HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2008-01-22MINUTES OF THE 956° REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, January 22, 2008, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 956" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. William LaPine, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members present: William LaPine Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow
Carol A. Smiley Ashley Varloogian Ian Wilshaw
Members absent: John Walsh
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were
also present.
Vice Chairman LaPine informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's
agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation
to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the
final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating pefition. 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 PETITION200741-0848 BOB EVANS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Pefition 2007-11-
08-18 submitted by Bob Evans Restaurant requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance
in connection with a proposal to demolish and reconstruct the
restaurant at 13911 Middlebell Road, located on the west side
of Middlebell Road between Schoolcraft Road and Bentley
Avenue in the Southeast % of Section 23.
January 22, 2008
24523
Mr. Miller: This pefifion involves a request to demolish and reconstruct the
Bob Evans Restaurant located on the west side of Middlebelt
Road between Schoolcraft Road and Bentley Avenue. The
subject property is zoned G2, General Business. Restaurants
require waiver use approval in a C-2 zoning district. The
existing Bob Evans Restaurant received waiver use approval
(CR #997-81) back on November 16, 1981. Once waiver use
approval has been granted for a piece of property, unless
otherwise specified, it runs with the land. The number of seats
approved for the current restaurant was 149. The new
proposed Bob Evans Restaurant would abide by this seating
restriction. With the seating count slaying the same and the
building transformation being only cosmetic, the proposed
renovations only require site plan approval. The subject
property measures 290 feet along Middlebelt Road by 178 feet
along SchoolcreR Road. Directly to the north is the Wine Palace
Party Store. To the west, fronting on SchoolcraR Road is a cell
phone outlet store. To the east, across Middlebelt Road, is an
Olive Garden Restaurant and a vacant building that was
formerly a Chi -Chi's Restaurant. The location of the new
proposed restaurant would be slightly north of the existing
restaurant, approximately 150 feel from SchoolcraR Road and
about 75 feel from Middlebelt Road. The new proposed building
would be 5,206 square feel in size, making it 304 square feet
larger than the existing restaurant. Additionally, a small cooler
unit, 286 square feet in size, would be added to the rear of the
building. As mentioned above, the new restaurant would have
the same number of customer seating (149 seats) as the
existing restaurant, but according to the new plans would only
employ 21 employees. The petitioner confirmed that this
location would not offer outside dining. The new parking layout
for the site only provides a total of 84 parking spaces, which is
14 spaces fewer than what is currently available. The proposed
parking spaces and aisleways of the new parking scheme would
conform to the Zoning Ordinance. Based on the seating and
number of employees, the new restaurant would require 98
parking spaces. The site plan shows 84, which makes it
deficient 14 spaces. Because of the deficient parking, a
variance would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Access to the site would not change with vehicles able to utilize
the existing driveways off Schoolcrafl Road and Middlebelt
Road. Landscaping for this site is required to be 15 percent of
the total site. The landscaping provided on the new plan is 18
percent. The main focal points of the landscaping would be the
areas near the two driveways, around the existing flagpole
fronting on Middlebelt Road and up near the building. Storm
water runoff for this development would be handled
underground. The landscape plan illustrates an underground
January 22, 2008
24524
stone water detention system beneath the parking lot pavement
between the building and the north property line. The new
building would be constructed out of brick on all four sides.
Accenting the building would be bands of soldier course and
herringbone brick patterns. Metal awnings would trim and
shield the top of the windows. The front entrance area would
have a standing seam metal overhang porch supported by brick
columns. The lop edge of the roofs parapet would be trimmed
with decorative cornice. Wall mounted light fixtures would cast
silhouette shadowing on the building.
Mr. LaPine: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated December 6, 2007, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objections to the proposal or legal description contained
therein.. The above address number of 13911 Middlebeft Road
has been verifred for this subject site. There appears to be no
problems with the points of ingress and egress. Relative to
compliance with City Ordinances and off-street parking, the site
is deficient 12 regular parking spaces. The plans also indicate
on-site underground storm water detention for a 10 -year storm
event that would be in compliance with Wayne County's Storm
Water Management Ordinance." The letter is signed by John P.
Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated December 11, 2007,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to demolish and rebuild
the restaurant on property located at the above -referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal with the
following stipulation: If subject building is to be provided with an
automatic sprinkler system, an on-site hydrant shall be located
between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department
connection." The letter is signed by Earl Fesler, Fire Inspector.
The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated December 7,
2007, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in
connection with Bob Evans Restaurant, located at 13911
Middlebeft. 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 January 4, 2008, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of November 28, 2007, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) The petitioner has shown a deficiency in the number
of required parking spaces due to the increase in seating
capacity. We agree with the calculations presented and an
January 22, 2008
24525
approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to
maintain the deficiency of 12 spaces. (2) The parking spaces
shall be double striped. The required minimum size of each
parking space shall be 10' wide by 20' deep. (3) Barrier free
parking spaces are required to be property sized, marked and
signed. (4) No signage has been reviewed. However, there is
an existing non -conforming pylon sign located at the East
entrance. Note # 18 on page C-1 states that a reader board is
proposed to be added. The Commission and/or Council may
wish to address the nonconforming pylon sign at this time. (5)
The condition of the pine trees located on the North side of the
property, denoted on the landscape plan as existing, should be
evaluated and replaced as necessary. (6) All landscaped areas
should be irrigated, and if already irrigated, tested to show
proper operation. (7) Landscape notes indicate that lawn areas
to be seeded. The Commission and/or Council may wish for
these areas to be sod. (8) Any rooftop equipment shall be
screened from view. (9) All features shall be barrier free
including bench's, cash counters and carry out counters. This
will be further addressed at our plan review. This Department
has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. La Pine:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Morrow:
Mark, you mentioned the pylon sign, and I notice in the
proposed signage, I don't see it there. Has that been taken
away or will that stay?
Mr. Taormina:
It is our understanding, and this should be vented with the
applicant, that the pylon sign as it exists today would remain.
Also relative to signage, I think this was put in your report, there
are two wall signs proposed. I believe what is allowed is a total
of 100 square feel, and that would be one sign equal to 67
square feet on the front of the building, and a second sign equal
to half the area or 33 square feet, located on the south side of
the building. They are proposing two signs of equal area, 45
square feet each. So total signage would be 90 square feel, but
one of those two signs is a little bit larger than what the
ordinance would permit. That too would require Zoning Board
of Appeals approval. Lastly, with respect to signage, they are
showing a LED light band along the cornice of the building.
That is something that would not be permitted and should be
addressed by the Commission as part of any approving
resolution this evening.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you.
January 22, 2008
24526
Ms. Vartoogian:
In your presentation, I believe you mentioned that the deficient
parking is the result of a larger footprint of the building; however,
in the letter from the Inspection Department, #1, it states that
the deficiency in parking is due to an increase in seating
capacity. Do you know which one is accurate?
Mr. Taormina:
I will have Scott verify this. I think it is because of the reduction
in the number of parking spaces, not the result of increase in
seating capacity.
Mr. Miller:
That is correct. They agreed to have the same number of seats.
I don't know where Inspection got that information.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
My question, Mark, was, are those parking spots 10 feet by 20
feel?
Mr. Miller:
Yes. They are all conforming.
Ms. Smiley:
Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Dan Havener,
Director of Engineering, Bob Evans Farms, Inc., 3776 S. Hgh
Street, Columbus, Ohio 43207. We stand before you tonight. I
think the gentlemen did an excellent job in terms of presenting
the project to you. We're here to answer any questions you
may have for clarification purposes that have been presented
here tonight. The other gentleman here tonight is Rick
McKinney, and he is a Senior Real Estate Manager within the
corporate offices also. He is in charge of this project from the
Real Estate Department.
Mr. La Pine:
Are there any questions from the commissioners?
Mr. Morrow:
First of all, I appreciate the fact that you're redoing your building
here in Livonia. That is much appreciated.
Mr. Havener:
We're looking forward to it.
Mr. Morrow:
Based on the information from prior business there, do you
foresee the fact that the deficiency in parking would ever be a
problem?
Mr. Havener:
Actually, no. Due to the efficiencies of the new building, what
our projections are for this type of building is typically 85, the
January 22, 2008
24527
parking space count that we shoot for. And so we have a
revised plan also I'd like to bring to your attention and I can
show you that this evening. But we have looked at the island
out front where the flag is and what we're proposing to do is
eliminate the island where the flag is. If we need to
accommodate landscaping that is within that island somewhere
else on the property, we can do that. We're able to pick up two
additional spaces by eliminating that island. Currently there's a
flagpole within that island. What we've determined operationally
is that management is not doing a real good job of maintaining
the flag and flying it with the proper lighting. Its been
determined at this point to remove the flagpole because of that
reason and put in the parking spaces, which helps us out with
parking counts.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. So then the deficiency will now be 10.
Mr. Havener:
Correct.
Mr. Morrow:
As part of hearing the report from Inspection, do you have any
problem with the sodding as opposed to the hydroseeding?
Mr. Havener:
No. We'd be more than happy to put sod down if that's what the
City would like us to do.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. And you also are in agreement with the light band that
was mentioned that is prohibited?
Mr. Havener:
Eliminating the LED?
Mr. Morrow:
Yes.
Mr. Havener:
Yes. That's something we typically put on all of our buildings.
We don't necessarily gel it on all of them, but that is a standard
detail that we put on. If we need to eliminate that at the City's
request, we can do that.
Mr. Morrow:
We certainly appreciate it.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Sir, the pylon sign that is existing there. Is that going to remain?
Mr. Havener:
Yes, what our plans were originally was to add a reader board
to that sign, but I think operationally we took a look at that and in
order to replace the face and go with an additional reader board
on the post below didn't make sense with what we already have
there today. So our
plans are to leave it as it is today and
basically making no adjustments
to it at this time.
January 22, 2008
24528
Mr. Wilshaw:
Would you be willing b entertain the notion of removing that
pylon sign and lowering it to a ground sign which is typical in our
city.
Mr. Havener:
Al this time, I could take that back to our Senior VPs and
propose that, but I'd say at this point that we would prefer to
leave the sign as it is today. I'm sure that would be their
position, but I will be more than happy to take that back to our
offices and propose that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Explain to me exactly what sort of signage you have on this site
in total. You have the pylon sign. I see two signs on the
building. Are there any other signs?
Mr. Havener:
No. That would be it. We have the south sign, the east sign on
the front, and then the pole sign along Middlebelt.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. I'd like you to consider shortening that pylon sign to what
would be closer to a conforming ground sign. Typically we allow
a 30 square fool sign, but certainly I'd like to see that occur.
Let's see what else we have here. The landscaping that you
have is curently a little bit above our requirement of 15 percent,
but you do have quite a bit of grass area along your property
both on Middlebell and on Schoolcratt. Would you be willing to
spruce that up a little bit, maybe have some low shrubs or flower
beds or anything along those lines as opposed tojust grass?
Mr. Havener:
We'd be more than happy to work with the City to come to terms
on an amiable design for this site, yes, especially with the
elimination of the island that we had out there. We realized that
we'd have to come up with an adjustment to accommodate that
landscaping, and with that, I'm sure we can work with the City
on coming up with a decent plan.
Mr. Wilshaw:
That makes sense. This is an important corner to our city,
Schoolcratt and Middlebell. There is redevelopment that is
taking place south of you in the former Wal-Marl properly in a
short period of time, and we appreciate your looking to
redevelop and upgrade the look of your building. So we want to
make sure that corner looks really nice. So I appreciate that.
That's all I have at the moment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Morrow:
The gentleman mentioned a change in the site plan. Has the
staff had the chance to review that change?
Mr. Taormina:
Are you referring to the elimination of the island? I know the
area that you're tallang about. We can point to it on the plan. If
you look right to the southeast of the building right off of
January 22, 2008
24529
Middlebelt Road, it's that area right there. I agree with Mr.
Wilshaw and with the applicant. The elimination of that small
area in favor of two parking spaces, as well as some addifional
street trees and plantings, really providing quality in exchange
for the quantity in terms of the total area of landscaping, I think
would be beneficial in this case. So we would look forward to
working with the applicant to provide some full size street trees
along Middlebell and SchoolcraR, as well as some planting
beds, and then just eliminate the area where the flagpole is and
put in a couple more parking spaces.
Mr. Morrow:
And lastly, should we change the dale of the site plan as part of
our resolution?
Mr. Taormina:
What we will do is, whatever changes are made this evening
and are reflected on a revised plan that will go to the Council,
we will modify the resolution to reflect the date ofthat plan.
Mr. Morrow:
A site plan revised with today's date?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, because I'm not sure we have anything more up-to-date
than this one dated in November. And that's why you don't
have something.
Mr. Havener:
I do have a full set of drawings here that shows the revision
made to the set of drawings. We'd be more than happy to leave
it with you this evening if that helps.
Mr. Taormina:
We will take a look at it and maybe we will just reference a new
dale.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay.
Mr. La Pine:
In the meanfime while theyre getting that together, Mark, can I
ask you a quesfion? They have 149 customer seats and they're
not changing that, but the parking is still 12 spaces deficient. Is
that corned?
Mr. Taormina:
Ten spaces with the change.
Mr. LaPine:
That's where my quesfion comes in. They had 149 seats, they
have 25 employees. Now they're dropping that to 21
employees. So it's one seal per employee. They lose four
more there. So in reality, they're going to be only 6 seats short.
Am I right or am I wrong?
Mr. Taormina:
Are you talking about parking spaces?
January 22, 2008
24530
Mr. LaPine:
Yes, parking spaces.
Mr. Taormina:
No. In Scott's parking space analysis, and you'll see this on
page 2 of his staff report, he does account for the reduction in
employees from 2510 21. He has factored that into the count.
He shows the deficiency at 14 spaces. I'm not sure if it goes
from 1410 12 or from 1210 10. So it actually goes from 14 to 12
in terms of the deficient parking with the additional two spaces
added this evening.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, we did account for the reduction in the number of
employees.
Mr. LaPine:
The other question I have, are they tearing down the old
building and building a new one because of business in that
area or because the building has outlived its usefulness and
throughout the country you're updating your stores?
Mr. Havener:
This has been one of our better locations company -wide. In
order to maintain this site and be there for another 20 - 25
years, we feel its best to go ahead and replace the
infrastructure, the piping which is deteriorating, and basically the
other utilities within the building and area. If we did not do that
and tried to maintain the existing building, basically we'd have
an existing shell there with all new piping underneath the
building. We feel that this is the better way to go for long term.
Mr. LaPine:
I don't want to discourage you. I'm glad you're doing R. I
noticed going down south to Florida a number of modem stores.
They really have been upgraded, really beautiful stores Thank
you. You can go ahead and present what you're showing us
here.
Mr. Havener:
This is the revised drawing. Again, the only change we made
from the previous drawing is the elimination of the island here in
the front, and we replaced it with two additional parking spaces.
Other than that, like I said, we'd be more than happy to leave
this set with you this evening. There really are no other
changes to note other than that one.
Mr. LaPine:
Two other questions I have. There is no drive-thru at this
location?
Mr. Havener:
No.
January 22, 2008
24531
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Does Bob Evans have any drive-thrus throughout the
country?
Mr. Havener:
No.
Mr. LaPine:
The second question I have is, 8 just slipped my mind so it
couldn't have been very important.
Mr. Morrow:
Does that site plan have a dale on it?
Mr. Havener:
It has a date of November 7. It doesn't have a revision dale
noted on it. If the staff would rather have us submit new
drawings with a revised date, we can do that.
Mr. Morrow:
Thalis whalwe would prefer.
Mr. LaPine:
My senior citizen mind came back. Is this a 24-hour operation?
Mr. Havener:
No.
Mr. LaPine:
It is not.
Mr. Havener:
No.
Mr. LaPine:
What are the normal hours?
Mr. Havener:
6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. at night.
Mr. LaPine:
On Saturday and Sunday are you open later?
Mr. Havener:
Friday and Saturday until 11:00 p.m.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you. Is there any other discussion by the
commission? 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 Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#01-01-2008
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-11-08-18
submitted by Bob Evans Restaurant requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to demolish and reconstruct the
restaurant at 13911 Middlebell Road, located on the west side
of Middlebell Road between SchoolcraR Road and Bentley
Avenue in the Southeast % of Section 23, be approved subject
to the following conditions:
January 22, 2008
24532
1. That the amended Site Plan marked C1 dated
as revised, prepared by Mosure L.L.C., is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the amended Landscape Plan marked Ll dated
as revised prepared by Mosure L.L.C., is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That a row of large deciduous trees and other shrubs as
selected from the Approved Tree Species/Suggested Plant
Materials list as identified in Table 1 of Section 18.45(d) of
the Zoning Ordinance, be planted along the Middlebelt
Road and Schoolcraft Road right-of-ways that abut the
subject properly, subject to the approval of the Planning
Department;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5. 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;
6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked 42.0
and A-2.1 both dated November 7, 2007 prepared by
Mosure L.L.C. are hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
7. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face
four (4") inch brick;
8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, mabrial and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
9. 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;
January 22, 2008
24533
10.
That the same brick used in the construction of the building
shall screen the pre -finished walk-in cooler unit on all three
(3)sides;
11.
That this site shall meet the Wayne County Storm Water
Management Ordinance and 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 State of Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality;
12.
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;
13.
That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals for deficient
parking and any conditions related thereto;
14.
That the two (2) proposed 45 square foot wall signs are
approved with this petition, subject to the review and
approval bythe Zoning Board of Appeals;
15.
That the Petitioner shall give consideration to the removal
of the existing non -conforming pylon sign, or in the
alternative, a reduction to its height and area so as to
reduce the degree of nonconformity, subject to the review
of the City Council at the time ofsite plan approval;
16.
That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
17.
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,
18.
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 this
approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said
period.
Mr. LaPine: Is there
any discussion?
January 22, 2008
24534
Mr. Wilshaw:
Just a question to Mr. Taormina. Condition #14 that refers to
conforming signage being approved, does that preclude or
exclude the ability of that pylon sign to remain or does that
grandfather it in?
Mr. Taormina:
No. I think you would need to be specific as far as your
intention with regards to the pylon sign. I would prefer
cladficafion by identifying that Condifion #14 refer only to wall
signage, and if there is any desire on the part of the Planning
Commission to deal with the pylon sign, that it be handled under
a separate conddion.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Based on that, I'm going to ask if the petitioner would be
willing to consider the removal of the pylon sign as a condition.
Mr. Morrow:
I think he indicated he is willing to lake it under consideration,
but I don't think we'll gel approval tonight. So I have no problem
with that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
Mr. La Pine:
Let me understand what you're saying, Mr. Morrow. You're
saying you're going to remove the condition that the pylon sign
has to be removed?
Mr. Morrow:
Ian, if I recall what you said, you would ask the petitioner to
consider removing that pylon sign.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Yes, I did. Although I think if we're going to give an approving
resolution to this to the City Council, it would behoove us to lel
them know our intentions if we think that the pylon sign should
stay or not.
Mr. Morrow:
That's the way I read it. In other words, it would be up to the
City Council to find out the response to that question.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. So you're leaving it to the City Council?
Mr. Morrow:
We would have to table it tonight because he said he would be
willing to consider it but he couldn't give an approval on it
tonight or a disapproval.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. So we can just leave it without mention of the pylon sign.
Mr. Morrow:
I'd leave it in there but under consideration so he can respond at
the Council level if they so choose. Is that all right?
Mr. Wilshaw:
That's fine by me.
January 22, 2008
24535
Mr. LaPine: Mark, can we add something to that motion that we approved
the pylon sign but the petitioner has indicated he would check
with his corporate headquarters people, and that we would
prefer that the pylon sign be removed and a ground sign be
installed in lieu of the pylon sign if the petitioner so tells the
Council their approval of the plan. Does that seem all right?
Ms. Smiley: How do you say that?
Mr. Taormina: I don't know. I'll have to fashion something to capture the intent
of what you're saying. I understand what you're saying and it's
not definitive obviously. You're saying in the event that it is
determined by the Council that the sign can remain, then sobeit.
Mr. La Pine: Right.
Mr. Morrow: Because, Mr. Chairman, I'm assuming for lack of a better term,
that sign is grandfathered in on a prior project.
Mr. Taormina: It is. I think what you're trying to determine here is whether that
would be a reasonable condition of approval - the removal of
that and replace it with a conforming sign. In a number of
instances, we have done that when it involves the complete
demolition and reconstruction of a site similar to this. I dont find
your request unreasonable, but I also recognize what you're
doing here. You're trying to compromise.
Mr. LaPine: I just want something in the motion to let the Council know that
we prefer that we get a small sign rather than the pylon sign.
Mr. Morrow: I think that was where he was coming from.
Mr. LaPine: I agree, but I just want to make sure the Council reads that and
realizes what our intention was. Okay. That's fine. If
everybody is happy, I'm happy.
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.
January 22, 2008
24536
ITEM #2 PETITION 200741-0849 WINE PALACE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
11-08-19 submitted by Elchen Gumma Limited, on behalf of The
Wine Palace, 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 13971 Middlebelt Road, on property located on the
west side of Middlebelt Road between SchoolcraR Road and
Bentley Avenue in the Southeast''/. of Section 23.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to remodel the exterior of
the commercial building located on the west side of Middlebelt
Road between SchoolcmR Road and Bentley Avenue. The
subject site is zoned C-1, Local Business. The existing building
is divided into two units and has a gross floor area of 7,541
square feel. This building is occupied by The Wine Palace party
store, which occupies 4,752 square feel and a computer store
known as Computerize, which occupies 2,789 square feet. The
primary focal change to the exterior would take place to the east
elevation of the building. The east elevation is the front facade
and faces Middlebelt Road. An extensive arched parapet porch
overhang would be created over the building's storefront. The
new facade would mask the entire front elevation and project
out from the building approximately five feel. Four brick columns
would support the overhang. Noted on the plans, the new
facade would be constructed out of a combination of synthetic
plaster system (E.I.F.S.) and thin brick. The petitioner has been
advised of the City's strong policy against thin brick. The
petitioner adamantly believes that he can convince the Planning
Commission and City Council that the thin brick of today is more
durable than the thin material of the past. Decorative crown
molding would outline the rounded lop edge of the canopy's
roofline. The new front facade would have a maximum height,
measured from the finished grade to the lop of the roofline, of
approximately 29 feet 7 inches. Elements of the new front
facade would also be continued around to the front section of
both the south and north elevations. The front 18 feel of both
sides of the building would have brick columns, E.I.F.S.
components, crown moldings and fabric awnings. The rest of
the south and north elevations and all of the west elevation
would be 'painted to match new thin brick veneer'. The plans
indicate that a number of floodlights would be installed on the
lop edge of the new front facade and along the roofline of the
rest of the building. By virtue of the G7 zoning, this building is
permitted one wall sign for each unit based on the lineal footage
of that unit's frontage. They would be allowed two wall signs,
January 22, 2008
24537
one for The Wine Palace not to exceed 40 square feel and one
for the computer store, not to exceed 23 square feet.
Mr. La Pine: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated December 14, 2007, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to with your request, the
Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced
petition. We have no objections to the proposal contain therein.
The above address numbers of 13971 and 13973 Middlebelt
Road have been verified for this subject site. There appears to
be no problems with points of ingress or egress or traffic flow."
The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer.
The second letter is from the Livoria Fire & Rescue Division,
dated December 4, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office
has reviewed the site plans submitted in connection with a
request to remodel the exterior of the 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 December 7, 2007, which reads as follows: "This
office has reviewed the plans in connection with line Palace
Exterior Remodel, located at 13971 MiddlebeH. 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
January 4, 2008, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of November 30, 2007, the above -referenced petition
has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The petitioner
shows a thin brick veneer to be used on columns and facade.
The Commission and/or Council may wish to clarify this
proposal. (2) No signage has been reviewed. However, the
existing non -conforming pylon sign would be allowed to be
refaced. The Commission and/or Council may wish to review
the pylon sign. (3) 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. All parking spaces
are to be double striped. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome
Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. La Pine: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for the staff?
Hearing none, is the petitioner here this evening?
January 22, 2008
24538
Edward Elchen,
Etchen Gumma Limited, 24300 Southfield Road, Suite 308,
Southfield, Michigan 48075. I'm the architect of record for this
project. My firm prepared the drawings you have in your packet
tonight that you've reviewed. I'd like to recall that on January 8
we did meet with the Planning Commission in it's study meeting,
and at that time our purpose in coming there was to try to help
the Planning Commission become more familiar and more
comfortable with the idea of using the thin brick material that we
were proposing for this project. Relative to that discussion, I
think we concluded the meeting with a request from the
Planning Commission that the Planning staff would review this
with the Building Department. I did talk with Mark Taormina
following that meeting after he had the opportunity to discuss
that with the building official. My understanding of what Mark
conveyed to me was that that gentleman was comfortable with
the idea of using thin brick material as a second story
application, but he would prefer to use the full brick at grade
level. Relative to that, we revised our drawings for this meeting
tonight and resubmitted them to Scott Miller a week or so ago.
They should be in your packet tonight. In that revision, we used
a full face four inch brick for all the columns and any of the brick
that would be at a grade level. So those columns would go up
to the second story, and at that point, we are proposing to use
the thin brick material. At that Iasi meeting, I had Mike Yeller
with me from Williams Panel Brick and he is here with me this
evening. He's brought a better model mockup of what this thin
brick material is and he has that with him tonight. I'd like you to
take a look at that to help you make your decision. Also, the
owner is here this evening for any questions that you might want
to address to him. Other than that, I'm available for your
questions.
Mr. LaPine:
Thank you. Let's have Mr. Williams show us the brick. It looks
like four -inch brick from here.
Michael Yetter, Ambrico, a Division of Williams Panel Brick, Inc., 12900 Richfield
Court, Livonia, Michigan 48150. That's why I set it that way.
Mr. LaPine:
Because it's so thick looking.
Mr. Yetter:
We're the manufacturer of this system, which is our easy wall
system.
Ms. Smiley:
He has to be over here on the steps.
Mr. LaPine:
Would you come over here please?
January 22, 2008
24539
Mr. Yeller:
Sure. This is our easy wall system. The system has been in
existence for approximately 20 years. What the elements are is
that it originally starts with sheeting that is attached to the
framing members. Then there is felt paper that goes on or any
type of vapor banner, Tyvek, what have you. The metal panel
system is attached to the framing members. The panel system
has a pull strength of approximately 350 pounds per square
inch. The brick is attached with an adhesive. The adhesive has
a tinsel strength of about 560 PSI, and then the brick is grouted.
What you end up with is, for all intents and purposes, a full
masonry look without the heavy weight. This system only
weighs about seven pounds per square fool. It's passed about
10 different ASTM tests, anything from water, adhesive testing,
impact testing. So it's something that's been tried and tme. It's
used in Ford Field, Comerica Park. It's all over the city. Are
there any other questions?
Mr. LaPine:
The question was asked at our study session. Have you used
this type of operation on any building in Livonia at this time?
Mr. Yeller:
This system has not been used in Livonia.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. This will be the first one.
Mr. Yeller:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Fine. Are there any questions from the commissioners?
Ms. Vartoogian:
Why is this the ideal choice for this building instead of the full
face four inch brick? Why do you want to use this product?
Mr. Yelter:
The architect is specifying this primarily because of the weight.
In order to carry that much weight over the top of the structure,
he'd have to redo his entire design and beef it up tremendously.
I think the number was somewhere around $50,000 in additional
costs to the owner in order to be able to carry out the same look
of full masonry.
Mr. Elchen:
To have the same look to accomplish the same thing.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Are there any other types of product that are similarly light in
weight but not thin brick?
Mr. Elchen:
Yes, there is. There is E.I.F.S. That's a dryvit material.
Ms. Smiley:
You have to go back to the microphone.
January 22, 2008
24540
Mr. Etchen:
I guess if I were picking between the two, I would pick the thin
brick material which will out perform and lasts longer than
E.I.F.S. Yet, the E.I.F.S. material was accepted widely in
Livonia and throughout the nation.
Ms. Varloogian:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
If I'm following you correctly, what you're saying is than you
could just as well put E.I.F.S. there in lieu of the brick and it
would be no problem.
Mr. Etchen:
You're going to have a better product with the thin brick that you
will with the E.I.F.S. I think Mike spoke to this the last time that
we were at the study meeting. He mentioned some facts where
they have web sites where people can go to with complaints
and such, and I'm going to lel him address that.
Mr. Yelter:
Well, not so much to bash E.I.F.S., but the E.I.F.S. warranty
system is normally 10 to 12 years. Our system is 20 years. If
you look at any E.I.F.S. site, in order to maintain warranties,
their maintenance schedule is just as rigorous, if not more so,
than what you need for a thin brick system. From a drainage
perspective, there is drainable E.I.F.S. of course and then there
is non -drainable. This system is designed, the ASTM 331 lest
where they run a four -inch rain over five hours at 62 miles an
hour. No moisture gets back behind the system. It's been used
in cold weather. So from a freeze/thaw perspective, the product
outperforms E.I.F.S. and gives you the look of masonry. An
E.I.F.S. town is great in Miami, but I don't know how nice it is
here in Livonia.
Mr. Morrow:
Where were those two buildings you mentioned in your
presentation that have just recently been constructed out of this
system?
Mr. Yelter:
There's several. Partridge Creek, which is the mall over in
Sterling Heights, the new one that just opened up on the
Taubman property. This system is on Comerica Park and all
the fronts of all the suits in Comerica Park. The Village of
Rochester Hills uses this system. We've completed projects
really all across the county. I ship this product all over the
country. I ship it to Japan. I ship it to England.
Mr. Morrow :
Well, it sounds like somebody feels it will work. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I'd like to just kind of review all the building materials here so I
understand exactly what we're getting. The top part of the
overhang is what we're talking about with this thin brick material.
January 22, 2008
24541
That's essenlially the elevated section here. All the lower floor,
the first floor, around the windows, the columns, would all be full
masonry?
Mr. Etchen:
The columns are new so theyre going to be a full brick masonry
material. The building itself that's back from this overhang is a
fluted block. What our idea here is to paint that block to match
the color of the brick. So the building itself is going to be
painted, and this overhang is going to be the new materials.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay, and then the same with the sides of the building are going
to be the fluted block?
Mr. Etchen:
Painted fluted block.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
Mr. Etchen:
There's also a screen wall in the back at the residential properly
line and there's a dumpster enclosure that's fluted block. Its a
natural color right now. All that is intended to be painted to
match the brick.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. So the extent of brick that I'm going to see on the
building is the top sign area is going to be the thin brick and
then the column areas are going to be full masonry, four inch
brick.
Mr. Etchen:
Correct. The impression that you're going to gel when you go
by it without stopping and studying it, you're going to get the
impression it's a brick building.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. That's the extent of my questions for now. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Are there any other questions? I have one. There is fluted
block on the building now. Is that right?
Mr. Etchen:
You're saying the existing building is fluted block. Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Now, is that fluted block painted at the present time?
Mr. Etchen:
I think its just a natural.
Mr. LaPine:
That's that I thought. That brings me to my next question.
When you paint that, how long will the paint last? Is that
something you will have to paint every two to three years or is
that something that will be as long as this thin brick is on there?
January 22, 2008
24542
Mr. Etchen:
You know, paint has a life to it, how long it's going to last before
it needs to be painted again. There's two ways to approach it.
You could use a stain. If this is a natural block right now, it
would take a stain, which wouldn't peel like you're talking about
with the paint.
Mr. LaPine:
That's what I'm worried about.
Mr. Etchen:
Yes. We could do that.
Mr. LaPine:
I've seen some of these buildings that have been painted. In a
few years, they start to peel and unless the owner of the
building gets out there, it looks not very nice. Let's put d that
way.
Mr. Elchen:
That's the important thing here. The owner is silting right over
here and he loves his building and he loves malting money in
that store and he likes presenting himself in the best light to the
public. So he is going to maintain that building and keep it
looking good all the time.
Mr. LaPine:
Because no doubt about it. I've been in his store. He runs a
good operation. I'm just curious. I want to know how @'s going
to look. Is there any other discussion?
Ms. Smiley:
I had a question about the pylon sign. What's our feeling about
that. Is that up or down?
Mr. Etchen:
Are you asking me, ma'am?
Ms. Smiley:
Yes.
Mr. Etchen:
We're going to leave the pylon sign.
Ms. Smiley:
You want to leave that? You wouldn't think about laking it
down?
Mr. Elchen:
We can't even think about it.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay.
Ms. Varloogian:
I just have one other question. This new arch feature,
overhang, that you're putting on the building. It seems to me
that would be an ideal place for a sign; however, in that drawing,
it appears you're going to have two separate signs and nothing
on that arch.
January 22, 2008
24543
Mr. Etchen:
Well, lel me speak to that. Actually, there is a sign right here
which you're not seeing. It's like red and the brick is kind of
reddish brown. So it's kind of disappearing, especially from
where you're at. The other thing is, we put these two signs here
because that's what is there right now. This was brought up at
your study meeting, and what I said was, this doesn't
necessarily represent the signage that he's going to put there.
Everybody recognizes that we big sign, like you pointed out,
would be the ideal thing to do here. I don't know how he can do
that, but he's going to work with his sign contractor to present
something to the city, and then that's going to be evaluated as
meeting the ordinance, and then they would move forward with
that.
Ms. Varloogian:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Taormina:
A couple of things. I agree with your suggestion about the stain.
I think the slain would be preferred over paint. I'm curious,
though. It sounds like you're going to try to match the colors.
My question is: how close of a stain can you gel to match the
brick? And also, will the full -face brick match the panel brick, or
is there going to be an obvious contrast between the two? I
know you've got this dividing band with the E.I.F.S. and that will
probably serve to separate any difference there might be in the
color.
Mr. Yetter:
The manufacturer, which is Glengarry, manufacturers full brick
and thin brick out of the same plant. So its indistinguishable.
You'd never know the difference.
Mr. Taormina:
Great. And then the second question is with respect to the
existing canopy as it wraps around the side of the building. It
would appear that is going to be completely removed from the
building.
Mr. Etchen:
Yes. The canopy is going to be removed.
Mr. Taormina:
So all thatgets pulled out?
Mr. Etchen:
The two existing canopies are going to be removed in their
entirely. And the round one is going to be rebuilt here.
Mr. Taormina:
Okay. On the flood lights, yodre going to be placing those
much higher on the building. This facade is going to be higher
than what exists today, so we have some concern relative to
how those lights are directed to the parking lot and not onto the
adjoining roadways. I just want to offer caution there. And then
lastly, while you may not be willing to think about removing the
January 22, 2008
24544
pylon sign, I would hope that you would consider adding some
trees along Middlebell Road as we're going to have that done
on the site to the south of you. You just heard the discussion
there. We're going to have trees added along the Lowe's
property. It would be nice to continue that theme of street trees
along Middlebell Road. Also, the dumpster in the back of the
building needs to be screened. Right now, I don't think there's a
gale on the enclosure. The dumpster has a containment area,
but it needs to be fixed up and there needs to be a set of doors
put there. Those are just my comments and suggestions, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. La Pine:
I'm glad you gave me those suggestions. Very good. Any other
discussion?
Ms. Smiley:
I feel very strongly about the landscaping in light of the fact that
we're not doing anything about the pylon sign.
Mr. Elchen:
When Mr. Taormina was bringing up the point about the trees,
the owner here in the audience was shaking his head yes. So I
think that means he's in agreement with you.
Ms. Smiley:
Thank you very much.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I know you dont want to think about this pylon sign, but that's
why I'm here, to think about it for you. I'd like to explore it a little
bit in a sense of, can you give me a clear and convincing
argument as to why that pylon sign needs to stay there when
other pylon signs in the city have been removed and these
businesses have not suffered as a result of that. The owner
sounds like he's going to answer that, which is great. Would
you please give us your name?
Kelly Denha: I am the owner. The pylon sign is, for us small business people,
@'s a big reason why people slop by my store. And the reason
I'm doing the facelift is that we have so much traffic on
Middlebell and a lot of people when they come in my store one
time, we have a 'Wow" factor. It's not a party store. I get a little
insulted by that. It's not a party store. We don't carry party
store items. We wantthe'Wow" factor to be on the outside also.
There's a lot of people who will slop by just because of this.
The pylon sign is a big help for my business. We don't have an
advertising budget that the big stores, the Meijer's and the
Coslcos, and I feel since I've been there over 25 years and its
been grandfathered in, I feel it's a big help to me. Now, if I was
building a big brand new store, I would abide by the ordinance,
of course, and put it lower down, but I would appreciate it if you
would let me keep the sign.
January 22, 2008
24545
Mr. Wilshaw:
That's an interesting argument. Thank you. You dont think that
a 30 square foot monument sign, just lowering that sign
essentially down to the ground, would not still allow people who
are driving to see that sign and see your store?
Mr. Denha:
You know, I take sometimes the freeway. If you stop at
Schoolcreft, I slop there and I look at my building all the time.
Most people don't. You see the sign and that helps me a
tremendous lot. And I notice a lot of people, especially at night,
notice it, and our store sometimes looks a little darker at night.
We don't slay open Tale. We close at 10:00 p.m. Most liquor
stores slay open a lot later than that. So we want as much
business as we can gel from 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. when it
gels dark. We think that helps us so we dont have to slay until
2: OO a.m. in the morning. We don't want to do that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Is that sign going to be upgraded as part of this process or is it
going to remain as it is?
Mr. Denha:
I was listening to what you were talking about Bob Evans. As
you're aware, we're right next door to Bob Evans. So it's going
to be really exciting because of the new Lowe's that's coming.
We're really excited about that. We dont want to see an empty
building. The Bob Evans will be brand new. Us, we consider
ourselves as going to be new. We're contemplating, and I will
talk to Ed, that maybe we can do something to make it a little bit
nicer. I wish I could mise it a couple inches because we've had
about five trucks hit the sign, and every time I've had their
insurance company lake care of it because we caught them in
time. But if we could maybe mise it two or three inches and
maybe put a new pole, I have no problem with that. But
lowering it, I have a problem. Please, I need that sign.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I've given my opinion. I'd like to see a truck lake your sign down
completely, no offense.
Mr. Denha:
Well, ifyou wantto payfor d, that's fine.
Ms. Smiley:
I want to thank you about the landscaping.
Mr. Denha:
Ohl That's no problem. I can't lel Bob Evans look better than
me.
Ms. Smiley:
Absolutely.
Mr. Denha:
We have to all look good together. Maybe we could do
something about that Chi Chi's across the street.
January 22, 2008
24546
Ms. Smiley:
I'm all for that.
Mr. Denha:
I'm talking to Mark about it.
Mr. Morrow:
Just a comment. We're always pleased to see business people
upgrade their sites periodically to keep the city looking fresh
and new, and you mentioned the other two things that are being
developed, so this is a nice step in that particular area.
Mr. Denha:
One thing I was listening, the E.I.F.S. question. A lot of my
friends that have stores have done very cheaply and done the
E.I.F.S. and it works. It looks nice. They gel the visibility but it
is really a cheap look. I could have done that. This is more
expensive. As a matter of fad, this panel brick cost, Ed, doesn't
8 costs more than the actual brick itself, but the weight is the
main reason we did that. So that's why we compromised to get
the columns, but it looks very nice. I look pictures of buildings
that I saw in Royal Oak and Birmingham, and I said, Ed, this is
what I want. Ed did exactly what I wanted. There was a
Bombay store on Woodward that we noticed that I loved. I
loved the look and this is exactly that look. That's what I
wanted. I wanted to set it apart from other stores.
Mr. Morrow:
That's what I got from this presentation, that you're using this
thin brick, as we call it, in lieu of cheaper E.I.F.S. material,
painted whatever color. Anyways, thank you very much.
Mr. La Pine:
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 Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#01-02-2008
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-11-08-19
submitted by Elchen Gumma Limited, on behalf of The Wine
Palace, 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
13971 Middlebell Road, on properly located on the west side of
Middlebelt Road between Schoolcratt Road and Bentley Avenue
in the Southeast % of Section 23, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet Al dated January 11,
2008, as revised, prepared by Etchen Gumma Limited, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
January 22, 2008
24547
2. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-3
dated January 11, 2008, as revised, prepared by Elchen
Gumma Limited, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to, provided that slain be used in lieu of paint to change the
color of the existing fluted block on the exterior of the
building, the dumpsler enclosure, and the screening wall
along the west property line;
3. That the brick used in the construction of the support
columns shall be full face four (4") inch brick;
4. That any pole -mounted light tklures shall not exceed a
height of twenty (20') feel, and all lighting, including the
proposed building -mounted fixtures, shall be aimed and
shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across
property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway;
5. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction Item #3 with respect to the
barrier free parking spaces as outlined in the
correspondence dated January 4, 2008;
6. That only conforming wall signage is approved with this
petition, and any additional signage shall be separately
submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of
Appeals;
7. That no LED Iightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
8. The Petitioner shall plant and maintain large deciduous
trees and other shrubs as selected from the Approved Tree
Species/Suggested Plant Materials list identified in Table 1
of Section 18.45(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, which trees
and shrubs shall be planted along the Middlebell Road
frontage abutting the subject property, subject to the
approval of the Planning Department;
9. That steel gates be installed on the existing dumpsler
enclosure;
10. 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,
January 22, 2008
24548
11. 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 this
approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said
period.
Mr. La Pine:
Is there any discussion?
Mrs. McDermott:
Don't we need to add something about the landscaping, and
then, also, Mark had mentioned preferring the stain over the
paint.
Mr. La Pine:
Is there any objection to that change, Ms. Smiley? Is there
anything else?
Mr. Morrow:
I'd like to get some clarification on the light fixtures. Do we have
lightfixtures in the parking lot as part of the site?
Mr. Miller:
I don't believe there are any in the parking lot.
Mr. Etchen:
Right now, there are light fixtures mounted on the building. We
are taking those same light fixtures and mounting them on top of
the new construction to aim down into the parking lot to
illuminate the parking area.
Mr. Morrow:
Is that higher than 20 feet?
Mr. Taormina:
If we could modify that condition to read that all building
mounted light fixtures be aimed and shielded so as to minimize
light trespassing, and then we can say any pre -standing light
poles shall exceed the height of 20 feet.
Mr. Morrow:
That was my concern. The light fixtures on the building, which I
share the same concern that Mark had. They are used for site
lighting and not to be trespassing anywhere else.
Ms. Smiley:
Mark, could you repeat that?
Mr. Taormina:
That all building mounted light fixtures be aimed and shielded so
as to minimize stray light trespassing property lines and glaring
onto the adjacent roadway.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay.
Mr. Taormina:
Then we can also add that any pole -mounted fixtures shall not
exceed a total height of 20 feel. That will give them the option,
if they determine its not appropriate or practical to put those
January 22, 2008
24549
lights back on the building, to go with pole mounted fixtures.
Then they will have that restriction on the height.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Then how do we word the landscaping. Do they have to
come back with a landscape plan?
Mr. Taormina:
No. I think we will work with the petitioner separately on that to
add trees and landscaping along the frontage.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Good. Then they won't have to come back.
Mr. La Pine:
Do you have any objection to what Mark said, Ian?
Mr. Wilshaw:
No.
Mr. La Pine:
Do you have any objection, Ms. Smiley?
Ms. Smiley:
No.
Mr. La Pine:
Is there any other discussion? I would just like to say one thing.
I'm going to approve this. I've never been a great admirer of
this thin brick. I've seen it on the Wonderland Shopping Center.
When they started tearing it down, it was all crumbly and
everything else. But the one thing in your favor is its going onto
a small area. It gives us an opportunity here in Livonia to watch
this and see how it operates. If anybody else comes in the
future, this may be a spot for us to look at and say, it's been
here for 10 years, 15 years and it's worked out fine. The one
thing I don't really like about it, it only has a 20 year life span
warranty. If it was real brick, there are places in Livonia that
have real brick and its been up there for 50, 75, 100 years.
Times change. Materials change. Ten years ago when
Williams Panel Brick came in and made their pitch, we weren't
loo enthused about it because it was on plastic board. But
times change and we have to change with the limes and
material change. Therefore, I hope it's successful, and I'm
looking forward to you having a successful business there.
Thank you. We will have a roll call vole.
Mr. La Pine, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
January 22, 2008
245W
ITEM #3 PETITION 200741-SN-08 TACO BELL SIGNAGE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
11SN-08 submitted by Taco Bell requesting signage approval
for the new restaurant at 33193 Eight Mile Road, located on the
south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and
Shadyside Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 3
Mr. Miller: On September 12, 2007, Taco Bell received waiver use
approval (CR #445-07) to construct and operate a full service
restaurant on properly located on the south side of Eight Mile
Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road. As part
of the approving resolution it was conditioned: That the
proposed signage shall be separately submitted for review and
approval to the Planning Commission and City Council. This
restaurant is part of the Eight Mile Place development. Eight
Mile Place is a developing retail complex, which would also
contain a Walgreens Pharmacy, a multi-tenant retail strip center
and a Tim Horton's Restaurant. The subject site is zoned G2,
General Business. By virtue of the C-2 zoning, this restaurant is
permitted one wall sign based on the lineal footage of the
building frontage and a low-profile ground sign. Taco Bell is
requesting approval for a conforming wall sign and a conforming
ground sign. The proposed wall sign would be located on the
north elevation over the restaurant's main entrance and would
face Eight Mile Road. The proposed monument type ground
sign would be located out front along the restaurant's Eight Mile
Road frontage. They are permitted one wall sign not to exceed
35 square feet; they are proposing a sign at 32 square feel on
the north elevation. They are also allowed one ground sign at
30 square feel and 6 feel in height; they are proposing a ground
sign at 30 square feel to be setback 10 feel from Eight Mile
Road. Both signs are conforming and both signs would be
internally illuminated.
Mr. LaPine: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated January 4, 2008, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of November 7, 2007, the above-
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
The menu board as presented on page SD of the plans is
shown with an area of approximately 44 square feet where only
30 square feet is permitted. Zoning Board of Appeals approval
would be required for excess square footage. This Department
has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
January 22, 2008
24551
Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. LaPine:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Jason Wallace,
Desine Inc., 2183 Pless Drive, Brighton, Michigan 48114. I'm
representing Taco Bell.
Mr. LaPine:
Do you have anything to add to Mr. Miller's presentation?
Mr. Wallace:
I think they've done an excellent job summarizing our request
here. As mentioned, we are requesting approval of the signs.
We do intend to make an application for a variance on the menu
board. Essentially, the menu board we've proposed is the
corporate standard for Taco Bell. It has been used in other
communities and is typically used. What they have done is
attempted to create a sign that incorporates all of the temporary
uses, temporary specials, and those sorts of things. Typically,
what they found, Taco Bell, as well as the other drive-lhru
competitors, they'll put extensions frequently on the menu board
to advertise a particular special they are running. What Taco
Bell has recently done has come out with this new corporate
menu board to accommodate all those things with a much
cleaner look than having appendages all over the sign. So we
will pursue that with the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. LaPine:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mrs. McDermott:
I'm just curious. Do we know what size the menu board is at ...
well, there's two other locations for Taco Bell. There's the
Merriman and Plymouth Road location. That would be the
newer building.
Mr. Wallace:
I dont have those for you this time, but we will gel those to the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mrs. McDermott:
Then I'm assuming at Middlebell and Five Mile, since that's an
older builder, it has a smaller menu board.
Mr. Wallace:
I'm not sure. We'll have to look at all that, and we will provide
all that.
Mr. Morrow:
Just a comment. It's not too often we have the opportunity to
see a petitioner bring in their signage at less square footage
than they're allowed. So we really have nothing to fight about.
Mr. LaPine:
No pylon sign here? Any other discussion? I don't see anyone
in the audience. A motion would be in order.
January 22, 2008
24552
On a motion by Varloogian, seconded by Wilshaw, and rnanimously adopted, 8
was
#01-03-2008 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007 -11 -SN -08
submitted by Taco Bell requesting signage approval for the new
restaurant at 33193 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side
of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside
Road in the Northwest I/ of Section 3, be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Taco Bell, as received
by the Planning Commission on November 7, 2007, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to, subject to
Zoning Board of Appeals approval for excess sign area as
it relates to the proposed 44 square fool menu board;
2. That the signage shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour ater 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; 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. La Pine: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Taormina: With respect to the menu board, we've heard this evening that
he intends to seek a variance. What does the Commission want
to do?
Mr. Wilshaw: I think we should strike that Item #4 if the petitioner is going to
go to the Zoning Board with a larger menu board.
Mr. Taormina: What we will do with Item #1, we will say, subject to approval of
the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess sign area for the menu
board as proposed.
Ms. Varloogian: Okay.
Mr. La Pine: Ashley, do you have any objection? Who seconded that?
Mr. Wilshaw: That's fine. I just want to make a quick comment that in my
quest to remove all pylon signs in the city, I haven't had a lot of
January 22, 2008
24553
luck here today, and I'm glad to see that Taco Bell is coming
forward with essentially a conforming sign package. As Mr.
Morrow mentioned, it's not often that we do see that, and it's
good to see and I think the slightly oversized menu board is
certainly acceptable considering the reduced signage that you
have on the property. Thank you.
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.
W1,743 l9 =k I Y Y[•]: 111141DY95 PZA, 1111!�J921=1:7A.1 1Aw,
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
12SN-09 submitted by Panera Bread requesting approval for
wall signage for the new restaurant at 20140 Haggerty Road,
located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile
Road and Eight Mile Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 6.
Mr. Miller: On February 14, 2007, Panera Bread received waiver use
approval (CR #52-07) to construct and operate a full service
restaurant on property located on the east side of Haggerty
Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road. As part
of the approving resolution it was conditioned: That no signs,
either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this
petition. All such signage shall be separately submitted for
review and approval to the Planning Commission and City
Council. This restaurant is part of the Chestnut Hills
development, which presently contains a Target store, a Costco
store and a medical facility known as the University of Michigan
Center for Specially Care. In addition, a T.G.I. Friday's was
recently granted waiver use approval (CR #51-07) to construct a
restaurant within this development on an adjoining site to the
south. The subject site is zoned G2, General Business. By
virtue of the C-2 zoning, this restaurant is permitted one wall
sign based on the lineal footage of the building frontage and a
low -profile ground sign. They are permitted one wall sign not to
exceed 85 square feel and one ground sign at 30 square feet.
Panera Bread is requesting approval for two wall signs at a total
of 88 square feel. One of the proposed signs would be located
on the west elevation over the restaurant's main entrance and
would face Haggerty Road and would be 37 square feel in sign
area. The second proposed wall sign would be positioned on
the east elevation of the building and would be visible from the 1-
275/96 Expressway. This sign would be 51 square feel in sign
area. Both signs would be internally illuminated. They are not
January 22, 2008
24554
proposing a ground sign at this time. Because the proposed
signage is in excess of what is allowed by the Sign Ordinance, a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required.
Mr. LaPine:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated January 2, 2008, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of December 13, 2007, the above-
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) This site would be allowed one wall sign at approximately 85
square feet on their main frontage. Any additional wall signs or
square footage would require a zoning grant from the Zoning
Board of Appeals. This Department has no further objections to
this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Director of
Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. LaPine:
Are there any questions for the staff? I just have one question.
I happen to be somewhere this evening where Frank Jonna
was, and he was teling me he would be coming in the next
couple weeks fora ground sign al this location. Is that correct?
Mr. Miller:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Would that be a combination for both the T.G.I. Fridays and
Panera?
Mr. Miller:
Yes, the ground sign that they are proposing have both
restaurants on it.
Mr. LaPine:
Would each building be allowed a ground sign?
Mr. Miller:
Yes, because they are separate properties.
Mr. LaPine:
But he isn't proposing to do that.
Mr. Miller:
No, he is proposing one ground sign for both.
Mr. LaPine:
Is there any other discussion? Is there anyone in the audience
that would like to speak?
Patrick Turek,
Panera Bread, 1600 S. Brentwood Blvd., #300, Saint Louis, MO
63144. I'm the development project manager with Panera. I
think there are just a few clarifications, and this may be our
mistake. We were under the impression that there was 87 lineal
feel on the front of the building, so that's why we were close to
the 87 square feel for total square footage. Our intent was to
essentially understand the spin( of what we're going for and split
January 22, 2008
24555
that difference between the two signs. Also, we recognize, and
this was kind of under a lot of discussion within our group, on
where we would want that second sign to go. What would be
considered the back of the building facing the highway or on the
side of the building and because of the T.G.I. Fridays, we found
it's pretty obvious. Just today I was looking at it from a bunch of
different angles. T.G.I. Fridays is clearly going to block that sign
as soon as we're up unless you're right up on the building.
Actually coming out of Target, you'll see the back of our building
and that's why we wanted to place that 50 square fool sign plus
or minus on the back side of that. So that kind of gives the logic
behind that. Again, also with the spirit of the thing, it's a lit sign
from like a light band rather than channel letters or anything,
again trying to keep the spirit of what we've seen throughout
Livonia.
Mr. LaPine:
Thank you. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Wilshaw:
I was going to ask about that. Typically, a lot of the signs we
see in the city are illuminated internally and yours is not. It's
illuminated by a florescent light overhead. Is there a particular
reason you went with that motif?
Mr. Turek:
That's actually a Panera standard. We've kind of grown into
that and, again, honesty, we think that it looks better, classier.
It gives a wall wash around the sign as well, and again, it's not
just one Panem Bread kind of shooting at you. It's kind of giving
you the store and the presentation, which is again important to
us on the outside as well as the inside.
Mr. Wilshaw:
So from the discussion you had at the beginning of your
presentaton, are you looking to change the size of the signs to
conform with the square footage allowance?
Mr. Turek:
I guess I'm willing to double check to make sure we are in
agreement on what the exact square footage should be.
Mr. Miller:
Basically what happened, when he came in, we discussed it and
he said he was going to do the 87 square feet, but when we got
the Inspecton letter, I took their measurements because I did
not have a site plan. I know it is his intenton to conform to the
square footage, so I didn't think it was that big of a deal, two to
three square feet. He could come down either way. He's going
to have to prove that the building is 87 feel or whatever he
thinks it is to the Inspection Department. Either way, they have
to go to the Zoning Board because of the second sign. At that
lime, he could clear it up with them.
January 22, 2008
24556
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. That sounds fair enough. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, a motion would
be in order.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#01-04-2008 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007 -12 -SN -09
submitted by Panera Bread requesting approval for wall signage
for the new restaurant at 20140 Haggerty Road, located on the
east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and
Eight Mile Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 6, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Panera Bread, as
received by the Planning Commission on December 12,
2007, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the signage 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 subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess
signage and any conditions related thereto; and,
5. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the sign permits are applied for.
Mr. LaPine: Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, a roll call
vote please.
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.
January 22, 2008
24557
ITEM#5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 955TM Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 955"' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held
on December 11, 2007.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#01-05-2008 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 955" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on
December 11, 2007, are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Wilshaw, Morrow, McDermott, Varloogian, Smiley
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Walsh
ABSTAIN:
None
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.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 956" Regular
Meeting held on January 22, 2008, was adjouned at 8:25 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
William LaPine, Vice Chairman