you incorporate that into your
approving resolution this evening.
iflhdl
Mr. La Pine:
Then I'll putthat in the motion that all these violations be taken
care of before he applies for a new petition to revise the original
motion made by this Board.
Mr. Zeban:
One question. You mentioned the sign. What do I need to do to
get a monument sign? Do I have to come back again to the
Planning Commission or just get a permit and go ahead and do
it?
Mr. Alanskas:
No, you have to come before us.
Mr. La Pine:
Not if its a conforming sign.
Mr. Zeban:
I can go ahead and do it?
Mr. La Pine:
If its a conforming sign. If it meets all the regulations of the
ordinance.
Mr. Zeban:
It was approved by the Commission when we did ityears ago.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, things have changed.
Mr. Zeban:
Yeah, they've changed.
Mr. Alanskas:
What he's saying, if a conforming sign is say 50 square feet and
you want to put in a 100 square feet ....
Mr. Zeban:
No, I want to put the same sign, the same size exactly.
Mr. Alanskas:
If its conforming, yes you can.
Mr. McCann:
If there is no further discussion, please call the roll.
Mr. Shane:
Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCann:
Yes.
Mr. Shane:
I was the original maker of the motion. I don't think anybody
asked me whether I would agree with his change.
Mr. McCann:
Did you put an amendment on there?
Ms. Dolan:
Yes, he did.
Mr. McCann:
I'm sorry. Let's go back to Mr. Shane.
vcrrri
Mr. Shane:
As a matter of fad, I do agree with it.
Mr. McCann:
And does the second of the motion maker agree with the change?
Mr. Piercecchi:
I agree with Bill that there should be some stipulation set up to
make sure all these violations are approved. We're not picking on
you. We did this just recently with a plumbing company.
Sometimes the only way we can get these things cleaned up.
Mr. Zeban:
I understand that.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You understand that?
Mr. Zeban:
I have no problem with that. Now for landscaping, the only thing I
can do now is just remove the existing weeds and grass and just
turn it to dirt because it's too late to do any landscaping now.
Mr. LaPine:
I understand that.
Mr. McCann:
I understand that.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I understand that.
Mr. Zeban:
You said to get all these things done before I come. So it's
almost impossible.
Mr. LaPine:
We'll take that into consideration.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
It will go onto City Council with an approving
resolution. This
concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of
our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item section
of our agenda. These items have been discussed at length in
prior meetings; therefore, there will only be limited discussion
tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent
from the Commission. Will the Secretary please read the next
item?
ifi:I:il
ITEM #2 Petition 2001-08-08-24 California Pizza Kitchen
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
2001-08-08-24 by California Pizza Kitchen requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.47 ofthe Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of one of the
units of the Laurel Park Place Shopping Center located at 37065
Six Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7.
On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-161-2001 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2001-08-08-24, submitted by California
Pizza Kitchen, requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to renovate the exterior of one of the units of the Laurel
Park Place Shopping Center located at 37065 Six Mile Road in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, be removed from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Miller: Ijust want to point out some of the changes that have been made
as requested by the Planning Commission at our last meeting.
This space is where the Genghis Khan restaurant is currently
located. The California Pizza Kitchen would like to move into that
unit. There was a solid awning across the front and large picture
windows. They have downsized the windows, separated the
windows and put individual awnings over each of the four
windows. There was a sign over the door and menu. They have
taken that off and downsized the signs. The windows have been
decreased about 50% of what they originally showed. This is the
color of the awning.
Mr. McCann: Is there any new correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: No.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Michael Pdsinelli, Schostak Brothers, 25800 Northwestern Highway. Bill Hall
from Schostak Brothers is here as well on behalf of California
Pizza Kitchen.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you need to tell us, Mr. Polsinelli?
ifi:I:41
Mr. Polsinelli: No, I think Mr. Miller has described the changes that the
1. That the Site Plan dated July 31, 2001, prepared by Scheer
Tanaka Riley Architects, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan dated October 15,
2001, prepared by Scheer Tanaka Riley Architects, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That the signage shown on the approved Elevation Plan is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive
number of wall signs and any conditions related thereto;
Commission previously requested of California Pizza Kitchen.
We seemed to have a general consensus at the last study
session.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchr
I think this is more compatible with the current building with the
reduction of the window sizes and the nonconfinuous awning. I
think this is very acceptable.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you for bringing the changes to us.
Mr. Polsinelli:
We thank you as well for your comments. We think that the final
product actually came out better than the first submission.
