Reference Desk

 

Planning Commission Minutes - May 26, 2009

THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CHESTERFIELD

PLANNING COMMISSION (REVISED)

MAY 26, 2009

A Regular meeting of the Charter Township of Chesterfield Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. at the Township Hall Located at 47275 Sugarbush, Chesterfield, MI 48047.

1. CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Priest called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL:

Present: Jim Priest Excused: Robert Kohler

Paula Frame Jim Moran

Joe Stabile

George Deeby

Ray Saelens

Paul Miller

Cheryl Printz

Others: Patrick Meagher, Township Planner

3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:

Ms. Frame indicated that there is a correction on the Agenda to Review Item A, Proposed Bayside Plaza Pawnshop Site Plan #2009-03, which is to set a Public Hearing for June 23, 2009.

Motion by Mr. Miller, supported by Mr. Deeby to approve the agenda as corrected.

All Ayes Motion Carried

4. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT: (Committee will report items under Reviews)

5. PUBLIC HEARING:

A. GIUSEPPE D’ANNA PROPOSED REZONING – PETITION #333: Michael Furnari, 2685 Lapeer Road, Suite #100, Auburn Hills, MI. 48326. Requesting to rezone property located at 28050 Cotton Road, on south side of Cotton, between I-94 & Donner Road from R-1-B, (Single Family Residential) to RM-3, (Multiple Family Residential). Public Hearing set on 4-28-09.

Mr. Priest noted that the applicant was not present.

Motion by Mr. Priest, supported by Mr. Saelens to open the Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition #333 at 7:28 p.m.

All Ayes Motion Carried

During the Public Hearing the following individuals addressed the commission to express concerns, provide information or to oppose the rezoning: Al Amersdorfer, John Hotia Jr., Linda Kloss, Mark Castigleone, Mary Sillanpah, Gus Silvio, Mark Morris and Carl Wilczynski.

Ms. Printz exited the room at 7:35 p.m. She reentered at 7:36 p.m.

Ms. Frame read a letter from the Brycewood Homeowners Association requesting denial of this rezoning. The letter was signed by Scott (Hement?), President of the association. Ms. Frame also noted a petition that was submitted with approximately 62 signatures requesting denial. She noted that the zoning classification was not correct on the petition.

Motion by Mr. Priest, supported by Ms. Frame to close the Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition #333 at 7:44 p.m.

All Ayes Motion Carried

Motion by Mr. Priest, supported by Mr. Saelens to table Rezoning Petition #333 to our next meeting on June 9, 2009.

All Ayes Motion Carried

Ms. Printz briefly clarified the process for the public present.

Ms. Frame informed the public that they can check the township website for upcoming agendas.

6. REVIEWS:

A. PROPOSED BAYSIDE PLAZA PAWNSHOP – SITE PLAN #2009-03: Michael J. Gordon, RA., 218 West Eleven Mile Road, Royal Oak, MI 48067. Proposed pawn broker/retail store located at 33165 23 Mile in Bayside Plaza on the Northwest corner of 23 Mile & D.W. Seaton. Set Public Hearing for June 23, 2009.

Motion by Mr. Stabile, supported by Mr. Deeby to set the Public Hearing on Site Plan #2009-03 for June 23, 2009.

All Ayes Motion Carried

B. PROPOSED COFFEE/FAST FOOD STORE WITH DRIVE-THRU – SLU #2009-04: Michael J. Gorden, R.A., 218 West Eleven Mile Road, Royal Oak, MI 48067. Proposed coffee/fast food store with a drive thru window located in the front southeast corner of the Bayside Plaza property, on the northwest corner of 23 Mile Road & D.W. Seaton. Set Public Hearing for June 23, 2009.

Motion by Mr. Priest, supported by Ms. Frame to set the Public Hearing on SLU #2009-04 for June 23, 2009.

All Ayes Motion Carried

C. GOLD RUSH JEWELRY BROKERS PROPOSED NEW WALL SIGN – SGN #2009-07:

Galaxy Sign & Hoisting, 126 Nevada, Rochester Hills, MI 48309. Proposed new wall sign located at 49688 Gratiot in the Clear Creek Plaza. Tabled for variance letter 3-24-09.

Motion by Ms. Printz, supported by Mr. Deeby to table SGN #2009-07 for up to 6 meetings with the deadline being August 25, 2009, as we need to make sure that this is the proper usage for this site before we can approve a sign.

All Ayes Motion Carried

D. WINTERGARDEN TAVERN PROPOSED NEW GROUND SIGN – SGN #2009-08: David Hood 33320 7 Mile Road, Livonia, MI 48152. Proposed new ground sign located at 46777 Gratiot for Wintergarden Tavern.

Motion by Ms. Frame, supported by Mr. Saelens to approve SGN #2009-08.

Mr. Deeby asked that the motion be amended to include the address on the sign, and subject to other comments brought up by the township planner.

Mr. Meagher stated that it was brought up at pre-planning that the sign as located does not cause a vision issue; so that item is written off. That was the only item he had in the review.

Ms. Frame amended her motion to include that the address be placed on the sign.

Mr. Saelens continued his support.

All Ayes Motion Carried

E. WINTERGARDEN TAVERN PROPOSED NEW WALL SIGN – SGN #2009-09: David Hood 33320 7 Mile Road, Livonia, MI 48152. Proposed new wall sign located at 46777 Gratiot for the Wintergarden Tavern.

Ms. Frame stated that this sign is on the front of the building. The ordinance allows for 64 square feet; this sign is 142 square feet. She explained that this is not our typical sign that we see. It is not back lit. It is a piece of sheet metal or aluminum type fabric that is cut out in the shape that is seen in the application. It sits almost flat on the building. It is like part of the aesthetics of the building.

Tom LaForest stated that this sign is made out of a sheet stock of metal. It is designed by an artist. It is actually a metal sculpture. It is a thin piece of stock that is mounted on the front and it is cut out so that the daylight shines through it. It is not like a typical sign that you would see anywhere else. All three of the wall signs are metal sculptures designed by an artist and integrated with the overall look of the building to compliment the colors of the darker windows and the trim of the building. It is almost like a dark bronze color. It really gives the identity to the front of the building. Once it is completed, it will be iatrical to it. Actually, a large part of the building was designed just to hold that sign.

Ms. Printz asked what the square footage is of the building.

Mr. LaForest responded that it is around 54,000 square feet.

Ms. Printz commented that while she hopes that the business will be there for many years to come, a sign of this size would be grandfathered. She wants to make sure that before we do that we consider all of the ramifications. She does like the design of it. She has no problem with the sign itself.

Mr. LaForest stated that this is the second restaurant that they have had. In the future regardless of who would purchase the location they would have to remove that sign.

Ms. Printz responded that she understands that the sign itself would have to be removed, but the space allocated may be considered as a resurfacing if the new sign takes up the exact same space. She asked if that is the same size they have at their other location.

Mr. LaForest responded no. That sign is actually in color. They designed this out of the sheet stock because of the look that they want to give the building, and the impression that they want people to get as they drive by. They don’t want a flashy color sign that says "bar". They want more of an aesthetic artistic look, where people go by and say we need to go there.

Ms. Printz commented that she likes that it looks artistic and unique; however, she is trying to look at the total picture.

Mr. Priest commented that they are requesting two additional wall signs.

Mr. LaForest responded that they are smaller. They are also sculptures.

Mr. Priest commented that they are probably aware that our ordinance indicates that they are only allowed one wall sign.

Mr. LaForest responded yes.

Mr. Priest asked if they can live with having one wall sign.

Mr. LaForest responded that the one on the south side, which is facing Zuccaros, where you get a clear shot of the entire side of the building, which is just plain brick, that is where you get most of the visibility from Gratiot. The north side, which is the one located on the chimney where their fireplace would be, that is more obscure from 21 Mile because of the buildings. He asked if they could lose one of the additional signs. Definitely the front sign is literally designed into the whole building, but they will work with whatever we want.

Mr. Priest explained that if we do that, we would have to give everyone else the same thing, and we just can’t do that.

Ms. Frame commented that the traffic that is traveling north on Gratiot, that visibility comes from their monument sign. This would be extra in addition to; she does not think that is a legitimate fight for that. That would just be icing on the cake.

Mr. Deeby asked if there is any lighting at all on the east elevation that they are proposing.

Mr. LaForest responded that there would be two lights that stick out and shine onto the sign to give it lighting at night. It is not back lit.

Mr. Deeby asked if they are directly on the sign or are they on an angle where it may impede oncoming drivers.

Mr. LaForest responded no. They stick out and shine back at it. It would not be in the eyes of traffic at all.

Mr. Deeby asked about the extension of the sign up above the top of the building. He asked how that is designed for support against high winds.

Mr. LaForest responded that their architect designed that and dealt with the engineers. They actually had to meet all of the earthquake and hurricane standards that are in effect now. The beam alone weighs approximately 3,500 pounds. It is designed to stay there.

Mr. Deeby asked if the wind will be able to pass through the sign.

Mr. LaForest responded yes. The engineers took a long look at that.

Mr. Deeby asked about lighting details.

Mr. Meagher commented that we have been having a horrible problem in our community with illegal lighting being placed on all of our sites. There seems to be no follow up for the reflection on that. Our ordinance does have some standards for lighting that have to be followed. It seems to him that they are not going to have any visibility on that sign during the evening, which he thinks would probably be their busiest time that they would want to attract people.

Mr. LaForest responded that there is light on it. The details are not there, but it is shining on it.

Ms. Printz commented that maybe we should have further information submitted so that we can look at the lighting to make sure that it meets our ordinances and the structural nature of it.

Mr. Stabile commented that this is way over the edge with requesting three signs. He sees no argument for them.

Mr. LaForest responded that they could lose the two on the sides as the commission suggested. The one on the front is actually architecturally designed into the overall structure of the building. They are also taking down the existing large pole sign.

Mr. Priest suggested that since we could use some additional information with regard to the lighting details, and more information as to how it integrates with the building, the best thing for us to do is to table this to our next meeting.

Mr. LaForest commented that they were hoping to open by the end of June. They have to have the sign designed.

Mr. Stabile asked if the signs are made already.

Mr. LaForest responded no. They are working on them. The artist has been spending time figuring out how to cut it out and build it. There is a lot of time and effort into that. They have to hang it and put the steel structure up. There is a lot to that.

Ms. Printz asked if the Building Department already has the information we are requesting.

Mr. LaForest responded yes. The Building Department has their full plan and it is already approved. It has already been reviewed engineering wise as well. They would gladly lose the other two signs in order to get this approved so that they could move forward. As they are building the building right now there are things that they need to order and buy tomorrow.

Ms. Frame suggested that we could vote on this item subject to the lighting detail.

Mr. Deeby asked what color the lighting would be.

Mr. LaForest responded white.

Dave Hood commented that it is just like the signs on old fashioned buildings where they had two sticks sticking out with the light shining back at it.

Mr. Deeby commented that they will have their monument sign ready for their opening. We are all in favor of them going forward and succeeding, but if there are some concerns with regard to structure and lighting, he is not comfortable making a decision at this time.

Mr. Hood responded that on the structure issue they have the engineering right here on the whole structure.

Motion by Ms. Frame, supported by Mr. Miller to approve SGN #2009-09 subject to the lighting being accepted by the planner and a variance for this sign due to the architectural design of the building.

Ayes: Ms. Frame, Mr. Miller, Mr. Priest, Mr. Stabile, Mr. Saelens, Ms. Printz

Nays: Mr. Deeby

F. WINTERGARDEN TAVERN PROPOSED NEW WALL SIGN – SGN #2009-10: David Hood 33320 7 Mile Road, Livonia, MI 48142. Proposed new wall sign located at 46777 Gratiot for Wintergarden Tavern.

Motion by Ms. Frame, supported by Mr. Saelens to deny SGN #2009-10 and SGN #2009-11 as they exceed our ordinance.

All Ayes Motion Carried

G. WINTERGARDEN TAVERN PROPOSED NEW WALL SIGN – SGN #2009-11: David Hood 33320 7 Mile Road, Livonia, MI 48142. Proposed new wall sign located at 46777 Gratiot, for Wintergarden Tavern.

See Agenda Item F Above.

7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS:

Motion by Mr. Priest, supported by Mr. Stabile to approve the minutes from the April 28, 2009 meeting as sent.

All Ayes Motion Carried

8. COMMUNICATIONS:

9. NEW BUSINESS:

A. Macomb County Planning Department.

John (Raya?) from the Macomb County Planning Department and Robert Kramer from LSL Planning conducted a presentation on the update on the Gratiot Access Management Plan.

There was brief discussion with regard to costs associated with improvements made by existing businesses.

10. OLD BUSINESS:

11. PLANNERS REPORT:

12. COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR:

Ms. Frame asked for volunteers for the next pre-planning meeting.

Mr. Saelens agreed to attend. Mr. Deeby expressed that he will attempt to attend.

13. PROPOSALS FOR NEXT AGENDA:

14. ADJOURMENT:

Motion by Mr. Priest, supported by Ms. Frame to adjourn the meeting at 8:24 p.m.

All Ayes Motion Carried

Paula Frame, Secretary Christine A. Hunyady, Recording Secretary

 

 

Go To Top