Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA MEETING 2014-09-23 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF LIVONIA MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 A Special Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Livonia was held in the Gallery of the Livonia City Hall on Tuesday, September 23, 2014. MEMBERS PRESENT: Sam Caramagno, Acting Chairman Jason Rhines, Acting Secretary Robert Bowling Robert Sills Benjamin Schepis MEMBERS ABSENT: Matthew Henzi Craig Pastor OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Fisher, Assistant City Attorney Scott Kearfott, City Inspector Patricia C. Burklow, CER-8225 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Acting Chairman Caramagno 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 full seven (7) member Board. Five (5) members were present this evening. The Chairman asked if anyone wishedto 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 3 people present in the audience. (7:05) City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 of 20 September 23, 2014 Caramagno: Case 49, LIVCOM, LLC on behalf of Aspen Dental, please come forward please. Scott is there anything you would like to add to this case? Kearfott: Not at this time. Caramagno: Any questions for Mr. Kearfott? Oh, sorry, go ahead and read the case. APPEAL CASE NO. 2014-09-49 An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of LIVCOM, LLC, Appeals by , 9986 Manchester Rd., St. Louis, MO 63122on behalf of Lessee Aspen Dental, 13417 Middlebelt, Livonia, MI 48150, seeking to erect two wall signs (one on the east elevation and one on the south elevation) on an end unit of a multi- tenant commercial building, resulting in excess number of wall signs and wall sign area. Number of Wall Signs: Wall Sign Area: Allowed: One Allowed: 59 sq. ft Proposed: Two Proposed: 114 sq. ft. Excess: One (57 sq. ft. each elevation) Excess: 55 sq. ft. The property is located on the west side of Middlebelt (13417) between Industrial and Schoolcraft, Lot No. 101-99-0004-002, C-2 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.50H(b)2, “Sign Regulations in C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 Districts.” Caramagno: Okay, are there any questions for Scott? Bowling: Mr. Chair. Caramagno: Yes. Bowling: Scott, is there a square footage we get to on a building before they are allowed a sign on each side? Kearfott: If they are an end unit and they are on two major thoroughfares described as being at least a 100 feet right of way. Bowling: Okay. Kearfott: So Industrial is not so-- Bowling: Okay, thanks. Caramagno: Okay, sir, can you state your name and tell us why you are here, what you would like? Stieber: Patrick Stieber. Well, we are here tonight as stated asking for additional signage and square footage. I am sure you are all aware of this development that is going in here. This is the outbuilding in front of the--the development behind it which is the Dick’s and all that there. So it is a pretty major development that is going in here, there is going to be a lot of traffic flow going in and out of this development from all directions which is part City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 of 20 September 23, 2014 of the reason that we are here. We’ve submitted for and have been approved for a wall sign on the front elevation, 57 square feet. And also we are under the allowed 59 square feet for that sign. We have been issued our permit for that sign. We are here tonight asking for the permit for the additional sign on the side south elevation. And the reason we are asking for that is that we feel that we have a hardship of lack of identification due to the fact that this property is going to have traffic flows on all four sides of the building including ingress and egress from Industrial Drive. Now I know that is not considered a major thoroughfare but there is definitely going to be traffic flows coming into the development from there. Southbound traffic--or northbound traffic will be--you know-- able to go in from Industrial Drive and enter into this complex. So we definitely feel that having this additional signage is going to direct people to the business, help with traffic flow around the property due to the fact that there is going to be these traffic flows on all four sides. We feel that it would not be detrimental to the surrounding areas and that the spirit of the ordinance will be intact due to the fact that there are other--many other end units and developments similar to this that have two signs on two elevations like this. With that said, you know--I’d like to get some feedback on how you guys feel on how you- -you know--view this and view this Industrial Drive and the traffic flows around the four sides of the building. Because definitely we do feel we have a hardship and a unique circumstance due to this development. Caramagno: Okay, do you have any questions for the petitioner? Rhines: Mr. Chair. Caramagno: Yes, sir. Rhines: Are you the--are you the owner of the dental-- Stieber: I’m not--no. Rhines: You’re with LIVCOM? Stieber: No, I’m with Allied. Rhines: The sign company? Stieber: Yeah, we’re representing Aspen Dental. Rhines: Okay. Stieber: Yeah. Rhines: Then I won’t start by thanking you for bringing your dental business to Livonia. So, with this particular situation most of the customers of the dental office are probably going to be repeat customers right? Stieber: Well, I wouldn’t say that. You know obviously once you start going there you know it but getting the identification out there for future customers is always part of the sign’s job. You know--so yes the signs are there for the purpose of new business obviously to direct people that are going to go there to get there as well. But yes definitely for future business for future patrons. Rhines: Okay, because we have--you know--we have strict rules we have to follow and we can’t grant variances just for a petitioner to be able to make more money which would City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 of 20 September 23, 2014 be a second sign to attract more business to their building. There has to be a--you know there has to be a difficulty, there has to be a few conditions that we have to meet. And so I know--you know if--with the dental practice--you know they’ve got an established clientele or they will establish clientele. But once they find their way there the first time then they will know how to get there so you’ve just got that one time--that initial finding the building and then they know where it is at. So beyond that initial finding the building of the new clientele the only purpose of the second sign would be to attract new customers. They might not see it if they were not looking-- Stieber: Absolutely-- Rhines: --right at it. Stieber: Absolutely--you know--it’s for--you know--I know you can’t just say because it’s a dental business it has repeat customers. You know you could say that about any business you know. You know this sign is definitely something that is going to help traffic flow, help people find this place. Just because it doesn’t--you know--Industrial Drive isn’t a major thoroughfare doesn’t mean that the traffic flows aren’t going to be coming from that way. So like I said I really think that the spirit of the ordinance is being met here. You know there is a hardship. This is a unique piece of property in a unique development. And there definitely are many other businesses that are using two elevations on corner units. So you know we are not asking for anything else that other people don’t have in the surrounding area. Rhines: No we--we all--speaking on behalf of the rest of the Board--we all drive and look at all those properties and then--you know--the other properties related to it. So I personally actually on the way here recounted it and noticed that Chili’s had a sign on two elevations, Noodles and Company has a sign on two elevations, you know there were several other ones. Applebee’s is going to have the sign on two elevations. But we also regularly--if you come before Livonia--have you had signs in Livonia? Stieber: Absolutely. Yeah I’ve been coming here for years. Rhines: We try and treat everyone the same-- you know-- and we try-- Stieber: For sure. Rhines: --to keep Livonia following a certain set of guidelines and we do also regularly decline appeals to the Zoning Board for certain things like this-- Stieber: I’ve been in front of the Board many of times about--about--you know--coming to compromises on signs and--you know-- Rhines: For me--like Chili’s for example, 50 people--50 random people a day could be trying to figure where this Chili’s is at causing traffic jams. You know so sometimes you want that extra signage so that these people can find--you know can find it so they are not sitting there--you know--jamming up our traffic all the time. But some of the--some of the different medical practices and different things--you know--I noticed in the past we haven’t granted the proposal because it’s--because there are less people every day just randomly trying to find it. It’s less of--it’s less of a special situation where there’s a major traffic inconvenience from it. So--anyway that’s where I’m coming from I didn’t know if City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 of 20 September 23, 2014 this was a different type of dental practice, I’m not familiar with it. Maybe there are franchises that caters to walk-ins or something? Stieber: Absolutely it is. It wouldn’t be in a convenient strip center if it wasn’t for sure. Rhines: Maybe that’s their--is that their business model? Stieber: You know I don’t know their exact business model but I do know that that’s what the attraction is. You know--and again--you