Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2007-08-28MINUTES OF THE 950° REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, August 28, 2007, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 950" 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 LaPine Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow Carol A. Smiley Ashley Varloogian Ian Wilshaw John Walsh Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were also present. Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM#1 PETITION2007-08-0843 GENESIS PARK CONDOS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2007-08- 08-13 submitted by Ronald W. Emling, on behalf of Genesis Park Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a condominium development at 39115 Plymouth Road, on properly located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Eckles Road in the Southwest % of Section 30. August 28, 2007 24306 Mr. Miller: This petition involves a request to develop a site condominium project on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Eckles Road. The subject site is irregular in shape and varies in width. It has a total gross land area of 4.01 acres with a width of 379.02 feet along the centerline of Plymouth Road and a total overall depth of 578.86 feet along the east properly lines as measured from the centerline of Plymouth Road. Adjoining the subject properly to the west is an acreage parcel, which contains an existing single- family residence. The next properly to the west fronting on Plymouth Road is the site of the O'Hara Office Building. Directly south of the O'Hara site are two parcels, each containing a residential home. Immediately east of the subject site are four consecutive parcels, ranging in size from 1.61 acres to 3.19 acres, each of which contains a residence. Further east are the Plymouth Woods Apartments. To the south of the subject property is the Middle Rouge Parkway. On the north side of Plymouth Road, across from the subject property, are industrial - type uses. The subject property is in the process of being rezoned (Petition 2007-02-01-01) from RUF, Rural Urban Farm, to R-1, One Family Residential. The Planning Commission, after holding a public hearing on April 24, 2007, recommended approving the requested rezoning. Following a public hearing, the City Council gave First Reading on the requested rezoning at its July 2, 2007, Regular Meeting. Second Reading and a Roll Call Vole are scheduled at the time the site plan is presented to the Council for action. Review of this petition is based on the assumption that the property will be rezoned to R- 1. According to the submitted documentation, the proposed development would be known as "Genesis Park Site Condominiums'. It would be made up of 12 condominium lots. All of the condominium lots would front on a proposed new 60 fool wide street. The new street, identified on the plan as Trinity Street, would extend approximately 380 feel south from Plymouth Road and would then turn towards the east and terminate at the eastern boundary of the subject site. The plan reflects the dedication of an additional 27 feet of right-of-way for Plymouth Road to provide a right-of-way width of 60 feet south of the centerline so as to be in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. An R-1 zoning district requires each lot to have a minimum land area of 7,200 square feet, a minimum lot width of 60 feet, and a minimum lot depth of 120 feet. All the proposed condominium lots of Genesis Park meet or exceed these lot size requirements. In accordance with the requirement that the width of lots platted with a side yard abutting a major thoroughfare shall be increased by at lead 30 August 28, 2007 24307 feel, the two proposed lots siding on Plymouth Road (Lots 1 and 12) would have 30 feet wide greenbelts, labeled "Private Parks', added along their street frontage. These areas would be bermed and adequately landscaped with a variety of plant materials. A development of this size is required to provide 8,640 square feet of open space for recreation. The two "Private Parks" along Plymouth Road provide a total of 8,951 square feet of common area. Also between Lot 8 and the site's east property line, the site plan shows an additional 8,081 square feel of common area labeled "Private Park". This open area would contain the site's underground storm water detention system. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence for the record? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated August 8, 2007, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time. The additional 27 feet of right-of-way for Plymouth Road shall be dedicated to Wayne County. The approach to Plymouth will require the approval of Wayne County. The storm and sanitary outlets will also require the approval of Wayne County for occupation of Hines Drive. The detention facilities will require the approval of the City of Livonia and may require Wayne County approval. An address of 39115 Plymouth Road for the overall condominium is correct" The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated August 7, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a site condominium development on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) This Division requests that the entrance drive be posted (on both sides) 'Fire Lane — No Parking'. Additionally, post both sides of Trinity Street 'Fire Lane — No Parking' in front of Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9. (2) An approved turnaround for fire apparatus shall be provided where access is deadrended and is in excess of 150 feet in length. The turnaround shall have a minimum turning radius of 53 feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6 inches. The authority having jurisdiction shall approve the grade, surface, and location of the fire lane. (3) T or Y turnaround arrangements shall be permitted. Existing Y turnaroundis not acceptable. Provide turnaround for afire truck with a 38 foot length and a 53 foot wall-to-wall turning radius. (4) Please provide this Division with a set of revised site plans for review." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire August 28, 2007 24308 Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated August 20, 2007, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with Genesis Park Condominiums located on Plymouth Road east of Eckles. 