Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2005-07-26MINUTES OF THE 910"' REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, July 26, 2005, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 910" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Robert Alanskas William LaPine R. Lee Morrow Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Carol Smiley John Walsh Members absent: None Mr. Scott Miller, Planner III, was also present Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs 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 anc/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 fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2005-07-0843 BYBLOS CONTRACTING Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2005-07- 08-13, submitted by Byblos General Contracting Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a and i -tenant commercial building on property located at 29355 Six Mile Road in the Northwest%of Section 13. Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to construct a multi -tenant commercial building on properties located at the southeast comer of Six Mile and Middlebell Roads. The site consists of three separate properties whose addresses are 29355, 29229 and 29227 Six Mile Road. The combined land area of all three parcels is approximately 1.25 acres. Altogether, the site has 273.0 feel of frontage on Six Mile Road and 200.0 feet of frontage on Middlebell Road. The parcel nearest the corner contains an empty commercial building that previously operated as a quick oil change facility. The parcel immediately to the east of this contains a commercial building. And the third and smallest parcel, which is located immediately south of the comer lot, is vacant. All three parcels are zoned G2, General Business. The proposed building would be one story in height and contain 13,010 square feet of gross leaseable floorspace. The floor plan shows eight tenant units, including an 18' x 38' projection from the southwest comer of the building. The building itself would be situated approximately in the middle of the site with available parking on all four sides. Two-way approaches and drive aisles would provide vehicular access from both Six Mile Road and Middlebell Road. The trash enclosure and loading areas would be located behind (south) the building. The abutting property to the east and west are zoned G2, General Business and OS, Office Services. As such, no type of protective wall is required along the perimeter of the property. The petitioner meets the required parking of 69 spaces. Based on this parking count, this multi -tenant building would be limited in the amount of floor area it could devote to places of assembly. A place of assembly, as defined in the zoning ordinance, includes limited and full service restaurants, banquet facilities, business/college/trade schools, social clubs and churches. Only 15% or less of the building could be used for businesses like the ones listed above. Fifteen percent of 13,010 square feel is 1,691 square feel, which equates to slightly more than one of the indicated tenant spaces. The proposed landscaping for this site would equal 15%. The exterior building material would consist primarily of face brick on all four sides, with rows of soldier course running through the middle and top sections. A decorative molding or comice would cap the entire roofline. Large storefront windows would provide interior display visibility and allow natural light in. Decorative limestone accents and lights have been incorporated. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? 3 Mr. Morrow: Through the Chair to Mr. Miller, do we have a percentage on the landscaping? Mr. Miller: It is 15%. Mr. Morrow: It does hitthe 15% marker? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Are there any deficiencies as it relates to the ordinance such as setbacks? Mr. Miller: No. Since the study meeting, the petitioner has submitted revised plans. All deficiencies of the original plans have been corrected. Mr. Morrow: He has increased the aisle widths? Mr. Miller: Yes. They are 22 feet wide and meet the requirement of the ordinance. Mr. Piercecchi: What was the setback on that building? I haven't look at the new plans. Mr. Miller: I know it's over the required 60 feel. It has to be about 65 feel figuring in two rows of parking spaces, aisleway and walkway. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. And this is a C-2 building, correct? Mr. Miller: Right. Mr. Piercecchi: So 60 feel are required. Mr. Miller: Yes, sir. Mr. Morrow: As illustrated, are we talking about four by four brick on all four sides? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Across the windows and the decorative .... Mr. Miller: It wont be panel brick. It will be full face four inch brick. Mr. Morrow: Even the rear of the building? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening, sir. Nassar Choucair, Byblos General Contracting Company, P.O. Box 607, Dearborn Heights, Michigan 48127. I'm the architect who is designing the project. Mr. Miller said more than enough. I just want to say that in the study meeting when we talked about this, I just did whatever I was supposed to do like we said in the meeting. I cut the building down from 13,000 to 11,700. I changed the facade. Instead of having all the glass, I put some pillars in between, limestone. At the top of the building, it's all dryvil croon. There are different colors, like the limestone. Its like a beige or off white color, so it would give it some three dimensional look. As we look at the facade of the building, the building some places are sticking out, overhanging. So when you go inside the entrance for any of these stores, we have one, two, three stores. The building itself is overhanging the door, but the other four stores, we dont have a shade or anything. I mean, we can put awnings. We can decorate the building with these kinds of canopies if you would like. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Shane: Scot, that isn't the revised building elevation, is it? Mr. Miller: Yes. There are minor changes to the original elevations. He has cul back on the glass area. He has arched the area over the middle entrance, and he has added limestone accents. Mr. Shane: Okay. Its fumy from where I am. Could you go back to the landscape plan, please? The parking requirement is being exceeded. Is that correct? Mr. Miller: Yes. He's showing 69; he only needs 62 parking spots. Mr. Shane: The panting space on the northeast corner of the site, which would be number 57. The one that's on the right when you enter the site. I'd like to have that eliminated and landscaping put in there. And along the Six Mile Road frontage, I think he should add some plant material similar to what's along Middlebelt Road if the petitioner would agree to that. Mr. Choucair: You mean you want to take one parking spot to use it for.... Mr.Shane: Landscaping. Similar to what you did.... Mr. Choucair: I think if my client wants to hire one of these units as a restaurant as we said, we are not only 15% of the build-0ut like 1,400 square feel of the restaurant, we'd like to have as much as we can parking so we can ... I mean, we won't have the parking area crowded if we're going to put any restaurants over there. So we can do that. Yes, next to the parking. Actually, this is landscaping but its like a two footer belt over there. Same thing next to the parking up there. This is landscaping. It's not a sidewalk. Mr. Shane: Well, I'm only talking about one parking space. As one commissioner, I'd like to see that whole space in landscaping. Mr. Choucair: Thats no problem. Mr. Pieroecchi: Good evening, sir. We just received these plans tonight so don't be surprised if we ask some questions that you think we should know, because we don't. I'm pleased to see you reduced the square footage. You've dropped one tenant. You went from nine to eight. You also changed the aisle widths from 20 to 22, which is the spec, and you added a greenbelt to Six Mile Road. Correct? Mr. Choucair: Yes. Mr. Pieroecchi: If I understood you correctly, sir, you said something about some kind of protection over the doors? Mr. Choucair: Not protection. I think you menfioned that when we were in the study meeting that if we put some awnings over the doors ... that would be okay with us, four awnings. But we want to do something really ... we want to be very simple on this project. We don't want to put loo many things in there that would be clashing with the design of the building. So if we can create some kind of awning, like a short one and a low profile one that would protect the door from the snow. Mr. Pieroecchi: Yeah. Sir, if you recall, I mentioned that plan or that building on Five Mile and Inkster, which you said you played a role in. Mr. Choucair: Yes. Mr. Pieroecchi: They had sort of like fiberglass over. They were very small. They were more decorative than effective. I thought that would be a nice addifion to this over the double doors that you have along here. I think it would break it up. You added some red brick in there, vertical, where all the others are horizontal. So that breaks it up. You added some lights on the middle sections of brick. And it looks as though you created one major tenant in the middle of this package. Mr. Choucair: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: What is the size of that one? I haven't had a chance to scale this out. Mr. Choucair: Its almost 65 by 30, that would give us around .... Mr. Piercecchi: I mean the width across that. Mr. Choucair: What's that? Mr. Piercecchi: The width. Mr. Choucair: Yes, the width is 29 feel. Mr. Piercecchi: Forty-nine? Mr. Choucair: Twenty-nine by 65 the length. Mr. Piercecchi: So the others are what then?Twenty-two? Mr. Choucair: We have three sizes. We have four units at 20x 63. Mr. Piercecchi: Fourat25? Mr. Choucair: No, four at 20 by 63. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. Mr. Choucair: And two at 21'6" by 65, and one of them is 65 by 29. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. Mr. Choucair: I'm sorry. And there is a small one. Mr. Piercecchi: I guess I must have missed one, but I was wondering if you had modified much of that 20 footer. Originally, you had fixed eight 20 footers. So for 164 feet of width. So you must have taken some of the width out of this building. Mr. Choucair: Actually, the design made me do this. We were talking why don't we have different sizes, plus we had nine units before. Now we have eight units altogether. Even though the upper space, Unit 8, that was 800 square feet. Now it's almost 700 square feel. It was like 850. Now its like 750, somewhere in that area. Mr. Piemecchi: Okay. My compliments on your changes. Its nice that we can work together on this. Mr. Choucair: Thankyou. Ms. Smiley: My question was on the landscaping. Could we have that one up again? Is the front of your building really on Six Mile? Is that where most of the entrances will be, on Six Mile? Mr. Choucair: Not really. This is why we did ... like we put some design on the building on Middlebelt and Six Mile. If you see, on Middlebelt we have like glass window ... I mean the entrance for the side, he LA Insurance space on the corner, and we have the side of a retail store. Its for a comer building. I know what you're saying. We cant determine that all the traffic is going to be from Six Mile, or that's the major facade of the building. This is why I try to do both facades on Middlebelt and Six Mile, like a nice good Ioolting one, and the othertwo theyre just regular. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Then your proposed front elevation would be on Middlebelt? Mr. Choucair: No. Six Mile. This is Six Mile. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Mr. Choucair: The upper one is Six Mile. The one down on the comer is Middlebelt. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Then when you look at your landscaping, is that just plain grass on Six Mile that would be in front of your front elevation. Is that what I'm understanding? Mr. Choucair: Yes. Ms. Smiley: Well, that's kind of boring. In fact, its very boring. Wouldn't you want some trees or some pretty stuff on .... Mr. Choucair: We'll put a couple shrubs, but I dont want the high area. I want to put them low profile shrubs on the front. But I didn't put no trees over there because it's the most ... I mean its the longest facade we have over there and we don't want to just block the view ofthe traffic while they're driving there. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Well, right now it just looks like grass to me. Mr. Choucair: Yes, it is. Ms. Smiley: That's not very attractive to me to the front of the building, and I would think that's where you would want to do some of your landscaping instead of like the back. I can see the Middlebelt side but you have more stuff going in next to the funeral home, or more interesting landscaping plan. Am I reading that right? Mr. Walsh: But he had suggested that he would do some. Mr. Choucair: Some landscaping on the front. We can do that, but the back, why we have a lot on the back and the side, because whatever next door to us if it doesn't look nice, we don't want to be exposed to the... Ms. Smiley: My next question is for Scott. This letter on July 18 from Alex Bishop, is that referring to the first set of plans or the second set of plans? Mr. Miller: His letter is referencing the original set of plans. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Most of these things have been corrected on the second set of plans? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Morrow: I want to compliment you, sir, your diem, for bringing these plans a long way in a very short period of time. You pretty muds satisfied most of the things that I discussed at the study session, and you've heard a few suggestions tonight. The only concem I have is, I see by my notes, that the staff did not get this until July 25, and through the Chair, I would like to ask Scott if .. . are you comfortable with having enough time to go over these plans so that they would be something we can act on tonight? Mr. Miller: I feel comfortable with the exception of the landscape plan. With the comments and suggestions I've heard tonight, I suggest a callback on the landscape plan. Mr. Morrow: Yeah. Mr. Shane had also indicated a little bit of a modification to that particular plan. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: Sir, before you came up before us with the nine, have you or did you consider trying to have one large tenant and maybe two small ones, instead of nine or eight? Like for example, a bank on that comer? Mr. Choucair: Actually, we're acting on this job site because, unfortunately, we don't have any clients asking us. Probably when we start building up, probably one client will tell us, "I'll take half the plaza" or this is how it's going to go. When we start construction, people are going to start calling and asking for the spaces, and from there, while we're building, we'll determine how many tenants we're going to have. But as we look at it, we did eight spaces. This would give us I mean I know like a small tenant, not like a Dollar Family or any like big tenant, like normally they lake 5,000 or 6,000 square feel at one time. Again, well determine that when we start construction. I think we'll have... Mr. Alanskas: What you're saying to me is you've got a Ict of intangibles. Like you said, if I'm going to have some openings on the side of Middlebelt for front doors, so you're not sure what you want to do yet. Is that correct? Mr. Choucair: No, we are sure. We have already two openings on Middlebelt. We have a comer of Six Mile and Middlebelt, that comer on the right hand side, that's on Six Mile and Middlebelt. That is a view of that comer and down below on the lett hand side elevation, on the right hand side down there, yes, that's the entrance for a store. Mr. Alanskas: I also would like to thank you for what you've done so far, but because we got the plans just this evening, I would like to study this a Iittie further. Thank you. Mr. La Pine: My first question is to Scott. Scott, what does the Inspection Department mean in Item 3 of their letter of July 18 when they say, "parking calculations will work only if the site is limited to have only one assembly user ever." What does that mean? Mr. Miller: There are two ways to calculate parking. If only 15% of the building or less is for places of assembly, then you base the parking on one space for every 150 square feel of building area, m and that's what this building is based on. The other calculation, if he wants more places of assembly, which usually are restaurants, then you use one space for every 125 square feet of building area. He would not meet the panting requirement in this situaiton. So he has to be limited to one unit as a place of assembly. Mr. LaPine: The one unit would be a restaurant. Is that what you're saying? Mr. Miller: Yes, basically. Mr. LaPine: A question to the petitioner, have you got a restaurant in mind for this location at this time? Mr. Choucair: Not really. Mr. LaPine: How large of a restaurant would you have in there? Can you give me an idea? Mr. Choucair: No more than 1,400 square feel. One of the medium sized units they're going to take probably. One of the comers. Either unit one or unit seven. Mr. LaPine: Isn't one of these units on Middlebelt for the owner of the properly? Didn't you tell us he was going to move in there? Mr. Choucair: Yes. Mr. LaPine: What is he going to use that building for, an office? Mr. Choucair: An insurance office. Mr. LaPine: Insurance. Mr. Choucair: Yes. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Choucair, I think you really came a long way, and I appreciate that. Mr. Choucair: Thankyou. Mr. Walsh: You've heard all of our comments, and I think what you presented is nice. It's a big investment for your client to make and a risky time in the economy, but it certainly cleans up the comer considerably. So I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for listening and moving forward with this. I think it meets the needs that I heard, particularly at the meeting, and rarely do we see petitioners that act as quickly as you did or as thoroughly as you did. Thank you. With that, is there anybody in the audience wishing to address this? Unless there are any other questions, I will be seeking a motion. Mr. Morrow: I will make an approving recommendation, but I have a couple of questions for the staff before I do based on the notes we have here. Mr. Walsh: Sure. Mr. Morrow: We have a couple of notes, one referencing the Inspection Department's satisfaction, also the Fire Department's satisfadion. With these new plans, has that concern gone away, Mr. Miller? Mr. Miller: The Fire Department hasn't because it references locations of hydrants and other things. As for the Inspection Department, I included it because some things, such as the banner-free parking, still has to be corrected. Mr. Morrow: So we'll leave it in there. My last question, there's something about the ZBA granting a variance on a nonconforming building. Does that still hold up? Mr. Miller: No, that should be taken out. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #07-81-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-07-08-13, submitted by Byblos General Contracting Company, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a multi- tenant commercial building on properly located at 29355 Six Mile Road in the Northwest % of Section 13, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan dated July 25, 2005, as revised, prepared by Byblos General Contracting Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That a fully detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission and City Council within 60 days following approval of this petition by the City Council; 3. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan dated July 23, 2005, as revised, prepared by Byblos General Contracting Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4 inch bnck; 5. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 6. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 7. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water management permits from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan; 8. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 9. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated July 18, 2005; 10. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated July 7, 2005; 11. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 13 12. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; and 13. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the lime the building permits are applied for. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. Pieroecchi: Sir, we didn't quite resolve this awning business. Are you planning on looking into it or incorporating it or anything of that nature? I feel so confident that it would really break up this building. I was wondering because I dont see it on any of these renderings. I do believe that we're missing an opportunity here. Mr. Choucair: Yes, we can .... Mr. Pieroecchi: You can at least make a rendering of it and then evaluate it? I don't want to vote on this or table it for that reason, but if you'll give me assurances that you'll make a rendering of it, look it over and if I'm coned, go ahead and incorporate that. Mr. Choucair: Yes, we'll put these awnings over the ... but we don't want to project them or make them humungous. Limited to only 2 x 2. They will look nice and simple over the door. I don't like to overwhelm it. Mr. Pieroecchi: Let's incorporate that in the motion. I've got assurances. That's good enough for me. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Pieroecchi. Any other comments? Mr. Alanskas: I just have one more question with regards to what Mr. Pieroecchi is saying. I'd like to see the awnings that you put on a nice low subdued color. Not a real bright gaudy color. Mr. Choucair: If we're going to put any color on this building, I see another building that I did. Burgundy, light burgundy color. It would be matching the brick, plus it breaks the tone. Mr. Alanskas: Thankyou. Ms. Smiley: I just wanted to tell you you're new frontage is much more attractive and appealing from my point of view anyway, and I want to thank you too for the ... you've had a busy week. Mr. Choucair: Thank you. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the mofion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 2005 -06 -SN -06 QUICKEN LOANS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Pefifion 2005- 06-SN-06, 00506SIa06, submitted by Quicken Loans requesting approval for additional signage for the high-rise office building located at 17187 Laurel Park Drive in the Southeast''/.of Section 7. Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to install an additional wall sign at an office building located at 17187 Laurel Park Drive. This office is one of three buildings that make up the Laurel Office Park complex located on the west side of Laurel Park Drive between Six Mile Road and the University Drive. Laurel Office Park consists of three similar looking high-rise office buildings (17177, 17187 & 17197 Laurel Park Drive) all with exposure from the -275/96 Expressway. The proposed sign would be installed on the west elevation of the building, which faces the expressway. The only exterior identification signs that presently exist are two sets of oversized address numbers attached to the upper floor on both the north and south elevations of the building. Because these numbers are larger than what is permitted under the sign ordinance for address identification, they are considered wall signs. This office building is permitted one wall sign at 100 square feet and one business center ground sign. The exisfing two wall signs total 320 square feet. They are proposing an addifional wall sign with 95 square feet in sign area. Because the existing and proposed signage is in excess of what is allowed by the Sign Ordinance, variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Miller. Are there any questions from the Commissioners for stair? Hearing none, we will go to the petitioner. Danny Pack, Director of Facilities Management, Quicken Loans Rock Financial, 7690 Milford Road, Milford, Michigan. 15 Dean Downing, Commercial Advertising, Inc., 34225 Groesbeck, Clinton Mr. Pack: Township, Michigan 48035. Mr. Walsh: Do you have anything you'd like to add to the presentation? Mr. Pack: No, sir. We'd like to volunteer two areas of information as far as Mr. Alanskas: the square footage that we presently occupy at 17187 North Mr. Shane: Laurel Park Drive. We approximately occupy 71,904 rentable square feel. That equates to approximately 53.28 percent of the total building occupancy. And also per our lease with Doug Levine, who is the owner of the property, it is stated in our lease that we do have exclusive rights to building signage upon Mr. Miller: approval. Mr. Walsh: All right. Thank you. Are there any questions? Mr. Alanskas: Sir, how long is your lease for in that building? Mr. Pack: Five years. Mr. Alanskas: Five years. With any options? Mr. Pack Yes, sir. There are options. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Mr. Shane: Scott, assuming this were approved and Quicken Loans were to vacate this building for some reason or another down the road, and another tenant came in there, would they be able to utilize the same area or square footage that this sign is, or would they also have to be the major tenant? Mr. Miller: If it came back to us, we would look at it as a replacement sign. So as long as they put it in the same spot with the same square footage, they could replace the sign. Mr.Shane: Even if they weren't the major tenant? Mr. Miller: I would think so. Mr. Shane: It would depend probably on whether or not the new tenant had exclusive sign rights. Do you see what I'm getting at? Mr. Miller: Yes. Usually, we don't get into how much space the tenant occupies. We review signage according to the zoning district. Mr.Shane: Thankyou. Mr. Piercecchi: I have a comment here, Mr. Chairman. In spending time with this particular proposal, it seems like it's a very reasonable request inasmuch as he does occupy half the building. What struck me is, under what grounds would letters in the ordinance make signage? They don't refer to anybody. They're just a directional aid. Mr. Walsh: Are you talking about the numbers, the address? Mr. Piercecchi: Yes. All the overage right now on that building, its 320 feet, but 220 of it is the result of those numbers. If we could, Mr. Chairman, Iat our next study meeting I'd like to take up that issue of the appropriateness of the numbers being classified as a sign when it does not direct any business to any of the people that are inside that building. Whether you have 50 percent of it or whether you have 2 percent of it, you gel no mileage out of numbers. I did look up the ordinance today. Perhaps it's a good idea, but I'd like to bring that up for study, and a point was brought up by Mr. Shane about somebody leaving, because this could set a precedent. I don't say will set a precedent, but it could, and the other two identical buildings may require the same type of treatment. It may not be a bad idea if we could come up with some type of standards of what percentage or a major client or something so we could be ahead of the game on something like this. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Piercecchi, I think those are both excellent suggestions. Scott, if you don't mind making note and you and Mark could take a look at our agenda and find a good opportunity to bring those up for us. Just points for us to consider. Mr. Morrow Mr. Chairman, just grant me a couple minutes here. I concur wholeheartedly with Mr. Piercecohi that one of my pet peeves is trying to find an address on a building. I think we should make it as easy as possible to see it so we dont run into the car in front of us trying to see the address signs. If it's a benefit to the community, I don't think we should penalize the petitioner. Secondly, I don't think it's unreasonable from the standpoint that R really is a sign for the expressway and the setback on that building would be tremendous when viewed from the ... so the scale would be greatly reduced as opposed to a road going right next to the building. So those are my only comments. Mr. La Pine: I agree with everything Mr. Piercecchi and Lee said. I would like to see in this case that, and I think legally we can do it, that we give them a sign. If that tenant moves out of the building, that sign is no longer a sign. I mean, it's just like one of these deals when we're signing an agreement that when they move out, now the new tenant moves in and takes the same number of square feet or more, he can always come back and request that we allow him a sign on the lop of the building. I just don't want to just give him a sign per se, and the next guy comes in and only lakes 20,000 square feel and says I want my sign up there. I don't think that's fair. We're basing this on the number of square feel the gentleman has. And the other thing I might just point out, I went out there again and looked at this up and down the highway. There's a number of signs on buildings. For instance, Costco has a tremendous sign on the back of their building facing the highway - a big sign, bigger than this sign. You've got Embassy Suites with two signs on the west side of the building; one that says "Embassy Suites;" the other one says "Cascade restaurant" They also have another sign on the south side of the building. Then the two buildings on the Schoolcraft College parcel, one says "UGS" they've got a sign on the building and another one says "XO Communications." Then we've got one on the Japanese restaurant that came along there. It isn't a very large sign, but its readable from the expressway. So, kind of a precedent has been set here, but I'm also laking into consideration from here on out, I want to make sure that when we allow these signs, they are not there forever. Whoever moves in or moves out, it has to be at lead the same amount of square footage to getthe same kind of sign. Ms. Smiley: My question was just a point of information. Is Quicken Loans on one side and then Rock Financial would be on the other side? Mr. Pack: No, ma'am. They'll both be on the east side of 275. Well, the east side going north. No, I'm sorry on the east side. Ms. Smiley: So I'm going down 275, it would be on the right hand side? Mr. Pack: Going down 275, going north or south? If you're going north, it would be on the right hand side. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Mr. Alanskas: Can you assure me that this is the only sign that yoUll be asking to put up on this building? I mean, are you going to think about coming back for additional signage? Mr. Pack: Yes. I'm going to have to ask obviously for.... Mr. Alanskas: You already gave me the answer. Thank you. Mr. Pack: I'm sorry. My best guess, I would say no. Mr. Alanskas: The reason why I asked is because we all know that the owner of this firm owns the Cleveland Cavaliers and I would hate to see a year from now, well, I'd like to put on there "owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers" on this building also, or addifional signage, period. Mr. Pack: We have a very strong presence in Detroit and we're a major sponsor of the Detroit Pistons. I would not, from my standpoint, recommend anything regarding the Cavaliers. Mr. Alanskas: You might want to put something else besides "Rock Financial" It's not an impossibility. Mr. Pack: That's true, sir. Mr. Alanskas: Thankyou. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none and there are no remaining people in the audience. I know we have no audience participation. A mofion would be in order aphis point. On a motion by Shane, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, it was #07-82-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Pefilion 2005-06SN-06, submitted by Quicken Loans requesting approval for additional signage for the higl+rise office building located at 17187 Laurel Park Drive in the Southeast %of Section 7, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Sign Package submitted by Quicken Loans, as received by the Planning Commission on June 16, 2005, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 3. That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval; 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; and 5. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department atthe time the sign permits are applied for. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: Yes, if I may ask Mr. Miller a question. When they go to the NAYES: Zoning Board of Appeals, being an old member of the Zoning ABSTAIN: Board of Appeals, the Zoning Board of Appeals can set a time ABSENT: limit. Say they have a five year lease, at the end of five years, it comes back before the ZBA for their approval. By that time, they may have moved out. If they have, they can request the sign be removed. Is that correct? Mr. Miller: Yes. They could do that, and they could also stipulate that the variance be for this user only. Mr. LaPine: I'm hoping that's what they'll do. Mr. Alanskas: I would just like to go on record to say that I really appreciate what Rock Financial has done for our City by having people in our City with jobs, but I'm eally concerned about starting to put identification of companies on these large buildings. I think it could be a snowballing effect, and on that cause, I would have to vote no. Thank you. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Shane, Smiley, LaPine, Pieroecchi, Morrow, Walsh NAYES: Alanskas ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None zo Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 9W Regular Meeting held on July 26, 2005, was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: John Walsh, Chairman