HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2006-09-1923539
MINUTES OF THE 932ntl REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, September 19, 2006, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 932n° 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: William La Pine Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow
Carol A. Smiley John Walsh Ian Wilshaw
Members absent: H. G. Shane
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were
also present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a pefition 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 and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
Mr. Walsh: On behalf of the members of the Commission, I would like to
welcome Deborah McDermott to our Board. She just joined us
and participated in her first study meeting last week. Debbie,
welcome to the Planning Commission.
Ms. McDermott: Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: With that, we have several items on the agenda. The first four
all involve properly owned by Schoolcraft College that has been
leased out to a private developer. As an employee of
Schoolcraft College, I have traditionally stepped down on these
23540
matters. So the next four items will be chaired by our Vice
Chairman, Mr. La Pine.
Mr. La Pine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ITEM#1 PETITION 2006 -08 -SN -02 COLLEGE PARK
SIGN AT 1-275
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2006 -08 -
SN -02 submitted by SchoolcmR Commons, L.L.C., requesting
approval to construct a business center sign adjacent to the -
275 Expressway in order to identify the College Park
development located on the east side of Haggerty Road
between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest
% of Section 7.
Mr. Miller: This petition involves a request for an additional business center
sign for College Park. The sign ordinance definition of a
business center sign is "a sign which gives direction, name and
identification to a business center." College Park is a
developing commercial and office complex located on the east
side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile
Road. The commercial phase of the development consists of
three freestanding restaurants, all with frontage on Haggerty
Road, and a standalone bank. Just to the south of the
restaurants is a multi -tenant commercial outlet known as
Marketplace and another standalone restaurant. In addition, a
series of office buildings have been approved and are in various
stages of construction for the remaining portion of the property
east of the restaurants and extending to the -275/96
Expressway. The requested business center sign would be
attached to the development's existing retaining wall that faces
the Six Mile Road exit ramp of the expressway. College Park
has three existing business center signs. A series of decorative
walls define both the north and south entrances from Haggerty
Road. One of the signs is located on the wide sweeping arch
portion of the complex's south entrance wall. The lettering
"College Park" is carved in the limestone panel of the wall. The
second business center sign is located on a section of the wall
near the north entrance. This sign has three interchangeable
tenant panels, with the lop panel having the "College Park"
graphic. The third sign sits out in front of Marketplace and has
nine interchangeable tenant panels. The proposed business
center sign would be mounted near the southern end of the
23541
existing retaining wall and would consist of separate individual
letters mounted to a "raceway." The sign would be internally
illuminated and 100 square feel in size. Because the proposed
and existing signage is in excess of what is allowed by the sign
ordinance, a variance would be required from the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
Mr. La Pine:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated September 1, 2006, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of August 11, 2006, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
This petitioner will need to seek a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals for an extra excessive ground sign and for
excessive square footage. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. La Pine:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Seeing
none, is the petitioner here this evening?
Robert W. Bednas,
Etkin Equities, 29100 Northwestern, Suite 200, Southfield,
Michigan 48034. I am representing SchoolcraR Commons,
L.L.C.
Mr. La Pine:
Do you want to give us any background we're not aware of?
Mr. Bednas:
The detail that was presented is quite complete. This
photograph is a banner that was placed on the retaining wall in
the location of the proposed sign. The banner is obviously white
letters on a black background, but the proposed sign, as Mr.
Miller mentioned, would be individual letters mounted on a
raceway on the wall, so you wouldn't have the black
background. You'd have the beige color of the retaining wall
projecting through the individual letters and creating the
background for the sign. The letters will be while in the daytime
and illuminated white in the evening. That's about all I have.
Mr. LaPine:
Thank you, Mr. Bednas. Are there any questions?
Mr. Morrow:
As we said at the study meeting, there seems to be some
shrubbery along the wall there. Is that your property or would
that be up to the State to maintain should they become
overgrown and block the sign?
23542
Mr. Bednas:
Ifs kind of interesting the way the flora grows along there.
There are openings, as this was a natural opening, and it
progresses as you go along the ramp, but most of the shrubs
and the growth is on our side of the MDOT right-0iway.
There's a fence there and a bike path, and then there's the
shoulder to the ramp. There's a small section in there that has
some shrubbery in it, but as we mentioned at the study session,
we will pursue MDOT to get a permit to maintain the area.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Hearing none and no more questions from
the Commission, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, itwas
#09-06-2006
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006 -08 -SN -02,
submitted by Schoolcraft Commons, L.L.C., requesting approval
to construct a business center sign adjacent to the 1-275
Expressway in order to identify the College Park development
located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile
Road and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest % of Section 7, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Schoolcraft
Commons, L.L.C., as received by the Planning
Commission on August 16, 2006, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval;
3. 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
4. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the sign permits are applied for.
23543
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Morrow, Smiley, McDermott, Wlshaw, LaPine
NAYES:
None
ABSTAIN:
Walsh
ABSENT:
Shane
Mr. LaPine, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2006 -08 -SN -03 COLLEGE PARK
SIGN AT FOX DRIVE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2006 -08 -
SN -03 submitted by SchoolcraR Commons, L.L.C., requesting
approval to construct a business center sign at Fox Drive and
Six Mile Road in order to identify the College Park development
located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile
Road and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest % of Section 7.
Mr. Miller: This petition involves a request for an additional business center
sign for College Park. College Park is a developing commercial
and office complex located on the east side of Haggerty Road
between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road. The requested
business center sign would be located at the development's Fox
Drive entrance, off Six Mile Road. Fox Drive is to be redesigned
with a boulevard entrance with cars exiting onto Six Mile Road
only able to tum right. The proposed ground sign would be
placed within the boulevard's island. There are two existing
ground signs identifying businesses on Fox Drive. One sign is
located on the west side of the roadway and identifies the three
hotels that are accessible from Fox Drive. The other sign is
positioned on the east side of the road and identifies the Laurel
Park West Assisted Living facility. It appears from the site plan
and an on-site inspection that the proposed business center
sign would, in all likelihood, obstruct the sightlines of the existing
ground signs. The proposed Fox Drive business center sign
would be an exact duplicate of the existing sign at the north
entrance off Haggerty Road. Just like the Haggerty Road sign,
this sign would be 35 square feel in size and consist of three
interchangeable tenant panels, with the lop panel having the
"College Park" graphic. The sign would be constructed out of a
combination brick, limestone and have a decorative light fixture
23544
adorning the top of one of the pilasters. Fox Drive is a private
drive and has a zoning classification of PL, Public Lands. The
only requirement for signage in PL is Planning Commission and
City Council approval. The sign ordinance does not limit the
amount of square footage the sign can be or specify any type of
height restrictions.
Mr. La Pine: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated August 23, 2006, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of August 11, 2006, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
As this property is zoned PL (Public Lands), the only
requirement is Council approval. This Department has no
further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex
Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. La Pine: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing
none, Mr. Bednas...
Robert W. Bednas, Elkin Equities, 29100 Northwestern, Suite 200, Southfield,
Michigan 48034. Yes, if I may make a modification to the
description of the proposed sign as just read by Mr. Miller.
Subsequent to the study session Iasi week, there were a couple
issues that were brought up by the Commissioners that we
attempted to address. I'm not sure if you have a package, but I
have photographs that I'd like to hand out of the mock-up and
some other details if I may do that. There were two primary
concerns that were brought up at the study session last week.
One was the mass of the sign and also there was a request that
we ensure that the existing pylon that carries the flags for the
three hotels at Fox Drive and Six Mile not be obscured by our
proposed sign. There was also a suggestion made that we try
to mockup what we are proposing. So what you have before
you on the first page is a sketch of the revised sign that we are
proposing. Unlike the one that was up on the screen previously,
this one is similar to it with the exception that instead of having a
solid center panel that carries the sign, this one has a wrought
iron fence that would carry individual College Park letters on it.
In addition, to minimize the mass, although the elevation is
essentially the same showing the pillars for the monument being
3 foot 4, we would cut the width of the end sections down to 2
foot 8 in order to provide some more clearance in the median
and minimize the mass in that effect. However, for scale and
23545
proportions, we believe that the image shown on the first page
is correct. On the next three sheets you have before you are
images of the mockup that we set up on Friday morning of last
week. I'm not sure if any of you got to see it, but what this
represents is, we moved the sign back from our original
proposal by five feet to ensure that the Residents Inn, Fairfield
and Town Place suite signs were not obscured in any direction.
The three images are a close-up, one slightly back and one
further back to the east in the turning lane as you face Fox
Drive. You can see in that whole sequence that the hotel signs
are not obscured. The Iasi photograph is an image of an
existing sign next to Mitchell's Fish Market that's part of the
primary entry to College Park that has, in fact, the type of detail
we're proposing, the limestone pillars on each end on lop of a
brick base with a wrought iron fence in between, which is mostly
transparent because you can see right through to what's on the
other side. So that's how we would like to modify the sign that
was initially proposed just to be consistent with the wishes that
were expressed Iasi week at the study session. One thing I
need to note, though, is in our initial submittal, we had the lop of
the sign panel being at, I believe, 5 feel 7 seven inches above
the grade at that location. Since we moved the entire monument
back five feel and since there is an existing bene on which
Laurel Park West has their sign placed, in order to gel the
visibility that we need, the lop of the sign will have lobe at 8 feel
above grade instead of 5 foot 7. The sign itself, I believe, is only
11 or 12 inches at the capitals. That's it.
Mr. La Pine:
Mark, is increasing the height of the sign, I assume he's talking
about the pillar plus the light from 58 to 8 something, is that
going to cause any problems?
Mr. Taormina:
Any problems in what respect?
Mr. La Pine:
It's going to be so much higher than the pillar on the right hand
side. Iljusl looks like ft's out of proportion.
Mr. Taormina:
As I understand it, the increase in height over what was
originally proposed is to account for the fact that as the sign
moves further back away from Six Mile Road, it becomes more
obscured by the berth and landscaping. I think you can see that
from the photographs that are attached to this packet of
information. You can also see that while this height would
normally exceed what our ordinance allows, and by the way,
this is zoned PL so technically there are no standards, but if we
compare it to what we normally allow for commercial signage,
23546
there would be a six foot height limitalion. But as you can see,
even with the additional height, because of the surrounding
grades, it would still sit very close to the height of the adjacent
signs. The three hotels are mounted on a sign that believe is 8
feel in height and the base of that sign, because the grade rises
so quickly just to the west of this curb, you can see that the sign
sits up probably a foot or two higher. If I can ask Mr. Bednas a
question? You installed the mockup for everybody to see. How
tall was that mockup? The fabric that you installed to represent
what would be the southerly pillar or pier, how tall would that
have been in comparison to what you're proposing now?
Mr. Bednas:
Although the sign panel was raised in order to make it work
when the pictures were taken, the mockup panels of the piers
were for the originally proposed sign. So those piers will grow
by either 14 or 16 inches per the sketch that's on the cover.
Mr. Taormina:
As well as the height of that sign, would the actual College Park
sign ...
Mr. Bednas:
No. College Park will be as shown in the photograph but the
actual placement of the copy of College Park, the lop of the
copy will be at 8 feel. The bottom will be approximately 7 feel.
And if I may add to your comment, the three hotels are on an
elevated grade there also that will be three feet above the
pavement at that location. So they're enjoying some height as
well. And to answer Mr. LaPine's comment or respond to it, the
primary purpose of having the leading pillar taller than the
trailing pillar was to create some interest in the construction
that's going on and allow for that free forth curve in the fence,
which otherwise would be just a straight forward elevation
without very much interest.
Mr. Taormina:
As a point of clarification regarding that, the southerly pillar
would be taller. Correct?
Mr. Bednas:
Correct.
Mr. Taormina:
And that is the complete opposite of the design of the other
College Park signs where its the back pilaster that is higher with
the lantern mounted on it. So you're actually reversing the
design as compared to what's out on Haggerty Road.
Mr. Bednas:
It depends on what side of the sign you're standing on. But
yeah, basically, that's correct. It would be the reverse of that.
2354]
And its also the reverse of the photograph that's attached in this
package next to Mitchell's Fish Market.
Mr. Taormina:
Correct. Does everyone understand that?
Ms. Smiley:
No.
Mr. Taormina:
Look at the last photograph of the packet. Along Haggerty
Road, its the shorter of the two piers that is closer to the road.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay.
Mr. Taormina:
With what he's proposing on Fox Drive, it would be just the
opposite. The taller
pillar and the lantern would be closer to Six
Mile Road and the shorter pillar would be on the backside. So
that's something the Commission may consider in terms of.. .
Mr. Bednas:
And that was partially done so it's not fighting the Comerica
Bank Building Administration and detail behind. It's in a wider,
neutral background than it is in some of the articulation that
occurs in the Comenca Bank building.
Mr. LaPine:
Are you all set, Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
Are there any questions?
Ms. Smiley:
My question was, the hotel signs ... they don't look very sturdy.
Have you heard anything about changing those perhaps? That
sign with the three hotels on it?
Mr. Taormina:
The question is to me?
Ms. Smiley:
Yes. Have you heard anything about that?
Mr. Taormina:
As far as its sturdiness, I can't respond to that. It is mounted to
a fooling, and I know that there are some stakes out there to
help support that. I know the cut is pretty close to the base of
that sign, but that's something the contractors are going to have
to carefully negotiate. There will be a retaining wall to help
support that sign eventually. It just has not been built yet. In
terms of your other question, I have been in contact with the
owner of one of the hotels who has expressed a willingness to
participate
with the developers of College Park to coordinate
some
kind of a single sign, but he can only speak for one of the
23548
hotels, not the other two. So that's the only contact I've had
with one of the owners since our study meeting.
Ms. Smiley: I happened to be by there today and it is very convoluted right
there. It's a real mess actually because the Buca sign and then
that Laurel Park West and then your new sign. I would love for
you to have better exposure because, you know what, that's the
first time I've ever driven down Fox Drive. I didn't know it was
there. And I didn't realize that it was the whole entrance. I've
been in Livonia 34 years, so I totally missed that. I think we
need to really do something there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Morrow: Just a comment. We dont have a line of sight as we're headed
east. I did notice when Mr. LaPine and I checked it that the
hotel sign will be blocking out your sign on a certain sight line.
You are aware of that?
Mr. Bednas: Yes, we are aware of that. You'll see portions of the sign as
you're heading east. You'll have portions of it obliterated, but
most of the people that know or have that as a destination or
have made the trip before, we don't feel that will be an issue.
Our primary concern is to try and capture the traffic that's
coming to College Park for the TCF tenancy and the other
building that's under construction. But our future buildings are
coming off of 275 and onto Six Mile Road to have the
opportunity to see the fact that there's an entrance to College
Park at that location. Mrs. Smiley's comment is well taken.
That's why we're here. We felt that we need something for the
park development to let everybody know that we're there. The
graphic that was up initially, if I may point to that for a minute,
the one that shows the overall site. There ares some interesting
things going on. The Comenca Operations parcel, which is the
big parcel on the left, the three hotels have their sign on a very
small either 10 fool by 10 foot or 15 foot by 15 fool easement in
the corner of that parcel. The next piece over is Fox Drive, the
private drive that connects to College Park. You can see how
far removed we are from the main body of the park. Then
there's a small sliver that's assisted care. There's assisted care
and there's a sliver that comes down here. I'm not sure how or
why or when that was done, but that was primarily done so they
could put their sign on that piece at Six Mile Road, and that's
where their sign sits. Then of course Buca is in the next parcel
over. So everybody has their property rights established and
their signs there, and we're kind of the last ones in fighting
everybody else. Unfortunately, as we mentioned in the study
session, we did try and get some collaborative effort and gel the
23549
signs together, but we weren't able to get everybody to comply.
And as I mentioned and just want to reiterate, if you do gel
everybody together on some sort of a single sign, the sign
becomes much bigger to carry that. So we thought this was
probably a pretty good compromise, and we're comfortable with
R.
Mr. Wilshaw: I look a look at the mockup. I appreciate you guys doing that. It
helped visualize the whole area. I agree with Commissioner
Smiley that its a very cluttered area as is. You add your sign to
it and it becomes more cluttered. My concern, in many years of
traffic safety work that I've done, is the visual clutter. Cars
driving down the road at 45 miles an hour westbound on Six
Mile, or even cars coming off of 275 trying to find the driveway,
have to absorb the signs for three hotels, College Park, an
assisted living facility, a restaurant, the street sign with a name
on it. All those signs simultaneously and that's a lot for one
driver to comprehend and absorb in that period of time, which
can become a traffic safety concern and certainly makes it
difficult for them to actually see the sign prior to approaching the
driveway. It's likely that they're going to pass the driveway by
the time they realize, hey, that was the entrance to College
Park. I agree that this is going to be one of your main entrances
for people approaching the Park, and I think that having the sign
there is a good idea to utilize that driveway. You're making
some improvements to the roadway there, which I think will
help, but my concern is just the clutter. I would not be opposed
to a larger unified sign that would incorporate the hotel logos
onto your sign, that type of thing. But as it stands right now with
four signs on the one corner, not to mention the street sign and
right turn only signs and what other signs are going to be placed
up there, I can't really support that. I did notice the same thing
that was mentioned previously that when you're traveling
eastbound, the hotel sign does block your sign, which certainly
negates the effectiveness of it. The question I had for you was,
with the sign being oriented in the opposite direction, do you feel
that that is not in keeping with the general theme of College
Park? You've done so much to try to keep these signs and your
markings and so on unified from driveway to driveway, this
seems sort of unusual.
Mr. Bednas: I'm sorry. I missed your point. Where have we departed from?
Mr. Wilshaw: I guess my point is, what's the purpose of re -orienting the sign
in the opposite direction, having the lantern first and that being a
23550
higher pillar than the other one. Why wouldrtt you have the
smaller pillar in the front?
Mr. Bednas:
I think the purpose there was primarily to get the feature out in
front that would draw your attention to the fact that there's a
monument sign there.
Mr. Wilshaw:
So a beacon.
Mr. Bednas:
The other openings along Haggerty are much wider and have a
lot more space to work with. Here we're sticking this thing in a
six or seven foot median. I forget what the dimension is.
Mr. Wilshaw:
This sort of leads to my next question. The sign itself because
R's going to have, as you show it, lettering on the wrought iron
fencing. Obviously that lettering cant be illuminated. So would
you have some external illumination?
Mr. Bednas:
The intent would be to probably use a brass colored material for
the letters so there's some contrast on the fence, but there's
also some reflectivity that you pick up when it's illuminated. I'm
not sure if it would be illuminated from the ground or internally
with an up -light that's in the brick base of the sign just to
illuminate the letters.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay, because that is a very thin median that you have. I was
questioning if you could get a spotlight on the grass there to
point up to that if there's enough room.
Mr. Bednas:
Just barely, but it would probably gel Wiped out a number of
times by either the maintenance crew or traffic that mounts the
curb. So the thinking right now is to embed something in the
base of the sign.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. And my other question was partially answered I think
earlier about the hotel sign. The widening of the roadway
seems to have gone right up to the edge of that sign to the point
where you can start to see the exposed footing. Is that
something that's going to remain that way, or how is that going
to be dealt with?
Mr. Bednas:
The width of the roadway was kind of an evolutionary thing. It
wasn't that wide to begin with. We went through I think three or
four reviews with Wayne County, and the final determination
was that they wanted a lane width that was, I don't have it in
front of me, it's either 17 feet or 18 feet for each lane, and that's
23551
why I pushed it to the limits of the property available. Between
the back of the curb and the sign and the hotel signs, I believe is
like a four or five foot area. As somebody mentioned, there will
be a retaining wall built up of ledger rock to hide the exposed
foundation that you see now, so it will look like a well
landscaped detail.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay, the Iasi question I had for you is, we heard some mention
from Mr. Taormina that at least one of the hotel owners is
interested in partnering with you. Are you willing to continue
trying to work with both Laurel Park West and the hotel
properties to see if you can some up with some sort of unified
solution?
Mr. Bednas:
Regrettably, 1d have to say no because we worked long and
hard, and admittedly, I forget which hotel it was, had expressed
some willingness to participate, but the other two didn't and
Laurel Park didn't. We didn't even contact Buca because
they're basically a separate entity with their retailing. They'd
need a larger sign.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Sure. Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
I have two questions. Could you put up this plan? Is that an
island in the middle?
Mr. Bednas:
Yes, it is.
Mr. La Pine:
On my plan, it looks like your sign was going to go in the island
at one time. Is that corect?
Mr. Bednas:
That's correct.
Mr. La Pine:
What happened to that?
Mr. Bednas:
That's still the intention. The photographs that you see were ...
the mockup was placed on the construction that's going on and
this is also difficult. If you go further up Fox Drive to the north
and follow it down, the existing pavement comes down what will
ultimately be the westerly edge of this island. So the mockup
signs, the posts and the bases were placed on the edge of the
pavement at that location. The area that is excavated is the
area that is presently excavated for this outbound lane.
Mr. La Pine:
People coming from the east going west and they pull in right
here, right?
23552
Mr. Bednas:
Right.
Mr. LaPine:
Now, when they're coming out, can they only turn right?
Mr. Bednas:
That was the intention of the design of the geomelrics here to
force them this way. Now if somebody wants to fight it, I'm sure
they'll be able to do this, but this really discourages a left turn.
Mr. LaPine:
The reason I ask the question, when I was out there and
watched how you had it marked off, it looked like it swung to the
right, which forces people that want to tum right, because trying
to make a left hand turn there is impossible. Lee and I were out
there on Saturday about 10:30 in the morning. We had to wait
in line just to make a right hand tum, and this is Saturday at
10:30 in the morning. The other question I have is "College
Park" going to be on both sides of this sign?
Mr. Bednas:
Yes, it is.
Mr. LaPine:
That's all I have. Are there any other questions?
Mr. Wilshaw:
I do have one more question. Regarding what the Vice Chair
was just speaking about, are you going to restrict the inbound
turns as well, no left turn -type sign for eastbound traffic, or is
there going to be no restrictions on the inbound traffic?
Mr. Bednas:
No restriction on the eastbound traffic. There is a center lane
for left turns there, and they will hopefully be able to make that
move without the conflict that presently occurs for the outbound
traffic trying to make a left onto Six Mile.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Sure. I'm just thinking when TCF is opening for business at
8:00, 9:00 in the morning when cars are flooding in there, you're
going to have conflicts between the people trying to make left
Tums at Haggerty, which backs up probably almost to Fox Drive,
and people then also wanting to turn left into College Park on
Fox Drive.
Mr. Bednas:
TCF is kind of a unique situation because I think most of the
people will be coming from the Ann Arbor area where they are
currently. I trust they will be using 275 to Six Mile and turning
right.
Mr. Wilshaw:
We'll have to see how that plays out.
23553
Mr.Bednas: Right.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Is there any other discussion? A motion
would be in order.
Mr. Wilshaw: I think they've done a nice job of trying to come up with some
alternatives for this sign, but I do have reservations over having
that many signs at this intersection. I would like to see, if at all
possible, College Park and the various properties around there
working together to come up with an unified solution. Each sign
on its own merits makes sense but when you look at the 40,000
foot view with all the signs together, I think you have a bit of
clutter there. So with that in mind, I'm going to make a motion
that this item be tabled until a solution can be worked out
addressing all the concerns of the Planning Commission that
have been expressed tonight, and that's my motion.
On a motion by Wilshaw, it was
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2006-08Sh403, submitted by
SchoolcraR Commons, L.L.C., requesting approval to construct
a business center sign at Fox Drive and Six Mile Road in order
to identify the College Park development located on the east
side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile
Road in the Southwest% of Section 7, be tabled.
Mr. LaPine: Is there a second for the tabling motion? Is there a second? Is
there a second? The motion is denied. We will need a motion
either to approve or deny.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, itwas
#09-07-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006 -08 -SN -03,
submitted by Schoolcraft Commons, L.L.C., requesting approval
to construct a business center sign at Fox Drive and Six Mile
Road in order to identify the College Park development located
on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and
Seven Mile Road in the Southwest % of Section 7, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
23554
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Schoolcratt
Commons, L.L.C., as received by the Planning
Commission on September 19, 2006, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval;
3. That this approval is subject to the submittal of a revised
site plan to the City Council showing the setback of the
proposed sign at 15 feel minimum from the nghtof-way of
Six Mile Road; and
4. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the sign permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion on the motion?
Mr. Taormina: Just that the plans as submitted this evening did not include a
site plan. What we would request is that this be subject to the
submittal of a revised site plan showing the setback of the
proposed sign at 15 feet minimum from the nghlof way of Six
Mile Road.
Mr. Bednas: That's correct. That's where the mockup is placed - 15 feet.
Mr. La Pine: You want a regular site plan showing that?
Mr. Taormina: We need a revised site plan showing the new sign location.
Mr. La Pine: Is that agreeable with you, Mr. Morrow?
Mr. Morrow: Yes. The sign that was mocked up, that was in the proper
location?
Mr.
Bednas:
Yes, it was 15 feel back from the right -0f -way line.
Mr.
Morrow:
Okay. And that vanes from your site plan?
Mr.
Bednas:
The site plan was 10 feet from the rightof-way.
Mr.
Morrow:
Okay. I have no problem with that.
Mr.
La Pine:
Any problems, Mrs. Smiley?
23555
Ms. Smiley:
I have no problem with that either.
Mr. LaPine:
Is there any other discussion?
Ms. Smiley:
No, only to say that I'm supporting this because I believe that
ABSENT:
they have made an effort to accommodate the other people that
are already there. This is a huge piece of property that needs to
be identified. Actually, in the long run I think it will help people if
they not end up having to go down Six Mile and Haggerty to get
in, if they can find Fox Drive and realize that's an entrance.
That's why I supported the motion.
Mr. LaPine:
If I may interject, I'm going to support it. It is a very cluttered
problem we have. There's no doubt. Ian is exactly right. I'm
not really happy about it but I also know that I think it's going to
help the congestion on Haggerty Road by people come off of
Six Mile off the expressway and having to cul in through the
restaurant area. Therefore, I'm going to support it very
reluctantly, but I shall support it. May we have a roll call vole
please?
A roll call vole
on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Morrow, Smiley, McDermott, LaPine
NAYES:
Wilshaw
ABSTAIN:
Walsh
ABSENT:
Shane
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#3 PETITION200640-08-22 SCHOOLCRAFT COMMONS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2005-10-
08-22, submitted by SchoolcraR Commons, L.L.C., requesting to
modify the previously approved site plan in connection with the
development of a high-rise office building on property located at
17430 College Parkway in the Southwest''/. of Section 7.
Mr. Miller: On January 30, 2006, this site received site plan approval (CR
#50-06) to construct a high-rise office building (Building C) on
part of the ongoing College Park development. As part of the
approval of Building C, it was conditioned: That the petitioner
23556
shall resubmit the Exterior Building Elevation Plan to the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval. In a letter dated August 28, 2006, the petitioner
explains, 'We have since added considerably more detail to the
wall sections and elevations as shown on the attached
rendering and are now ready to have that contingency
removed." The submitted color rendering shows a picture of a
brick high-rise office building next to a water feature with a
fountain. From the picture it appears that the building would
correspond with the design concept of the original elevation
plans submitted for Building C. The letter also requests a
modification to another approving condition. Condition 9 reads
as follows: That the brick used in the construction shall be full -
face 4 -inch brick. The petitioner would like to be able to use
half brick precast concrete panels. These brick panels would be
the same building material that was permitted in the
construction of the TCF Bank building that is located just to the
east. Permitting the use of the brick panels allows the look and
design of two high-rise office buildings to appear interrelated.
Mr. LaPine:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is no correspondence related to this item.
Mr. LaPine:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Robert W. Bednas, Etkin Equities, 29100 Northwestern, Suite 200, Southfield,
Michigan 48034. 1 have nothing else to add. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Morrow:
For the benefit of the Commission and the audience, could you
explain half brick on concrete and how it withstands the lest of
lime?
Mr. Bednas:
Let me back up. I think the Commission's concerns and the City
Council's concerns and the Building Departments concerns are
with what was developed a long time ago called thin brick. Well,
that's what it is. Its a brick material but it's very thin. I think not
more than half an inch thick, and it's generally applied with a
mastic onto a substrate on a building. It has experienced a lot
of de -lamination and problems in the past and continues to do
so. Since the development of precast concrete exterior wall
systems for buildings and the attempt to detail them with brick,
there's been quite a bit of development in brick technology
where they use what is probably something that is close to a
23557
quarter of a brick. It's about an inch and its a thinner brick with
some tabs in it that has been very successful and is used in
many places, not only throughout the United Slates, but in this
market as well. Its quite durable. What we proposed at TCF
because of the concern with the City was that we go to a full half
brick. So instead of four inches of thickness, it would be two
inches. On the back it has some of the natural conng of the
brick, and its actually cast into the concrete when the concrete
panels are poured. So they are attached to the concrete panels
themselves and rarely, if ever, de -laminate. I'm not sure if we
brought a sample to the Planning Commission or to City Council
the last time around for TCF.
Mr. Taormina: Both.
Mr. Bednas: And my back is still sore from that.
Mr. Morrow: So what you're saying, if I follow you correctly, it will appear the
same as on the TCF Bank but it will be constructed a little bit
differently.
Mr. Bednas: No, it will be exactly the same. TCF is half brick.
Mr. Morrow: And what is this one?
Mr. Bednas:
And we're proposing to use a similar half brick.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Do they both have the tabs on it?
Mr. Bednas:
No, it will be the same as TCF. The tabs are done for the
thinner brick. There you need something with more of a ...
Mr. Morrow:
I guess that's where you loss me. One was thinner and one
was two inches. Maybe I'm missing something.
Mr. Bednas:
Yes, the half brick is two inch. It's got the natural cores that are
in the brick. So when you split it in half, you've got those things
acting as the tabs that secure it to the concrete.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, let's not gel loo detailed here. I guess the important thing
is it will withstand the lest of time, and for all intents and
purposes ilwill look like a brick building.
Mr. Bednas:
Yes, ilwill.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
23558
Mr. LaPine: If I may follow up on that. You were referring to panel brick.
That's what we used to call the real thin brick. We had a motel
built in Livonia that used panel brick, and we told them they had
to have four inch brick. We made them go back and rip it off.
But these panels we're talking about here, instead of each brick
being put on the building, it comes in a larger panel and then it's
mounted. Is that the way its done?
Mr. Bednas: Actually, they are pretty large panels. The panels themselves
are anywhere from 12 to 15 inches thick depending on the
structural load they have to carry. So you've got the two inches
of brick on the face, and then you've got another 10 to 14 inches
of concrete behind it. But the panels usually span from column
to column. As an example, this would be one panel. And the
column covers themselves are individual panels. Depending on
the building framing, they're anywhere from 25 to 35 to 45 feel
long by 4 or 5 feel high.
Mr. LaPine: Okay. Are there any other questions? Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Hearing none, we need a motion on the floor.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Wilshaw, and adopted, it was
#09438-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-10-08-22,
submitted by SchoolcraR Commons, L.L.C., requesting to
modify the site plan previously approved by the City Council on
January 30, 2006 (CR #50-06) in connection with the
development of a high-rise office building on properly located at
17430 College Parkway in the Southwest''/. of Section 7, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That condition #9 of Council Resolution #50-06 which
reads, "That the brick used in the construction shall be full
face 4 inch brick' shall be removed and replaced with,
"That the brick used in the construction shall be a precast
masonry unit system with cast4n-place two (2') inch brick
and shall meetASTM C216 standards,"
2. That the Elevation Plan marked Sheet A5.00, dated
September 11, 2006, prepared by Bowers & Rein, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to; and
23559
3. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution
#50-06, which granted approval to construct a higlrnse
office building (Building C), shall remain in effect to the
extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing
conditions.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Smiley, Wilshaw, McDermott, Morrow, LaPine
NAYES:
None
ABSTAIN:
Walsh
ABSENT:
Shane
Mr. LaPine, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#4 PETITION 2006 -08 -SN -04 TCF BANK SIGNAGE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2006 -08 -
SN -04, submitted by TCF Bank requesting approval for wall
signage for the high-rise office building located at 17440 College
Parkway in the Southwest''/. of Section 7.
Mr. Miller: On November 30, 2005, this site received site plan approval
(CR #555-05) in connection with the construction of a higlydse
office building on part of the ongoing College Park development.
The subject building is presently under construction and will be
the regional headquarters of TCF Bank. As part of the
approving resolution, it was conditioned: "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." The subject site
is zoned PO, High Rise Professional Office. A building in this
particular zoning district is allowed only one wall sign. The
petitioner is requesting approval for two wall signs. By virtue of
the above condition, the second wall sign requires both
Planning Commission and City Council approval. Both signs
would be identical and consist of separate individual letters
mounted to a "raceway." Each sign would be 80 square feet in
size and internally illuminated. Because the proposed signage
is in excess of what is allowed by the sign ordinance, a variance
would be required from the Zoning Board ofAppeals.
23560
Mr. La Pine:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence
from
the
Inspection
Department, dated September 1, 2006, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of August 11, 2006, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
The petitioner will need to obtain a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals for excessive number of wall signs (two, one
permitted) and excessive square footage where the maximum
allowed is 100 square feet This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. La Pine: Is the petitioner here this evening? I think I saw you on
television the other night.
Michael Rein, Bowers & Rein Associates, Inc., 2400 S. Huron Parkway, Ann
Arbor, Michigan 48104. Yes, sir. Its the same microphone.
I'm representing TCF Bank. As Scott represented, we are
proposing for consideration by the Planning Commission the
addition of one wall sign on the west side of our building. As the
Commission is aware and if they've seen the construction
ongoing, we have very good visibility along 275 and the exit
ramp for Six Mile. The one wall sign that we're allowed by
ordinance will be on the east side of our building in this area.
What we're asking for consideration of the Planning
Commission is the duplication of that sign from here. By the
very nature of the park and being a very deep park, while we
haw great visibility from 275, obviously no direct access. Most
of our access, as Mr. Bednas has said, is going to be coming
from Fox Drive or from Haggerty. If you were to look at this site
overall, we have a very direct line of sight out to Haggerty. So
what we'd like to do is be able to pick up the traffic as soon as
possible and allow us the visibility to bring them deep into the
park to our center. So we're not trying to maximize the square
footage of up to 100 square feel. We're really more interested
in the scale of it in terms of how it sits on our east and west
elevations. But we would like consideration of the Planning
Commission to allow that secondary sign to announce as soon
as possible to our visitors as they come in off Haggerty and
proceed through the park itself.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Hearing none, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
23561
speak for or against this petifion? Hearing none, a motion
would be in order.
Mr. Wilshaw: I think this is a reasonable request. The sign for 275 makes
perfect sense and the internal access sign, I think, is a
reasonable request to allow people who enter the park to find
the TCF Bank building. So with that in mind, I will offer an
approving resolution.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Morrow, and adopted, itwas
#09-09-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006 -08 -SN -04,
submitted by TCF Bank, requesting approval for wall signage for
the high-rise office building located at 17440 College Parkway in
the Southwest '/. of Section 7, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by TCF Bank, dated July
25, 2006, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval;
3. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals br excess
signage and any conditions related thereto; and
4. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the sign permits are applied for.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Wilshaw, Morrow, McDermott, Smiley, La Pine
NAYES:
None
ABSTAIN:
Walsh
ABSENT:
Shane
Mr. LaPine, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. Al this time, Mr. Walsh, Chairman, will
return to the podium at 8:30 p.m.
23562
Y1=lAi Eii,3.9=kIYI[e]Ll A'1 TJ 1011] 0 :111 ;101011]&-] rel 1c
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2006-08-
08-17, submitted by Plymouth Food Store 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 of the commercial building located at
27600 Plymouth Road in the Southeast % of Section 25.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to construct an addition
and renovate the exterior of the existing Plymouth Food Store
that is located on the northeast corner of Plymouth Road and
Cavell Avenue. The subject properly is made up of three
parcels, Lots 28 through 31, of the Schanhile's Marquette
Manor Subdivision. Combined, the properly has 85 feet of
frontage along Plymouth Road and 100 feel of depth or frontage
along Cavell Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, General
Commercial. The proposed addition would be constructed on
the southwest comer of the building, basically squaring off that
section of the structure. This addition would add 400 square
feel to the building. The existing store is 1,700 square feel in
size. Once completed, the overall size of the store would be
expanded to a total of 2,100 square feel in area. According to
the floor plan, this small bump out would permit the expansion
of the store's retail floor space. The minimum required front
yard setback for buildings in a C-2 zoning district is 60 feet. The
existing building has zero setback along Plymouth Road. The
new addition would be built within the required setback.
Because the existing building is deficient in setback, it is
deemed nonconforming. To add to a nonconforming building, a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required.
They are required to have 11 parking spaces, and they do show
11 spaces. However, some of the spaces are only striped at
nine (9') feel wide. Eight (8) spaces along the north properly
line are deficient in width. Parking spaces in Livonia are
required to be len (10') feel wide. These spaces could be
restriped at ten (10') feel wide but by doing so, one space would
be rendered inaccessible because it would be blocked by the
existing trash dumpster enclosure. By striping all the spaces at
len (10') feet, the site could only provide 10 spaces. The nine
(9') fool wide spaces already exist and are currently in use for
the store. In either case, if the spaces were restnped to ten
(10') feel or allowed to stand at nine (9') feel, a variance from
the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required. The remaining
3 spaces along the west properly line are conforming in both
width and length. Two existing drives, the main one off
23563
Plymouth Road and a secondary one off Cavell Avenue, would
remain open and provide access to the site. Required
landscaping is not less than 15% of the total site, and they are
providing landscaping on 1% of the site. Presently, the exterior
of the Plymouth Food Store is a combination brick and
hardiplank siding. A shingled mansard style roof extends along
the roofine. The pefitioner is proposing to completely refurbish
the south (facing Plymouth) and west (facing Cavell) elevations.
The lower eight (8') feel of these two elevations would be
completely redone in brick. The store's main entrance would be
relocated from the Plymouth Road side around to the west
elevation. A decorative dryvil parapet would be installed along
the upper half of these two sides. This parapet would vary in
height, have some peak features and topped with a dimensional
cornice. The elevation plan shows wall signs on the renovated
store. This store has an existing ground sign, and they are
permitted one wall sign at 40 square feet in size. As no
dimensions were given for the signage, it was not evaluated as
part of this petition.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineenng Division, dated September 1, 2006, which
reads as follows: `Pursuant to your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time. No additional right-of-
way is required. Detention facilities do not appear to be
necessary, but this should be checked with Wayne County."
The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer.
The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division,
dated September 5, 2006, which reads as follows: "This office
has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to construct an addition and renovate the exterior of the
commercial building located at the above referenced address.
We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by
Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the
Division of Police, dated September 8, 2006, which reads as
follows: 'We have reviewed the plans in connection with a
proposal by Plymouth Food Store for renovations located at
27600 Plymouth Road. We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 8,
2006, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
August 28, 2006, the above- ferenced petition has been
23564
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This proposal puts an
addition onto a previously existing nonconforming building.
They will need to obtain a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals for deficient front yard setback. The building is at zero
feet where 60 feet are required. (2) This plan provides for 11
spaces not 12 as indicated. Eleven spaces are sufficient,
however, the spaces at he north side (rear) must be 10 feet
wide and 20 feet deep and all spaces must be double striped.
(3) The Commission and/or Council may wish to review the
existing dumpster enclosure for conforming to their standards.
(4) No signage has been reviewed as there is not sufficient
detail to make such a review. This site would be allowed one
wall sign of approximately 41 square feet. ff the petitioner
wishes to have two wall signs, he will need to seek a variance
from the Zoning Board of Appeals. He will need to also
reference the existing ground sign which is at deficient setbacks
per a previous zoning grant, 9602-37. (5) The landscaping does
not appear to meet the 15% requirement but the Commission
and Council may waive this. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the
Plymouth Road Development Authority, dated September 18,
2006, which reads as follows: 9n connection with the above -
referenced petition, the Executive Committee of the Plymouth
Road Development Authority reviewed the development
proposal at their meeting of September 18, 2006. The
Committee met with the Petitioner and the City Planning
Director who presented their plans. A the conclusion of the
meeting, the Committee recommended approval of the petition
subject to adherence to all plans as submitted, with the following
additional requirements: (a) That the sign detail as shown on
the elevation plans is recommended for approval, and (b) That
the landscaping installed by the PRDA shall be maintained or
replaced if damaged as a result of new construction." The letter
is signed by John J. Nagy, Executive Director. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. Morrow: I do have a question of Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller, would you review
the parking requirement again? I think you said there are nine
spaces on the north side?
Mr. Miller: Actually, there are eight spaces along the north properly line.
Mr. Morrow: Eight spaces.
23565
Mr. Miller: The site has the correct number of spaces, but the eight along
the north properly line are only striped at 9 feet wide. They are
required to be 10 feel wide. So the site plan shows a sufficient
number of spaces, but they're deficient in width.
Mr. Morrow: So if we required them to be 10 feet wide, how many would we
have?
Mr. Miller: You would only be able to gel seven conforming spaces. The
existing dumpster would block the space adjacent to the
northeast corner of the site, making it unusable. Vehicles would
not be able to pull in or pull out of it. If all the parking spaces
were striped at a conforming 10 feel, the site would only provide
a total of 10 spaces; the required parking is 11 spaces.
Mr. Morrow: And those are at the proper
Mr.
Miller:
That would be at 10 feel wide.
Mr.
Morrow:
Including the handicap?
Mr.
Miller:
Yes.
Mr.
Morrow:
Okay. That's the only question I had.
Mr.
LaPine:
Mr. Miller, the farthest parking spot up against the building, that
to me is useless anyway.
Mr.
Miller:
Yes.
Mr.
LaPine:
You talk about the dumpster. The dumpster is back over here.
Somebody picking up the dumpster could come in off Cavell
and pick up the dumpster and pull up. Right?
Mr.
Miller:
Right.
Mr.
LaPine:
So if we eliminated that one parking space, which I think if it's 9
feel, can we pick up enough space so that we can make the
other parking spaces 10 feet wide?
Mr.
Miller:
Yes, you could.
Mr.
LaPine:
And he has to go b the ZBA and get a variance just for one
parking space? I'd rather see that happen, because that one
23566
there is probably useless anyways. I don't think anyone would
park there.
Mr. Miller:
No.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. The other thing I want to ask you, when ve were out
there checking it, the parking lot looks like it needs complete
repair. Do you agree with me on that?
Mr. Miller:
Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
With bumper blocks?
Mr. Miller:
As a condition of approval, it should be specified that the
parking lot be repaired, resurfaced and restnped. Al that time,
the entire parking lotcould be restriped at 10 feel by 20 feel.
Mr. La Pine:
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Are there any otherqueslions for the staff?
Mr. Morrow:
The Planning Director indicated that we didn't have a sign
concept, so could you tell us what the size of the sign is? If we
move this petition forward, I would recommend we have a
callback on signage.
Mr. Taormina:
If I could respond to that. I think what you'll hear this evening
from the petitioner is that he is willing to eliminate the sign on
the west elevation of the building above his entrance. What he
would like to keep is a sign facing Plymouth Road, that would be
on the south elevation. Its critical to him that he advertise the
main components of the store: the beer, wine and lotto. Those
are items that he needs to have on the sign whatever final form
it takes, whether or not it includes the name of his store or just
the information as shown here. Although he is willing to modify
R slightly and I'm sure he'd be willing to show us a detail at a
later dale, he would like to keep a sign at lead on the south
elevation ofthe building.
Mr. Morrow:
What you're saying is if we move it forward tonight, it would
have to be within the confines of the ordinance?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, I think that if we simply state that only conforming signage
is approved with this petition, that should be sufficient, unless
for some other reason, you'd like to see the sign come back
eitherfor a formal or informal review.
23567
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening? Is there anything you'd like
to add to the presentation?
Badri Yono, Plymouth
Food Store, 27600 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan
48150. No.
Dhafir Jajoka,
Scope Data, L.L.C., 7394 Sauterne Street, West Bloomfield,
Michigan 48322. I'm representing or he can take it.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the pefitioner?
Mr. LaPine:
As you know, I've been out there twice. I'm still confused on
something. The new entrance is going to be on the west side.
Is that correct?
Mr. Yono:
The new entrance?
Mr. LaPine:
Its going to be on the west side?
Mr. Yono:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
So it seems to me on the south side, you should have Plymouth
Food Store. To me, that's what you are. You are a Plymouth
Food Store. You're not a beer, wine and lotto store. You're a
food store. Now you've got the freestanding sign that says
beer, wine and lotto, which is visible to me. It's not visible 100
percent coming from the east going west, but coming from the
west going east, its very visible. I can't understand why you
want the main sign to say beer, wine and lotto. Is that the main
things you sell - beer, wine and lotto?
Mr. Yono: That the name of the store, Plymouth Food Store. You're right.
Ten years ago, I sold hot food over there. I named it because it
got some food, some like pizza, some sandwich, everything
completely full kitchen here. After five years, the GM plant
closed down. I cancelled the whole kitchen on it. Only left is
beer, wine and lotto, most my stuff. That's most of my business.
That's why I try to keep ... maybe in the future, change the
name. That's the only reason I'm doing it.
Mr. LaPine: Are you doing any renovation at all inside the building?
23568
Mr. Yono:
Thats the first step I want to do inside, put more shelving. In
the future, I want some changes inside. Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
I don't want to tell you how to ran your business. That's up to
you. The store is awfully cluttered. You've got all those
banners and signs hanging all over the place. I think you
indicated to me you're going to put in another cooler?
Mr. Yono:
Yes. That's in the future, not the first. First I want, my budget
I'm working with, a certain budget to do outside first.
Mr. La Pine:
First thing you're going to do is the outside, the exterior.
Mr. Yono:
Exactly. First I want to do the front. After one year or year and
a half, I got another budget to work inside. Going to straighten
everything, going to clean everything inside.
Mr. Morrow:
Back to the parking. I think we've discovered here tonight
you're required to have 11 spaces. If we go 10 feet on the
north, we gel it down to 10. Can you live with 10 parking
spaces based on your activity here?
Mr. Yono:
No problem. I can go with the 10.
Mr. Morrow:
In either event, it will require you to go to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
Mr. Yono: Because most of my business now is using .. I can save the
high profit volume with me now ... it's not more for five spaces
altogether. The high profit volume at lunchtime between 10 or
12:00, no more ... most of the people not use more than four or
five, because how long they slay, the customer in the store is
not more than five minutes. Some of them two minute, three
minute. The highest is five minutes because you know the store
is small. They pick up right away and leave
Mr. Morrow: Then you agree that 10 foot by 20 fool to the north?
Mr. Yono: Yes.
Ms. Smiley: Are you aware of the problem with the dumpsler in that it needs
to be of the same brick? You're changing your curb appeal, and
I think that's a great idea, but you need to fix the dumpsler too.
23569
Mr. Yono:
When I do the facing outside the brick, I'll do whole thing,
painting from the back to match the whole store altogether from
the east elevation to the north side.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay, because I think they're going to require you to have the
dumpster constructed out of the same brick that you're using in
the construction of the building.
Mr. Yono:
That's the front of the building, but the dumpster is in the back of
the building.
Mr. Taormina:
I might be able to clarify that. I think its block in the back of the
building? Correct?
Mr. Yono:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
Its just exposed block. I'm not sure that we need to require him
to brick that. I think there's a masonry enclosure there already.
Correct?
Mr. Miller:
Its a wood fence.
Mr. Taormina:
Well, as long as its a masonry enclosure that matches the
material and color of the back of the store. It doesn't have to be
brick.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I have a couple questions. Do you have any plan on doing
anything
with the east elevation? You have a small, little bit of
visibility.
The rear elevation at all. The north elevation. Is there
a plan to do anything?
Mr. Yono:
Where exactly?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Anything on the east or north side? Are you going to do
anything?
Mr. Yono:
On the two elevations, on the south and west one.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. You're not going to touch the other two sides?
Mr. Yono:
No.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Also, the signage that you want to have on this building,
is thatgoing to be illuminated in the evening?
235]0
Mr. Yono:
Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
And what are your hours of operation?
Mr. Yono:
Monday through Thursday, its 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Friday,
10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.; and Sunday is 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. You know typically what we like is to have that sign
turned off like an hour after you close?
Mr. Yono:
That will be controlled by a switch. When I shut down at 10:00
p.m., it will be shut down at 10:00 p.m. exactly. Not slay the
whole night, no. Just only slay lit outside just in case for
something around the building only.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Now, you're making some really nice changes to the exterior of
the building to make it attractive and you have some windows
there. Are you going to have any signage in those windows?
Mr. Yono:
It depends on how much the City requires. I can cover maybe
put some lights on it, cover should be by law you told me maybe
10 or 15 percent, up to 20 percent, no more than that. Not the
whole window, maybe open sign or sign is for something you
put on special weekly or something like that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Then I have we other question directed toward Mark.
This concept of the store having no identifying sign for the name
of the store seems a little unusual. Do you know of any other
stores in the community that are just the liquor, lotto, beer
store?
Mr. Taormina:
That's a good question. I don't know of any off hand. Many of
them do advertise those services or items. Whether or not
that's all they advertise, probably on some signs, yes, that's all
that's idenfified. Many of them will carry the name of the store
though. Really, that's up to him you know. We have a content
neutral sign ordinance. Al lead we try to be that way. So I
suspect in the end he'll probably want some identifying sign that
includes both the name of the store as well as some of those
services and items.
Mr. Wilshaw:
If he was to put the name of his store on the entry door, that
would not be considered signage? That would just go into the
25% window coverage?
23571
Mr. Taormina: That would depend on the size of that sign. If it's something
that is identifiable from Plymouth Road, if you can read the sign
from the public thoroughfare, then really it does fall under our
sign ordinance. If it's just merely a door plaque, something
decorative, a name for people that are on the site, then chances
are it won't fall under the ordinance limitations.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. So that's a possibility for identifying your name. Thank
you.
Mr. Morrow: Do you have any neon signage on your windows?
Mr. Yono: No. Now all we have now is lotto sign and open sign only.
Mr. Morrow: Will those be on the new building?
Mr. Yono:
In the future, I can say my budget to the point I'm to do just
facing the building from the outside to help my business on it. In
the future, maybe I can put some neon sign, not all of them, on
maybe the east foundation where the doors and this one.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, I guess my question is, are those allowed in our
ordinance?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, he's allowed a certain amount of signage. He can't use
any kind of outline tubing around the windows or anything of
that nature, but certain signs, like an open sign, I think he's
entitled to.
Mr. Morrow:
I think he's got an ATM sign?
Mr. Yono:
I have an ATM sign.
Mr. Morrow:
Do you have a beer sign there?
Mr. Yono:
No. No beer sign.
Mr. Morrow: What is the other one? I can't recall.
Mr. Yono: I have ATM, money ground international for money orders, you
got lotto sign.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. That was the one, the lotto sign.
Mr. Yono: Yes, the lotto sign. The first you come to the main doors, you've
got lotto sign. On the east side, you've got open sign. On the
23572
south side facing Plymouth Road, you've got open sign because
now I do two open signs because depends how the building
looks.
Mr. Morrow:
As long as those are allowed, I have no problem with them.
Mr. Yono:
Absolutely. I want to keep only one open sign up in the future
because now I want to do facing on it. Only one open sign ...
you know, Io0o sign I want to eliminate it because I want to put
already in the main building Io0o sign.
Mr. Taormina:
I think what he is saying is that he wants to eliminate all the
window signs, replace those with something that would appear
on the facade of the building, on the top portion of the facia. So
only the open sign would be the neon sign that would appear in
the windows. I think that would clean that up quite a bit.
Mr. Morrow:
All right. That's good. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, then a
motion would be in order.
On a motion by
Smiley, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, itwas
#09-100-2006
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-08-08-17,
submitted by Plymouth Food Store, 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 of the commercial building located at
27600 Plymouth Road in the Southeast''/. of Section 25, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated August 4, 2006,
prepared by Scope Data, L.L.C., is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 3
dated August 4, 2006, prepared by Scope Data, L.L.C., is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4
inch brick;
23573
4. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public New on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
5. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall match
the exterior of the rear portion of the building, and the
enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use
closed at all limes;
6. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (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;
7. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary permits,
including storm water management permits, wetlands
permits and soil erosion and sedimentation control permits,
from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the Stale of
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality;
8. That the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and
doubled striped at 10 feel in width by 20 feel in length;
9. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for adding on
to a nonconforming building and deficient parking and any
conditions related thereto;
10. 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;
11. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
12. That wall signage shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour after this business closes;
13. 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,
23574
14. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of one year only from the dale of approval by City
Council, and unless a building permit is obtained and
construction has commenced, this approval shall be null
and void allhe expiration ofsaid period.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Ms. Smiley:
How should I word Condition 5, Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
We'll fox that resolution to read that it matches the exterior of the
rear portion of the building.
Mr. Morrow:
Should we modify one of these conditions to reflect the 10
parking spaces,
all of which will be 10 feel by 20 feet and
double striped?
Mr. Taormina:
We'll make that change to Condition 8.
Mr. Wilshaw:
That was my one question. The other one was, illumination of
the signs. Do we want to have a time clause in there that they
not be illuminated one hour after closing time?
Mr. Taormina:
We do have a condition that we can add to that, yes.
Mr. Walsh:
If that's acceptable to the maker and supporter, we'll so add
that.
Ms. Smiley:
Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
Just one question to Mark. I'm just confused on one thing,
Mark. What signage are we going to gel? The "Plymouth Food
Store" is going to be one sign and the "beer, wine and lotto" is
going to be another sign?
Mr. Taormina:
All we're going to gel is a single sign on the south elevation of
the Plymouth Road side, and we don't know what that's going to
look like. All we know is that it has to be conforming to size and
area.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. So if he comes in and he needs another sign, he'd have
to come back to us?
Mr. Taormina:
Correct.
23575
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2006-07-0846 BYBLOS GAS STATION
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2006-07-
08-16, submitted by Byblos General Contracting Company
requesting to amend Planning Commission Resolution #08-05-
2006 in order to modify the previously approved site plan in
connection with the redevelopment of the Mobil gas station
located at 29401 Five Mile Road in the Northeast % of Section
23.
Mr. Miller: On August 15, 2006, this site received Planning Commission
approval to demolish and reconstruct the existing gas station
located on the southwest corner of Five Mile Road and
Middlebell Road. Since that meeting, the petitioner has made a
significant change to the plans that were approved. The
approved plans showed that the site's existing western drive of
Five Mile Road was to be closed off. The petitioner is now
requesting to leave this driveway open. It is believed that the
site's traffic circulation would work more efficiently with four
driveways. In order to leave the driveway open, the layout of
the approved plans have to be altered. Four parking spaces
that were originally shown along the Five Mile Road frontage
would be deleted. The site would now be left with 10 parking
spaces. This is still enough parking for the proposed
convenience/gas station, which requires only 9 spaces. The
petitioner has also submitted revised elevation plans showing
an additional window on the second floor of the south elevation.
This improvement corresponds with a suggestion by the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence on this item?
Mr. Taormina: No, there is not.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Is there anything you'd like
to add tonight?
Nasser Choucair, Byblos General Contracting, P.O. Box 607, Dearborn Heights,
Michigan 48127. It was my mistake closing that approach. I did
not know that the owner needed that. Actually, one of the
23576
owners agreed on it, but his brother did not. He came later on
and he goes, why do you want to shut this approach down? We
need the circulation, and we don't need that much parking in
there because it's a C -store. Normally, a gas station doesn't
need that much for parking except for pumping gas and in and
out. There is no restaurant in there. So he told me why don't
we leave this approach. It would be more convenient if people
want to go lett on Five Mile. Its not convenient for them to turn
lett on Five Mile anymore if you close the approach. I think he's
right about that. Normally we use this most at night when the
big semi comes in to drop the gas loads. Always we use these
two approaches. It's better access for him to come right straight
forward where the tank is underground and drop his fuel and go
out from the other exit. So these approaches are useful for the
site. If you have any questions about these approaches, I'll be
more than happy to answer them.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Morrow: Are you saying you want all four curb cuts?
Mr. Choucair: Yes, sir.
Mr. Morrow: Okay, because there was some talk about dosing off the
eastern one on Five Mile.
Mr. Choucair: Actually, that's the main one we need because if the semi
comes on Five Mile going east, to go in from the top one we re-
opened, he's going to go through the pumps. I mean it's really
difficult to maneuver around these pumps, so his best access is
to come from that front one in. If you want to put any restriction
on it like no left turn, we'll do that. No one would exit from the
bottom one. I mean no one is going to exit from the bottom one
and go left. You would go right.
Mr. Morrow: Lel me ask you another question. When Mr. LaPine and I were
out there checking, I actually bought some gas at your northerly
pump. We were going to be leaving going south on Middlebelt,
but wotldn't it be hard for a car if they wanted to gel out back
onto Five Mile? Wouldn't it be tough to make that tum around
your landscaping there?
Mr. Choucair: You mean from that lower exit or the one that ...
Mr. Morrow: If your car is facing east, and you want to get back onto Five
Mile and if that driveway was closed, wouldn't it be a tight turn to
235]]
try to come around or would you have to go back around the
whole area?
Mr. Choucair:
If the car comes from Middlebelt - that's what you're telling me?
Mr. Morrow:
No. If a car is pumping gas at your northerly pump, and the car
is facing east toward Middlebelt, and he wants to get back onto
Five Mile, wouldn't that be a hard tum to make to come back all
the way around to the north?
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Morrow, just for everybody's clarity, what you're saying is, if
the eastern portion was closed off, the person at the northern
most part is going to have to make a U-turn to get back?
Mr. Choucair:
Yes. If he is facing east, the only way is to take the Middlebelt
exit from here, and you have to make a left and then go up to
Five Mile. Other than that, you have no choice. He's not going
to be moving around. There's not much space. That's why we
want to leave all approaches open so people feel more
comfortably while they're driving in there.
Mr. Morrow:
And those driveways exist now, correct?
Mr. Choucair:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
My philosophy is, people coming from the west going east who
want to go to your station, it makes more sense for them to take
the first drive and go in and get their gas. When you get to the
eastern one, then people start backing up to make a right hand
tum onto Middlebelt Road. Do they not?
Mr. Choucair:
Not necessarily.
Mr. La Pine:
Middlebelt Road, you get one, two, three cars stacked up there
that want to make a right hand turn onto Middlebelt, that blocks
all paths to that entrance off the easterly entrance.
Mr. Choucair:
Yeah.
Mr. La Pine:
So, how does that help? The only argument I heard yougive us
tonight is you need that easterly drive primarily because of the
tanker trucks coming in.
23578
Mr. Choucair:
That and because this is a Gslore. A Gslore carries chips.
We have a lot of trucks. When a big load comes at night, it's
nice for him to have that entrance to come straight up above the
tanks, drop his load, and go out. That's one thing.
Mr. La Pine:
He has to come in off of Five Mile Road, correct?
Mr. Choucair:
Five Mile or Middlebelt.
Mr. La Pine:
If he comes in off of Middlebelt, does he turn north? Are the
tanks on the east side here?
Mr. Choucair:
Yeah.
Mr. La Pine:
The tanks are on the east side. So he fills up there and then he
could drive straight out and go out the easterly exit and on his
way. Is that correct?
Mr. Choucair:
Yeah. It's best to have him coming from Five Mile and going out
from Middlebelt. Its more convenient for them, and also for the
other trucks that carry the groceries and the pop and all that.
We need these four approaches open. Its better for the
business and for the cars, plus its more convenient for the
customers when they come in.
Mr. La Pine:
Aren't you moving the building back?
Mr. Choucair:
Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
Are you demolishing the existing building?
Mr. Choucair:
Yes, sir.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
When we talked about this in our study meeting, there was
discussion about closing the easterly drive, and I think we talked
about it briefly at the last meeting that we had with you as well,
as being something that may improve the traffic flow because
you're keeping vehicles away from that intersection, which
admittedly is a pretty busy intersection as it is. We're starting to
see that newer gas stations don't have those driveways that are
closest to the intersection itself, just the ones that are furthest
from it. The vast majority of cars, I believe, these days are
made having the gas tank on the drivers side. So the number
of cars that would come in eastbound in Five Mile into the
23579
western most driveway going to that northern most pump and
then fill up and proceed out the eastern driveway seems fairly
minimal. I would think most cars, because they have to fill up
on the drivers side, would go the southern ends of the pump
and then still be able to whip around in your lot. Do you think
that by having both those drives open closest to the intersection,
and also very close to your islands, that you're creating a traffic
congestion problem if cars are stacked up wailing to fill up and
then cars are pulling in right there?
Mr. Choucair:
Actually, this is an existing canopy and pumps and approaches,
and we've never had problems with these. Again, I would say
that the owner was seeking only to move the building to the
back, have a nice look and he'd like to enhance his place to get
more business and to enhance the site at the same time. He
did not have any intention to close any of these approaches. If
he wants to close any of these approaches like I had it before,
then he should have a restaurant in there so he can get the
maximum parking that he can. But he has no need for this
parking, and again, why should we touch any of the Wayne
County approaches or any right -0f --way in Wayne County
because we don't want to go through Wayne County with their
detention system and put that big money in there. If we want to
do so, then we'll call the project off if we're going to go through
that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
If you close an approach, you are subjectto Wayne County?
Mr. Choucair:
Yes, its Wayne County right-0iway. Then we are subject to do
whatever Wayne County asks us to do, and then we have to do
the whole nine yards in there, and the Stale comes on and they
want to pull things and do all that. So we don't want to get into
this. If we're thinking of getting into a minimum of half a million
dollars project, then we're not even looking at the project to do
that. That's what I understand and how I'm looking at this site
because it's not worth it any more for a gas station to spend that
much money.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Sure. I dont have a problem with you getting that western drive
open certainly. Actually, I thought it was a little odd that you
were going to close it off. Its nice to see it opened back up.
Mr. Choucair:
Again, it's my mistake that I closed it, and I did not know why we
closed it really at the beginning. But when we came to the
meeting, we said it's a personal option. This is Gslore and its
a gas station, no restaurant, nothing in there. Then the owners
23580
brother came, and he is the owner also and he goes why. You
don't need the parking, you dont need this, you don't need that.
Why are you shutting this approach? I told him, I don't know
really. And then we had to come back here. Really we wanted
this project to be done this summer, but obviously we're delayed
by my mistake, and we're here back to correct it.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Sure. I think seeing that you already have four approaches, I
don't necessarily have a problem with keeping those existing
four approaches. Given a choice if you are going to close an
approach, I'd prefer the easterly one to be closed but if that's
not in the cards, that's fine. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
I think everyone is with you Nasser, so there's probably no one
in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition.
At this point, a motion would be in order.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Mr. Chair, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, I can do the shorter of
the two that here. Or do we have to do a whole new one, Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
What we had suggested is that we rescind the previous
resolution from a few weeks ago and adopt this new resolution.
I'm guessing its going to be modified slightly, at least as it
pertains to Condition #1; you'll probably eliminate the second
half of that condition, and then everything else maybe we can
approve by reference if its identical to the previous resolution.
Apparently the only two conditions that are going to change
from the August 15" resolution are Items #1 and 5. Is that
correct?
Mr. Miller:
Yes.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina, do we need to do the rescision first?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
On a motion by
Wilshaw, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#09-101-2006
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
rescind and repeal Planning Commission Resolution #08-05-
2006, adopted on August 15, 2006, in connection with Petition
2006-07-08-16 submitted by Byblos General Contracting
Company, which recommended the approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to demolish and reconstruct the gas
23581
station (Mobil) located at 29401 Five Mile Road in the Northeast
%of Section 23.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Wilshaw: As much as I would like to have Mrs. McDermott read three
pages of conditions, I will go ahead and do this for her.
Mr. Taormina: Since this was a resolution that was previously read into the
record, we could do it by reference and by modifying those two
conditions.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, ilwas
#09-102-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-07-08-16,
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 demolish and
reconstruct the gas station (Mobil) located at 29401 Five Mile
Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 23, be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the Site and Landscape Plan marked SP -02 dated
August 21, 2006, as revised, prepared by Byblos General
Contracting Company, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the lop of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
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 dated August 21,
2006, as revised, prepared by Byblos General Contracting
Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to
23582
6. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4
inch brick;
7. 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;
8. That the gas pump island canopy shall not exceed 18 feet
in height and its support columns shall be covered with the
same brick used in the construction of the building;
9. That the leading edge of the pump island canopy shall not
be any closer than 10 feet from the properly 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 the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
12. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feel in height and
shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
13. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the
correspondence dated August 8, 2006;
14. No outside storage, placement or display 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 11.04(a) oflhe Zoning Ordinance;
15. That free air shall be provided at all times this station is
open br business. The free air shall be dispensed at the
point -0f -service without having to enter the station or the
performance of any extra action in order to obtain the air
without charge;
23583
16. That no vehicle vacuum equipment or the outdoor
placement of propane cylinder storage units shall be
permitted on the site;
17. That the sale of ice shall be restricted to the inside of the
building;
18. 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;
19. That no part of the pump island canopy fascia, with the
exception ofslandard signage, shall be illuminated;
20. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the pump island
canopy, building or around the windows;
21. 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,
22. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of one year only from the date of approval by City
Council, and unless a building permit is obtained and
construction has commenced, this approval shall be null
and void al the expiration of said period.
Mr. Walsh:
I want to
be
sure that this
will leave the four curb
cuts
open.
Mr. Miller:
Yes.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 930" Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 930" Regular Meeting held on August 15, 2006.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, it was
23584
#09-103-2006 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 930r" Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on August 15, 2006, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
LaPine, Smiley, Morrow, Wilshaw, Walsh
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Shane
ABSTAIN:
McDermott
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a mo0on duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 932n0 Regular
Meeting held on September 19, 2006, was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman