Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2013-10-15MINUTES OF THE 1,045rH REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, October 15, 2013, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,045'" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Scott Bahr R. Lee Morrow Lynda Scheel Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor Ian Wilshaw Members absent: None Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, was also present. Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in wnting, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adopfion. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these pefifions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2013 -09 -SN -04 APPLEBEE'S Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2013 -09 - SN -04 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C. requesting approval of a ground sign with variable electronic message board pursuant to Section 18.50 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, for the recently approved Applebee's restaurant at 13301 Middlebelt Road, located on the west side of Middlebell Road between the CSX Railroad right- of-way and SchoolcmR Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26. October 15, 2013 26044 Mr. Taormina: I'll basically entertain questions, but for the audience's benefit, I'll recap very briefly where we are in the process since this is an item that has returned for your consideration. It was tabled at a previous meeting after discussion regarding signage. This is for the recently approved development on the west side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road. This is properly just south of Industrial Road along Middlebell Road. This plan shows both sites, the one to the north is the Applebee's restaurant that was site plan approved, and the building to the south idenfifes the Del Taco restaurant within a mulfi-tenant retail building. Three tenants are shown on the original plan with the end cap on the south side being a Del Taco restaurant with drive-up window facilities. The only item remaining for consideration is the sign for each one of these sites. The sign for Applebee's is shown in the northeast comer of the site is just south of Industnal Dnve. It's within a landscaped area that will be created in the corner of the parking lot. This is a monument sign as originally proposed, 20 feet in height. It would also include a 20 square foot variable electronic message board. The other sign is located on the opposite site in the southeast corner. That would advertise the two tenants yet to be determined and the Del Taco restaurant. Again, that also is located on what would be a landscaped area created in the comer of the parking lot, also a 20 fool high sign with a variable electronic message board. The signs as they were originally submitted are located on the right hand side. For comparison purposes, the petitioner has provided an image of the Menards sign, which is immediately adjacent to the sign that would advertise the Del Tam and the two other retail tenants. We want to give you a sense of scale between what they are proposing and what exists for Menards. The electronic message boards are located on the bottom portion of the message area. In both cases you can see they are equal in height, about 20 feel, which is also equal to the Menards sign. More recenfly, a revised plan was submitted. This shows an Applebee's sign that has been constructed by the petitioner at another locator. They are showing it at 20 feel in height, 8 feet in overall length, with some of the other dimensions relating to the main identification sign, which is a static sign that would be internally illuminated. The message on the electronic board would change according to the ordinance, which would be at least every five seconds. The difference really relates to the base and some of the dimensions. The Applebee's sign, as originally proposed, was 10 feet in length and about 3 feet in depth. You can see the difference in how the base was designed as part of that original design. On this one the base is wider and the dimensions of the sign are shorter, about a foot less than what the previous design showed and a little bit taller Mr. Morrow: We've had two study sessions on this and we shared with the petitioner some of our thoughts relative to heights and setbacks. Al the last study meeting, after we had concluded after a long discussion, we said, you come back with the sign based on our input and come back with any variation that you want to make or bring back any sign that you want to go forward with. That is where we left off at the study. So tonight, does the petitioner want to come forward and address the commission? Ryan Jones, TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C., 17800 Laurel Park Drive North, Suite 200C, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Yes. I represent TCFR Apple Venture, L.L.C., which is part of our restaurant division which is called Team Schostak Family Restaurants. I realize we just discussed Applebee's, but I'm going to go ahead and discuss both jobs together if that is okay. Mr. Morrow: Thal will be fine. Do you have a rendering of the Del Taco sign? Mr. Jones: Not like the new Applebee's sign we submitted. Mr. Morrow: Well, then you can explain what you're going forward with. October 15, 2013 26045 with respect to the main identification sign on the top. With that, I'll entertain any questions you might have. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated September 23, 2013, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to maintain the excess height, square footage, and electronic reader board of the proposed ground sign. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Mr. Bahr: Are we considering only the Applebee's sign tonight? Mr. Taormina: Both signs are on the agenda this evening. There are two items on the agenda. The first relates to the Applebee's sign, and the second to the Del Taco sign. I described both of them together. Mr. Bahr: Okay. Mr. Morrow: We've had two study sessions on this and we shared with the petitioner some of our thoughts relative to heights and setbacks. Al the last study meeting, after we had concluded after a long discussion, we said, you come back with the sign based on our input and come back with any variation that you want to make or bring back any sign that you want to go forward with. That is where we left off at the study. So tonight, does the petitioner want to come forward and address the commission? Ryan Jones, TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C., 17800 Laurel Park Drive North, Suite 200C, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Yes. I represent TCFR Apple Venture, L.L.C., which is part of our restaurant division which is called Team Schostak Family Restaurants. I realize we just discussed Applebee's, but I'm going to go ahead and discuss both jobs together if that is okay. Mr. Morrow: Thal will be fine. Do you have a rendering of the Del Taco sign? Mr. Jones: Not like the new Applebee's sign we submitted. Mr. Morrow: Well, then you can explain what you're going forward with. October 15, 2013 26046 Mr. Jones: Okay. Just a little background. You guys may have heard this but just to start off, we recently purchased 65 Applebee's, all in the State of Michigan. Our corporate headquarters is here in Livonia. We've been involved with Livonia for four generations now as a company. We've operated Applebee's actually for a year now and ever since we became the franchisee, it was our goal to bring an Applebee's to our headquarters, which is Livonia. This would be actually the first new restaurant for the Applebee's division that we're proposing. Also, for the Del Tam, we're a franchisee. We've tried looking at many sites throughout the years for Del Taco in Livonia. It hasn't worked out. We feel this is the correct site for our first Del Taco here in Livonia as well. As you're aware, I've already come in front of you. We proposed a plan and the buildings and the site and it's all been approved. So tonight we're just here to discuss ground signs. I want to thank the members for all the time they put in so far with the ground signs. I know we've had two study meetings. We've possibly visited the Livonia site, possibly the Westland site. So I want to thank you for that. Our group is very passionate about signage as we've been in the restaurant business for 32 years now. We realize signage is one of the most important factors of a restaurant. The signs bring people in and the customer service brings people back. It's kind of our theory. One issue with restaurants is its an impulse reaction. As you're cinving down the road, we feel like you need to see it, think about it, and then decide to turn in. Some of the other businesses in this area are more of a planned visit, like your Costco or Meijer. You're planning to go there to buy groceries, to buy lumber if you're going to Menards. So we really feel signage is very important to the restaurant industry, especially the Del Taco. You know its not advertised much out there. It actually has no advertisement in Michigan because there are only four in Michigan. So corporately they are not willing to spend any money on advertising for Del Taco, so we have to fund all the advertising ourselves for that brand. That's a big dollar amount for our company to do that. Basically, what we're asking for tonight, we're asking to be treated equally to some of the surrounding retail buildings in the area. Dunng the planning process, we respected and complied with the city landscape plan. We actually came up with a unique streetscape plan with unique plantings and some hardscaping, decorative walls. That was something that we accepted. We look that on, and that is something the overall area will continue to use at new developments. We're definitely working with the City. Some of the hardships or unique circumstances I'd just like to point out again with the Del Taco and retail sign and Applebee's sign, the big one being, you know, Menards is right next door to us. They have a 20 foot tall sign. It's 32 feet wide. Its a massive sign. It October 15, 2013 26047 draws a lot of attention to that sign. All the future oufiols of that Menards is actually already planned to be on that sign and they will be getting 25 square feet for each sign panel that's already on that sign. Mark, if you could switch to that Menards slide that would be helpful. So basically what we are asking is, the Menards sign has four panels there, one, two, three, four. Theyre 12 feet wide by 2 feet tall, so they're roughly 25 square feet each. That's actually what we designed our retail space after. So we're just asking to be equal with the Menards outlots. So that's exactly how we planned the Del Taco and two retail spaces. Now, also across the street, the other development, the Meijers and things, they have a 15 foot tall sign, I believe, roughly 15 feet. So that's another item we looked at when we were deciding on what to propose. Mark, if you could go to the aerial. Thank you. Its hard to see on here, but this is a major traffic area. I think its got to be one of the highest traffic counts in the city, especially with all of the new development coming. You've got Menards. You've got Meijers. Home Depot is back here. We have the Walmart that is being redeveloped shortly. So there's over 40,000 plus cars that travel this road daily, and it's nine lanes wide, which is a lot of traffic, a lot of congestion, and we feel that if you're not aware there's a restaurant there, that it's going to be very difficult to react safely to get into our center without having a good visual of the signs at the comers to make a decision to turn into our development. So that was another point. My last two points, I wanted to point out. When you're traveling north on Middlebelt, there's actually a railroad crossing here where the grade of the road drops quite low and then you actually have to come up a hill. With that grade drop and with the possibility of four cars traveling at you and the Menards sign there, its very difficult to see our signage and have a safe time to react to that sign to make your left tum into our site. So that's northbound. On southbound, we feel that TCF Bank here, its very heavily landscaped along the frontage and also when you're traveling south, you have many lanes of traffic here that actually gets back up from the light. So if you're not in the first lane closest to our site, it's very difficult to try to merge into the other two lanes to get into our site. Another issue is Industrial Drive with very large vehicles because of the industrial behind us, so there's constantly cars here parked that totally block visibility of our sign and our building. So those are the hardships we feel. I have included a new rendering of the Applebee's sign. Mark, if you could go to that new slide. This is very similar to what we just did in Westland. It's a nice brick cultured stone base. There's a nice stone cap on it. It has some spacing between the signs, and it's much more proportionate that the original rendering I submitted. It's also showing some of the landscape that is true to what will be October 15, 2013 26048 planted out there. We'll have a minimum of two fool high landscaping. It will probably get more like three or four as it grows, but there will be a nice decorative stone wall or concrete wall along the whole frontage as well that will kind of block this space as well. I just wanted to present this. I feel it's a much better representation of what the true sign would look like. Actually, we've already installed one very similar one out in Westland. I'm not sure if any of you guys were able to go see that in person, but we feel it's a very good looking sign. And that's all I have for the presentation. I'll open to any questions. Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Jones. We'll see if the Commission has any questions or comments. Mr. Jones: Ainghl. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: Yes. I went by your one on Wayne Road. How often does that message board change? Mr. Jones: In Westland? Ms. Smiley: Yes. On Warren and Central Parkway. Mr. Jones: That one actually, we had to get a Zoning Board of Appeals variance from the City of Westland. They did not allow those electronic reader boards. Al this time, they have no restrictions on those. So right now, it changes, if I had to guess, probably every three to five seconds is how it's programmed now, but they don't have all their advertising graphics on that board yet so those are just generic graphics you're seeing now. As I mentioned before, they're going to start advertising more specific items like Military Mondays, Kids eat free on Tuesday. Theyre going to advertise their new menu items. Ms. Smiley: Three cars back on the light, so the light had been red for a little bit before I got there, and I would say three to five is probably generous. It just kept going and going and going, the message board. But as you said, there are no restrictions on it. Mr. Jones: Yes. Ms. Smiley: That was one thing. I went to Haggerty and Six Mile and there's no ground sign at all. Is that restaurant hurting? Mr. Jones: That restaurant is about in the middle of the pack out of our restaurants. It's definitely not at the top of the list. That's one reason we feel is a problem, no signage, but yeah, that's what it is there. October 15, 2013 26049 Ms. Smiley: Its like in the middle of the pack? Mr. Jones: Yes. Ms. Smiley: Because actually, I liked the signage there a lot. There was no sign at all. There was a sign on the building, so I knew the Applebee's was there, and I happen to know that it's there, but I mean, I really liked that signage as far as the ground signage for that whole area. In fad, I went down Haggerty, and right before I came to this meeting, I went down Middlebelt for like the fifth time looking at the signage there. I don't know if it's going to become a compefifion to see who's got the biggest sign on Middlebelt, but I think it's something the City is trying to gel away from, big billboardish huge monument signs, because they're not really monuments. They're more like, I don't know what kind of signage you call it, but they're not low to the ground. They're not discrete. And I find a lot of distraction with that particular sign. This summer I happened to serve on jury duly downtown Detroit and the person was being sued because she was driving distracted and ran into a SUV and injured people in it. It turned out to be very expensive for everybody there, but my point is, she was driving distracted, and what we came to find out was, it wasn't because she was lexling, but because she was not paying attention to the road. I don't know that these big signs help with traffic or with eliminating accidents or make people tum in too fast. I think they're distracting. I think a small, discrete non -flashing sign is more what 1, as one Commissioner, like. So those are my thoughts. Mr. Bahr: I have another question for Mark. The Millennium Park sign across the street, which is a taller sign, I believe each individual sign, the Meijer, the Home Depot, etc., is probably conforming. But a sign like that that's taller when you're stacking them on lop of each other, is that conforming or does that require a variance as well, when you have multiple establishments in one place? Mr. Taormina: Because of Millennium Park's designation as a regional shopping complex, they are entitled to a larger sign, just like Livonia Marketplace and Wondedand. This sign, I believe, is within the standards for a regional shopping complex. Mr. Bahr: Millennium Park did? Mr. Taormina: I believe it did. There were some variances granted, but I can't remember exactly for what. This may have required some variance or modification. I think originally it was shown taller, or maybe because Millennium Park had not yet reached regional Mr. Taormina: The resolution as prepared basically keeps the electronic reader boards in their curent dimensions, 21 square feet. Then the length of the sign is 810". For the Applebee's, the maximum length is 8 feet in the prepared resolution. Providing the total square footage of 53 square feel, if you subtract out the 21 feel for the electronic reader board, that would allow for a total of 32 square feet, so 8 feel by 4 feel would be this portion of the sign. So about 32 square feel for this, 21 for that, giving you a total of October 15, 2013 26050 shopping center status, but it was a height issue, primarily. As you can see, the total height is 15 feet. This doesn't reflect exactly what's out there today in terms of the tenants, but it's pretty representative of what's there. You can see how the panels are divided, the lowest one being maybe only four feet from the actual established grade or ground elevation. Mr. Bahr: The Menards sign obviously is a lot bigger than that. I should probably know this. I just don't recall. Did that come through us or was that a Zoning Board of Appeals item? How did that sign gel so big? Mr. Taormina: That sign is actually the fmmework for the old sign that identified the previous owner, Advantage Logistics. Much of what you see in terms of height and size was what the old Advantage Logistics sign consisted of. Now, they completely redid this sign, as you can see, for Menards, but its location and height are the same. It didn't have the back base; that was something that was added. But it was reviewed as part of the site plan. I can't recall if that required Zoning Board of Appeals approval because it was being reconstructed. To the extent that it was being completely reconstructed, it may have required a variance, but cleady, the main reason it's there is because of the tremendous setback and the scale of that particular project being several hundred thousand square feet. Mr. Bahr: Okay. And then one question for now to the petitioner. The Westland sign isn l20 feet tall, is it? Mr. Jones: The Westland sign is 15 feet in height. Mr. Bahr: Okay. I'm good for now. Ms. Scheel: I have a question for Mark. Mark, we have a resolution before us to consider this evening. That resolution is different. It's for a different size than the 20 foot sign. Going by what this resolution is, can you break down what size the brick would be and what size the reader board would be and what size the static sign would be? Mr. Taormina: The resolution as prepared basically keeps the electronic reader boards in their curent dimensions, 21 square feet. Then the length of the sign is 810". For the Applebee's, the maximum length is 8 feet in the prepared resolution. Providing the total square footage of 53 square feel, if you subtract out the 21 feel for the electronic reader board, that would allow for a total of 32 square feet, so 8 feel by 4 feel would be this portion of the sign. So about 32 square feel for this, 21 for that, giving you a total of October 15, 2013 26051 53 square feel. That's for the Applebee's. Then the Del Taco similarly, it's 21 square feet. The prepared resolution has the total square footage being 71 square feet, so it basically allows for an 8 fool wide sign and then the 2 foot panels as they were presented. It really doesn't change. There is no real substantial change in the height of these panels. Actually, the length is reduced in both cases to 8 feet and the depth of the panels remain about 2 feel each. Does that make sense? Ms. Scheel: How tall is the base then? Mr. Taormina: The base them becomes, depending on what height it is. Let's say its 10 feel maximum height. Then if you back off the 4 feet plus the 2'9, you're looking at about a 3 to 4 foot high base. A little bit over a 3 foot high base for the Applebee's. Ms. Scheel: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Just keeping on that line of questioning, what is a conforming ground sign with a reader board considered? Thirty square feel is a conforming sign. Does that include the reader board? Mr. Taormina: Applebee's would be entitled to have a 6 foot high maximum height sign. The total sign area would be 30 square feel, 15 feel of which could be devoted to the electronic reader board, provided only that all other signage on the site was conforming. Mr. Wilshaw: Which it is not. Mr. Taormina: Theyre going to have additional signs placed on the building, both on the north and south elevation, as well as the east elevation facing Middlebell Road. Technically, they wouldn't be allowed the electronic reader board, but under conforming conditions, as I said, they could devote half of the sign area to the electronic reader board. So broken down, It would be 15 feet and 15 feet. Again, maximum of 6 feet in height, 10 feel back from the right-of-way. I think the maximum length is 10 feet. Mr. Wilshaw: And the sign that is being proposed this evening is still within a 10 foot setback, correct? Mr. Taormina: As originally proposed, they are showing 10 foot setbacks. It was through our previous discussions that there was talk about possibly pushing the Del Taco sign forward a little bit to gel better visibility primarily for northbound traffic on Middlebell Road because of the obstruction that the Menards sign provides at that point or at certain vantage points. October 15, 2013 26052 Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you Mr. Taylor: Just for the edification of the petitioner, about 10 or 15 years ago, the Council, the Planning Commission and the Zoning Board, decided that anybody coming in for a sign we wanted to put in what we called a monument sign, and anybody who did renovations or anything like that, we actually asked them to bring the sign down. Its been working out pretty good. Now, your building is a sign, like we talked about before. Menards is set way back and that's one of the reasons they have a little larger sign and it was an existing sign anyway. If there was an existing sign there, any business can change the face of the sign and we can't ask them to do anything more than that, bang d down. If they wanted to do anything with it, we've asked them all to put in a monument sign and it's worked out very well for the city. I don't think we're sign happy. The street you're talking about, Middlebelt, is like you said, very well -traveled. Once they know that Applebee's is there or Del Taco is there, that's a destination point. That's what I find anyway. Every business that has ever come in to Livonia, they would love to have a 30 fool sign or a 20 fool sign, but it just isn't for the good looks of the city. So what we would like to do is compromise, and that is what we've been doing. That's why we had a couple study sessions on it and the recommendation of the Planning Department has given us some recommendations and I think they're good recommendations. I don't think it's going to hurl your business. You picked the spot. Unfortunately, there is a grade change there, but that's part of the game. So I just wanted to let you know the background of what's going on. Thankyou. Ms. Smiley: This is for Mark. Is the TCF sign across the street from Applebee's conforming? Mr. Taormina: To my knowledge, it's a fully conforming ground sign. Six feet in height and 30 square feet in area. Ms. Smiley: The topography, if that was one of the arguments, at that point is not a factor, is it? Mr. Taormina: You mean from the railroad grades? Ms. Smiley: Yes. Mr. Taormina: I would say not. I would say the biggest obstruction to that sign is probably the landscaping. October 15, 2013 26053 Ms. Smiley: There are trees but there's quite a distant between the trees. Mr. Taormina: Again, it depends on the sight line. Shorter signs like that are going to be a little bit trickier to read from various angles traveling on a road like Middlebell, especially if there are other obstructions like fencing, poles or the vehicles on the road themselves, but there's not much you can do about that. That's a problem that exists on any roadway, and I don't think is a valid argument to mise the height of the signs above the visibility of trucks and cars on the roadway. So there are no particular constraints in viewing that sign other than some of the berms and landscaping if anything. Ms. Smiley: And I dont know if you would notice, but right off the lop of your head, Six Mile and Haggerty is one of the worst intersections and driving area in the city, is it not? Mr. Taormina: I don't know how it compares to other areas. I know it's a well - traveled road. Haggerty Road certainly is. Mr. Wilshaw: I do have a question for the petitioner. Mr. Jones, Applebee's, since you understand their business probably better than most people, what radius does Applebee's draw their customer base from? Mr. Jones: We look at that when we're looking for new sites. They put up a one mile radius around the site, a five and a ten, is usually how they look at it. You really want customers within that five mile radius to come to your location. It's not great to have too many close by. It also depends on the cities. If there are two cities that are close, obviously you're going to go to the Applebee's that is in your city. You wouldn't travel usually to another city. But that's definitely what they look at, is one mile, five mile and ten. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. And Applebee's as I understand it, I don't know what their curent slogan is because it changes periodically, but essentially Applebee's was known as the neighborhood bar and grill. That was its original name, right? Mr. Jones: They still use that slogan. Their newest slogan right now is "see you tomorrow." That's what you'll see in a lot of the advertising right now. So we tried to say, bring customers back with the "see you tomorrow" slogan. Mr. Wilshaw: But the thought process is that it really is a neighborhood spot, a place where people that live in the area are going to want to go to and dine in their own area, right? October 15, 2013 26054 Mr. Jones: Yes. Inside the restaurant there are wall murals, quite large wall murals, that are based on different aspects of the city. There is a high school mural with all the high schools, with all the football teams, matching bands. There will be a big wall with photos from all the high schools. There will be a local wall which includes police, firemen, things like that. They get their own picture up there from the city. Then they have five different themes like that throughout the restaurant so it's very neat when you go inside. If you're local, you may see yourself on the wall or your son on the wall playing football or something like that. Its very neighborhood focused, a lot of charities, a lot of fundraisers, support local communities and things like that. It's very focused to each city. Mr. Wilshaw: That's great. It sounds good. Thank you. I appreciate It Mr. Morrow: Along that same line, just a comment to expand on what Mr. Wilshaw is saying. I like the concept of neighborhood, but I think at this particular site, there are other influences that are magnets in there that are going to draw traffic to that site. Some of the major large corporations have got sites in there, such as Costco, Home Depot, Menards now. So that even amplifies the traffic which is a positive as well as a negative of the traffic. I just wanted to give another dimension to that. Mr. Bahr: I was going to save these comments for later, but maybe I'll just say them now with the petitioner up there just to share some of my thoughts and give you an opportunity to respond if you feel I raised anything that hasn't been talked about already. I have no doubt this is going to be a quality development. Schostak's record speaks for itself, and as a resident in that area, I'm really excited about that restaurant coming. It serves a real need. That's for sure. I'm in that area all the time. I live a half mile from there. This week, I also happened to be in Canton on Ford Road, which is, I don't know what the traffic counts are, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's one of the busiest, if not the busiest, retail district in Western Wayne County for sure. From what I can tell, short of getting out with a tape measure, all the signs along there, restaurants, retail, whatever, are what we would consider conforming. On a very busy stretch, a stretch that is usually bumper to bumper, at least during rush hour times, which for some reason is when I tend to be down there. So I mean just with that in mind, with the grade here, there is a grade there but it's far enough to the south. I don't see it as an obstruction for this site. The other signs in the vicinity, the TCF Bank, the Olive Garden, the IHOP, the Culver's that's coming in, they're conforming signs. We've talked about the fact that the October 15, 2013 26055 building itself is a sign. There are apples on the awnings for crying out loud. I'm not in the restaurant business, but I can't imagine that's an impulse stop for most people. Even the Del Tam, I can see that being an impulse stop. So is the MacDonald's down the street and they have a conforming sign. I can appreciate the desire for a bigger sign but I don't see anything about this site that is unique that would require anything other than a conforming sign. That's just where I'm standing right now and I'll leave it at that. If you feel there's something else you can add, feel free but I just want to lel you know where I'm standing right now. Mr. Jones: I would just like to comment on the Canton sign that you saw. That sign is about 5-1/2 feet tall. We actually are currently dealing with Canton Township to increase the size of that sign. It is very dangerous. It's right next to the entrance drive and it's very difficult to see that with some of the landscaping of the adjacent site. We're actually working with the adjacent property owner to totally re -landscape his property so we can have good visibility for that building and that sign because it's very dangerous when you do finally see that sign. Its such a low height. You have to slam on your brakes and turn in. So we're actually in the process of improving that sign as well. Really, we're going around to all 65 Applebee's at this point and doing signage improvements, landscape improvements, throughout our whole 65 portfolio. That's one thing the company wants to focus on right now. Mr. Bahr: Thanks for that insight. If I can just add to that too, a couple other points. You look across the street. You look at Millennium Park. Those businesses are all hidden. They've got conforming signage. I mean Applebee's is going to have a big advantage. There's going to be a restaurant we know that's going to be coming across the street. We already talked about Culver's. This sign race, I'm really not interested in promoting. Frankly, that goes for the electronic sign loo. I've said this a lot. I'm generally a pretty business -friendly guy. I'm not somebody that lends to gel loo much into telling businesses I want this to be this color or I don't like the look of this. I like to leave that up to the business. But when we have ordinances in place, I think we need to hold to those unless there is a really unique reason why it needs to be different. I really don't see that here. Mr. Morrow: Did you want to respond to that, Mr. Jones? If there is not going to be any more questions from the Commission, I will go to the audience. October 15, 2013 26056 Mr. Jones: Just one comment on the electronic reader board. The City of Livonia has strict restrictions on what can be shown on that reader board. There will not be flashing or blinking lights you saw on the Westland sign, so we don't really feel that would be a distraction to drivers because it would be a static image that can just change. There will not be any moving parts, blinking lights, anything of the sort to district any drivers with those signs per your ordinance. That's it. Mr. Morrow: Mark, just for the record, anything that we pass, other than a conforming sign of course, will have to go to the City Council and ultimately it will have to wind up with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Is that correct? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Following this evening, whatever the Planning Commission decides on, shy of a denial, it would automatically be submitted to the City Council and then to the extent that any variances were needed, the last step of the process would be the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Morrow: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. Ms. Scheel: I too have reservations with the 20 fool sign, but I do believe that the resolution that was prepared for us does offer a good compromise for both the City and the business. So I'm going to offer the approving resolution. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, it was RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013 -09 -SN -04 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C. requesting approval of a ground sign with variable electronic message board pursuant to Section 18.50 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, for the recently approved Applebee's restaurant at 13301 Middlebell Road, located on the west side of Middlebell Road between the CSX Railroad right- of-way and SchoolcmR Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The ground sign shall not exceed 53 square feel in total sign area including the area of the electronic reader board, which shall not exceed an area of twenty-one (21) square feet; October 15, 2013 26057 2. The sign shall not exceed an overall height of 10 feet as measured from the average ground elevation beyond the base of the sign; 3. The sign shall not exceed a total length of eight (8) feel; 4. The sign shall have a setback of no less than len (10) feet from the established nghl-0f-way line of Middlebell Road; 5. This approval is subject to the petitioner being granted variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess sign area, height and the inclusion of a variable electronic message board and any conditions related thereto; 6. That the variable electronic message board shall conform to restrictions and limitations as set forth in Section 18.50H(o) of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the duration and transition times of the messages, and on the sign's illumination levels; and 7. That the Sign Plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the sign permits are applied for. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw: I'm just going to make a comment and not try to repeat what Mr. Bahr said because he did such an eloquent job, but I do agree with him in the sense that we do have an ordinance in place that has served us well in the community. There are limes in which we need to consider hardships or other factors in looking at signs to decide if we need to make them larger or taller or other variations from the ordinance. However, when we look at this particular site, I dont see that this site, at least this Applebee's sign, has any of the hardships that Olive Garden, TCF Bank, or some of the other conforming signs in the area, are not suffering from. I drove up and down Middlebelt Road like many of my fellow Commissioners several times and I had no problem noticing the TCF sign or the Olive Garden sign or the IHOP sign or whatever. I don't see that I will have a problem seeing the Applebee's sign if it's a conforming sign. Let alone I don't think I'll have any problem seeing the Applebee's building itself given R's setback is going to be fairly close to the roadway. Menards is an exception in the sense that it's an extremely large building with an extremely large setback from the road, and it will have several outlots in front of it that will ultimately block visibility of the building when those outlols are completely developed. Therefore, they will rely solely on their sign for people to figure October 15, 2013 26058 out where theyre at if theyre not already familiar with that. As we've heard tonight, Applebee's does draw, like many restaurants, from the neighboring community. It's also going to draw from, as the Chairman pointed out, it's going to draw from people who are going to that area anyway to shop at Menards or Costco or some of those other locations, and they're going to say, hey, we'll gel our hardware and we'll slop and have dinner as well; there's an Applebee's there. People will know it's there. Applebee's will be successful. This petitioner is well versed in the restaurant industry and has done a good job of keeping their other locations successful. I'm sure this one will be as well. With that, I believe conforming signage is adequate and I don't see a particular reason tovaryfrom that. Thankyou. Ms. Scheel: I have a procedural question. May I ask Mr. Taormina the procedural question? Mr. Taormina, if this is a tie vote, what happens? Mr. Wilshaw: It fails. Mr. Taormina: Yes. Ms. Scheel: Well, I gel that. Does it fail and slay in the Planning Commission or does it fail and go to City Council? Mr. Taormina: We've always treated those as coming back and we try to resolve in getting a vote one way or the other. Ms. Scheel: So there has to be a 4-2 vote or something in order to move this forward? Mr. Taormina: That is what I would recommend. Council would have that discussion rather than just leave the issue unresolved. I would think it would be up to you then to just table it and then come back and consider an option for an alternative resolution. Ms. Scheel: I just wanted to ask that procedure for tonight. Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Is there any other discussion? With that, we'll have the roll call. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Scheel, Taylor NAYS: Bahr, Wilshaw, Smiley, Morrow ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion fails. October 15, 2013 26059 Mr. Wilshaw: For the sake of trying to see if we can gel resolution to this item tonight, I'm going to offer an approving resolution. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, it was #10-63-2013 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013 -09 -SN -04 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C. requesting approval of a ground sign with variable electronic message board pursuant to Section 18.50 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, for the recently approved Applebee's restaurant at 13301 Middlebell Road, located on the west side of Middlebell Road between the CSX Railroad right- of-way and SchoolcmR Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26, be approved subject to the following amendments and conditions: 1. That the ground sign shall be a conforming ground sign (i.e., maximum total sign area of thirty (30) square feet including fifteen (15) square feel for the area of the electronic reader board, maximum height of six (6) feet, and minimum setback of len (10) feel from any public road right -0f --way), and any variance from a conforming ground sign shall be submitted to the City Council and the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval; 2. This approval is also subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the inclusion of a variable electronic message board and any conditions related thereto; 3. That the variable electronic message board shall conform to restrictions and limitations as set forth in Section 18.50H(o) of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the duration and transition times of the messages, and on the sign's illumination levels; and 4. That the Sign Plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the sign permits are applied for. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Mr. Bahr: The electronic message board is not part of this conforming sign, is it? Do I need to direct that question to Mark or can I ask a fellow commissioner? I guess I'll direct that question to Mark. October 15, 2013 26060 The electronic board itself is a variance from the conforming, isn't it? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Bahr: Okay. Thanks. Ms. Scheel: Well, that was my question. I just wanted to clarify with Commissioner Wilshaw. So you're offering a conforming sign size-wise but with the electronic message board? Mr. Wilshaw: Corect. It would be 6 feel high, 30 square feet in total square footage, with a 10 fool setback. Ms. Scheel: And the electronic message board would be part of that? Mr. Wilshaw: The electronic message board could be up to half of that based on what I've heard from Mr. Taormina. Ms. Scheel: Okay. Mr. Bahr: I guess I'm showing some of my ignorance at procedures here so I'll ask this question. The question that I have, and I'll give my fellow commissioner an opportunity to answer it, if he chooses, is I'm curious as to why there would be a need for an electronic sign here at all. That's the question that's still on my mind and I'll flip that out there in case anybody would choose to persuade me. Mr. Morrow: You're entitled to your own thoughts and we're not going to try to persuade you. Mr. Bahr: I guess I'm asking because I'm tom up here. From a pure business friendly standpoint, I don't want to stand in the way of a business doing what it needs to do, and I can certainly see the need to put out there that kids eat free. I have four kids. That would catch my attention. The petitioner has mentioned before something about Military Mondays or something to that effect. I'm doing some advertising here. I know there are things they would like to display, yet I'm sure we have many businesses in the city that would love to display things like that, and again, we have that ordinance there for a reason. So I guess I'm trying to guard against the proliferation of these signs and I'm questioning the necessity of it. Mr. Morrow: The fact that we have an ordinance slating some of the ramifications of putting one up, and you're correct. We're going to start to see a proliferation of these signs. And of course the October 15, 2013 26061 petitioner has the right to request anything they want and its up to us to decide. Mr. Bahr: I'm just thinking out loud here. Maybe it's just the 2013 version of the old signs where you'd slick the letters up there, which I guess we didn't have a problem with. So maybe I've got to lake that into account loo a bit. That's just where my struggle is. So I'll lel it rest at that. Mr. Morrow: We have had other signs to this effect. Mr. Wilshaw: Just to explain my proposal for an approving resolution. Frankly, I don't like electronic signs. I've made that no secret. I think a 30 square fool Applebee's static sign would be more effective than a 15 square fool Applebee's sign and a 15 square fool reader board. However, the petitioner has made the indication that he very much would like to have an electronic sign there and in the sense of trying to give some sort of compromise, I'm going to give him the option of deciding how he wants to slice and dice his 30 square feel. If he wants to put a 20 square foot Applebee's sign and a 10 square fool electronic message sign, I suppose he could or he may slay at 30 square feel. I really just need to focus on the Applebee's sign and put that there and skip the electronic message board. But that would at least give him the option. That was my thought. Mr. Taylor: To Mr. Bahr, that's why you have the option of voting no. Mr. Bahr: I totally understand that. That's exactly why I asked the question and Commissioner Wilshaw explained his reasoning to me, and that's what I wanted to hear. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Well, we're all learning. If there is no other discussion, we will call the roll. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Wilshaw, Smiley, Taylor, Bahr, Morrow NAYS: Scheel ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. October 15, 2013 26062 ITEM #2 PETITION 2013 -09 -SN -05 DEL TACO Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013- 09 -SN -05 01309 -SN -05 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C. requesting approval of a ground sign with variable electronic message board pursuant to Section 18.50 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, for the recently approved multi - tenant commercial building with a full service restaurant including drive -up window facilities (Del Taco) at 13301 Middlebell Road, located on the west side of Middlebell Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and SchoolcraR Road in the Northeast 114 of Section 26. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Taormina, is there anything you want to add to your previous presentation? Mr. Taormina: No, Mr. Chairman. I'll answer any questions you may have regarding this particular sign. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one dem of corespondence from the Inspection Department, dated September 23, 2013, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to maintain the excess height, square footage, and electronic reader board of the proposed ground sign. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the cerespondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Staff? Seeing none, Mr. Jones, would you like to come forward and speak to the Del Taco sign? I wanted to give you the opportunity. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. Ms. Scheel: I will offer the approving motion that was provided to us by Staff which I believe is a good compromise between what the petitioner is asking for and a conforming sign. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, it was RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013 -09 -SN -05 October 15, 2013 26063 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C. requesting approval of a ground sign with variable electronic message board pursuant to Section 18.50 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, for the recently approved multi - tenant commercial building with a full service restaurant including drive -up window facilities (Del Taco) at 13301 Middlebell Road, located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcmft Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26, be approved subject to the following amendments and conditions: 1. The ground sign shall not exceed 71 square feel in total sign area including the area of the electronic reader board, which shall not exceed an area of twenty-one (21) square feel; 2. The sign shall not exceed an overall height of eleven (11) feel as measured from the average ground elevation beyond the base of the sign; 3. The sign shall not exceed a total width of eight (8) feel; 4. The sign shall have a setback of no less than five (5) feel from the established right-of-way line of Middlebell Road; 5. This approval is subject to the petitioner being granted variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess sign area and height, reduced setback, and the inclusion of a variable electronic message board and any conditions related thereto; 6. That the variable electronic message board shall conform to restrictions and limitations as set forth in Section 18.50H(o) of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the duration and transition times of the messages, and on the sign's illumination levels; and 7. That the Sign Plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the sign permits are applied for. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw: I also do not intend on voting for the particular resolution that was presented, and if it were to fail, I would probably offer one that is going to be conforming without the electronic message reader board given the fact that this particular sign also has two October 15, 2013 26064 other tenant spaces on it, and I dont think it would be able to fit three tenants plus an electronic reader board on it. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Any other comments? Seeing none, roll call. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Scheel, Taylor NAYS: Bahr, Smiley, Wilshaw, Morrow ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion fails. Mr. Wilshaw: I am going to try to offer an alternate approving resolution. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Bahr, and adopted, it was #10-64-2013 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013-09-SN-05 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C. requesting approval of a ground sign with variable electronic message board pursuant to Section 18.50 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, for the recently approved multi- tenant commercial building with a full service restaurant including drive-up window facilities (Del Taco) at 13301 Middlebelt Road, located on the west side of Middlebe0 Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and SchoolcraR Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the ground sign shall not exceed a total sign area of thirty (30) square feel; 2. The sign shall not contain a variable electronic message board; 3. That the sign shall not exceed an overall height of six (6) feet as measured from the average ground elevation beyond the base of the sign; 4. The sign shall be allowed to have a setback of no less than five (5) feet from the established right-of-way line of Middlebell Road; 5. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the October 15, 2013 26065 reduced setback from the right-of-way and any conditions related thereto; and 6. That the Sign Plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the sign permits are applied for. Mr. Morrow: Is there anydiscussion? Seeing none, roll call. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Wilshaw, Bahr, Smiley, Taylor, Morrow NAYS: Scheel ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Morrow, Chainnan, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. Jones, we appreciate all your efforts put into this. Thank you for coming and thanks for all your help. ITEM #3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,040 Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,040 Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 1, 2013. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Wilshaw, and adopted, it was #10-65-2013 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,044th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on October 1, 2013, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following AYES: Scheel, Wilshaw, Taylor, Smiley, Monow NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Bahr ABSENT: None Mr. Monow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. October 15, 2013 26066 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,045° Regular Meeting held on October 15, 2013, was adjourned at 8:01 p.m. ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Lynda L. Scheel, Secretary