No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-11City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 of 47 October 25, 2011 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF LIVONIA MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 25, 2011 A Special Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Livonia was held in the Auditorium of the Livonia City Hall on Tuesday October 25, 2011. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Henzi, Chairman Toni Aloe Sam Caramagno Ed Duggan Betsy McCue Craig Pastor Robert Sills MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Fisher, Assistant City Attorney Scott Kearfott, City Inspector Helen Mininni, Court Reporter The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Henzi then explained the Rules of Procedure to those interested parties. Each Petitioner must give their name and address and declare hardship for appeal. Appeals of the Zoning Board's decisions are made to the Wayne County Circuit Court. The Chairman advised the audience that appeals can be filed within 21 days of the date tonight’s minutes are approved. The decision of the Zoning Board shall become final within five (5) calendar days following the hearing and the applicant shall be mailed a copy of the decision. There are four decisions the Board can make: to deny, to grant, to grant as modified by the Board, or to table for further information. Each Petitioner may ask to be heard by a seven member Board. Seven members were present this evening. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard by a full Board and no one wished to do so. The Secretary then read the Agenda and Legal Notice to each appeal, and each Petitioner indicated their presence. Appeals came up for hearing after due legal notice was given to all interested parties within 300 feet, Petitioners and City Departments. There were 8 persons present in the audience. ______________________________________________________________________ (7:02 #1/150) APPEAL CASE NO. 2011-10-44: Zlatka’s Inc., 37630 Plymouth Road, Livonia, MI 48150, on behalf of Lessee Lone Pine Corral, Inc., 36480 Plymouth Road, Livonia, MI 48150, seeking to erect a partially covered outdoor seating area resulting in deficient front yard setback and deficient number of parking spaces. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 of 47 October 25, 2011 Front Yard Setback Parking Spaces Required: 60.00 ft. Required: 52 Proposed: 36.75 ft. Proposed: 39 Deficient: 23.25 ft. Excess: 13 The property is located on the north side of Plymouth (36480) between Levan and Market. Henzi: Mr. Kearfott, do you have anything to add to this case? Kearfott: Not at this time. Henzi: Any questions for Mr. Kearfott? Hearing none, good evening. Petitioner: Good evening. Henzi: You can sit right up at the table. Can you tell us your name and address? Petitioner: My name is Dan Josifoski, 37630 Plymouth Road, Livonia 48150. Henzi: Mr. J, why don’t you tell us a little bit about why you want to construct the outdoor seating? Petitioner: The way the business is conducted these days, I mean, most of the people they like especially in the summer and in the early spring they want to spent time outside. So that’s why, you know, we said we want to try to get a patio put outside the building so that way we can accommodate our customers. Henzi: Do you happen to know, and you might not, the difference between your proposal and Kicker’s meaning how close your proposal is to the property line compared with Kicker’s? Petitioner: I really do not know, but every building has a different history, you know, I mean if you look at the buildings and what we have and what they have we have to work with what we have. Henzi: Let me ask Mr. Kearfott. Do you have any idea if this is a fairly similar request? Kearfott: Well, they are similar in the fact that they were both deficient in parking spaces and they both want a covered front porch. They did enter into an agreement with LA Plaza next door for the additional seating arrangements, but they are, you know, he’s got the Comedy Club and that’s when they were having their probably their biggest overflows for parking was when they had the Comedy Club going on Friday, Saturday night type thing. Henzi: Okay. Thanks. Any questions for the Petitioner? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 of 47 October 25, 2011 Caramagno: Mr. Chair, I have a question for Scott. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: Scott, you said that Kicker’s has an arrangement with the next door plaza? Kearfott: They did, yes. Caramagno: Not the Petitioner tonight? Kearfott: Pardon me? Caramagno: The Petitioner tonight does not have the agreement? Kearfott: No, no, no, no, when he was talking that was strictly Kicker’s had that agreement with LA Plaza which the parking lot were almost – it kind of flowed together there. Caramagno: Okay. Kearfott: So, they came into some kind of agreement and they paid him so much money for the use of their parking lot. Caramagno: Do you know what the setback is at Kicker’s? What is the setback on that property? Do you know for that area? Kearfott: I think it was 60 ft. but with the patio the setback – let me see just a minute. No, I don’t actually have the footage. What the setback footage difference was, it was within 10 ft. of what he’s asking tonight though. Caramagno: Okay, and being 10 ft. and maybe it’s not because it’s going to be a little closer to the road. Kearfott: Right. Caramagno: It appears just driving by. Kearfott: Correct. Caramagno: Yes. Kearfott: Yes. Caramagno: Okay, thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? Duggan: Yes, Mr. Chair. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 of 47 October 25, 2011 Henzi: Yes, Mr. Duggan. Duggan: Is there any other way where you can expand – is it on the back or the other way? Do you have any space back there? Petitioner: No, that’s the only space where we’re proposing right now. Duggan: The front. Petitioner: Everything else is all parking. Duggan: Right, I know that. Okay, thanks. Henzi: Any thing else? Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: How long have you been open? Petitioner: Six months. Caramagno: Six months and have you had any parking trouble? Petitioner: Parking trouble? Caramagno: As far as exceeding what you have now? Petitioner: No, because – no. Caramagno: You haven’t had any – even been close? Petitioner: I wish we had that problem. Caramagno: You wish you had the problem. You’re hoping to have a tighter problem. Petitioner: Maybe in 10 years, 15 years when the economy comes back but right now, you know, as Kicker’s, we mentioned Kicker’s earlier I remember Kicker’s when they were busy, the next door plaza was all loaded up at midnight. At one o’clock their parking lot was full and the parking lot next door was full, but those days are gone. I don’t think they are that busy. Caramagno: That’s a much larger building. Petitioner: Right, they have 400 probably seating capacity. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 of 47 October 25, 2011 Caramagno: Yes. With the patio, when I look at your – the front of your building with the patio, I see you’ve got what is it five parking spots in front, two handicapped and three others? Petitioner: Right. Caramagno: This shows four now? Petitioner: Yes Caramagno: And are the parking spots coming back to the east a little more? Petitioner: What is going to happen is the parking spots are going to be three or four feet from the parking because those parking spots are deep. Caramagno: Yeah, you’re going to bring them back. Petitioner: They’re going to bring them back so that way we can put landscaping in around those four feet. Caramagno: And I see arborvitae along that eastern side. Petitioner: Correct. Caramagno: How tall, how big a bush? Petitioner: We’re going to start with four or five feet so that we can block, you know, and they’re going to be growing taller. Caramagno: Thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? Aloe: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: Is there any alternative to parking up there? Let’s just say, I mean, I would think that you’re hoping to increase business by adding this outside seating. So, let’s say you increase business you’ve reduced the amount of parking spaces where would people go up there if your parking lot was full? What could they possibly do? Petitioner: I think once the people, I mean, in the summer probably most of the people will like to be outside. Aloe: True. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 of 47 October 25, 2011 Petitioner: You know what I’m saying? And once it’s full outside and there’s no parking, you know, people they drive on Plymouth Road they just drive on by. They see the parking it’s full they just keep driving they don’t even try to pull in because they know there’s no parking. So, the way I see it once the parking lot is full it’s full, you know what I mean? Sometimes, you know, you might have 40 people and everybody is driving 40 cars we got 40 people inside the parking is full. It’s not like, you know, we’re trying to bring a bus load of people in with the bus unloading there and taking them out, you know what I mean? So that’s the way I see it the whole situation there with the parking because if I go somewhere and I see the parking lot it’s full I don’t even bother stopping because there’s no parking – where I’m going to go, you know, I just say let’s go to some other place. Aloe: What’s directly behind you? Petitioner: It’s a, I believe it’s an industrial complex there which they have four or five different businesses. Aloe: Is there a masonry wall behind you and them? Petitioner: No, there’s big blocks there put up between our lot and their lot. Aloe: All right, thank you. Petitioner: You’re welcome. Henzi: Any other questions? Caramagno: Mr. Chair, I have another one. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: Sir, this is not your first restaurant venture; is it? Petitioner: No. Caramagno: Have you have that - what do you get about two and-a-half parking spots per – or two and-a-half people per parking spot; is that what this comes up to as far as seats go? Petitioner: We’re just going to be short – what’s going to happen is we will now remove some tables from inside the bar right as it is now and we are going to gain, you know, because where we are going to be putting in the door from the bar that, you know, you have to exit towards the patio we have like a six top right now. So, we are going to be removing the six chairs right there and we are going to be putting a door. So that table won’t even exist there. Caramagno: I guess where I’m going with this is because you’ve been in the restaurant business before I wouldn’t think you would want to go and add on to a building -- City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 of 47 October 25, 2011 Petitioner: No, no. Caramagno: -- and take the investment risk and not have the appropriate parking. Have you found that this parking should be enough for what you need? Petitioner: We use to run Pick-a- Bone Rib House and Saloon and – it’s an 8,400 sq. ft. building, 185 parking spaces and everything and I’ve been there I’ve done it. I don’t want it, you know what I mean, and the economy is changing the rules. Like, you know, when you’re younger you are dreaming of a big house. Then you know, you have kids, maybe you have a 3,000 sq. ft. house, next thing you get older, the kids are gone, you have, you know you and your wife, what are you going to do with a 3,000 sq. ft. house? A thousand is enough it’s too much, too. Caramagno: Yeah, I’m more focused on the parking. You really feel that you’ve got enough parking with these -- Petitioner: The way I see it -- Caramagno: -- 39 spots. Petitioner: -- once the place is full the parking lot is full. That’s it. People they won’t be coming in and the whole objective of mine is when I’m looking at the patio, the outside patio, I want to bring the people because people want to spend outside like Plymouth. You drive in Plymouth over there, right, their patio sits outside on the sidewalk and they’re attracting people there you know what I mean. It’s making more fun, more attractive and the Zoning Board, the City of Livonia, I don’t know. Ten years ago they were talking about the Plymouth Corridor? I don’t see anything happening with Plymouth Corridor. They put a bunch of lights and things – nothing happened, I mean, where you have that attraction with people walking in and bringing more business. So, the way I see the whole thing is we want to bring the people outside. We don’t want them inside we want to bring them outside and outside, you know what I mean, where, you know, they feel the atmosphere the same as in Plymouth. So, inside of going in Plymouth we bring the business in Livonia. Caramagno: Okay, good. Mike. I have a question for Mike. Mike, the parking spaces, this is commercial. Are all restaurants gauged the same way? Fisher: Yes, according to the combination of the seats and the employees. Caramagno: Okay. And what is the combination – without being -- Kearfott: Three seats for every one parking spot for outdoor and I think – for indoor. Petitioner: And two seats for indoor; right. Kearfott: And then one for each employee. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 of 47 October 25, 2011 Caramagno: So, one per employee, two for every indoor – one parking spot for every two seats. Kearfott: One parking spot for every two seats. Caramagno: And one for every three seats outside. Kearfott: Outside; correct. Caramagno: Okay, thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? Sills: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Sills. Sills: I may be a little confused. I was confused when I came in here tonight, but, I think I recognize the gentleman. You were at the Pick-a-Bone one time? Petitioner: Yes, sir. Sills: Okay. Now, what you’re proposing to do is you’re proposing to have outside seating for people to be eating their dinner and stuff like that? Petitioner: Right. Sills: Now, my question to you is this. All those people that you’re going to have outside eating they brought a car with them to begin with and they filled your parking lot up. So if you’ve got 40 cars in the parking lot and you’ve got 40 people sitting out side you’ve got an empty restaurant; right? Petitioner: Yes, but the whole purpose of it is to bring the people outside. We as a nation here in the United States – I grew up in Europe. In Europe, people in Europe any restaurant in the summer inside is empty outside is full. Sills: Yeah, but there’s no -- Petitioner: Here we are used to air conditioning and all that stuff so, I mean, I would like to see the people outside. Sills: I agree with you, but there’s no parking over there either. Petitioner: Right, they don’t have parking. Sills: They don’t have a car. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 of 47 October 25, 2011 Petitioner: Yes, you’re right, but the restaurants are still empty inside they’re empty. Nobody wants to sit inside. Everybody wants to go outside and be outside in the fresh air. Sills: According to this you have only 28 outdoor seats. Petitioner: Correct. Sills: I think your idea is good. Petitioner: We’re not trying to gain more customers that is not our objective. We had a 300 seat restaurant and that was too big, you know, too many problems, too many things. We want to have a smaller place than what we have now, but we want to attract the people outside, you know what I mean. You know the atmosphere is different when you are outside there, you know, you don’t want to be enclosed inside when there’s nice weather outside and you want to be inside? No, we want to try to bring the people outside. We’re not trying to gain any – I mean more seating capacity – like somebody is going to say, you know what, their proposal is they’re going to put 28 next thing they might enclose it like some places they do and make it bigger. That’s not our objective. We don’t want to make it bigger. We just want to make the people happy. When they come in, if there is 28 people out there they’re going to come in. And another thing I would like to mention for the food industry businesses, you can have a hundred seats. You go to any place you will never, ever find those hundred seats full. You have 70 percent the restaurant is full, 70 percent of those seats. So technically 70 people come in and the place is full which means not every seat is occupied. Like right now here there are two seats open here, there’s five over there, there’s seven over here in the back. So, you will never have every seat occupied in the food industry business – never because you have a four top table and then you have two people sitting at the top. So, you will never occupy the full capacity of the restaurant or bar – whatever it is. It will never be full occupied. It’s going to be 70 percent tops. 70 percent it’s occupied because not at every table you four top table, you have four people or six top you have six people. There is always a four top where you have two people. You know what I mean, you have one person. So, the place – I mean the table is occupied then. You can have parking space but there is no room inside, but my main objective is we want to bring the people outside and create that atmosphere. And we want to put a bar-b-que machine out there where we are going to have a guest chef when you come in. Let’s say Scott likes to bar-b-que I will say, Scott, you’re invited to be our guest chef for the night. We are going to provide you with the food and the drinks. You going to be bar-b- quing. So, we are trying to create that, you know, fun atmosphere for people. You come out there you have a good time, you know, not inside. Duggan: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: Yeah, I assume in the winter your thing is going to be out where it is; right? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 10 of 47 October 25, 2011 Petitioner: Right. In the winter it’s going to be closed and we are just going to be open for three or four months of the year. Duggan: Right, the inside, yes. What about are you going to lose those parking spots in the winter, too, what are you going to do when it snows? How do you guys shovel your snow? Petitioner: We shovel the snow. We shovel it ourselves and what we do is we have a snow plow. We always make sure we distribute the snow on all the sides of the property. Duggan: Okay. So, you’re still – my question is you’re still going to have all 39 spaces. You’re not going to put big piles where you lose them. Petitioner: No, we always distribute the snow so that way like some neighbors we had they’re pushing – on two acre lots they’re pushing everything in one pile and what happens is you have – Scott is familiar with that case. They have eight feet of snow and that thing will never melt. When you distribute the snow evenly everywhere on all the sides then it’s exposed to the sun and melts much quicker. It’s all pure logic. Do you understand what I am saying? So, that’s what we will be doing. Duggan: And it works. And it’s been working for you? Petitioner: Right. Duggan: Great. Thanks. Henzi: Any other questions? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against this project; if so come on up to the table. Martin: Greetings. Christopher Martin, small business owner myself, 12275 Inkster Road, Livonia. This was a vacant building and as you know being on the Plymouth Road Development Authority it’s been vacant for a while. Quite an investment was put in that place. Joe gave me a tour of it when they were re-doing it. This has been through Planning and has been through Council so it’s here in front of you guys. I know when Robert Jacobs was here on Buddy’s Pizza that several of you questioned his parking plan and it was tabled and he had to come back here a second time to get approval with his architect. And actually if you look at Eastside Mario’s even this particular plan and Kicker’s by far Buddy’s Pizza is the best outside patio on Plymouth Road in my opinion, but you guys check it out. Is he trying to put 10 pounds in a 5 pound box? Yeah, but you know what, he has invested his money in it. He will succeed or fail with his money and at time some of you talk as if you have placed your money in these discussions when Petitioner comes in front of you. So, I think you need to approve it. Let him succeed or fail. Restaurant business is a pretty tough one. So, hopefully you’ll have at least four votes here and isn’t that what all that money was spent for? The Plymouth Road Development Authority is to get businesses in these vacant buildings and hopefully work with them and in a way that they will be successful so that the building doesn’t become vacant again. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 11 of 47 October 25, 2011 Henzi: Thank you. Anybody else want to speak for or against the project? I see no one coming forward. Are there letters on this one? Caramagno: We’ve got one. We’ve Ken Secord at 11751 Levan writes no objections. Henzi: Mr. J? Is there anything you would like to say in closing? Petitioner: I would like to add to the gentleman that just mentioned about the investment and everything. We have been residents in Livonia here for a long time and, you know, we own Pick-a-Bone over there and Pick-a-Bone was an eyesore for the City of Livonia for eight years. I don’t know if everybody knows that place or not, but for eight years it was an eyesore. We came over there and we took care of business and we ran it for 13 years successfully. We sold the business and in one year he went out of business. And we got the property back and we are still keeping up with the property. We bought this piece of property here. We say, you know what we want to do something in smaller proportions. And, you know, we invest money in that piece of property there. We invested money. And we are trying to – you know, we are investing in Livonia. We own lots of property in other places, you know, but still we are remaining here in Livonia. We are trying to development down the street on Plymouth Road senior housing. We are going for a three story right now. We bought House of Denmark we’re trying to get that – so we’re investing in Livonia here. That’s all I want to say. We’re investing in Livonia. We’re not just drive by people and also when we were going through Pick-a-Bone 15 years ago, the City Council they gave us a hard time, very, very hard time. We were new on the block, you know, they gave us a very hard time. And especially with the liquor license and we proved to them that when we put our word we do it and we do it right. And we have done it and we are investing again in Livonia. So, that’s all I want to say. We’re here for good. We’re not like the big corporations they come in with – I’m here with just a regular shirt like you guys, normal people, normal people – oh, he’s the city attorney. He can afford it. We’re not a big corporation here where they look at the bottom numbers. We’re here to stay and we’re the backbone of this country, of this city, and I would appreciate if you guys support us. If not, it’s going to be on your heads. So, we’re looking forward for this project to improve the Plymouth Corridor and all the other projects we have in the City of Livonia. Otherwise if we see that we have a hard time, we can take our money somewhere else where we can employ some other people when we can pay the taxes somewhere else, but we have been here for 20 years in this city. We’ve been for 20 years here and Scott knows, you know, he knows me for a long time and the whole building department of the City of Livonia, they know us and we have been dong a good job here. And that’s all I have to say. Henzi: They you very much. I will close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mr. Sills. Sills: Well, based on the fact that I do know the history of Pick-a-Bone and understand that the restaurant business is a very difficult business especially in these times, very competitive, but there are some people that know how to run a restaurant and other people don’t. And I think the gentleman sitting before us does know how to run a business. I think the history speaks for itself that he has been a good tenant in Livonia. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 12 of 47 October 25, 2011 He ran a good restaurant and after he left it it was taken over and boom it went out of business. After he was in business there some 13 or 15 years; is that correct? Petitioner: Yes, sir. Sills: So, I am going to support this project. I think he’s got some good ideas and the other thing on the parking I felt that parking spaces and the restaurant are transient. The people come in and they go out, people come in and out. It’s not as though you put in 40 cars in the parking lot and they would sit there all day long. They are going to come and go all the time. So, I am going to be in support of this project. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: Well, I am so going to be in support. I think there are a number of businesses on Plymouth Road that are at non-conforming setbacks from zero to whatever. So, the setback doesn’t bother me at all. I was concerned about the parking and that’s why I asked the question about it, but I think when the Petitioner said that he’s not trying to increase business he’s just really trying to add another feature to his restaurant that would make customers come in to the restaurant. So, for those reasons I will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: Well, on the same lines the setback doesn’t particularly bother me. It’s evident out there already at Kicker’s and Buddy’s and other places that are close to the road. It’s not going to look too out of place. I think it will be nice. It looks nice on the print. The parking was one of my concerns of course and that’s where my question was going earlier was did you feel that you had enough parking for what you presented tonight. I think you probably do because why make the investment if you’re not going to be able to get the maximum dollar out of the project. We all feel good about setting money out and doing things and investing and talking about these things, but you’re doing it and spending good hard money to make something nice here. I think that speaks well of you. The other thing that I noticed is that these are 10 ft. double-striped spots parking spots according to the plan here. I’m sure you probably could have went 9 ft. and added another four or five spots by narrowing them up, but 10 ft. is nice easy to get in and out of and maybe down the road if you find that you need more parking maybe that’s something that you can appeal to. So, at this point, I am going to be in support. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Well, the front yard setback I have no heartburn whatsoever over, the parking spaces that’s a little different story. I did listen very closely to the Petitioner, but I heard no reason why he needed this other than basically because he wanted it. So I could support it, but I’m still on the fence. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 13 of 47 October 25, 2011 Duggan: I will support it. You know, you’re trying to make it great. You’re trying to make extra space for your customers. There’s really no where else for you to expand and you seem to think that you have enough parking spaces and I believe you. I will be in support Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I would also support it. I would agree with what he said about the financial investment not only in Livonia, but the Plymouth Road Corridor. I think that’s important and I think anybody who’s willing to play it out there we need to support. When we talk about why you want it, you are trying to make it more appealing to bring people in to your business. So, to me if you don’t have it, that may be a bit of a drawback if you’ve got a couple other people along the corridor that do have the outside. And hopefully in all of our situations that you will end up having some sort of really busy place where we can talk about parking in some point in time, but I think it sounds like you’ve done your research and you have it under control. So, I will support it. Petitioner: Thank you. Henzi: I, too, will support it. I see this as really only a temporary variance meaning that realistically you’ve only going to be able to use the patio during the summer months and based on what you’re telling us I think that you’re expecting 78 seats and you’re going to trade outside seating for inside seating during the summer months. And I have driven by and I don’t think that there’s going to be a parking problem. The building looks fantastic. It’s been an eyesore for a long time. That side of the street and that area has been neglected. I hope you get all the Ford Motor traffic. I hope you get all the industrial traffic and it’s a great success because you did a service to the community by renovating that building. So, the floor is open for a motion Aloe: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Upon Motion by Aloe, supported by Caramagno, it was: RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2011-10-44: Zlatka’s Inc., 37630 Plymouth Road, Livonia, MI 48150, on behalf of lessee Lone Pine Corral, Inc., 36480 Plymouth Road, Livonia, MI 48150, seeking to erect a partially covered outdoor seating area resulting in deficient front yard setback and deficient number of parking spaces. Front Yard Setback Parking Spaces Required: 60.00 ft. Allowed: 52 Proposed: 36.75 ft. Proposed: 39 Deficient: 23.25 ft. Excess: 13 The property is located on the north side of Plymouth (36480) between Levan and Market be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 14 of 47 October 25, 2011 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because this is an older building that does not have the setback required by today’s standards. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because this is a new business for Petitioner who is trying to create an accommodation to bring in new clientele to his business. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because there are many buildings on Plymouth Road with non-conforming setbacks. 4. The Board received one (1) letter of approval and no letters of objection. 5. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the purpose or objective of the Master Plan because the property is classified as “General Commercial” under the Master Plan, and the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification. FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions: 1. That Petitioner will abide by the City Council’s resolution of September 21, 2011 requiring seating of a total of no more than 106 seats; 78 interior and 28 outdoors. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Aloe, Pastor, Caramagno, Duggan, McCue, Sills, Henzi NAYS: None. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 15 of 47 October 25, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________________ (7:35 #1/980) RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2011-10-45: McDonald’s, 19311 Farmington Road, Livonia, MI 48152, seeking to erect four wall signs resulting in excess number of wall signs, combined wall sign area and the business ground sign being excess in height, area and contains an electronic message board, which is not allowed due to the proposed nonconforming wall and ground signage. Number of Wall Signs Wall Sign Area Allowed: One Allowed: 44 sq. ft. Proposed: Four Proposed: 97 sq. ft. Excess: Three Excess: 53 sq. ft. Ground Sign Height Ground Sign Area Allowed: 6 ft. Allowed: 30 sq. ft. Proposed: 10 ft. Proposed: 48 sq. ft. Excess: 4 ft. Excess: 18 sq. ft. The property located on the west side of Farmington (19311) between Seven Mile and Fargo. Henzi: Mr. Kearfott, anything to add to this case? Kearfott: Not at this time. Henzi: I had one question for you or to Mr. Fisher and that is can you confirm that the LED message board sign was never discussed at Planning Commission or Council? Fisher: Well, I talked to Mark Taormina about that very question and I don’t know if we touched on Planning Commission although I looked through the minutes and I didn’t see it at all there, but he said Council never discussed it for whatever reason. Henzi: All I could get out of the minutes was that they didn’t talk about signage other than it would have to be approved at some time. I just wanted to make sure that we weren’t missing the boat by asking questions about the LED board if it was already approved. Fisher: Not as far as I know. Henzi: And a follow up to that is, there is mention about a recently adopted policy whereby there’s traditionally – the City will offer a trade off either excess wall sign area or the LED board. Fisher: Correct. Henzi: When was that adopted? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 16 of 47 October 25, 2011 Fisher: That was the amendment we adopted that allowed these electronic reader boards in the first place. So, it is within the past two years. Henzi: So, it’s more then a policy it’s actually an Ordinance. Fisher: Yes, the policy is embodied in the Ordinance itself. Henzi: Got it. Okay. Any other questions? Fisher: It looks like September 9, 2009 was when that was adopted. Henzi: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Kearfott or Mike? Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: The adoption of that Ordinance is it one or the other, or is it a trail – I didn’t quite understand. Fisher: The way it works is if you want to have any kind of electronic signage and you’ll notice that we have started having gas stations put up electronic signage, the trade off is you have to give up any nonconforming excess sign. So, you’ll see those places that have it are now fully compliant with the area requirements that the City has had in place. They gave up signage to get the electronic reader board. Pastor: Electronic reader board. Fisher: Absolutely. Pastor: Thank you. Henzi: So, the reason that they are requesting a variance is because they want both the excess and the LED message board. Fisher: Well, that’s part of it and because they want the excess, but yes. Henzi: Okay. Any other questions for Mike or Scott? Duggan: Does any other business have both? Fisher: No, no, since this was adopted there is only actually one petitioner who asked for it and this Board turned him away. Kearfott: Doesn’t Delsignore have it? Fisher: Well, that’s before this. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 17 of 47 October 25, 2011 Kearfott: Okay. Fisher: In fact, that prompted the ordinance that exists now because there wasn’t any -- Kearfott: He’s got kind of a unique situation where he’s at, too. Fisher: Yeah, but that’s the reason we have this ordinance today. McCue: For the reader boards? Fisher: Yes, because of that case. Kearfott: There is just Laurel Manor, right? Fisher: Right. McCue: And then – maybe I should know this but, is there any kind of requirements or rule on how it’s displayed or the flashing keys, the non-flashing keys. Fisher: We have a long list of rules. McCue: So, okay, that’s – I figured we had covered that because just knowing signage history in general. I mean, it can flash; right? Fisher: Right. Kearfott: It’s got to be five seconds -- McCue: Okay, all right. Kearfott: -- before it can change. I don’t think they allow for scrolling or flashing. Fisher: Here are our rules for this, the page basically -- McCue: Okay. Fisher: See, it has like the how bright it can be and so forth. Henzi: Any other questions for Mike or Scott? Okay. Good evening, gentlemen, can you introduce yourselves, please? Petitioner Lautzenheiser: Good evening, I’m Greg Lautzenheiser with L&A Architects, the architects for the project. Petitioner Stieber: Patrick Stieber from Allied Signs. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: Do you need an address, too, I’m sorry if I missed that part. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 18 of 47 October 25, 2011 Henzi: Sure. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: 2435 North Rochester Road, Troy, Michigan. Petitioner Stieber: And for me 33650 Giftos Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan. Henzi: Go ahead and tell us about the project. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: We’d like to start with that if we could. Several months ago McDonald’s embarked on a program that they’ve been doing around the state and around the country. They are doing a re-image program with their existing buildings and the addition of the side-by-side drive through and some other things along the way. And this facility is part of that program as well. Currently we have gone through Planning Commission approval, City Council approval and part of what we also proposed right from the get go was along with the major remodel program and the side- by-side we wanted to propose a pass-through lane in front of the McDonald’s as it currently exists. I can show you a little better with the sight plan. Patrick, if you can hold that there. At the Planning Commission study session this was the first plan that was proposed to them, but it did not have the pass-through lane in the front, but it had the side-by-side through in the rear and then McDonald’s wanted to incorporate this pass through lane in the front. At the Planning Commission study session, they really didn’t fully understand its purpose and were not in support of it. We explained to them that the purpose of it is a lot of the traffic when McDonald’s – when they come in the site and I know this is a little history. It’s not signage, but it gets to the signage you’ll see in a second. When people come in and they can’t find a parking place or missed the handicapped spaces or want to go back through rather than come back out on Farmington Road, they’ve got an opportunity to pull through in the front. And McDonald’s when they have the room and the space to do this they have been incorporating this in their plans every time they do this type of remodel. That being said at the Planning Commission meeting, they agreed to that; however, they did not like the location of the pass-through lane and we positioned it here as shown in this plan in order to preserve the existing road sign. What they proposed was that we relocate this pass-through lane closer to the building and the whole purpose of it is for the safety of the customers and convenience and we thought that was a good idea, but the point then was if we did this existing road sign which is 35 ft. tall, 100 sq. ft. nonconforming sign would have to be relocated and obviously at that point because it is an existing nonconforming sign that wouldn’t be allowed. So, both Pat and I were in front of bodies like this we’re empowered to do a lot of things, but when it comes to money and signage that is very scared to McDonald’s especially signage. It’s like a sacred cow. So at that point, we deferred to the owner/operator who agreed to take down this existing road sign and put up a monument sign on the other side of the pass-through lane. So that being said, again we went through Planning Commission, City Council and we did – let’s kind of refer to building plans. When we did that this is the existing building as it sets now. The existing road sign as you can see it is 35 ft. tall, 100 sq. ft. and that calculated and your sign is calted (sic) too, is the window signs below which there is six of them at 6 sq. ft. And a lot of communities, too, and I don’t think you folks do count the roof beams as signage as well and there’s 19 roof beams on this particular facility. So, we know that we’re a little bit over when it comes to building signage in terms of City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 19 of 47 October 25, 2011 what we are proposing to what we had existing, but at the end of the day it’s quite a bit nicer we believe in facility in terms of aesthetics. We’ve got the two McDonald’s “M” signs and McDonald’s sign and the Play Space sign which again in some communities we look at that – or they do, not as signage so much but information because it doesn’t say McDonald’s it just indicates that there is a play space that we’re retaining when we do this remodel. When we talked at both City Council and Planning Commission about the monument sign, this is what we proposed in this Exhibit D which was a 10 ft. tall monument sign with a 14 sq. ft. reader board which is 38 sq. ft. – or 48 sq. ft. total. So at the end of the day, we’re taking down a sign that’s about three times as tall and proposing a sign that’s of about 1/3 of the height and about less than half the square footage. And we are here tonight to seek your blessing for what we’re proposing here. And just off the record, I had a long conversation with the owner/operator last night who didn’t quite fully understand the process and thought that because we got this approved at Council, and by the way, I think if you read through the resolution dated September 8th by the City Council that they agreed to accept the pass-through lane and the new monument sign having a maximum height of 10 ft. and minimum setback of the right-a- way of 12 ft. So I know the ordinance says 6 ft. but that’s what was in the minutes and the resolution. Anything else you would like to add, Pat? Petitioner Stieber: No, I think the square footage that they have given up to compromise with the City on the existing road sign, I mean, a hundred square foot road sign, 35 ft. tall is a big thing for McDonald’s to give up. You know, to compromise with the planning to put that drive-through lane, pass-through lane in the location that they wanted it. That sign like he said is a sacred thing and it is nonconforming but a hard thing for them to want to give up to comply with what the City wanted. So, they reduced the square footage by half with this sign. As far as the building signage goes that they are requesting, we’re still only asking for a little bit more than what they had existing if you took the existing road sign and the existing wall signs that were there before the construction. Just want to point out, you know, these buildings were designed with these signs in mind. They are not large in size. These “M” logos are very small. The actual square footage of them, you know, its boxed out square footage is 10 square feet, but there’s a lot of space in between their logo. They’re kind of punished for it because of that, but it fits within the architecture of the building. It really does. They feel that they do have a lack of identification due to the face that they are losing that road sign, due to the fact that this is a complete new design of a building for McDonald’s. The normal person isn’t familiar with it. It’s brand new to the normal person that goes to a McDonald’s and getting the identification on the building is very important, you know, because of that design, you know, the new design of everything. But the play place sign again it’s not calling out signage for McDonald’s it’s information to, you know, the customers that the play place is inside of it. So really in our eyes it’s more of a directory type of sign not a corporate identification type of sign that we are asking for. With that being said, we’d like to hear some feedback on what you guys feel, but again, we do feel that there is a hardship of lack of identification due to the things that we are giving and the construction of the new building. Henzi: I’ve got a couple questions for you. First in general, is this the prototypical store that McDonald’s wants its franchisees to have? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 20 of 47 October 25, 2011 Petitioner Stieber: The design is prototypical. What we are asking for signage is not – it’s less than what the prototypical store would ask for. Henzi: Okay. Petitioner Stieber: If that’s what you’re asking as far as signage goes or design. Henzi: No, I meant in general, but that’s my next question. What additional signage does the prototypical store have? Petitioner Stieber: They would want signage on all four elevations. These “M” logos – they’re very small in size. It’s similar to, you know, what the typical McDonald’s has in their window. There’s a vinyl arch logo on the windows. They’ve just transferred that to the exterior of their building in corporate and incorporated it into the stone design. You can see where they’re going, but typically they are on the drive-through side and there’s one on the rear. But we knew that it was just too excessive to come to the City of Livonia and ask for all that. Henzi: All right. That’s a good description and I appreciate it. Next the playscape, I apologize if I didn’t quite understand it, but why do you need the playscape text? Petitioner Stieber: To identify to McDonald’s customers that this is a McDonald’s location that offers a play place inside for kids. Henzi: Because all don’t have that? Petitioner Stieber: Exactly. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: When you asked earlier about the two types of re-images, this particular re-image is – McDonald’s basically has two buildings; one, with a play place and one without. This happens to be the one with a play pace. Henzi: Got it. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: For the answer to that question. Henzi: Thank you. Okay. Now the next area is, you talked about the fact that 35 ft. sign is coming off and that seems to be a compromise. Are you telling me that if you didn’t have to move that sign you would keep it? Petitioner Lautzenheiser: The owner/operator made it very clear to me last night that, yes, he would have liked to have kept that sign, but what we had to do was obviously when the pass-through lane was approved to be moved back, the sign either had to be – you know, it’s an existing nonconforming sign so we could not move it. Once you try to do something to it, it has to conform. Henzi: Oh, I understand, but what I’m getting at is this looks to me to be prototypical cutting edge and the existing pylon sign is not and what I’m trying to confirm -- City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 21 of 47 October 25, 2011 Petitioner Stieber: No, that is a standard. Henzi: -- would you have axed that. Petitioner Stieber: That standard McDonald sign you can see they would have kept that sign. There’s no “D” image or re-image of their existing arch logo sign. As far as the ground sign goes. Henzi: If property had the room and it was a property with a PlayScape, other stores might be asking for the pylon sign everything you’ve got plus additional elevations. Petitioner Stieber: Absolutely. Henzi: Plus what we’ve talked about. Okay. The last question I have for you is tell us about the message board because I think that’s where probably most of our discussion will be. Why do you need it? Petitioner Stieber: Well, we are now in the year 2011. The technology for signage has come this way. Manual reader boards are a very important aspect to McDonald’s. They currently didn’t have one, but you know what I’m talking about by manual. You go up there and you put the letters in themselves. This eliminates the need to have to manually put those letters on to a reader board. They are safety factors that go into that, time going out there in the middle of the winter doing it. They fall down. This is the newest technology. It allows them to put a message out there to tell their customers what the special is whatever it is, what time of year it is. You all have gone to McDonald’s and you know that at certain times of the year there’s certain different things on the menu and these types of boards are a crucial part of, you know, getting the business to go good. Getting these advertisements out to the customers is an important thing. Now again, they didn’t have one before, but because they are losing that sign they really feel like adding this isn’t asking for too much more. The actual sign itself is very small compared to what they had. The reader board is almost the same size of what we’re asking for for signage if you took actual square footage. But it is the newest thing out there. It’s something that in the future it’s not going to go away. More and more signs are going into this direction. There’s a lot more of it out there. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: It’s just really, really important for McDonald’s like it was mentioned to tell, hey, we have a new cherry berry today and this is our product of the week or product of the month and it’s just a huge, huge selling point for them to get their products out there and get them known. We’ve both heard that over the years and I think he hit all the points. Henzi: Thank you, any questions for the Petitioner’s reps? Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 22 of 47 October 25, 2011 Pastor: So in recap, the architect said they had to take down the big sign because they wanted the pass-through lane so they gave up that signage, but now you want more signage than you originally had because you gave up the sign that you had to give because you want something. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: Okay, let’s -- Pastor: That’s how I heard it. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: Let’s not confuse the road sign with the building signage; okay? We gave up the road sign because the Planning Commission requested that we move the pass-through lane back. They agreed to the pass-through lane, but they wanted us to move it back towards the building making it more further away from Farmington Road which was a safer scenario. And the reason we put it where we did initially as you just saw on the site plan the first submittal was so we did not have to take down the road sign. Okay? Now that existing road sign which is gone by the way I think you probably all know it was 100 sq. ft. Okay. This proposed sign – the sign itself was actually 34 sq. ft. and the reader board is 14, so you’ve got 48 sq. ft. total. So, what this proposal is, is half the square footage of what the existing road sign was there. Pastor: Well, your total square footage of signage is going up. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: On the building, yes. Pastor: I don’t care how you want to add it up. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: Okay. Pastor: The total square footage is going up. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: Okay. Pastor: Is that what you are asking for? Petitioner Stieber: That’s what we’re saying and again, you know, they are including the play place sign which we don’t feel is corporate identification type signage. We feel that there is a hardship there that they need to incorporate that name that message out there, but it’s not McDonald’s. It doesn’t say McDonald’s on it. It’s not an arch logo. Pastor: It’s advertising that it has a play ground. Petitioner Stieber: Correct. Pastor: So, it’s advertising. Petitioner Stieber: Well, it’s not – an advertising sign is different from a corporate sign. Pastor: Well, it’s a sign then. One way or another it is still a sign. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 23 of 47 October 25, 2011 Petitioner Stieber: Yeah. It’s a sign. Pastor: It’s lit. Petitioner Stieber: When you think of signage, don’t you think, you know, for McDonald’s you’re thinking McDonald’s sign, you know, I’m just trying to point that out, but I also want to point out, too, again and I mentioned this before, they’re boxing that arch logo out. Now, that’s McDonald’s design, it is, but look at all this white space here all the way around. And they’re boxing the square footage out like this. That sign, the actual square footage of it is really only 16.5 sq. ft, but that’s the way that it’s calculated. Yes, it is their design and that’s McDonald’s logo, but you know, there is a lot of white space in it. Pastor: So, what’s our practical difficulty because I have not yet heard one? Petitioner Stieber: Lack of identification. Pastor: That’s, that’s a plan to earn more money. You’ve got other McDonald’s signs up there. What’s the difficulty? Why do you need more signage than you had before? Petitioner Stieber: Well, I think that there’s hardship of lack of identification due to the fact that the building itself is completely different than it was before. The design is completely different. The normal person that goes here isn’t going to know that it’s a McDonald’s store until they see the signage on the building. The signage is what makes it the McDonald’s. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: McDonald’s has relied – if I can chime in – for years on things like their double mansard roof as part of their image. The roof beams is part of their image. Call it image signage, branding, however you’d like to look at it. If you saw the roof beams, the roof beams on the red roof, you knew it was a McDonald’s you didn’t necessarily need all that type of signage. With this new design all of that is gone. There’s no double mansard any more, there’s no roof beams, there’s no big “M” in the vestibule windows any more. They were 8 x 6 ft. windows. I can point it out on the “M’s’ in the lower part of the windows as well. Those were all eliminated as well which weren’t included in your signage per the ordinance, but that’s – indeed to me that looks like signage. They had that – this is what we’re proposing. Pastor: So let me ask, you said you needed building signage so if you only need building signs, why do you need the monument or vice versa? Petitioner Stieber: Well, they’re both important. Pastor: I’m not disputing that. My dispute is you want more signage than you originally had. That’s my dispute. Petitioner Stieber: Well, if we look at it from a standpoint of what they originally had, would you be open to approving signage that they had originally? There would be an extra 50 sq. ft. for the road sign that we gave up. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 24 of 47 October 25, 2011 Pastor: But you added to the building. Petitioner Stieber: Right. Pastor: Plus. Petitioner Stieber: Added to the building, right. Pastor: Plus. Petitioner Stieber: Well, plus if we consider that a sign. Pastor: That is a sign. It’s lit. I mean, that’s kind of a losing argument in my eyes. The other Board members may not agree with me, but -- Petitioner Stieber: Well, that’s why we’re here. W e’re here to talk and get your feedback and see what kind of compromise we can come up with. We feel that what we proposed is not excessive. It fits into the design of the building and that the play place sign is needed. Pastor: How is your response to the reader board’s not – we cannot approve that without you being within compliance with the rest of the signage? How do we get around that? Petitioner Stieber: Say it again? Pastor: The electronic message board which is not allowed due to the proposed nonconforming wall signage and ground signage. By the Ordinance we are not allowed to give you that unless you are in conformance with the rest of the signage. Petitioner Stieber: So in order to get approved for the electronic boards, the wall signage -- Pastor: All your signage has to be in conformance. Petitioner Stieber: All right, well -- Pastor: By our Ordinance. Petitioner Stieber: We put the road sign in conformance. I don’t want everybody to forget about that what they gave up. It’s a big thing that they gave up to give up that 100 sq. ft. road sign. Pastor: But you got a pass-through lane in return. That was your choice. Don’t misunderstand me. Petitioner Stieber: Right, I hear what you’re saying. They gave up a 100 sq. ft. sign for the road sign. They’re asking for a sign that’s less than half of that a 10 ft. overall height City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 25 of 47 October 25, 2011 and for the building signage, you know, if you guys think this is too excessive, you know, what would be acceptable? Can we talk about it? We really feel that these three signs are excessive, you know, but these signs again – this one is not excessive rather. This sign, excuse me, is only 10 sq. ft. so if we eliminate that it brings our square footage request down 10.5 sq. ft. Pastor: I’m asking you to solve our problem because the Ordinance is written this way. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: Okay. Well, that being said we have the operator’s representative here, Theresa and the corporate representative as well, Iggy in the back. Is there anything that you folks would like to say? Peppler: My name is Iggy Peppler. I am the Area Construction Manager and the turn- around lane, we wanted that for safety features and the reason why we shifted it is because the City wanted us to move it to make it safer so that’s why we sacrificed the road sign. If we could have had the turn-around lane and the road sign, but it’s one of those give and takes and that’s what the City wants so we came up with the solution of moving that over so we could comply with them to make it safer. It helps all the customers. When people try and go around that – I call it the left hand, dead man turn. And this is as Pat said, this is our new look. All our new stores look like this. No more red mansard roof. No more roof beams. So, this is the new McDonald’s look. So, this is the standard for McDonald’s. We’re not adding extra signage – that is our corporate new standard with the stone wall being the – let’s call it the feature wall with the arch on it. So, we’re not asking excessive that’s different than any other McDonald’s as you go down the road. Once we build a new store that’s what it looks like. Pastor: You still haven’t addressed my -- Peppler: But you’re making the turn-around lane seem like it was our purpose. It was really more -- Pastor: It was your purpose. Peppler: Yes. Pastor: We didn’t ask for it, you did. Peppler: Yeah, but we moved it because they wanted us to make it safer and then -- Pastor: So, just – McDonald’s didn’t want safe? That’s what you’re saying. Peppler: No, no, no, we have no issue with it, but the City wanted us to move here in Livonia to move it back and the only way we could do that to meet the site plan ordinance is to get rid of the road sign. So, we had no choice. We couldn’t do both. We couldn’t move the turn-around lane and leave the road sign. We had to move it. So, either do we just move it then? Say, okay, we’ll move lane, but can we just take our old sign and relocate it to the other side? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 26 of 47 October 25, 2011 Pastor: You’ve heard the Ordinance – Peppler: I understand. Pastor: -- of the reader board? Peppler: Correct. Pastor: How do we get around that? Peppler: Well, that’s why I thought we were here for the ZBA to come up with a compromise. Pastor: But that’s our Ordinance. We’re not supposed to re-write the Ordinance. I’m just asking the question. Peppler: I don’t know the answer. Pastor: Okay, thank you. Peppler: Again, technology, and again Pat says it, I think more and more are going – well, here’s Theresa. Brown: I’m Theresa Brown. I have worked for Paul Hammer for over 20 years. I just need to make some reference with the reader board. The sign of the times is correct. I am a tech idiot, you know, and all that computer, but this is savvy. This is the sign of the times. And did I hear correctly that Livonia now – the gas stations can have digital? Pastor: Only if they are conforming to our Sign Ordinance. Brown: Okay. And with us needing this, it’s the same purpose the gas stations are going through – gas. We all need to keep track – gas up or down, gas up or down. Keep track of our value meals. What we have going on. So with losing that visibility from the sign this gives us an edge, the same reference with gas. Pastor: But they have to be in conformance. You’re asking not to be in conformance and having -- Brown: That’s why we’re here. That’s why we’re here. Pastor: But that’s what our Ordinance says is it’s got to be one or the other. Brown: That’s why I brought these gentlemen with us. Pastor: Thank you. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: So I think what we’re just kind of putting everything on the table. What we’re talking about is when you say in conformance, are you talking about City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 27 of 47 October 25, 2011 right now we are in excess of the wall signs proposed. We are allowed one; we are proposing four. We are in excess of three. So to be in conformance we would need one wall sign; correct? Pastor: Mr. Fisher. Fisher: Absolutely. All these things that say allowed -- Petitioner Lautzenheiser: Right. Fisher: -- you have to conform to all of those if you wanted an electronic sign. And that’s what the gas stations have done. Petitioner Stiebert: Is the Board open or at we just at a dead lost to not getting the road sign approved if the wall signage is over the square footage because there’s definitely an issue with the design and the number of signs, you know, having just the one McDonald sign without an arch logo it defeats their main purpose of their logo. Again, I guess that’s self induced that’s just their design, but it’s a hardship or if we just got rid of all this, I mean, would you be open to approving a variance of any sort? I guess that’s the question, you know, because if we’re not – we really want to have this and if we can’t have that and we can’t have anything more than what the code allows, I mean, really then this is what they would – they would rather have this. So they would have a 10 sq. ft. wall sign if we can’t get approved for a variance. Pastor: I’m not saying that. I’m just asking questions. Duggan: I got a question for you guys, too. Pastor: Good, done. Duggan: Thank you. The play place sign is that – if you’re talking about that’s too many signs – I know it’s an image sign and more of an informative sign, but to bring down a sign. Couldn’t you put that in the electronic sign saying there’s a play place, the regular play place on the building is that extremely imperative to – I know it’s separate than the corporate – I mean couldn’t you like take that down and put it in the electronic sign that there’s play place or people driving wouldn’t be able to notice that it’s a play place? Petitioner Stiebert: Well, there are a couple difficulties there. Duggan: Okay. Petitioner Stiebert: First of all, the new design on the building. Duggan: Sure. Petitioner Stiebert: That does come into play. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 28 of 47 October 25, 2011 Duggan: Right. Petitioner Stiebert: I guess, yeah, they could put play place on the electronic reader board. The reader board is able to say anything. Duggan: Right. Petitioner Stiebert: So that’s an option, but it’s not giving them the permanent identification on the building that they’re looking for. If we’re not going to be able to get a compromise on that play place sign and we have to eliminate it then I guess we will have to eliminate it and nobody knows that there’s a play place there unless they go in there any see it. That’s what they’re up against. But I know, I mean, I’m a father of two young kids and they know which McDonald’s when we drive by has a play place because of the sign and they know it. And that’s the one that they want to go to. So, there is some, some - more than signage behind it. There is something to it Henzi: Any other questions? Caramagno: Mr. Chair, I have a couple. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: The placement of the “M’s” the one on the north side and the one on the east facing side. What was the reason or the decision to put them there and not put an “M” on the south side that faces Seven Mile Road? Petitioner Stiebert: The entrance is the main reason because this is one of the main entrances into the building, more parking on that side. More of the traffic flow will go there in so. Caramagno: Once you’re in the building or in the parking lot you know where you’re at isn’t the signage to tell people from the road here I am, I’m McDonald’s? Brown: Or to see it from a distance, you know, within a given amount of distance. Caramagno: Okay. So, that’s the reason for my question is once you’re in the parking lot you’re looking at the classic McDonald’s “M”, when you come in from the other end of Farmington Road from the Seven Mile Road side there’s no identification on the building as you’re looking through the K-Mart parking lot to see the building. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: On a new facility we would have that as Brian just mentioned. Caramagno: It doesn’t show it on your plan. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: No, I know. Petitioner Stiebert: No, we didn’t want to come in with it. We already thought we were asking for a lot, but they choose this side because of the entrance. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 29 of 47 October 25, 2011 Caramagno: I understand, but the signage is – the purpose of signage is to attract customers. Peppler: That is correct, right. Caramagno: Once you’re in the lot you know where you’re at. Peppler: If I could just add, the reason why the architecture – this has stone on it so it matches the front stone. The other side doesn’t have stone on the entrance. So it’s more of an architectural balance also. So, this is the main entrance with the stone so it ties with the other arch. The other side does not have stone in it so it’s just an entrance door. Caramagno: Okay. Tell me about the play place and the McDonald’s on the same basic elevation on the building. Normally when you have your building, the name of your building, that should take the precedent of what it is that you have I would think McDonald’s. Peppler: Correct. Caramagno: And the play place is on the same level as that. Peppler: Right. Caramagno: Shouldn’t that have been placed at a lower elevation of some sort? Peppler: We can’t because there are louvers here and we put it on the side for that reason as traffic comes in from that side, but there’s not a place to put it on this side. Caramagno: That goes back to my same question I had a minute ago. How are you going to attract people when it’s on the side of the building you want to attract children, you want to attract families to come play in the play center. How are you going to attract people if they’ve got to be in your parking lot to see that sign? What’s the thought behind that? Peppler: Well, what we look at is – you could put it on this side or the side, but this side where the traffic is coming from Eight Mile going down so we put it in that side for where we think the most traffic is, but we can also – it depends on location. We can put that play place on the other side but it’s always on the side of the building to balance out all the other – for information but we try to put it as close as we can to the corner there so you can see visibility but, of course, we could put two of them but again would be over signage. Caramagno: Yeah, and we don’t need any more signs. Peppler: Exactly. No, we totally agree and that’s why it’s more of information -- City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 30 of 47 October 25, 2011 Caramagno: If this rendering has any – is remotely realistic to me from here your play station – play place has no value at all to me from this distance right here I can hardly read it. The red play sign against the red brick doesn’t stand out whatsoever. It’s not very effective and I always look at signage as how effective it is. That’s not effective to me at all, not even close to effective and I’ve got young children, too. The package isn’t to me – or could be better let me tell you that. I think it could be better and I’ll state a quick thing about the electronic sign. I think the electronic sign looks good. The electronic sign on the front lawn looks good. The rest of it looks terrible to me. That’s my opinion. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: We were just conferring a minute about and we’re trying to get to be in compliance here. And I think what Theresa representing the owner/operator has agreed to is we’re allowed one sign on this building. That sign would be the McDonald’s right on the front. Okay? Theresa has agreed McDonald’s has to eliminate that “M” and the play space sign and this “M.” Now, we’re in compliance with the one sign per building; correct? Brown: Correct. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: I know your boss isn’t going to be real happy, but -- Brown: What about this? Go ahead. Petitioner Stiebert: The Board has indicated that they are in favor of this sign if we conform with the building sign. I still feel that giving up this “M” logo on the front is not a good idea. Brown: It’s going to look tacky. It just doesn’t balance the building. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: Well, again we’re going back to that. These “M” signs are 10 ½ sq. ft. The McDonald sign in front is 42 sq. ft, and we’re allowed 44 sq. ft. Petitioner Stiebert: We’d be asking for a variance of 8 sq. ft. if we could have those two signs? Petitioner Lautzenheiser: And we’re asking for a variance for two signs versus one. We’re just trying to get on the table here where we can come to an agreement. Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Can you – I’m looking at this picture it’s a rendering. I can’t really see yours. Is there something on that yellow mansard or yellow awning right above the front door or the side door? Petitioner Stieber: Yeah, it says welcome. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 31 of 47 October 25, 2011 Pastor: Okay. I couldn’t read what it said. Henzi: I’ll speak. I don’t have so much trouble with the “M.” To me that’s a piece of Americana. I don’t consider that as much of a sign as McDonald’s. I’d rather see play place go than the arches. Brown: So would I but I’m trying to go with the rules here. Play place can go if I can have the sign and the arch in the front. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: The “M” there and that McDonald’s. Brown: Yeah. Peppler: And that’s basically our new look without the mansard roofs and the roof beams. That’s the look that we’re trying to be consistent throughout, you know, the U.S. of A. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: So, Theresa, you’re saying we would eliminate the play space sign. Brown: Yes, right. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: And this “M” over the vestibule. Brown: Right. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: Okay. Two signs gone. Brown: Two signs. You have to have the golden arches really and the design of the building that just throws the whole – here I’ll help. How does that look now? Really, seriously? Look at the arch though. It fits better, doesn’t it? Do you like the arch better? Caramagno: It looks good to me. I’ve had enough French fries to know it looks good. Henzi: Any other questions? Pastor: I’ve got one for Mr. Fisher. Can we actually give them a variance in that manner or do we have to strictly conform to the Ordinance? Fisher: Well, I guess I would say this. The problem with granting a variance like that is not so much that you can’t do it as it is what do you say to the next guy and what do you say to the people who already conformed the rest of their signage in order to get an electronic sign. This kind of horse trading with signs, of course, takes place all the time when we have sign cases. It’s not unusual for somebody to trade in their 30 year old 30 ft. tall sign for new signage that’s maybe less drastically in excess than the old signage was, but still requires a variance. So, the question like I say is not so much can you as should you? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 32 of 47 October 25, 2011 Pastor: Pat, do you have anything to say about that? Brown: Yeah, you should. Petitioner Stieber: Again, you know, when you talk about two signs, number of signs, you know, they can’t incorporate this together it just doesn’t work so, because they’re 10 ft. apart. Brown: It just looks so weird without it there. Petitioner Stieber: I know their building design is self created so to speak but, you know, they’re being punished for their building design. Brown: It seems funny to have a McDonald’s without an arch. To me that’s just like weird. Petitioner Stieber: They’d rather have -- Pastor: I’m not going to disagree with you. I’m not going to disagree with you but you have an arch on your pylon sign. Brown: I’m talking about my building. Pastor: Okay. Brown: Okay. Pastor: I just wanted to point that out. Brown: I agree. I mean, I know that, but it just looks odd. Petitioner Stieber: I think that due to what they did give up with the road sign and if we could ask to get the variance which would be in essence 8 sq. ft. of additional signage square footage wise and an additional one sign we’re still well under what they had originally and I just looking at what they gave up, you know, I think it’s – I don’t think it’s asking for too much. It’s not excessive and there is a hardship of lack of identification due to the new style building and setback of the building. Brown: And I don’t want to dwell on other things, but Paul Hammer has owned this company for 20 years. This was his first McDonald’s. I worked for the owner prior to that. This has been around for 30 years this building and he has done many additions some of you might recognize. He’s been through this with additions for freezers, yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda. I don’t think that little bit of variance is that big. And then not having that arch up there with that throws the whole design of the building and it’s updated. It’s updated. It’s with it. This is where McDonald’s is going and Paul leads McDonald’s. He goes for it. And what are we asking for 8 ft? Henzi: Pat, what’s the square footage of the arch on top of the monument sign? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 33 of 47 October 25, 2011 Petitioner Stieber: Well, they’re basically boxing the arch with the red section out. They box it out and that top part is 34 sq. ft. and again, the white space in between. The same thing -- Henzi: That’s where I’m going. Respectfully, I don’t think your hardship is lack of identification. I think your hardship is you’ve got arches that are counted as signs against you and the fact that that arch on top is boxed in. I think that’s a hardship. Petitioner Stieber: But that would put this square footage for this arch right here at about 2.5 actual square feet. Henzi: Right. Petitioner Stieber: Three square feet actual or something. Henzi: Right. Let me just say this in answer to something that you said earlier. He asked whether we would ever approve it. You probably don’t know this but this Board has had a lot of heartburn about the LED signs. We’ve turned down churches, we’ve turned down lots of other businesses and you’re in the middle of a block. You’re not on a corner and lots of Board members have said, I have trouble with that flashing sign that’s in the middle of a block because you’re not going to get the guy at the light headed southbound on Farmington to look at the cherry berry - if you were at the corner, you would get that guy. But this is relatively new and that’s why for lack of a better term, we’re giving you a hard time about the LED sign. It’s not because it doesn’t look good it’s that we’ve been wrestling with this for a while. McCue: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I think that’s my biggest concern. It looks beautiful. I don’t think anybody here would knock that, but my concern is going back to what we said is starting a precedent and – it looks great. It’s just that that is my concern because we are going to continue to have that conversation. So, that being said that’s probably my biggest fear and we hear it all the time. Anybody who is coming before us or any other body is talking about why they have they that exception and why their sign should be replaced in a different way or a different size or because it was an older sign and it was outdated. And they all have similar discussions. So, again the building looks beautiful but I am concerned about the position it is going to put us in going into the future. Henzi: Maybe you could answer this for us which would you rather have if you had to pick reader board or excess. Brown: Oh, it’s like gold or diamonds. Pastor: Good analogy. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 34 of 47 October 25, 2011 Brown: And you’re asking me. That’s my reader board and that’s really gold and diamonds together. I really would want my reader board. Peppler: And I think that’s what is coming down the road just like the – I mean you get the highway roads they’re all LED. Signs are getting away from the old paper ones. I mean, I live in Grand Rapids and I’ll bet you in the last year there has probably been 40 road signs and they’ve all changed to electronic. I mean, it’s just the way it’s going. It’s kind of like saying the I-pass is going to go away. Brown: Yes. Fisher: Mr. Chair, they don’t need a variance if they’re going to make that choice. If they make the choice to conform in return for having a reader board, we’re done. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: We’re just thinking out loud. So what we’re talking about is putting this to Mr. Fisher. If the “M” went away here, the play place went away, and the “M” went away there, the reader board is okay; correct? Fisher: Well, like I said, all these alloweds when you conform to all these alloweds the reader board is okay. And that was the question they were asking you was, are you willing to go to allowed, allowed, allowed, allowed or – and take the reader board. Or do you want to have the excesses and lose the reader board? Pastor: How many square feet is that McDonald’s itself the white? Petitioner Stieber: This? Pastor: Yes. Petitioner Stieber: 42 square feet. Pastor: You could actually make it two square feet bigger. Peppler: Well, they can’t do that. That’s why it would be great if you would allow actual on this because then we would be asking for a 1 sq. ft. variance. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: Right, if we could at least – I think if we could keep the front corporate head on because that’s again the look we’re trying to be consistent throughout and I know it’s not the ordinance because that one McDonald’s and the arch in the front. I think we’re over about one or two square feet. Petitioner Stieber: Yes, if we consider this actual square foot, right. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: But the reality is like a lot of ordinances you square out the signage and that’s how you as a Board have to look it. We can tell you what the actual is and what the air space taken out is, but the ordinance says thou shall calculate signage being squared off. And I appreciate all the talk about what we are talking about there the actuals, but that’s not what your ordinance says and that’s how you guys have City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 35 of 47 October 25, 2011 to interpret it. That being said, let’s talk about the ground sign height. Allowed is 6 ft. in the resolution the Council published they’re calling a maximum of 10 ft. The monument sign shall have a maximum height of 10 ft. The other problem with the 6 ft. sign in height, the monument sign, you really can’t put this sign on this reader board. That reader board is going to be buried in the ground if you have the reader board below that type of sign. That sign itself is only what four feet tall from here, Pat? Petitioner Stieber: Yeah, 4’11. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: Yeah, 5 ft. tall and the reader board is – I can’t read it from here, but obviously if you get that close to the ground when you have snow and everything else and the build up it won’t work. So that’s a design that design companies came up with that works well. Henzi: Mr. Kearfott, you had something to add? Kearfott: I was going to say you might be able to have both. You could take away the white “M” on McDonald’s and use the yellow golden arch as an “M” and you would have your golden arch and your McDonald sign and it would still only be one sign. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: Say that again, please? Petitioner Stieber: That would deviate from their corporate standard. It wouldn’t be possible. Brown: Yeah. Kearfott: Okay. Brown: Creative though, very good. Petitioner Stieber: You know what –there was a design like that out there. There was that you’re absolutely right. Peppler: There was some trade, again that’s up above my pay scale, but there was a trade mark issue or something that you couldn’t put the arch in the word McDonald. It’s a trademark McDonald the block letters. Then they took away the arch as the “M” because of a trade. Again, it’s above my pay scale. Good point, but we did have that, but it’s not allowed through trade mark laws or something. Henzi: All right. My suggestion why don’t we just proceed and see how it shakes out. Caramagno: I’ve got one quick question. Henzi: Go ahead, Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: The yellow band on the front of the building in the minutes, one of these minutes, it says that’s got to be changed and not be yellow any longer? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 36 of 47 October 25, 2011 Petitioner Lautzenheiser: No, that was at Planning Commission, I believe, I don’t know if it’s the study meeting or prior to that there was discussion of changing that and when they asked which facility was – they could look at to compare what we were proposing here when we were doing the major remodel? Caramagno: Yeah. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: We did the one in Plymouth on Ann Arbor Road, but that was not this type of design. That one had a play space and we actually took it off. So, what was there was a different building material and I had to explain - you’ll see in the minutes I had to apologize and explain to them that I misinformed the Board at that point because I remember having a play space, but I forgot we took it off. This actually has windows that start down at about 2 ft. and all the way up to the McDonald’s are windows. So, this is just a type of a louver and this is just an aluminum band. What’s at the other McDonald’s on Ann Arbor Road is actually a stone material. Here we have no place or way or means to support that and again, it’s not the corporate image for a facility with a play space if that answers your question. Caramagno: I thought I had seen it in here. So, you’re saying it’s changed since the Planning Commission that comment? Petitioner Lautzenheiser: Yes, and I think at the Planning Commission meeting because I wrote a letter to Mark Taormina and explained the situation to him that I mislead and not on purpose of course, but because that other facility did have a play space, but we actually ended up taking the play space off and making it to be other prototypical design if that makes any sense. Caramagno: I know Taylor had mentioned it. I thought I had seen something maybe it’s changed. Okay. That’s all I’ve got. Henzi: Is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against this project, if so, come on up. Good evening. Matthews: How are you doing? Jeff Matthews,19288 Farmington Road. I live diagonal from the McDonald’s that we’re talking about. I’m for it. I think it will look good. I know that’s not the question. It all comes down to ordinance so pretty much I really wasn’t needed but wife didn’t read the whole letter. I could have mailed it. So, thanks for the conversation this evening. I appreciate it. It’s been interesting, but I have no problem with the signage. I didn’t know if it was going to be an issue of light or if it was just an issue of too many sign. It sounds like it’s just an issue of too many signs. I don’t have a problem with it. I agree with some of what everybody was saying. I disagree with others. You got any questions about what I agree with or disagree with, please ask, I will go further. But we’ve been here for a little bit I just wanted to say I approve it. Henzi: Thanks. Did you get to see their plans? Matthews: I’ve seen it in the lobby because I have eaten there. I live across the street. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 37 of 47 October 25, 2011 Henzi: Anybody else? Can you read the letters? Caramagno: Kathleen Goetsch [19217 W estmore] writes an objection (letter was read). Henzi: You have the opportunity to make a closing statement. Is there anything you would like to say? Petitioner Lautzenheiser: I think we would like to try to come to kind of an agreement before you all go to a vote and I don’t think we’ve quite gotten there yet; correct me if I’m wrong. Brown: Just clarify it for me. Henzi: Well, let me tell you what I see as your options. You could say, look we’re going to conform in exchange for the reader board, or you could say go ahead I’d like to hear what you all have to say, you know, we’ll take our chances. We think that we still need a variance because we do need an excess and the reader board. You could ask to come back another day. You could ask to hear what people think and then revisit the issue of whether you want to make a compromise. I think that would be fair. Normally we close the public portion once the Board starts its comments, but given the fact that you’re open to compromise we’ve been asking you about compromise I think it would only be fair to allow you to talk about the compromise after you hear what people say. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: Sure. Henzi: Is that fair? Petitioner Lautzenheiser: That’s very fair. Petitioner Stieber: That’s fair. Henzi: Okay. Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: We’ve never touched on this the electronic reader board how many characters or slots are we proposing. This one shows three, three different lines. Is it three or is it 20? Petitioner Stieber: It wouldn’t be more than three because you couldn’t read it then. Pastor: Okay, that’s all I want to know. Thank you. Petitioner Stieber: Yes. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 38 of 47 October 25, 2011 Henzi: Having said that, I’ll reserve your right to speak again and we’ll go around and see what everyone has to say. So, I’ll start the Board’s comments with Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: Well, I believe in signs for identification and I believe in the public being able to identify your building, but none of the signs on the building make any sense to me at all – none of them and I’ll tell you why. If you’re going north and south, none of these signs are of any benefit at all. I think the reader sign is going to give you the most benefit that you could possibly ask for identification. So, that was my feeling and listen to everything that was going on and I haven’t change that feeling. So, I think that you need to comply. There is no hardship of why you would have any of these other signs on the building. So, that’s my feeling. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: When I spoke earlier how I felt about the play place sign and the “M” over the door. I’m willing to hear a compromise on what can and can’t happen here. You have come a great, great distance in taking down that 35 ft. sign. Nobody else and not many others have that sign in this city especially on four lane road in this city – maybe along the freeway there might be some things like this, but there’s been a big reduction in signage; therefore, I would entertain something additional on the building along with the reader board that you have presented tonight. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Yes, I agree with that. They have taken down a large sign. I don’t quite understand why we box out the “M” on the reader board sign to create more square footage. My biggest concern is if we approve the extra “M” on the building which would give them a little more square footage, we’d have every gas station in town coming back to us for another sign for them. It’s not that I don’t want it I’m fearful of everybody else coming back in because once McDonald’s does it everybody wants it because McDonald’s has it. So, it’s pretty much where I stand. The reader board and the main sign look good though. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: I like the, at least in my opinion, you have to have the McDonald’s on the front and I think that the electronic sign looks great. The one arch on the door and the play place you could put up that sign on the electronic message board. That extra arch on the front I would like to see on there, but I have to agree with him that this Board has said no to too many gas stations in the past, but think the plans look good. I think we would absolutely love to work with you to figure out a solution for you guys. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: Like I said before, I totally understand the branding part. I know you guys are battling with that and I know that’s hard. That being said, I don’t necessarily see a quote/unquote hardship per se other than again I know that it takes away from your marketing efforts. So, it’s kind of six and one half or half a dozen of the other. But I’m City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 39 of 47 October 25, 2011 still going to go with my original thought in the fact that I believe we’re going to start a precedent that we’re going to have to continue to follow with, with everybody that wants to deviate from what our guidelines are. So, I’m not comfortable with that. Henzi: Mr. Sills. Sills: I don’t think I can add any more than the rest of my colleagues on this Board have mentioned especially Toni and Mr. Pastor. They made some very good points and I go along with this idea that if McDonald’s does it, everybody else can do it. So, that’s where I stand right now. I’d like to add something to this. That particular McDonald’s we’re talking about off of Seven Mile Road has been there a long time and my initial thought about signs is to bring in business. Well, for goodness sakes if they had any more business at that particular McDonald’s, I don’t know what they would do with it. Brown: Oh, there’s more ahead. Believe me. Sills: You go there in the morning you line up with your cars you can’t even get in. Brown: Yeah, we won’t any more we got a double drive through going down there. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: That’s the whole purpose of the side by side drive through. Brown: We just bought more headsets – give me a couple weeks. You’ll come on back in. I’m serious come on back in. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: She’ll buy you a coffee. Brown: Yeah. Henzi: Mr. Sills, is that -- Sills: Yes, I’m done. Henzi: I’ll tell you my comments and then I guess we’ll find out whether there’s a consensus and then you can weigh in. I’m very hesitant to set a precedent as well, but there’s a couple of things that I think distinguish this property from some others. For instance, if a gas station came to me a year from now and said why did you want to give it to McDonald’s I would say – give the same to me. I would probably say but McDonald’s is different than you because they had a 100 ft. sign, 35 ft. that they took down and there was some horse trading with the City, but they did that and they gave it up and I think that it would only be fair to work with them. Along those lines I understand that you wanted that wrap around ring a little bit closer. It sounds like there was an agreement that it was safer. I feel uncomfortable trying to change the game here at the end because if you had come to us and said, hey, ultimately here’s where our sign package is the Planning Commission would have addressed that issue in the beginning. But now here we are and you’re saying we took it down and there’s a valid reason for taking it down and we think that we deserve a little something back. I get that. I think that’s fair. The other thing that distinguishes this property from others is City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 40 of 47 October 25, 2011 that you’ve got a logo and I understand that our ordinance counts the arches as signage and I think that that’s correct. I think it’s wrong for by comparison the illuminated roof beams to be counted as signage. I think that’s clearly not signage. I think that if you had a Ronald McDonald statute, I would say that’s not signage that’s pop art. However, although the arch is a sign according to the ordinance I think it’s unfair to box it out the way that we’ve had it. I think you deserve some play in return because we’re calculating the square footage at a greater amount than perhaps it actually is. Also, it is an iconic image that is as much a piece of art as it is a sign in my opinion, others might disagree. I don’t have a problem so much with the arches. What I would feel comfortable is remove play place. Again going back to my original point, I don’t like setting a precedent but by the same token I think I’ve got to be fair with the business owner and give them credit for some things that I just don’t think is its necessarily his fault. That’s my opinion. Having said that, I’ll offer to you the opportunity to talk and then we’ll find out if there’s a consensus one way or the other. So, go ahead. Brown: I’ll buy you a cup of coffee. Henzi: So, go ahead. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: We were kind of talking about where we are headed with this. I think the play space sign we’ve agreed that that can be eliminated from the package as proposed and Theresa if she needs to and we agree with you we’d like to keep both of the “M’s” but if we had to let one or both that would be part of the package and that would get us down to complying with two of the four components in this package as indicated in the public notice. But McDonald’s would like to retain the ground height sign as proposed 10 ft. tall with the reader board and we’re at 48 sq. ft. The reader board plus squared off, McDonald’s copy with the arches. So, we’re in excess of 18 ft. there and we’re two feet under on the building if we don’t include the one “M.” We would like to get at least the one “M” on the front if we could to balance the building from an architectural standpoint. I guess we don’t want to leave here today missing it by this much because we didn’t take off the other “M” and we got denied or we got tabled. We’d like to come to some kind of agreement. Brown: Right. And I’d like to have 10 ft. on that road sign. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: If we can get the ground sign at 10 ft. as proposed per the resolution as well and then the ground sign area which is 48 sq. ft. again which is less than half of the other sign that was taken down and we eliminated – and then the only wall sign on the building would be McDonald’s on the front. Brown: Right and my arches to his point would be up higher. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: Well, they would be as proposed. Brown: As proposed. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: Correct. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 41 of 47 October 25, 2011 Brown: Instead of going down 6 ft. Henzi: All right, well I think we know where you stand and I think we should start making motions and we’ll see what happens. So, the floor is open for a motion. Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Upon Motion by Caramagno, supported by Pastor, it was: RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2011-10-45: McDonald’s, 19311 Farmington Road, Livonia, MI 48152, seeking to erect four wall signs resulting in excess number of wall signs, combined wall sign area and the business ground sign being excess in height, area and contains an electronic message board, which is not allowed due to the proposed nonconforming wall and ground signage. Number of Wall Signs Wall Sign Area Allowed: One Allowed: 44 sq. ft. Proposed: Four Proposed: 97 sq. ft. Excess: Three Excess: 53 sq. ft. Ground Sign Height Ground Sign Area Allowed: 6 ft. Allowed: 30 sq. ft. Proposed: 10 ft. Proposed: 48 sq. ft. Excess: 4 ft. Excess: 18 sq. ft. The property located on the west side of Farmington (19311) between Seven Mile and Fargo be granted in part and denied in part for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because this long-time business of 30 years in Livonia has remodeled their building and brought it into a current look with more brick, less colorful architecture on it and they still need to retain their signage for business purposes. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because Petitioner would not be able to advertise their purpose on Farmington Road. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because this has been a long-time restaurant that needs to attract business off of Farmington Road and Seven Mile Road. 4. The Board received (1) one letter of objection and no letters of approval. 5. The granting of this variance will no adversely affect the purpose or objective of the Master Plan because the property is classified for “General Commercial” City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 42 of 47 October 25, 2011 under the Master Plan the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification. FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions: 1. That the “Play Place” language be removed from the north side of the building. 2. That the McDonald “M” be measured at its actual square foot instead of a boxed square foot putting it in range for the wall sign area. 3. That the height of the monument sign be allowed to be 10 feet and the square foot of the ground sign be allowed as presented at 48 sq. ft, including the electronic message board. 4. That the Petition shall meet all requirements as imposed by City Council in its 8/24/11 resolution. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Caramagno, Pastor, Henzi NAYS: Aloe, Duggan, McCue, Sills Henzi: Motion to approve in part, denied in part by Mr. Caramagno, support by Mr. Pastor: Any discussion? Pastor: Sam, when you said the “M” measured, are you saying that both “M’s” are going on the building? Caramagno: Yeah, I said both. The one over the door and the one in the front along with the McDonald’s on the top of the brick. Pastor: Okay. Caramagno: Which puts it slightly over the -- Pastor: But you’re asking for the pylon sign “M” to be measured correctly not boxed out because that’s one thing that the extra footage -- Caramagno: It’s the extra footage on the building. McCue: The one on the building. Caramagno: The building and trying to get that close to that wall sign area 44 sq. ft. I think we said the McDonald’s is 42 and each of these “M’s” is about 2 and a half – is that what it is? Petitioner Lautzenheiser: Yes. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 43 of 47 October 25, 2011 Caramagno: So, you’ve got 5, 42, 47 – you’re close on the square footage of the building signage. Pastor: Okay. Caramagno: If that map was right that you presented to us earlier 2 ½ sq. ft. close. Henzi: Did you want to say incorporate the Council minutes? Caramagno: Oh, yes, and of course incorporate the Council minutes dated August 24th it is. Pastor: We never talked about illumination for this. Caramagno: We didn’t talk about illumination at all and you’re right about that that needs to be something – this thing can’t run all night. Pastor: You’re not a 24 hour store; are you? Brown: Yes, I am. Pastor: You are? Brown: Yes. Pastor: I didn’t think Livonia had any 24 hour stores. Henzi: Yes, my thought on that was they’re already running. Pastor: Okay. Caramagno: I didn’t realize that. Pastor: I didn’t think we had any 24 hour stores. Caramagno: If the store is open 24 hours, the signage can be open 24 hours. Pastor: Right. Caramagno: I didn’t want the sign running all night if the store was closed. Brown: Oh, no. Pastor: Okay. Caramagno: That’s where I was going with that. So, that’s where I’m at. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 44 of 47 October 25, 2011 Fisher: Okay so we understand, is your resolution retaining the reader board and the only thing you’re really eliminating is play place? Caramagno: Yes. Fisher: Okay. Caramagno: Yeah and just realizing there’s going to be more cases to come before us – no matter what, there’s going to be more cases coming before us in my opinion and most of them don’t have a 35 ft. tall pylon sign to trade off for any of these things just like Matt had said. I felt that way right off the bat. That’s my opinion. Henzi: Any other discussion? Hearing none, please call the roll. Henzi: Motion fails. The floor is open for another motion. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: Are we allowed to speak at this time? Henzi: Sure. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: If we take the arch off of the north side, then we would be in compliance with the wall sign area still calculating the actual square footage, but we would be over by about a half of foot but we would be taking off the sign, the “M” on the north side where the vestibule is now. Duggan: You can keep the one in the front of the building, the one over the door. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: Correct. Duggan: If you kept the one on the front, I’d be all for that. Petitioner Stieber: So it balances up the building. Duggan: Yes. Petitioner Stieber: We’ll take the other arch off on the north side where the play place is, is that okay with the Council? Henzi: Now, you’re removing play place and the arch over the door? Petitioner Stieber: And the one arch. Petitioner Lautzenheiser: And one “M” correct. Pastor: Sam, do you just want to modify. Caramagno: Can I revise the – City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 45 of 47 October 25, 2011 Henzi: Yes, you can. Caramagno: So, let’s revise the last proposal. Henzi: Just change your conditions. Caramagno: Change the conditions to removing the McDonald’s logo “M” over the north door and everything else being the same. Pastor: Support, oh, and the play place. Caramagno: Everything else is the same. Pastor: Support. Caramagno: So we got me and Pastor supporting. Henzi: Any discussion? Everyone understand the motion? McCue: Again, with the idea that we’re actually looking at the actual square footage not the boxing out; correct? Henzi: Yes. So, this motion is identical he is just adding the removal of the arch over the north door. RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2011-10-45: McDonald’s, 19311 Farmington Road, Livonia, MI 48152, seeking to erect four wall signs resulting in excess number of wall signs, combined wall sign area and the business ground sign being excess in height, area and contains an electronic message board, which is not allowed due to the proposed nonconforming wall and ground signage. Number of Wall Signs Wall Sign Area Allowed: One Allowed: 44 sq. ft. Proposed: Four Proposed: 97 sq. ft. Excess: Three Excess: 53 sq. ft. Ground Sign Height Ground Sign Area Allowed: 6 ft. Allowed: 30 sq. ft. Proposed: 10 ft. Proposed: 48 sq. ft. Excess: 4 ft. Excess: 18 sq. ft. As revised by Board at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of October 25, 2011: Number of Walls Signs Wall Sign Area Allowed: One Allowed: 44.0 sq. ft. Proposed: Two Proposed: 44.5 sq. ft. Excess: One Excess: .5 sq. ft. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 46 of 47 October 25, 2011 Ground Sign Height Ground Sign Area Allowed: 6 ft. Allowed: 30 sq. ft. Proposed: 10 ft. Proposed: 48 sq. ft. Excess: 4 ft. Excess: 18 sq. ft. The property located on the west side of Farmington (19311) between Seven Mile and Fargo be granted in part and denied in part for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because this long-time business of 30 years in Livonia has remodeled their building and brought it into a current look with more brick, less colorful architecture on it and they still need to retain their signage for business purposes. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because Petitioner would not be able to advertise their purpose on Farmington Road. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because this has been a long-time restaurant that needs to attract business off of Farmington Road and Seven Mile Road. 4. The Board received (1) one letter of objection and no letters of approval. 5. The granting of this variance will no adversely affect the purpose or objective of the Master Plan because the property is classified for “General Commercial” under the Master Plan the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification. FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions: 1. That Petitioner will remove the McDonald’s “M” over the north entrance door. 2. That the “Play Place” language be removed from the north side of the building. 3. That the McDonald “M” be measured at its actual square foot instead of a boxed square foot putting it in range for the wall sign area. 4. That the height of the monument sign be allowed to be 10 feet and the square foot of the ground sign be allowed as presented at 48 sq. ft, including the electronic message board. 5. That the Petition shall meet all requirements as imposed by City Council in its 8/24/11 resolution. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 47 of 47 October 25, 2011 ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Caramagno, Pastor, Aloe, Duggan, McCue, Sills, Henzi NAYS: None . There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. _________________________ MATTHEW HENZI, Chairman _________________________ SAM CARAMAGNO, Secretary /hm