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 August 16, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August 2, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Our review was based on the approval of the property being rezoned from RUF to R-1. We have no objections to this petition as presented at this time." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Mrs. Smiley? Ms. Smiley: Did they meetthe request of the Fire Department about the T or Y? Mr. Miller: Nolsofar. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Bill Donnan, Arpee/Donnan, Inc., 36937 SchoolcraR, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I'm representing Mr. Emling, who is also here with me tonight. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation? Mr. Donnan: The only thing I'd like to add is we were in receipt of the letter from the Fire Chief, and that turnaround at the end, it wasn't labeled on the plan, but that's a temporary turnaround. Mr. Emling has options, or presented options, or purchase agreements to the adjoining properly owners. That road will be extended sometime in the future. I don't know when, but it will. We intend to safisfy the Fire Marshal's recommendation on our next submittal. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Are there any questions? Mr. La Pine: Just one question. I don't quite understand you. Are you saying you will put in the T turnaround now or are you going to wail until such time as you develop the properly which will be to the west or to the east? August 28, 2007 24309 Mr. Donnan: No. Our intention is to meet with the Fire Marshall and talk to him about his requirements, and we will satisfy his requirements. Mr. LaPine: Okay. So if he says he needs it now, because we don't know when you may develop the other parcels. Mr. Donnan: Absolutely. Mr. LaPine: Okay, that's fine. I do have one other question. Is your client going to be the developer of this property? Is he going to build the homes or is he going to put in the infrastructures and sell off the property to a builderlo build the homes? Mr. Donnan: I think I'll lel him answer that question. Ronald W. Emling, 39115 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Good evening. To answer your question, the project is a personal project. It isn't going to be subbed out in any way, shape or form, God willing, of course, and my finances don't fall through and everything keeps going the way I plan. The houses are for a private or personal sub. It's open to the public, of course, the sale of the homes and everything, but no, its not going to be subbed out to a realtor or anything like that. I am going to try to fund and complete the project myself. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Are you in the building business? Have you built homes before? Mr. Emling: I've done re -mods and I've built one home here in Livonia off of Deering Street and Five Mile Road. The work will be subbed out with local contractors, like the engineer himself. We're working with his people and some people I know in the building trades. Mr. Walsh: Anything else? Ms. Varloogian: Mr. Chair, I do have a question for staff. If they do follow these guidelines submitted by the Fire Chief, if that going to impinge on the lot sizes in anyway? Mr. Taormina: It shouldn't. If you look at the plan that's on the overhead, where it shows the 'T" turnaround, the extended approach to the south, is actually within a park or common area. I suspect that what will have to happen to gain final approval is that the approach will have to be widened, but there should be sufficient land area within that common area in order accommodate that without, as you indicated, impinging on any of the lots. August 28, 2007 24310 Ms. Varloogian: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one come forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was #08-101-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-08-08-13 submitted by Ronald W. Emling, on behalf of Genesis Park Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a condominium development at 39115 Plymouth Road, on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Eckles Road in the Southwest'''/ of Section 30, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Master Deed and bylaws complies with the requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title 16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance, and Article XX, Section 20.01-20.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That streetlights and sidewalks shall be installed throughout the development to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department; 3. In the event of a conflict between the provisions set forth in the Master Deed and bylaws and the requirements set forth in the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance requirements shall prevail and petitioner shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements; 4. That the petitioner shall include language in the Master Deed and bylaws or a separate recordable instrument wherein the condominium association shall reimburse the City of Livonia for any maintenance or repair costs incurred for the storm water detention/retention and outlet facilities, and giving the City of Livonia the right to impose liens on each lot owners properly proreta and place said charges on their real estate lax bills in the event said charges are not paid by the condominium association (or each lot owner) within thirty (30) days of billing for the City of Livonia; August 28, 2007 24311 5. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated July 18, 2007 prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 2 dated July 18, 2007 prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 7. That only a conforming entrance marker is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 8. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water management permits from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan; 9. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated August 7, 2007: 10. That the Site Plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; 11. That all required cash deposits, certified checks, irrevocable bank letters of credit and/or surely bonds which shall be established by the City Engineer pursuant to Article XVIII of Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 of the ordinance, shall be deposited with the City prior to the issuance of engineering permits for this site condominium development; and, 12. 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 this approval shall be null and void d the expiration of said period. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. August 28, 2007 24312 ITEM #2 PETITION 2007-08-0844 LIVONIA PLAZA Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 08-08-14 submitted by Rocky Zeban, on behalf of Livonia Plaza, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the commercial building located at 19618 Middlebelt Road, on properly located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Sl. Marlin Avenue and Bretton Road in the Southwest %of Section 1. Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to renovate he exterior of the Livonia Plaza strip center located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between St. Martin Avenue and Bretton Road. One of the tenants of this center is the Country Style Market. The subject site is split zoned. The westerly 180 feet is zoned C-2, General Business, and the remaining easterly 45 feet is zoned OS, Office Services. The existing 7,700 square fool building is situated within the C-2 district. The main change to the exterior would take place primarily on the west elevation of the building. This side is the front elevation of the building and faces Middlebelt Road. A new taller brick feature would extend 6 feel out off the existing building, creating a structural canopy over the entrances. Decorative brick columns would support the proposed overhang. The new facade would have soldier coarse archways, herringbone brick pattern inserts and decorative light fixtures. A standing metal seam roof would sit on lop of the covered entrance. The maximum height of the new storefront extension, measured from the finished grade to the lop of the standing seam roof, would be 24 feet 6 inches. The height of the existing building, which has a flat style roof, is approximately 14 feel. The maximum height allowed for buildings in a C-2 district is 35 feel. The extended storefront would wrap around and continue approximately 15 feet along the south elevation of the building. The remaining elevations of the existing building would remain as is. The site plan shows a new fenced in patio area near the northwest comer of the building within the existing parking lot. This patio area measures 14 feel wide by 20 feel in depth and would be enclosed by a 36 inch wrought iron fence. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated August 16, 2007, which reads as follows: 7n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time since it is a remodel August 28, 2007 24313 only. No additional rightof--way is required. The address of the site is 19618 Middlebelt." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated August 22, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to remodel the exterior of the commercial building on property 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 August 24, 2007, which reads as follows: 'We have reviewed the plans in connection with Livonia Plaza Exterior remodel, located at 19618 Middlebelt. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated August 14, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August 13, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Two barrier free parking spaces are required with at least one of the accessible parking spaces required to be designated as van accessible. All barrier free spaces must be property located, sized, signed and striped. (2) The existing wooden dock at the rear of the building appears to be in need of repair or replacement. (3) A building violation for fire damage to structure has not been complied with. (4) The existing parking lot shall be repaired, sealed and re -striped as necessary. (5) The weeds growing up in the parking lot at the rear of the building shall be removed and controlled. (6) No signage has been reviewed at this time. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Sr. Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Rocky Zebari, 37731 Stableview, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48335. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation? Mr. Zeban: No. I have no problem correcting all these violations mentioned by the Inspection Department, except one thing. When I purchased this property back in 1999, they requested one handicap parking space. I just want to know why now they want two. That lakes away ... I mean we did fine with one. Mr. Walsh: Mark, do you know if there have been any changes in the law since that time? August 28, 2007 24314 Mr. Taormina: I don't believe that is the case. That is something we would have to check with the Inspection Department as to why that number is different today as opposed to a couple years ago. I don't believe there's been any change to the law. Mr. Walsh: What we can do is, should this move forward to the Council, between now and that hearing, we can certainly look into that and find out what the requirement is. Mr. Zeban Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for Mr. Zebari? Mr. LaPine: There's a unit at the end, which you dont own. Right? Mr. Zeban: Which unit? Mr. LaPine: At the end. You have your building ... Mr. Zeban: Its all mine except for Value Carpel. Mr. LaPine: Value Carpel you don't own. Is that correct? Mr. Zeban: Value Carpel, no, I don't own Mr. LaPine: Okay. Now, have you been in any contact with the owner of that parcel where he could renovate the front of his building to correspond with yours so we have one facade that looks all the same. Your building being nice the way you claim it's going to be, then have this parcel that looks like it's incomplete, something happened. Have you been in any contact with him and try to get him to come in with you to do his parcel at the same time? Mr. Zebari: Yes. As a matter of fact, I spoke to him last week. I mel him at the Canton Markel. He wants to see my drawing, and I told him I would provide him with a copy of that, the front elevation, if he wants to do it. He just painted his front. Mr. LaPine: I don't know what he's done. Mr. Zeban: I wish he would do the same. I even approached him if he wants to sell his property. He doesn't want to sell. Mr. LaPine: I think it would be a great improvement of the whole parcel .... Mr. Zeban: I agree. August 28, 2007 24315 Mr. LaPine: Ifthatwould all be done atthe same time. Mr. Zeban: I agree. Mr. LaPine: What is this violation that they claim that there's something that the Inspection Department says you have to fix after the fire and R hasn't been taken care of yet? Can you explain to me what that is? Mr. Zeban We had afire. Mr. LaPine: I understand that. I thought it said in here that the letter from the Inspection Department, Item 3, "A building violation for fire damage to structure has not been complied with" What does that mean, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: I think what it means is that he cannot conduct any repairs within that structure without first going to the Inspection Department and obtaining the necessary permits. Certainly he can't remodel the exterior of the building as he has shown here without going to the Planning Commission and City Council. It's really advising Mr. Zeban that he needs to go through this process in order to proceed with the renovation work on the building. Mr. LaPine: So if he does any renovation to that building on the inside, he has to get a building permit? Mr. Taormina: Al first, shortly after the fire, all he really had to do was secure the building. Now, before he can do any kind of remodeling, he has to gel all the necessary permits. Mr. LaPine: My next question is, what is your schedule? Assuming you gel all your approvals from us and the City Council, when do you expect to start the renovation? How long do you think its going to take you to do it? Mr. Zeban We'll start immediately. I don't think it's going to take that long. Its up to the contractor, but I know I will start immediately. The day that I get approval from the City Council, maybe within a week, we would start. Mr. La Pine: Do you have any tenants lined up for the operation? Mr. Zeban: No. I have it listed but I don't any have tenants right now. August 28, 2007 24316 Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Zeban, the roof is a standing seam metal roof. How is the back of that roof going to be treated in the finished product? The plans don't indicate what the back is going to look like. Mr. Zeban: The back? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. To someone who is driving down the side street looking at the back of that building, how ... Mr. Zeban: They can't see the back. If they drive from the side, we are covering the south side of the building. I don't know how many feet he is going, but somebody driving from the back of the building, its impossible to see. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. So its just going to be finished with plain metal or how is 8 going to be finished? Mr. Zeban: I really dont know. Maybe a tar or something that prevents the water from coming in. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. That's it for now. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: The site plan shows a new fence and a patio area. What is the patio area going to be used for? Mr. Zeban: The patio is going to be in front of the last unit, just decorative. I have no plans. Mr. LaPine: You don't have any plans for a restaurant to go in there and use that? Mr. Zeban: No. There is no brunt in mind, but I'm sure they would seek approval if there is any restaurants if they want to use it. But right now, to me it looks good. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions? All right, thank you Mr. Zeban. I appreciate you coming tonight. I don't think we have anybody in the audience on the item. So we will proceed then to a motion if anybody wishes to make one. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Varloogian, and unanimously adopted, 8 was #08-102-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-08-08-14 submitted by Rocky Zeban, on behalf of Livonia Plaza, August 28, 2007 24317 requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the commercial building located at 19618 Middlebelt Road, on property located on the east side of Middlebell Road between Sl. Martin Avenue and Bretton Road in the Southwest I/ of Section 1, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SPA dated August 13, 2007 prepared by DAZ Architectural Design, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That a fully detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission and City Council within 60 days following approval of this petition by the City Council; 3. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 3 dated August 13, 2007 prepared by DAZ Architectural Design, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face four (4") inch brick; 5. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 6. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be of steel construction and maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 7. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary perils, including storm water management perils, wetlands permits and soil erosion and sedimentation control permits, from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the Slate of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; 8. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (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; August 28, 2007 24318 That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated August24, 2007; 10. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 11. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 12. 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, 13. 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 peril is obtained this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. YV�rSEtS�9�YYVP]�FkSrilrkA9�QrS�S�]Y-3��A'69_1:IUhrl [�i7 Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 08Sh406 submitted by Signfabricalors, on behalf of Potbelly Sandwich Works, requesting approval for wall signage for the new restaurant in the Wonderland Village Center, on property located on the southwest corner of Plymouth Road and Middlebell Road in the Northeast % of Section 35. Mr. Miller: On July 2, 2007, Potbelly Sandwich Works received waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant in the Wondedand Village Center. As part of the approving resolution, it was conditioned: That no wall signage is approved with this petition. All such signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. This restaurant would be occupying one of the units of Building "J", which is one of the buildings that make up the Village Shops. Wonderland Village is considered a Regional Shopping Center. August 28, 2007 24319 A Regional Center is a planned complex of buildings containing a total gross leaseable area of 500,000 square feel or more and sharing a common parking area. Wonderland Village is comprised of the Village Shops (retail Buildings "C", "D", "E", "J", "G" and "F"), a Target store, a Wal-Mart Supercenter store, and an anticipated large -format retail building, all of which equals over 500,000 square feet in retail space. Retail "J" will be located in front of the Wal-Mart store and just west of a water feature and retention pond that will be situated near the Plymouth Road right -0f -way. Retail "J" will face towards Plymouth Road at a setback of approximately 86 feel from the right-of-way line. Wall signage for each building in a Regional Center is based on the length of the building's front elevation. The length of the storefront determines the amount of square footage in sign area that the building is allowed as long as it is not over 500 square feet. There is no limit on the number of signs or any specifications as to where the signs have to be located on the building. The total building frontage of Building "J" is 151 feel across. Therefore, the entire building would be allowed a maximum of 151 square feet of wall signage. The unit that Potbelly would be occupying measures 34 feel across its frontage. Building "J", according to the floor plan submitted during site plan approval, could accommodate up to four tenants. The total of all wall signs for Building "J" is not to exceed 151 square feet in sign area. The are proposing two wall signs at a total of 68 square feet in sign area. One would be on the north elevation, which faces Plymouth Road, and it would read "Potbelly Sandwich Works". It would be 34 square feet in sign area; and then one on the east elevation, which faces toward Middlebelt, and that would be the same size. Since this is the first request for signage for Building "J" and the proposed wall signage does not exceed the allowable sign area for the building, a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would not be required. The rest of the tenants of Building "J" would be limited to a total of 83 square feet of sign area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one items of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated August 20, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August 16, 2007, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) It appears this applicant is proposing approximately 67 square feet of wall signage in two signs. The number of wall signs (as part of a regional shopping center) is not the issue but the square footage is. This building is allowed a total of 151 square feet for all tenants. On an equal basis, this applicant would be allotted 34 square feet The extra 33 square feet they August 28, 2007 24320 are proposing will be subtracted from the other tenants unless a zoning grant from The Zoning Board of Appeals is obtained for excess wall signage square footage. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Director of Inspection. That is the extert of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Mr. LaPine: I don't think it means anything, but on the south elevation, there is a small sign that says "Potbelly". Is that just for the entrance? Mr. Taormina: Yes. That would not count against their signage. Mr. La Pine Because we're still going to have a sign in the back of the building. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Diane Hunts, 300 Oxford Court, Belleville, Michigan. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add? Ms. Hunts: No. We are really applying for the sign on the Plymouth side and would like to apply for a variance for the side of the building at a later date. Mr. Walsh: So you only want approval for the front and not the side? Could you repeal your request? Ms. Hunts: I understand that we have to apply for a variance. We do not? Mr. Walsh: No. The comment that was made was that if we grant this tonight, future tenants in your building are going to be lett short. It's not your building, the landlord's building. It will be lett short and they will have to apply for a variance eventually assuming each tenant asks for something similar. Ms. Hunts: I see. Mr. Walsh: Because you are the first, you can ask for approval. Ms. Hunts: Well, I'm happy about that. Mr. Walsh: Yes, Mr. Taormina? August 28, 2007 24321 Mr. Taormina: I guess that would be good news. However, I believe the landlord in this case is going to restrict them to conforming signage only unless a variance is granted. And when I say conforming signage, I mean a proportionate amount based on their frontage. Similar to what is done at group commercial centers, they want to distribute the signage on a one -far -one basis, and anything beyond that would only be permitted so long as the necessary variances have been granted. Ithink what we'll do this evening is permit both signs, but that would be subject to the landlord's approval and a determination that this would allow for adequate signage for the remaining tenants. Mr. Walsh: Are you with the sign company or with Potbelly? Ms. Hunts: I am with Potbelly. Mr. Walsh: What Mr. Taormina is saying, and make sure I'm correct, we can approve this item as requested, if we agree, but the landlord may restrict you to the roughly 30 feet, unless you gel a variance, and you'd have to come back and gel that. So that would be between you and the landlord. Ms. Hunts: Okay. Mr. Morrow: Who would have to seek the variance- Potbelly or the landlord? Mr. Taormina: The landlord in this case. That was what was done in the case of the Chili's sign. Mr. Morrow: So it will be between the landlord and Potbelly. Ms. Hunts: Okay. Ms. Smiley: Mark, have we heard from the landlord? Are they okay with this? Mr. Taormina: Yes. I dont believe they have any objection to the sign package as submitted. However, they probably have the right to reject the second sign in the event that they are unable to secure the variance. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Great. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: So it's a little confusing because your landlord has his own stipulation going to protect the other tenants, but we are capable, if we agree, to approve what you've requested. August 28, 2007 24322 Mr. La Pine: Mark, just to get it clear in my mind, how many more units are left that can get additional signage? Mr. Taormina: There is space for three additional tenants. Mr. La Pine: Now let's assume the three come in and they don't agree with the owner of the property and they go to the ZBA. Then the ZBA allows them more signage than is allowed; each of them gel more signage. Could we end up with more signage than is allowed on this whole building? Mr. Taormina: Sure. That's still a possibility. Mr. La Pine: Is there any way we can gel something from the developer, Schostak Brothers, to give us a letter that they will not allow those other tenants any more signage except what is left from what's not been used by Potbelly's? I don't want to end up here now with - only the ZBA may come along and give them 15 - 20 feet more, 10 feel more on each sign and we end up with more signage than we really wanted on one building, which I don't want to happen. I thought we had an understanding with Bill Cole that wouldn't happen and he would assure us that we would not have more signage than would be allowed if one tenant was in this whole building. Mr. Taormina: I don't know if he would be willing to restrict his rights into the future in terms of signage. I think that's going to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis depending on the tenants he leases space to. Mr. LaPine: The problem I have at this point then, if I was a guy that was going to rent this building, and I see what Potbelly has, I would say, well, why are you restricting me to so much. I want a larger sign. So he goes to the ZBA and the ZBA gives him a larger sign. Then the next guy comes in and he wants the same thing as the other guy. Then we're going to end up with five large signs instead of what we're hoping to keep it down. That's the only argument I have. I just don't want that to happen if it's humanly possible to restrict that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Morrow: Just a question to you, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that we can't restrict them from going to the Zoning Board of Appeals. We really don't have any control over that. I know Bill's intent, but I'm not sure we can condition it such that we can preclude them from making an appeal. Mr. Walsh: That would be my understanding. August 28, 2007 24323 Mr. LaPine: Maybe I misunderstood what Mark was saying. I thought he said that the owner of the building would have to make the appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals, not the individual renter of that unit. Is that correct? Mr. Taormina: I believe that is the arrangement that he is going to have with his tenants. That's correct. Mr. LaPine: We're only dealing with one person, not three different individuals. It's the owner of the properly that would have to make the appeals with the ZBA. So I think we have a hammer here where we can say, look we want to make sure we dont gel any more signage that would increase the overall signage of the whole building. That's the only problem I have. Otherwise, I have no problem with Potbelly. I just want to make sure the other three units that come in don't all of a sudden get larger signs than they're entitled to. Mr. Morrow: Well, I think we would review those signs at each submittal. If they come in with excess signage, we'll adjust it at that time. Mr. LaPine: Well, if that's the way it comes in, if 8 comes back to us ... Mr. Morrow: Is that the way it would work? Mr. Walsh: Absolutely. We have to see every additional sign. Mr. LaPine: As long as we see each sign, and we make a determination at that time, I have no problem. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional comments? Thank you, ma'am, for coming in. Ms. Hunts: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: I'm sorry for the confusion. If there is no additional commentary, a motion would be in order. On a motion by McDermott, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, 8 was #08-103-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-08-SN-06 submitted by Signfabricalors, on behalf of Potbelly Sandwich Works, requesting approval for wall signage for the new restaurant in the Wonderland Village Center, on property located on the southwest corner of Plymouth Road and August 28, 2007 24324 Middlebelt Road in the Northeast % of Section 35, be approved subject to the following condifions: 1. That the Sign Package submitted by Signfabricators, as received by the Planning Commission on August 16, 2007, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That these wall signs shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this business closes; 3. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 4. That this approval is based on the understanding that the other tenants of this building shall be limited to a combined total of 83 square feel of wall sign area unless variances are granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 5. 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, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM#4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 948'" Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 948"' Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on July 24, 2007. On a motion by La Pine, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, ilwas #08-104-2007 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 948" Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on July 24, 2007, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Smiley, McDermott, Morrow, Wilshaw, Varloogian, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None August 28, 2007 24325 Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 950" Regular Meeting held on Augusl28, 2007, was adjourned at 8:13 p.m. CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: John Walsh, Chairman