know--to single them out as a business that does dental work versus selling shoes or burgers or whatever, I don’t think that is fair either. You know they deserve the same right to their customers for this type of situation than anybody else would. You know it’s definitely a nice building that they are building. It’s not excessive at all. It really fits in with the building. I could hear what you are saying if it was excessive but it’s really not, it’s really not obtrusive and it fits in with the architecture rather well. But I hear what you are saying--you know--I do get that but I don’t necessarily agree totally with that. That because they are a medical so to speak that they don’t need the visibility to get their customers there. Rhines: Well it’s not that they don’t need it, but we don’t have the authority to grant variances based on need--simply on need to attract customers. Stieber: Sure-- Rhines: We don’t--we can’t base them on that. But the other--the last question I had for you right now is the amount of square footage. Are you open to something smaller because this is almost double what the allowed is and that is also something we struggle with here on the Board. You know a lot of the petitioners want something a little bit more than what is allowed. So are you guys--is your client--are you opened minded to--if we go down that road, the double signage but just smaller ones so you’re not so much over the total allowed signage? Stieber: You mean to downsize the second one you mean? Rhines: Yeah, approximate--no both of them--approximately--let’s just say approximately--I don’t know 45 square feet each so that they are--so then you would only be 35 in excess of--I’m sorry what’s he allowed 59? Stieber: Fifty-nine yeah. Rhines: So if you were 45 square feet each you’d be what 17 square feet in excess of what’s allowed instead of 55 square feet? Stieber: Sure. Rhines: Are you guys open to something like that? Stieber: Well, I mean--obviously--you know if that’s the route we have to go--I mean we really feel the size of these letters for readability on the main road there, they are sized correctly for the height you know for them to be readable. So that would be my stance on that. But obviously we are here to work with you guys, there is no doubt about that. Rhines: Okay, no further questions. Caramagno: What other questions do we got? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 of 20 September 23, 2014 Sills: I have-- Caramagno: Mr. Sills. Sills: For the what it’s worth department, I don’t recall anybody ever driving around looking for a dental office. Do you? Stieber: I don’t understand the question. Sills: Well, you are asking for signage-- Stieber: Yes. Sills: --on the building. Stieber: Yes, we are. Sills: And you say you are a new company into Livonia-- Stieber: Yes. Sills: --okay, what I am saying is if I have a problem with my teeth, I’m going to call somebody I know and ask them who their dentist is. I’m not going to jump in my car and drive around and look for a dental office. That was my question. When was the last time you drove around looking for dentist? Stieber: Well, I’ve had my dentist since I was a kid. Sills: Where did you get your dentist from? Stieber: It was my mom and dad’s dentist. Sills: Exactly. Stieber: Yes. Sills: That’s my point. Stieber: You know I hear what you are saying, I do, you know--but this business model is different from what we are used to, the traditional-- Sills: In what way? Stieber: Well the fact that they--does your dentist have an office--any of you in a strip center like this? It’s new--it’s a new concept. It definitely is, it’s not something that we are all--my dentist office looks like a house. Sills: Okay. Stieber: It’s definitely different. I’m not going to argue with you there, you are right but you know just because their business model is not traditional doesn’t mean they don’t need signage. Sills: Most dental offices are in--are in commercial complexes and the clients that the dentist have know exactly where they are going. They don’t jump in the car looking around or there’s a dental office why don’t we go there? That’s not good practice I don’t think. So why you would need such a great big sign I don’t know. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 of 20 September 23, 2014 Stieber: Well, we’re--the sign we are proposing on the front is--it meets the ordinance, it’s under the ordinance. We’re asking for the additional sign on the side elevation you know due to the fact we are the corner unit and there’s the traffic flow on all four sides and that does face the Industrial Drive where there is the other entrance into the property so that’s the reason for it. Due to lack of identification, due to the traffic flow is on all four sides of the property. Sills: I would say the percentage of traffic on Industrial Drive are going to buildings that are producing a product or something like that. They are not looking for a dentist. That’s the last thing they would be looking for. Stieber: Well but there’s still traffic flow coming in off of Industrial Drive. Sills: What good would your sign do then? Stieber: Cars coming in and using Industrial Drive to enter the complex that’s why we want the sign. You know there are several other businesses that have these signs on both sides of the corner units. The development at Plymouth and Middlebelt, those are the same type of out lot buildings there, the exact same. All of those have signs on both corner elevations. So why do they get to have it and we wouldn’t be able to have it? Sills: I’m not saying you shouldn’t have a sign I’m just saying--I’m just questioning the size of the sign. Stieber: Yeah. Sills: And what does it really do for you? Stieber: Well we feel that the size of that sign is really going to give it good readability. It’s really not excessive when you look at how large it is on that wall. It really fits into the architecture rather well. And you know having lettering a certain height and size is--you know--just as important as the design of the sign. It’s got to be able to be readable. You know like we said, we are here to work with you, if you think reducing the square footage is something you would rather see, and that is where this is leading to, we are open to talking about that for sure. Sills: Well I think 200 percent is an awful lot. I’m done. Caramagno: Any other questions? Fisher: Mr. Chair. Oh, I’m sorry. Caramagno: Mr. Schepis. Schepis: I just want to make sure I understand this. I think when you responded to Mr. Rhines you said you weren’t sure what the business model of your client was as far as whether it was designed for walk-ins or you know more traditional dental practice. But in your response to Mr. Sills I kind of got the sense that that was in fact the model? Stieber: Well it is for it to be--yeah-- Schepis: Okay. Stieber: --for it to be where it is located, they are trying to get more business from people who are in these--you know these developments are full of customers. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 of 20 September 23, 2014 Schepis: Mm-hmm. Stieber: You know the Dick’s there is going to have lots of traffic in there. There’s going to be people that are going to be shopping here that can also get dental services done-- you know--when they are shopping and it is a convenience thing as well. Schepis: So that is the business model, not just because of its location, it’s a choice to be put in a strip mall? Stieber: Yeah, I mean it’s--their business model is to get more traffic flow than a standard type of dental office that’s not on the main path like this for sure. Schepis: Okay, thank you. Fisher: Mr. Chair. Caramagno: Mr. Fisher. Fisher: You understand that if he did have frontage on two major thoroughfares that the second sign can only be half the size of the first sign? Stieber: Okay. Fisher: So in other words it would be 27 square feet or something like that. Stieber: Okay. Fisher: Just-- Stieber: Yeah, if that’s what the ordinance is, if that is something that the Board is willing to talk about, absolutely we are here to talk about that. Fisher: Okay. Caramagno: Any other questions? Bowling: Mr. Chair. Caramagno: Yes, Mr. Bowling. Bowling: Well, I guess just following up on that, is that something--do you have a number in mind that you would be looking to try to get? That’s one of the ways we try to get-- Stieber: I’d like--I like Jason’s number, that would be great. Fisher: Forty-five square feet each? Bowling: I think we would have a tough time getting that consensus among the Board, I think the half size is probably going to be a lot more doable. So I guess we would want to know if that made sense to you in terms of your size? Stieber: Well, I think half is going to make the sign a lot less readable. You know half I guess is better than nothing but you know for readability of the letters to squish them down that small, it’s going to actually look kind of weird on the wall being that small. But that would be my thought on that but-- City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 of 20 September 23, 2014 Caramagno: All set? Bowling: Yep. Caramagno: I’ve only got a couple of questions. Where does Aspen Dental come from? Where is there another Aspen Dental store? Stieber: They are--this is probably the seventh or eighth site that we’ve done in the market. Caramagno: Market being Metro-Detroit? Stieber: Yes, Metro-Detroit. They are a nation--national franchise type business. Caramagno: What other stores in this area? You say seven or eight in the Metro-Detroit, whereabouts? Stieber: We did Brighton, Port Huron, I want to say Clinton township area right from where we are at, man there are several. I can look it up on line, we did all the signs for them over the past four--three or four years. Caramagno: Do all of the Aspen Dentals purchase end units in retail establishments? Stieber: Most all of them do yes and we’ve got signs on both of them at most--at all of them that we’ve done. Caramagno: So every Aspen Dental you’ve done is on a corner end unit? Stieber: Yes. Caramagno: Is it on an end unit in a middle of a major road or are these on--or do they focus on-- Stieber: Both. Caramagno: --major thoroughfares? Stieber: Both, the one on--the one in Brighton on Grand River, you know it just faces-- it’s on Grand River so there is no other major thoroughfare. The building is kind of angled a little bit but that one is just one thoroughfare. The one in Clinton Township--actually it’s Chesterfield Township that’s just one road, that’s North Avenue--I’m sorry Gratiot Avenue, two signs, one thoroughfare. But end units obviously. Caramagno: End caps? Stieber: Yes. Caramagno: And the signs--the size of those signs are they on a similar sized building? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 of 20 September 23, 2014 Stieber: Yeah. Caramagno: In most cases? Stieber: Yeah, definitely similar sized buildings. Caramagno: And similar sized signs? Stieber: Yes. Caramagno: Is this a template sign you have for these folks? Stieber: Well it’s channel letters so obviously channel letters can be reduced up and down in size. Caramagno: Okay. Stieber: Rather more easily than say a McDonald’s sign that’s a standard arch or something. Caramagno: How did you decide to go a couple square feet less on the Middlebelt frontage than what you are allowed? Stieber: Just because that’s what the actual square footage came out to when we went with that size letter for the readability height. So it’s--to keep it under that if we would raise it up a little bit more it might have been over and we obviously didn’t want to be over the square footage. But for that--for the traffic flow on that road that height letter is you know--is the--is a good size for readability. Caramagno: Do you have an address on this building? Stieber: It’s just going to be on the transom window I believe. Caramagno: Any other questions for the petitioner? Rhines: Mr. Chair. Caramagno: Yes. Rhines: I noticed when I was looking at some of the other--other buildings in the area like Chili’s for example. I noticed they’ve got a big sign up front and on the side they have a much smaller sign, it’s a pepper or their Chili’s logo or whatever--whatever that is. So, you know--you said you liked my idea and I am probably stepping back a little bit, I was just opening up the conversation about changing the size, but my--speaking--now Mr. Fisher has pointed out what the ordinance would be if we considered Industrial a major thoroughfare or if it was some other road that was a major thoroughfare. For me I would like to see the full size on the front and the half size sign on the side. So I guess just a question if the rest of the Board agrees with it on that road. Is that going to be something you are going to be able to work with? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 10 of 20 September 23, 2014 Stieber: Well, yeah, it’s better--if that is what the Board wants and that’s what we are going to take for sure. Rhines: Okay, thank you. Stieber: Yeah, we are not going to walk away and say no, there is no way. Caramagno: Any other questions? All right, we will allow you to have your--there are no letters right? Rhines: No--no letters. Caramagno: Anybody from the audience want to speak on--for or against this case? Okay, I will allow you to make a final statement to the Board. Stieber: Well, I just want to thank you first of all for your time. It’s always a pleasure coming to the Livonia for these meetings. Like I said I’ve been coming here for years. But we do feel having this additional sign is definitely needed. We appreciate you understanding that fact and working with us on the square footage. We are willing to work with you on that like we just talked about. But we definitely do feel like we do have some criteria here that does meet the points for you guys being able to issue us a variance for this due to the hardships and the unique property. There wouldn’t be any detrimental effects to the area. So with that said we hope that we can get approval for some additional signage. Caramagno: And with that I will begin with Mr. Rhines. Rhines: Just reiteration of what I already said. You know Livonia is a pro-business City. We are proud of that so we appreciate you doing your work here and we appreciate the dental office coming in. And you know we also have to be fair to all the neighbors and fair to other similar businesses. So there is a lot to consider. I think I can be in support of a sign where the primary sign fits within the allowed signage and then the sign on the side is half that size. The numbers that come to my head--you asked for 57 square feet on the front, I could be--I could approve 29 on the side which would be about half. That’s it. Caramagno: Okay, Mr. Bowling. Bowling: I think I am in agreement, I could go for something that is just a little bit smaller on the side there. Caramagno: Mr. Sills. Sills: I agree with my colleagues I could go along with that too. Caramagno: Mr. Schepis. Schepis: I would agree, I think that makes sense given that if it were on a major thoroughfare it would be half the size. And if you are looking to kind of direct traffic within that area I think that it does make sense to have some signage within that--I guess parking lot sort of out area. Caramagno: I think you make a good case tonight for wanting to have a second sign. I think what you’ve got there requesting tonight is too large as most of my colleagues do. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 11 of 20 September 23, 2014 Your secondary street is a--well I guess it is a secondary street it is not a major thoroughfare. But it is a busy area and it sounds like the business plan for Aspen Dental is to attract and draw in people. I think most business try to do that. This is a little bit different and there are many other signs on corner buildings that would meet this--what I think is maximum of 90 square feet, no larger on the front but a maximum of 90 square feet to have a word written on the side street there. But I will be in support as well and I am open for a--open for an approval here. Rhines: Mr. Chair. Caramagno: Mr. Rhines. Upon Motion by Rhines is supported by Bowling, it was: RESOLVED: APPEAL CASE NO. 2014-09-49 An appeal has been made to the Zoning LIVCOM, LLC, Board of Appeals by , 9986 Manchester Rd., St. Louis, MO 63122on behalf of Lessee Aspen Dental, 13417 Middlebelt, Livonia, MI 48150, seeking to erect two wall signs (one on the east elevation and one on the south elevation) on an end unit of a multi-tenant commercial building, resulting in excess number of wall signs and wall sign area. Number of Wall Signs: Wall Sign Area: Allowed: One Allowed: 59 sq. ft Proposed: Two Proposed: 114 sq. ft. Excess: One (57 sq. ft. each elevation) Excess: 55 sq. ft. As revised by the Board with Petitioner’s concurrence: Number of Wall Signs: Wall Sign Area: Allowed: One Allowed: 59 sq. ft Proposed: Two Proposed: < 90 sq. ft. Excess: One (57 sq. ft. on east elev, < ½ the east elev + 1 sq. ft. on south elev) Excess: < 31 sq. ft. The property is located on the west side of Middlebelt (13417) between Industrial and Schoolcraft, Lot No. 101-99-0004-002, C-2 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.50H(b)2, “Sign Regulations in be granted in part and denied in part for the C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 Districts,” following reasons and findings of fact: City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 12 of 20 September 23, 2014 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because the building is located on a corner in a heavily congested area and it would be difficult for patrons to locate the business. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because the patrons of the business would have difficulty finding the building. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because neighboring businesses have been granted similar sign variances. 4. The Board received no letters of approval and no letters of objection from neighboring property owners. 5. The property is classified as “general commercial” in the Master Plan and the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification. FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions: 1. That the project be completed within six (6) months. 2. That the signs be constructed as presented both verbally and in writing with the total square footage of both signs not to exceed ninety (90) square feet, with the sign on the south wall of the building facing Industrial not to exceed one (1) square foot greater than one-half (1/2) the square footage of the sign on the east side of the building facing Middlebelt. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Rhines, Bowling, Sills, Schepis, Caramagno NAYS: None ABSENT: Henzi, Pastor Caramagno: Okay, you passed with the conditions this is good for six months in which to put the sign up according to the plans both written and verbally tonight. Maximum of 90 square feet and the language that was written about half of the size--no more than half of the size of the frontage--Middlebelt frontage. Kearfott: So you are saying 90 square feet maximum both signs combined? Caramagno: Combined--total. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 13 of 20 September 23, 2014 Kearfott: Okay, so he can have like 59 square feet on the front-- Caramagno: And half of that on the side. Kearfott: Okay. Caramagno: That’s what we said right? Bowling: Yes. Stieber: Thank you, I appreciate it. Caramagno: All right, thank you. Stieber: See you next time. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 14 of 20 September 23, 2014 APPEAL CASE NO. 2014-09-50 An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of - LIVCOM, LLC, Appeals by , 9986 Manchester Rd., St. Louis, MO 63122on behalf of Lessee JCD South 96, LLC, 19369 Fairlane Ct., Livonia, MI 48152, seeking to erect two wall signs (one on the east elevation and one on the north elevation) on an end unit of a multi-tenant commercial building, resulting in excess number of wall signs and wall sign area. Number of Wall Signs: Wall Sign Area: Allowed: One Allowed: 29 sq. ft Proposed: Two Proposed: 44 sq. ft. Excess: One (29 sq. ft. east elev - 15 sq. ft. north elev) Excess: 15 sq. ft. The property is located on the west side of Middlebelt (13453) between Industrial and Schoolcraft, Lot No. 101-99-0004-002, C-2 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.50H(b)2, “Sign Regulations in C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 Districts.” Caramagno: Mr. Kearfott anything to add? Kearfott: Not at this time. Caramagno: Okay, the representative is coming--any questions for Mr. Kearfott or the Inspection Department? Caramagno: Will the petitioners come forward. Go ahead and give us your name and address please. Doelker: Cheryl Doelker, 19369 Fairlane Court, Livonia, Michigan, 48152. I am the owner of the Jimmy John franchise that is going in on this corner. And I respectfully request your permission to do something similar to what the previous gentleman did. My reasons though are purely for safety at that corner because I fear--based on other locations I have in Livonia that signage is critical. In addition to patrons that may be looking for us trying to make turns at a busy intersection, I have a whole staff of delivery drivers that are also subject to accidents and things when traffic isn’t properly controlled. I think there are lights at appropriate places in those areas, but the biggest issue with safety is being able to plan your turns affectively into a busy center like that as you are coming off a busy intersection that is somewhat confusing. I am primarily concerned obviously about the southbound traffic on Middlebelt Road coming off of the expressway, making a left onto Middlebelt, proceeding south, they are the ones that are going to see our wall sign. We are not going to see the people coming north, we are going to have to depend on being able to say we are just north of Aspen Dental and they will see their south sign. So, anyway that is my take on it. I’m not in business to sell signs or anything like that. I have to sell a lot of sandwiches to pay for the little wall sign that I want on that north side of the building but I think it is worth it from a safety stand point. Caramagno: Okay, good. Let me ask you this. Is your store also at Middlebelt and Seven Mile? Doelker: Yes, it is. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 15 of 20 September 23, 2014 Caramagno: Is that open? Doelker: Yes, we are. Caramagno: How are you doing there? Doelker: Very well, thank you. Caramagno: Good. Doelker: Because the Zoning Board approved lots of good directional signage for us. Caramagno: Yes, we did. Doelker: Thank you. Caramagno: I am glad you are doing well. Okay, any questions for the petitioner? Rhines: Mr. Chair. Caramagno: Yes, sir. Rhines: I don’t have any questions. I would like to thank you for opening up another business in Livonia. After everybody has the questions that they--after everybody else has a chance to ask their questions, I guess I am skipping to the comments here. I’m going to move quickly to a motion because what they are asking for is basically the exact same size that we just granted the last petitioner and they are at the other end of the same building. Caramagno: Right. Rhines: I see no reason to--I’m not--I don’t have any questions because it is the same thing on the same building. Caramagno: Let’s see who does and we can perhaps move this through rapidly. Any other questions for the petitioner? I see a person in the audience anything you would like to say on behalf of this case? Sills: I would like to say something. Caramagno: I’m sorry, Mr. Sills. Sills: To the petitioner. Jimmy Johns--when I hear Jimmy Johns I hear sandwiches and some office calling to get a bag full of sandwiches to bring into their office for lunch and so on-- Doelker: That’s the ideal-- Sills: How much business do you get out of people just coming in to have a sandwich in your facility? Doelker: It actually depends on the location but on average our delivery is probably about 30 to 35 percent of our business. The rest is walking in shop type traffic. Sills: So you do have a place for people to sit and enjoy a sandwich-- Doelker: Yes. Sills: --with a coffee or something like that? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 16 of 20 September 23, 2014 Doelker: Yes, we will have sixty seats in this location. Sills: Okay, thank you. Doelker: Thank you. Caramagno: Anyone else? There are no letters in this case. Do you want to make a final statement? Doelker: I just thank you for your time and I just hope you will consider traffic safety when we are looking at this both for my employees and the customers and the people who travel the streets of Livonia. I mean they are all important to us in a lot of ways. Thank you. Caramagno: Thank you. Mr. Bowling. Bowling: I agree I think Jason made a good point. This is real similar of what we just approved and I will be in full support. Caramagno: Mr. Sills. Sills: I think we should have a quick sandwich-- Doelker: We deliver and I will call right now. Sills: --and while we are doing it we’ll say hey, I’m having a sandwich and I have a crown that I’ve got to have done so I will go next door and get a crown. Doelker: There we go. Caramagno: Mr. Schepis. Schepis: I agree--I agree. Caramagno: Mr. Rhines. Rhines: Are you ready? Caramagno: You agree obviously? Rhines: I agree. Caramagno: And I find this to be a very minor variance. I think what we did over at Middlebelt and Seven Mile shows how well put together your sign packages are. It’s a good example of that and I am sure that this will look--well this will probably be less signage because of all the traffic concerns. Doelker: It is. Caramagno: This looks good as presented and I will be in full support. Doelker: Thank you. Caramagno: Now. Rhines: Shall I? Caramagno: Yes. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 17 of 20 September 23, 2014 Upon Motion by Rhines is supported by Sills, it was: RESOLVED: APPEAL CASE NO. 2014-09-50 An appeal has been made to the Zoning - LIVCOM, LLC, Board of Appeals by , 9986 Manchester Rd., St. Louis, MO 63122on behalf of Lessee JCD South 96, LLC, 19369 Fairlane Ct., Livonia, MI 48152, seeking to erect two wall signs (one on the east elevation and one on the north elevation) on an end unit of a multi-tenant commercial building, resulting in excess number of wall signs and wall sign area. Number of Wall Signs: Wall Sign Area: Allowed: One Allowed: 29 sq. ft Proposed: Two Proposed: 44 sq. ft. Excess: One (29 sq. ft. east elev - 15 sq. ft. north elev) Excess: 15 sq. ft. The property is located on the west side of Middlebelt (13453) between Industrial and Schoolcraft, Lot No. 101-99-0004-002, C-2 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.50H(b)2, “Sign Regulations in be granted for the following reasons and findings of C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 Districts,” fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because of the location of the business and the traffic congestion. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because the patrons of the business would have difficulty finding the building. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because neighboring businesses have been granted similar sign variances. 4. The Board received no letters of approval and no letters of objection from neighboring property owners. 5. The property is classified as “general commercial” in the Master Plan and the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification. FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions: 1. That the project be completed within six (6) months. 2. That the signs be constructed as presented both verbally and in writing with the sign on the north wall of the building not to exceed fifteen (15) square feet and the City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 18 of 20 September 23, 2014 sign on east side facing Middlebelt Road not to exceed twenty-nine (29) square feet. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Rhines, Sills, Schepis, Bowling, Caramagno NAYS: None ABSENT: Henzi, Pastor Caramagno: You’ve passed one hundred percent with the conditions that you’ve got six months in which to construct these signs and follow through with the specifications both verbal and written tonight. And best of luck on this store too. Doelker: Thank you so much gentleman, I appreciate your support. Rhines: Thank you, good luck. Bowling: Good luck. Doelker: Thank you--thank you. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 19 of 20 September 23, 2014 Caramagno: I think we have no minutes tonight, so I am looking for a-- Sills: Motion to adjourn? Caramagno: As said by Mr. Sills, do we have support? Bowling: Support. Caramagno: All in favor say aye. Board Members: Aye. Caramagno: We are adjourned. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. _______________________________ SAM CARAMAGNO, Acting Chairman ______________________________ JASON RHINES, Acting Secretary /pcb City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 20 of 20 September 23, 2014