Mr. McCann:
A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-162-2001
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-08-08-24,
submitted by California Pizza Kitchen, requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of one of the
units of the Laurel Park Place Shopping Center located at 37065
Six Mile Road in the Southeast 114 of Section 7, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan dated July 31, 2001, prepared by Scheer
Tanaka Riley Architects, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan dated October 15,
2001, prepared by Scheer Tanaka Riley Architects, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That the signage shown on the approved Elevation Plan is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive
number of wall signs and any conditions related thereto;
5. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at
the time the building permits are applied for.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution. Mr. Polsinelli, itis my understanding that there was a
request for a waiver of the seven-day period.
Mr. Polsinelli: Yes, we did request that. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, the Council Office did agree to a seven-day waiver.
It is appropriate because we held the petitioner up by requesting
revised drawings.
On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved,
it was
#10-163-2001 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article IV of the
Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven-
day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission
resolutions in connection with Petition 2001-08-08-24, submitted
by California Pizza Kitchen, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection
with a proposal to renovate the exterior of one of the units of the
Laurel Park Place Shopping Center located at 37065 Six Mile
Road in the Southeast 114 of Section 7.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
ITEM#3 PETITION 2001-09-08-25 National Specialties
(BP Gas Station)
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
2001-09-08-25 by National Specialties, on behalf of BP Gas
Station, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58
of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct an addition and renovate the exterior building elevations
oflhe gas station located 31301 Five Mile Road in the Southeast
%of Section 23.
if:1:1'lil
On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-164-2001 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2001-09-08-25, submitted by National
Specialties, on behalf of BP Gas Station, requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct an addition and renovate
the exterior building elevations of the gas station located 31301
Five Mile Road in the Southeast%of Section 23, be removed
from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Miller:
I'd like to point out some of the changes thatthe petitioner has
submitted since our last meeting. The Planning Commission
requested more brick on the building. The petitioner has
shortened the green band that will con along the top of the
building from four down to three panels. The amount of brick has
been increased so that it reaches over the window and door and
theenirence/exilouloflhecarwash. He's also submitted
landscape plan that still shows 12%, but the petitioner has stated
that because this use to extend out and now with the changes to
the pump island canopy, he needed to decrease the landscaping
here so that the traffic would flow better. So he still has 12% but
the landscaping that exists on the site, they've decreased with
plant materials on the site. And also the petitioner has submitted
a conforming sign package for the site.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, is there any additional information?
Mr. Taormina:
No, there is not.
Mr. McCann:
Sir, your name and address please.
Michael Beydoun, National Spedalfies Installation, Inc., 12747 Stout, Detroit,
Michigan 48223.
Mr. McCann:
You also sent in these photographs from October 12?
Mr. Beydoun:
Yes, sir.
Mr. McCann:
I notice this is a typical station; it is not a rendering for this
particular one. Is that correct?
iLi:4y]
Mr. Beydoun:
It is not for a specific one. No, sir.
Mr. McCann:
You're putting in all new brick. Correct?
Mr. Beydoun:
Yes.
Mr. McCann:
Why are you painting it white then?
Mr. Beydoun:
That must be an error with the draftsperson or the architect. It is
some kind of mistake on the plans. I've noticed that, sir. Itsjusl
a mistake. It should not be painted.
Mr. McCann:
It's nolgoing to be painted?
Mr. Beydoun:
No, sir.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. What I'd like to know is, what color. Is it going to be a
natural brick, like a red or a brown or a gray?
Mr. Beydoun:
It will be while or off -while instead of painting it. Because BP
does want something in a light color. They would rather have
light colors.
Mr. McCann:
But its going to be a natural brick, not spray painted?
Mr. Beydoun:
No, it's not going to be spray painted.
Mr. McCann:
And the brick columns around the gas pumps will match the ...
Mr. Beydoun:
Exactly. Even on the sign also, we're going to put up some bricks
underneath the sign about four feel high that will also match what
we have on the building and the column under the canopy.
Mr. McCann:
Any other questions?
Mr. LaPine:
justwantlo make sure I understand this. It's going to be while
brick. Hopefully it will be white brick. And there is such a thing as
while brick. And I like the combination of the white and the green.
It looks very elegant. Because the while goes with the green, I
don't think an off -while or something would go with the green.
Hopefully you can find a white brick that is going to work.
Mr. Beydoun:
I hope I can find a while brick. You're right about that because
BP wants while walls.
Mr. La Pine:
Do you have any stations up anywhere?
Mr. Beydoun: We have one on 1-94 and Haggerty, but we used panels there
1. Thatthe Site Plan marked Sheet SP -1 dated September 27,
2001, as revised, prepared by National Specialties
Installation, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. Thatthe Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated October
8, 2001, prepared by National Specialties Installation, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
5. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A3
dated September 27, 2001, as revised, prepared by National
Specialties Installation, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
Here you guys don't like panels so we're using brick. But I think I
have a picture of it.
Mr. La Pine:
What monument profile are you using. The Bor the A?
Mr. Beydoun:
The A—thatone sir.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in audience that
wishes to speak for or against this pefition? Seeing no one, a
motion is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Dolan, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-165-2001
RESOLVED, thatthe City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-09-08-25,
submitted by National Specialties, on behalf of BP Gas Stafion,
requesting approval of all plans required by Secfion 18.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an
addifion and renovate the exterior building eleva0ons ofthe gas
station located at 31301 Five Mile Road in the Southeast%of
Section 23, be approved subject to the following condifions:
1. Thatthe Site Plan marked Sheet SP -1 dated September 27,
2001, as revised, prepared by National Specialties
Installation, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. Thatthe Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated October
8, 2001, prepared by National Specialties Installation, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
5. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A3
dated September 27, 2001, as revised, prepared by National
Specialties Installation, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
,f:1:1'LI
6. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face four
(4") inch brick, no exception;
7. That all mechanical rooftop equipment shall be screened
from public view to the satisfaction of the Planning Director;
8. That the gas pump island canopy shall not exceed 18 ft. in
height, and its support columns shall be covered with the
same brick used in the construction oflhe building;
9. Thatthe leading edge of the pump island canopy shall not
be any closer than 10 ft. from the property line;
10. That the lights of the pump island canopy shall be recessed
in such a way that the intensity of the illumination is
decreased;
11. That all stand-alone light standards shall be shielded from
the adjacent properties and shall not exceed 20 ft. in height;
12. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in their
correspondence dated September 26, 2001:
- Thatthe entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and
double striped;
- That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply
with the Michigan Barrier Free Code;
- That all construction, fixtures, counters and doors shall
meetthe Barrier Free Accessibility Code in its entirety;
13. No outside storage, placement ordisplay of merchandise
shall be permitted at any time on this site; however, the
foregoing prohibition shall not apply to the display, on the
pump islands only, of oil-based products as permitted in
Section 11.03(a) of the Zoning Ordinance;
14. Thatthe Sign Package, submitted by National Specialties
Installation, as received by the Planning Commission on
October 12, 2001, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to, and shall abide by the following:
iffi 41
- That all wall signage, including canopy signage, shall not
exceed 100 sq. ft.;
- That the ground sign shall not exceed 40 sq. ft. and 12 ft.
in height;
15. That no part of the pump island canopy fascia, with the
exception ofthe embossed logos, shall be illuminated;
16. That no LED lighthand or new shall be permitted on this
site, including but not limited to, the pump island canopy,
building or around the windows;
17. That window signage for the station shall be limited to what
is permitted by Section 18.50D Permitted Signs, subheading
(g) "Window Signage'; and
18. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at
the time the building permits are applied for.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to the City Council with an
approving resolution.
Mr. Beydoun:
Thank you very much. A seven-day waiver...
Mr. McCann:
This was approved by the City Council, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, itwas.
Mr. McCann:
Okay, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-166-2001
RESOLVED, thatthe City Planning Commission does hereby
determine lowaive the provisions of Section 10 ofArfide IV of the
Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven-
day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission
resolutions in connection with Petition 2001-09-08-25, submitted
by National Specialties, on behalf of BP Gas Station, requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 oflhe Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior
building elevations of the gas station located at 31301 Five Mile
Road in the Southeast''/.of Section 23.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. Will the Secretary please read the next item.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2001 -08 -SN -02 North American Sign Co.
(CVS Pharmacy)
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
2001-08SN-02 by North American Signs, on behalf of CVS
Pharmacy, requesting approval for signage for the commeroial
building located at 29500 Five Mile Road on the north side of Five
Mile Road between Middlebelt and Hidden Lane in the Southeast
114 of Section 14. 1 move that this item be removed from the
table.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-167-2001 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2001-08SN-02 by North American
Signs, on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, requesting approval for
signage for the commercial building located at 29500 Five Mile
Road on the north side of Five Mile Road between Middlebell and
Hidden Lane in the Southeast 114 of Section 14, be removed from
the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Miller: CVS has submitted a revised sign package for the new store that
is in excess of what is allowed by the Sign Ordinance. Signage
permitted for this site under Section 18.50H is one (1) wall sign
not to exceed 85 sq. ft. in sign area and one (1) ground sign not to
exceed 30 sq. ft. in sign area and not to exceed 6 ft. in height.
Proposed signage is for four (4) wall signs totaling 84 sq. ft. in
sign area: south elevation ("CVS PHARMACY") -52 sq. ft.; east
elevation ("ENTER DRIVE-THRU PHARMACY") -13 sq. ft.; north
elevation ('DRIVE-THRU PHARMACY") - 6 sq. ft.; west elevation
("EXIT DRIVE-THRU PHARMACY") -13 sq. ft. and one (1)
ground sign 20 sq. ft. in sign area and 5 ft. 6 in. in height. The
excess signage consists ofthree (3) wall signs. Because the
proposed signage is in excess of what is allowed by the Sign
Ordinance, a variance will be required from the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
iLP.4r�
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Robert Egierski, North American Signs, 3601 W. Lalhrup, South Bend, Indiana.
Mr. McCann:
You didn't bring anybody from CVS this time?
Mr. Egierski:
No, I didn't.
Mr. McCann:
I looked through the sign proposals. You're asking for three
additional signs.
Mr. Egierski:
Yes.
Mr. McCann:
Because you have the drive-thru pharmacy, I find some need for
them. But let's take the first one, and the most obvious to me
anyways. It says "Exit— Drive-Thru Pharmacy." Do you really
need"Drive-Thru Pharmacy"? Its just an exit whether it's drive-
thmpharmacy orfree way exit. You just dont go that way. It's an
informational sign, not an advertising sign, according to the
petitioner.
Mr. Egierski:
Right. We're looking for consistency throughout the canopy. The
reason for the word "pharmacy' behind drive-thm ...
Mr. McCann:
You cant see two of the canopy signs at any one time, can you?
Mr. Egierski:
Right. Butthere is this drive-thru pharmacy exillo eliminate
people from going into the exit retherthan the entrance, which
has happened before.
Mr. McCann:
They use it as an exit as opposed to an entrance?
Mr. Egierski:
They use the exit as an entrance just for the case where it could
be the person driving may have their grandmother with them and
grandma mightsay,"I want to talk to the pharmacist." Its
happened.
Mr. McCann:
But it says exit. How does putting "drive thru pharmacy exit' on
the sign help?
Mr. Egierski:
The word pharmacy is important because a lot offimes people will
go through the drive-thru thinking it's
just a drive-thm for any
product throughout the store. By adding
the word pharmacy, it
points out that it's a drive-thm for the pharmacy only.
ifi:Ail
Mr. McCann: You're saying that someone is going to get confused by the term
..exit' and want to enter because they don't know it's for a drive-
thm pharmacy although they're entering upto a drive-thm
window.
Mr. Egierski:
My point is that ifyou're going into the drive-thm entrance, you're
seeing
drive-thru pharmacy entrance, which is crystal clear to the
customer going into the entrance. Permyscenanothatlthrewat
you, if the couple is going into the exit, they re still seeing that it is
the drive-thm pharmacy exit.
Mr. McCann:
How is the north elevation sign informational?
Mr. Egierski:
It's a way finding device to bring the customer towards the canopy
area to get them to the entrance.
Mr. McCann:
It would seem to me that you can see the canopy area in the
windowthere. Most people are familiar with drive -thins.
Mr. Egierski:
Right, but there are still people out there that do go through a
driveJhm the wrong way.
Mr. McCann:
This doesn't tell you which way to go through it. Itjustsays
"drive -thin pharmacy" on the north elevation.
Mr. Egierski:
Right. That is for the people north of the drive -thin.
Mr. McCann:
People in the office building?
Mr. Egierski:
No. People coming into that parking field nghtthere. And the
people coming in the entrance off of Middlebelt.
Mr. McCann:
People off of Middlebeltwill see the eastern sign that says "dnve-
thm pharmacy."
Mr. Egierski:
Not all the time.
Mr. McCann:
Well, if you're coming in atthe rear of MacDonald's, if I'm looking
at the site plan correctly, I don't see how you can miss it. The
only way to enter is from the northeast comer of the parking lot
and it brings you directly into staring at the eastern side of the
canopy.
Mr.Egierski:
What I'vegolosayis, CVS has done a numberof researches
pertaining to their drive -thin, the purposes of having a drive -thin
pharmacy enter and exit, and having that signage on this
particular north elevation which serves the purpose ...
Mr. McCann:
Do you have that survey?
Mr. Egierski:
No, Idont.
Mr. McCann:
Maybe a survey that says the more times we put up a 'drrveJhm
pharmacy" sign, the more we engrain it into people's heads?
Mr. Egierski:
No.
Mr. McCann:
You're saying its for the people coming in off of Middlebell.
When they come in off of Middlebell, the first sign they see is
"Enter Drive-Thru Pharmacy." What is the north elevation going
to put there?
Mr. Egierski:
I have to disagree with you on that. If you're driving through the
MacDonald's area, you're looking for traffic. You're not looking for
a drive-thru enter/exit sign. As you gel into the CVS parking lot,
you've got parking lot on both sides of you where cars could be
traveling. You're really not looking for a sign. You're looking for
not getting into an accident. The purpose of identifying all three
sides of that canopy is just to look out for the safety of CVS
customers. Its a way finding device.
Mr. McCann:
Maybe I'm arguing with the wrong person. You represent North
American Sign Company. Maybe we should have a sign on every
corner of the building with an arrow on it. I mean you've got it on
all three sides of the canopy. Shouldn't we have it on all three
sides of the building too to direct the drive-thru to the rear, follow it
around. I don't know that it is common sense that this will help
the people in the parking lot. It becomes so repetitive that we just
start putting signs on the building.
Mr. Egierski:
CVSfeelsthatitis adequate to have all signage all lheway
around the canopy to identify the drive-thru pharmacy. It's done
at all locations that have a drive-thru pharmacy. It's part of their
cookie cutter building.
Mr. McCann:
The problem is that if you want to go beyond our signage
ordinance, you've got to demonstrate a hardship. And you're not
demonstrating to me thalthere's a hardship here for the people
finding this large canopy sticking outfrom the building with the
drive-thru window in it and an east elevation sign facing the
':•rr
entrance that says "drive thru pharmacy." Where's the hardship
that this company is facing?
Mr. Egierski:
It's just a way finding device.
Mr. La Pine:
You know, one of the problems we have here, and its not your
fault, we Vied totell CVS Pharmacy when they came on that
location, that it was bad location because of the way it was
located on Five Mile behind MacDonalds. They wanted to access
in from Middlebelt and Five Mile and we told them this was a bad
location. As a matter of fad, we turned them down. And the
Council approved this. Now you're coming in here and we have
to makeup for this being buried behind MacDonald's and get as
many signs as we can because we have to gel the people in
there. And l don't think that's what we're here for. CVS
Pharmacy made a bad mistake. My point is, I've seen a lot of
CVS stores because I'm a salesman and I'm all over metropolitan
Detroit. You guys have got more signage than anybody I've ever
seen. You got stores that got "Food Mart" and "Open 24 Hours"
signs. I cant believe all the signs you guys put on buildings and
how these communities allow you to do it. I agree with Mr.
McCann. Why do you need"Drive Thru Pharmacy"? Why don't
you just say "Enter —Drive-Thru"? What does the pharmacy have
todowithil? If somebody's coming to pickup their prescriptions,
they're going to look for the drive-thru. They're not looking for a
drive thru pharmacy. There's only one place they can go.
Mr. Egierski:
If d says just "Drive-Thru" alone, even when it says "Drive-Thru
Pharmacy," people have driven up to get their prescription filled
and have asked the pharmacist to run into aisle eight to get toilet
paper for them. That has happened. The sign distinguishes it as
a drive-thru pharmacy; that's what it is and nothing more. That's
the purpose of having the word' pharmacy" there.
Mr. LaPine:
I've never asked this question before. The only pharmaceutical
products they can gel here is a prescription? Ifsomebody calls
up and says my child's got a cold and I want a bottle of cough
syrup Can they go through the drive in and pick that up or does it
have to be prescription?
Mr. Egierski:
To the best of my knowledge, it has to be a prescription. If this is
the pharmacist's counter right here, and the product that the
customer is asking for is right where the guy can run around and
get it ... if it's drug related, I'm sure the pharmacist will gel it.
Theyre just trying to eliminate people running to get shampoo or
a box of cigars, that kind of product that's available in the store.
ifi:IRI
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Chairman, is the sign that's on Middlebelt ...are they sell
going to put that one in? The one behind the monument?
Mr. McCann:
The monument sign is still going in on Middlebelt.
Mr. LaPine:
CVS Pharmacy Drive-Thru.
Mr. Egierski:
I dont understand why these canopy signs are an issue when
they are not visible from Middlebelt. They are not visible from
Five Mile Road. To the south oflhe site, there's an existing office
building. I just visited the site for the first time, so if I'm wrong, I'm
sorry but there's another business to the west of the site. These
signs are non -illuminated. They are not going to be projecting
any light and the reason for it is for customer safety traveling
through the parking lot.
Mr. McCann:
It is quite visible from Middlebelt Road.
Mr. Egierski:
But at the same time, the signs are not illuminated. Ifyou're
driving down Middlebelt Road, the drive-lhru pharmacy signs are
not going to draw aftenfion.
Mr. LaPine:
Is this going to be a 24-hour operation?
Mr. Egierski:
That l dont know.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody else in audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? A motion is in order.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Chairman, didntwe ask allhe last meeting thatwe have a
representafive of CVS be here?
Mr. McCann:
Yes, we did.
Mr. La Pine:
Because you can't make any decisions. You only do what you're
told. We understand that.
Mr. Egierski:
I'm directly told by CVS.
Mr. LaPine:
Yes, we understand that.
Mr. McCann:
I'll make an approving resolution if I could pass the gavel.
18902
Mr. La Pine: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. We have a letter here. Can you
Thalthe signage on the east elevation of the drive-thru
canopy shall only read "Enter Drive-Thru Pharmacy';
That the signage shown on the north elevation of the
drive-thm canopy is deemed redundant and shall not be
permitted;
That the signage on the west elevation of the drwe4hm
canopy shall only read "Exit" and shall not exceed four
(4) sq. R. in area;
That the graphic on the ground sign shall only read "CVS
Pharmacy';
- That all directional signage shall conform to Section
18.50D, subsection (i) of the Sign Ordinance;
tell me what this means? This is from North American Signs.
"This is to confirm that Dr. Tom Bybee... " Is that you?
Mr. Egierski:
No. He was here atthe last meeting.
Mr. LaPine:
"...is an authorized agent to represent North American Signs."
Who is he?
Mr. Egierski:
He is an outsouroe representative for North American Signs. He
is currently in New York. I am from North American Signs and I
am stepping in for him tonight.
Mr. Alanskas:
A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Shane, and approved, 8was
#10-168-2001
RESOLVED, thalthe City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001 -08 -SN -02 by
North American Signs, on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, requesting
approval for signage for the commeroial building located at
29500 Five Mile Road on the north side of Five Mile between
Middlebell and Hidden Lane in the Southeast%of Section 14,
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by North American Sign
Company, as received by the Planning Commission on
October 6, 2001, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to, except for the following:
Thalthe signage on the east elevation of the drive-thru
canopy shall only read "Enter Drive-Thru Pharmacy';
That the signage shown on the north elevation of the
drive-thm canopy is deemed redundant and shall not be
permitted;
That the signage on the west elevation of the drwe4hm
canopy shall only read "Exit" and shall not exceed four
(4) sq. R. in area;
That the graphic on the ground sign shall only read "CVS
Pharmacy';
- That all directional signage shall conform to Section
18.50D, subsection (i) of the Sign Ordinance;
18903
2. That all off-site signage shall require approval by the Zoning
Board of Appeals;
3. That all signs shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour
after this store closes;
4. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess
signage and any conditions related thereto;
5. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at
the time the building permits are applied for.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: La Pine, Shane, Piercecchi, Dolan, McCann
NAYS: Alanskas
ABSENT: None
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution. The gavel was handed backlo Mr. McCann.
ITEM #5 Motion to hold a Public Hearing City Planning Commission
(Single Family Cluster)
Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion to
hold a public hearing pursuant to C.R. #607-01 and C.R. #608-01
to determine whether or not to amend Section 20.02a of Article
XX of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance to reduce density
computations that govern single family cluster developments and
establish guidelines to consider the impact of single family cluster
developments on the future development of adjacent properties.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. La Pine, and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-169-2001 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolutions #607-01 and #608-01, 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 amend
ifi:IrLl
Section 20.02a of Article XX of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance to
reduce density computations that govern single family cluster
developments and establish guidelines to consider the impact of
single family cluster developments on the future development of
adjacent properties.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice ofsuch hearing shall be given
in accordance with the provisions of 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. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 833rd Regular
Meeting held on October 16, 2001, was adjourned at 8:39 p.m.
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman
mgr
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary