Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-09-10 City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 of 47 September 10, 2013 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF LIVONIA MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 A Special Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Livonia was held in the Auditorium of the Livonia City Hall on Tuesday, September 10, 2013 MEMBERS PRESENT: Matthew Henzi, Chairman Craig Pastor, Vice President Sam Caramagno, Secretary Edward E. Duggan, Jr. Elizabeth H. McCue Kathleen McIntyre Robert E. Sills MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Fisher, Assistant City Attorney Scott Kearfott, City Inspector Bonnie J. Murphy, Court Reporter, CSR-2300/CER-2300 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Henzi then explained the Rules of Procedure to those interested parties. Each petitioner must give their name and address and declare hardship for appeal. Appeals of the Zoning Board's decisions are made to the Wayne County Circuit Court. The Chairman advised the audience that appeals can be filed within 21 days of the date tonight’s minutes are approved. The decision of the Zoning Board shall become final within five (5) calendar days following the hearing and the applicant shall be mailed a copy of the decision. There are four decisions the Board can make: to deny, to grant, to grant as modified by the Board, or to table for further information. Each petitioner may ask to be heard by a full seven (7) member Board. Seven (7) members were present this evening. 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 nine persons present in the audience. (7:05) City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 of 47 September 10, 2013 APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-09-39: An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by SignGraphix, 39255 Country Club, B-35, Farmington Hills, MI, on behalf of Ladywood High School, 14680 Newburgh, Livonia, MI, seeking to replace an existing sign cabinet between an existing brick/masonry piers resulting in excess sign area and height. Also proposed is an electronic message center within a portion of the sign cabinet which is not allowed in this Zoning District. Sign Area Sign Height Allowed: 6 sq. feet Allowed: 4 ft. Proposed: 64 sq. feet Proposed: 20 ft. Excess: 58 sq. feet Excess: 6 ft Henzi: Mr. Fisher, do you have a comment about this? Fisher: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Unfortunately this case is before the Board tonight under an awkward posture for a couple of reasons. One, this case is for a Parochial school which I’ll come back to in a minute, but the approval of site plans of Parochial schools is clearly and unambiguously City Council’s prerogative. I do not see anywhere in the packet tonight any Council proceedings on this case because there haven’t been any. That’s because this particular property for whatever reason has not previously gone through a site plan review process. And I’m not sure what that reason is, it’s just sort of historic. The concern that I have about this Board taking any action on this case by itself is that it sounds like, feels like, a potential usurping of Council’s role in this matter. The Mayor and as far as I know the Council members have been very good about respecting the independence of this body, but I am pretty sure we don’t want to step outside the parameters of this body. And I certainly don’t want us to have to come to a point where the Mayor or somebody on the Council drive by something and say who approved that? And I think that some of the confusion surrounding this case is because of the unusual status Parochial schools have under Zoning Ordinance. The Livonia Public Schools and the Clarenceville Public Schools are essentially outside our zoning jurisdiction. Colleges such as Madonna do not require site plan approval because they are a permitted use in RUF district. Parochial schools are a waiver use in residential districts and as a result it’s very clear the ordinance is very clear that they had to have site plan approval. So that’s one thing that’s awkward and I guess I would say you can take whatever action you feel is appropriate but you might want to table this for some clear indication as to what Council will do in this matter. I suppose they could just refer it back here and you can go ahead and decide it or they might want to hear more fully themselves, I don’t know. So that’s one aspect of the awkwardness. A second aspect of the awkwardness is that the write-up for the sign height, one I think is probably just a typo, but I think it should be 10 feet because if you add those two together that’s what you get, so that is a small error. I suspect if were to --- or if we we do go ahead ask the sign company what the intentions are vis a vis the sign, and there may be come additional violations that don’t show up on the write-up. So, sorry to bring those to you. This case was I’m sure accidentally got on tonight’s agenda before we were done with the internal discussion about where and how it should be handled so City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 of 47 September 10, 2013 that’s how we --- let me just put it this way, it happened while I was on vacation so that’s where it sits right now. Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: According to our Notice here, is says the Planning Commission is supposed to be notified, is that true? Fisher: The Planning Commission and Council participate in site plan approval, yes. Pastor: So that means both of them? Fisher: Potentially.. Henzi: I guess I have a couple questions. Number one is how would you send it up to the Planning Commission just procedurally if you wanted Planning Commission or Council to weigh in and maybe they would just refer it back but how do you do that? Fisher: I guess one sort of way I was thinking of doing that is to table this until such time that we have a sense of City Council’s willingness on how it should be handled. Henzi: So maybe an informal meeting? Fisher: It’s possible Craig could call John and find out. Henzi: And then the second question I have is you know what your recommendation would be, should we table it now or should we interview the Petitioner’s representative, are we confident about this? I mean I don’t want to waste his time and I don’t want Council members to say gee, you had him right there, you could have asked him some things about what this is all about? Fisher: Yes, I guess I would ask the Petitioner if they want to be heard tonight or proceed. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 of 47 September 10, 2013 Petitioner: We could go ahead and make a record. Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: If we hear you tonight and then you go to Council and everything is changed, everything here is no longer relevant, so I think we should table it until we hear from them and the Planning Commission. We can ask them. Petitioner: May I approach, Mr. Chair? Henzi: Sure. Petitioner: I’d like to weigh in on this just for a moment because while I appreciate the attorney’s viewpoint on this, this is in essence a continuation of a variance that was granted in 1978 by this same body. So I’m not sure --- I’m sure things at the Planning Commission have changed and I’m sure ordinance has changed, but this is a continuation of an existing variance. In fact, we’re not asking for much change. Henzi: Can you say your name? Petitioner: I’m sorry, I’m Bill Lutz with SignGraphix, 39255 Country Club Drive. Henzi: Before you go on Mr. Fisher had a comment. Fisher: I guess I will say if this were strictly sign size that would be true that it’s not much of a change, but although even then that doesn’t change the text or the Zoning Ordinance but from the standpoint of our ordinance a variable electronic message center is a very significant important change. Petitioner: Well, I would argue, sir, that this, you have an existing changeable message center that’s internally illuminated that’s existing and was granted by variance in 1978. What we’re proposing is simply a different way of changing it, i.e. not manually but electronically and a different lighting instead of fluorescent lighting, with LED lighting. So I don’t see the change other than a very subtle technicality which I don’t think your ordinance addresses. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 of 47 September 10, 2013 Henzi: My question is what your preference be, would you like to tell us? Petitioner: My preference is to move on because we knew this was happening between the Planning Commission and City Council and the attorney’s office. So we thought that that was resolved internally and therefore we were told to proceed otherwise we would have withdrawn and let you all beat it out internally frankly. So, Mr. Chair, I don’t know the answer to your question. If this has to go through Council and go through Planning Commission, we’re not asking for any changes here. Henzi: That’s fair. I guess I’ll just ask the Board members what’s your pleasure. Pastor: If it was up to me I’d table it. I see these changes as significant. If they weren’t significant, they wouldn’t be before us. Henzi: Anybody else? McCue: I’d agree. There’s a few things that need to be discussed. McIntyre: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre. McIntyre: With all deference to the Petitioner, I’m confused because this looks to me like a video screen. Petitioner: No. It’s an electronic changeable message center, that’s correct. It’s not a video screen, it’s not big enough to be that. We’re reducing the size --- McIntyre: Then this is not an accurate or correct representation of what you’re proposing. Petitioner: No, it’s a correct representation but we’re actually reducing the size of the changeable message area from the existing 32 square feet to 18 square feet. So I would argue it’s less changeable message area. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 of 47 September 10, 2013 McIntyre: You’ve got two and this is germane to the discussion whether this is a little bit different or a lot different. We’ve got two documents in front of us, right? One is clearly to your point, a changeable electronic sign. Petitioner: Correct. McIntyre: The other looks like it incorporates video graphics. And if it doesn’t incorporate video graphics then to me that’s a very, very significant change. Petitioner: I think what you’re saying it probably shouldn’t have been submitted because that was very preliminarily in early discussions with Ladywood. Yes, these LED message centers have that capability, but realistically we’re talking 28 inch high area as opposed to a much larger area than is existing now, it’s pretty much impractical to do those kind of things. It’s certainly not the intent of Ladywood to take advantage and make it look Las Vega like, it’s not the purpose of this. This is to communicate information and to bring us into the 21st century here from very old technology, what was appropriate in 1978 which isn’t appropriate for the kind of school that they are today. Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre. McIntyre: Based on the comments on the capability of messages, saying it’s something different than this, I would not be personally comfortable moving forward without Council and Planning Commission’s input. Henzi: If I could just follow up on Mrs. McIntyre’s questions. I don’t know if maybe we’re not using your lingo in the sign business, one appears to me to be a change of a text in one photograph of the sign and the other one appears to be a video screen. My question is with the sign you plan to install would it have the capability to be a video screen? So for example you could say “Soccer, Tuesday, 7:00 o’clock,” and in the background is a picture of last week’s soccer game. Petitioner: Well, again, 28 inches is an awful narrow screen to do that kind of graphics on. I can tell you from a logistics standpoint it’s almost impossible to do those kind of graphics on that small a screen. If this were a 6 foot by 6 foot screen, absolutely, you could do that. On a 28 inch high screen is really only useful for text. Technically it could be used that way, but as a practical application it would be meaningless, you couldn’t see it. The resolution wouldn’t be good enough to make it useful. And that’s not the intent. The intent is to communicate messages and to create an image of a 21st century school that is concentrating on technical aspects. These kids all use Ipads when they get into school. Technology is a big focus of concentration there. So it’s City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 of 47 September 10, 2013 more image building, it’s more user friendly. We have a static message center right there now that if you’ve gone by lately you’ll notice the door doesn’t lock anymore because somebody sprung the door. Kids come and rearrange the letters and sometimes in a rather crude and inappropriate way. So, there’s a lot of reasons to do what we’re asking to do. And I don’t think it’s very onerous in terms of video capability. I understand what you’re saying, I think you could condition your variance to eliminate them and make it less onerous and I’d have to consult with my client but I don’t think there’s any objection to that. Henzi: It sounds like there might be consensus for a table motion but before there is I am very curious about one thing and at a minimum I’d like to make a record in case this is heard by the Planning Commission and my question is when you were here, I don’t know, it wasn’t that long ago, a few weeks ago for Madonna? Petitioner: Correct. Henzi: The university took it’s changeable text sign down and wanted to go with a different style. What’s different about this proposal and that sign? Petitioner: Well, I think two things. Number one, that was a much larger screen and we’re dealing with two entirely different entities here, too. The Felician Sisters are involved in this entire property as you’re well aware, from an historical standpoint they don’t really run Ladywood, Ladywood is an independent adjunct to them, so we’re dealing with two different entities here, two different owners, if you will. Number one, their philosophy is different. You heard Sister Rose Marie say they weren’t interested in advertising events from the college or university to the general public. In the case of Ladywood, we’re dealing with a different demographic, number one. We’re dealing with younger folks. Technology is really, really important. To send that message that this is a technologically up to date school is very important for enrollment, it’s very important for long term goals. The sign is not only dated from that changeable message standpoint but it’s the old logo, they tried very hard to update their entire image through new websites, through new logo, through new marketing campaigns. This is a premier private educational school that graduates 100 percent of their folks and places them 100 percent in colleges and universities throughout the state and throughout the country. So we’re dealing with a little different animal and their focus is different and so the intent and the use of this message center would be different also. Henzi: Okay. Thank you for your input. Any questions for the Petitioner? Caramagno: Mr. Chair. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 of 47 September 10, 2013 Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: I have a question for Mike or Scott, do we have any video boards in the city? Petitioner: I can help you with that. Yes, you have, of course, Schoolcraft College, has two very large video boards, very large I might add that have been there for some time, at least ten to twelve years. Caramagno: Running video? Petitioner: Electronic message centers. Whether they’re being used as video or not, I don’t know. Caramagno: Being used as video as you’ve got it displayed here? Petitioner: Correct. Caramagno: The question I’ve got, you’re well prepared for this and you know these things because you’re in that business but you have prepared and show a video on there, it almost looks as if this was intended tonight? Petitioner: No, it wasn’t intended. And I apologize for that. Caramagno: This document that you submitted to the Board, this shows a video of kids playing of soccer on the screen. Vinstra: Can I just add one comment? Anne Vinstra, SignGraphix. The image that you’re seeing could very well just be a photograph. It wasn’t intended that they would have moving video. So it could be a background stagnant photograph with imagery with having text on the face of that. So the intention of what you’re seeing isn’t that it would be moving video, it’s a photograph. Caramagno: This is your premier picture you sent us of what it’s supposed to look like. Vinstra: Right. It’s not supposed to be moving, though. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 of 47 September 10, 2013 Caramagno: I’m going to look at this a little closer because look at the discussion it’s generating. Vinstra: Right, yeah. Henzi: What did you say your name was one more time? Vinstra: Anne Vinstra. Henzi: Thank you. Petitioner: Mr. Caramagno, to follow up on that, all these electronic signs, whether they display text or whether they display video, all have the ability to do both. Caramagno: Okay. Petitioner: The ability is built right in. Whether that’s used or not is a whole ‘nother issue. My point was and still is that is not practical to do on this size message center. But in answer to your question about whether you have message centers like this, yes, you absolutely do. I have several, Stevenson, Churchill High School, Stevenson High School, the Livonia Rec Center has one for that matter. Caramagno: The technology is there and I see that. It’s just that this rendition complicates that. Petitioner: I’m sorry that was in the packet. It’s a source of confusion obviously. Henzi: Any other questions? Is there a consensus for a motion? Pastor: I’ll make a motion. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 10 of 47 September 10, 2013 Upon Motion by Pastor, supported by Duggan, it was: RESOLVED: APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-09-39: SignGraphix, 39255 Country Club, B-35, Farmington Hills, MI, on behalf of Ladywood High School, 14680 Newburgh, Livonia, MI, seeking to replace an existing sign cabinet between an existing brick/masonry piers resulting in excess sign area and height. Also proposed is an electronic message center within a portion of the sign cabinet which is not allowed in this Zoning District. Sign Area Sign Height Allowed: 6 sq. feet Allowed: 4 ft. Proposed: 64 sq. feet Proposed: 20 ft. Excess: 58 sq. feet Excess: 16 ft. The property is located on the east side of Newburgh (14680), between Five Mile and Schoolcraft, Lot No. 078-99-0002-004, RUF Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section 18.50E(e) “Sign Regulations for Residential Districts”, be tabled so the Planning Commission and City Council can review the case and bring back comments to the Board. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Pastor, Duggan, McCue, McIntyre, Sills, Caramagno, Henzi NAYS: None ABSENT: None Henzi: I apologize for the confusion, Mr. Lutz, but I think you need to get with the Law Department. Petitioner: Okay. Thanks very much. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 11 of 47 September 10, 2013 APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-09-40: Robert and Kathy Catanzarite, 32901 Vermont, Livonia, MI 48150, seeking to construct a covered front porch resulting in deficient front yard setback. Front Yard Setback Required: 25 feet Proposed: 22 feet Deficient: 3 feet Henzi: Mr. Kearfott, anything to add to this case? Kearfott: Not at this time. Henzi: Any questions for Mr. Kearfott? Hearing none, will the Petitioners please come to the podium. Good evening. Could you tell us your name and address? Petitioner: (Robert) Robert Catanzarite and Kathy, 32901 Vermont. Henzi: Mr. Catanzarite, tell us why you want to construct a covered porch? Petitioner: (Robert) So that we can provide coverage for getting in and out of the house and to protect the house. Right now I get damage from ice dam build-up and stuff, to beautify the house. Henzi: Any questions for the Petitioner? Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Do you ever plan on enclosing this porch? Petitioner: (Robert) No. Pastor: Obviously you are expanding the width of this porch substantially? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 12 of 47 September 10, 2013 Petitioner: (Robert) Yes. Pastor: What’s the reason behind that? Petitioner: (Robert) Just to make it look nicer and to cover the area of the front window where I’m getting all the damage from, ice dams. Pastor: Okay. Thank you very much. Duggan: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: What kind of damage do you have? Petitioner: (Robert) I get it on the inside. Duggan: On the inside of? Petitioner: (Robert) The house. Duggan: Of the house? Petitioner: (Robert) Yes. Duggan: Do you think that putting this porch up will help prevent that? Petitioner: (Robert) That will prevent some of that damage, too. Duggan: Okay. Caramagno: Mr. Chair. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 13 of 47 September 10, 2013 Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: In some of the pictures you show from your house to this revised version, this porch looks to be much bigger than yours? Petitioner: (Robert) Right. Caramagno: How wide is this porch? Petitioner: (Robert) Right now? Caramagno: Yes. Petitioner: (Robert) Eight foot. Caramagno: Eight foot. Do you intend to change that, make that bigger? Petitioner: (Robert) Yes, 23 foot. Caramagno: So you’re going to extend the porch all the way across the front of the home? Petitioner: (Robert) Yes, similar to that picture that I’ve shown, the bottom one, which is at 32700 West Chicago which is in the neighborhood. Caramagno: Which way are you going to take that, both directions, four feet in either direction? Petitioner: (Robert) Its’ going to go from the end of the bay window to the window on the other side. Caramagno: So your door, I see your door in the middle --- Petitioner: ( Robert) The door will be just about in the center. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 14 of 47 September 10, 2013 Caramagno: Okay. All right. Petitioner: (Robert) It will be very similar to that house that’s on West Chicago. Caramagno: That’s all I have. Henzi: The only other question I had, Mr. Catanzarite, is you plan use building material that will match the existing shingles, that will match the existing house? Petitioner: (Robert) Matching shingles, matching aluminum siding, the whole shot. Henzi: Any other questions? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience that wants to speak for or against this project? If so, come on up to the podium. Seeing no one come forward can you read the letters. Caramagno: Approval, 32828 Vermont, Robert Burzinski, (letter read). Ann Collins at 9341 Woodring sends an approval. An approval from Michelle Ross at 9287 Woodring. An approval from Nellie at 32824 Vermont, (letter read). Charles Barrell 32929 Vermont, approval, (letter read). Joanne Hollenbeck at 23829 W. Chicago, approval, (letter read). Diane Weiss at 9294 Woodring, approval, (letter read). An approval from Kathleen Huffmaster at 9306 Woodring. And AnneMarie Posh at 9301 Woodring also sends an approval. Henzi: Mr. Catanzarite, is there anything you’d like to say in closing? Petitioner: (Robert) No. Henzi: Thank you. Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Mr. Catanzarite, this other porch you showed in your neighborhood? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 15 of 47 September 10, 2013 Petitioner: (Robert) Yes. Pastor: What is that address? Petitioner: (Robert) 32700 West Chicago. Pastor: Thank you. Henzi: I’ll close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mrs. McCue. McCue: I think it looks very nice, I understand that ice and water damage is creating a situation in which you need protection for your home, there are other homes in the neighborhood with similar porches, so I will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: I, too, will be in support, it’s an upgrade, looks great, you got a lot of approvals from your neighbors so thank you for being a good neighbor. You definitely need this upgrade with the damage to your house so I will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: I will also be in support. You received so many approvals from your neighborhood, it’s a small and insignificant as far as variances go, and it is an improvement so I will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: I will be in support and would say the same things that have already been said. Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre. McIntyre: You have a beautiful home that’s clearly well-maintained. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 16 of 47 September 10, 2013 Petitioner: (Robert) Thank you. McIntyre: It will definitely be an enhancement and I would expect whoever it is you’re contracting will do a professional job so thank you for doing this upgrade to your house, I will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Sills. Sills: I will be in full support as all of your neighbors are. And for all of the reasons you’re reciting are positive, it’s not only going to protect your home but it’s going to make it a lot more beautiful and enhance the neighborhood so I will be in support. Petitioner: (Robert) Thank you. Henzi: I, too, will support for the same reasons. The floor is open for a motion. Upon Motion by Sills, supported by Caramagno, it was: RESOLVED: APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-09-40: Robert and Kathy Catanzarite, 32901 Vermont, Livonia, MI 48150, seeking to construct a covered front porch resulting in deficient front yard setback. Front Yard Setback Required: 25 feet Proposed: 22 feet Deficient: 3 feet The property is located on the south side of Vermont (32901), between Louisiana and Woodring, Lot No. 135-02-2058-000, R-1 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section 4.05 “Schedule of Minimum Front and Rear Yard Requirements in R-1 through R-5 Districts”, be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because of the water damage problems the Petitioner experiences and there being no protection over the window where the damage occurred. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 17 of 47 September 10, 2013 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because of the damages incurred and not being afforded safe egress and ingress into the home in inclement weather. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because the porch at present is small and allows for no protection for safe egress and ingress into the home. 4. The Board received nine (9) letters of approval and no objection letters from neighboring property owners. 5. The property is classified as “Low Density Residential” 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 it be built as presented and described to the Board. 2. That it not be enclosed. 3. That it be completed within six months. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Sills, Caramagno, McCue, McIntyre, Duggan, Pastor, Henzi NAYS: None ABSENT: None Henzi: Your variance is granted. You’ve got to build it as presented in our packet and as described tonight. You can’t enclose it and it’s got to be completed within six months. Good luck. Petitioner: (Robert) Thank you. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 18 of 47 September 10, 2013 APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-09-41: Don Parrish (N.H.D., LLC), 15401 Farmington Road, Livonia, MI 48154, seeking to erect a ground sign with a deficient setback from the property line. Ground Sign Setback Required: 10 feet Proposed: 4 feet Deficient: 6 feet Henzi: Mr. Kearfott, anything to add to this case? Kearfott: Not at this time. Henzi: Any questions for the Inspection Department? Hearing none, will the Petitioner or Representative please come to the podium? Petitioner: Hello. Don Parrish, 15401 Farmington Road, Livonia. Henzi: Mr. Parrish, why you don’t you tell us why you want to erect the sign where you are proposing? Petitioner: My building sits back about 35 feet from the actual sidewalk. On each side of mine, actually all the other ones all the way up to Five Mile sit right on the sidewalk with their buildings so people driving by can’t actually even see a sign where it would be proposed, actually it’s 11 feet which is 1 foot off the actual sidewalk, so it would actually be 5 feet off of the sidewalk, the proposal to move it up just so people going by could see it because both sides being so up close on either side of me. Henzi: Any questions for the Petitioner? Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: On the building you have a large sign on your building, why do you need this one as well? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 19 of 47 September 10, 2013 Petitioner: That’s the State Farm sign, it doesn’t have the name or phone numbers, it is just the State Farm logo so this would have an actual name, phone number. Pastor: Okay. Also, looking at your plan and on the left side you say 6 foot and on The right side you have 6’ 11”. Petitioner: The plan you have currently was incorrect and I tried to mark it off on every one, I might not have gotten them all. Pastor: Well, you marked off something on one side. Petitioner: Well, it’s supposed to be 6 feet tall according to the City’s ordinance and it’s down to 6 feet and that’s what it will be, the 6 foot, not the 6’ 11”, because that’s the highest that we’ll be able to go according to City rules. Pastor: I’m going to come out right now and tell you that I wouldn’t approve this unless you took that sign off the building. I don’t think you need both so I don’t know how anybody else feels but I think that sign on the building is very loud and proud and I can see your sign on the building very easily from the street. I pulled in your parking lot and you were walking out or somebody was walking out of your building at night, one of your employees. Henzi: Any other questions? Duggan: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: How does your sign compare to signs, are they a corporate standard? Petitioner: As far as? Duggan: Well, this sign particularly. Petitioner: It’s just a standard State Farm sign. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 20 of 47 September 10, 2013 Duggan: This sign you have proposed here, how does it compare to a standard State Farm building? Petitioner: The awning that is up there, that’s something with just the logo that I had to get, I couldn’t put --- Duggan: Is this a standard size? Petitioner: That’s the standard logo. I actually got it fitted to get to the size, the sign company fitted it as far as the size to the building. Duggan: Okay. And then the sign that you’re proposing here, telling us you’re Don Parrish, and your telephone number, that’s the standard sign, you just shrunk it to fit in? Petitioner: Well, the City actually has the standards. Duggan: And you just shrunk it? Petitioner: Yes, yes. Duggan: Okay, thank you. Petitioner: And that has, to Mr. Pastor’s point, phone numbers being able to call and the name on the sign is why we would have that versus not being able to put that on the awning and stuff. Duggan: Thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? Scott, I have one. Did you happen to get a chance to look at the size of the existing wall signs that is do you know whether that complies with the ordinance? Kearfott: The current fabric, is it fabric? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 21 of 47 September 10, 2013 Petitioner: Yes. Kearfott: I don’t know anything about that sign except I believe that Mark Taormina or somebody allowed them to have that. Can you speak to that sign? Petitioner: And what was the question again? I’m sorry. Kearfott: Does it comply? Petitioner: Yes. I went up and did the same thing that I’m doing now as far as getting a --- I’m not sure what it’s called, I had to get the approval through the City and do that and have the sign company, they took care of it. Henzi: So you got site plan approval? Petitioner: Yes, sir. Did the permit, everything, yes, sir. Duggan: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: This is for Scott. How does this compare to other locations on the street? Kearfott: This will be further away from the street compared to other signs along --- well, right next door I have pictures of the Funeral Home except for their sign is one foot off the sidewalk. Petitioner: I also have pictures of both sides, too, to show you. Kearfott: There have been other variances granted right nearby on Farmington Road for the exact same setback. Petitioner: I actually have pictures of both sides as far as other signs. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 22 of 47 September 10, 2013 Henzi: I’ll just ask is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against the project? If so, come on up. Any other questions for the Petitioner? We really haven’t touched on this, Mr. Parrish, have you recently relocated your insurance agency? Petitioner: Yes, I was at Five Mile and Middlebelt, just north of Five Mile and Middlebelt and moved in December to the new location. Henzi: And I have the same thought that Mr. Pastor did because I drive by your location all the time, you know when it was renovated I thought it looked great, and I can’t imagine someone would miss it if they were coming in to buy auto insurance, and so I guess my question is what’s so necessary about the size sign you want with the phone numbers? Petitioner: Just that the phone numbers and having the Don Parrish up there besides just the State Farm, you know, obviously the brand of State Farm is great, like you said, it looks great, the sign does, but as far as branding myself and getting that to where people can see that drive by. And to Mr. Pastor, you can see that sign down Five Mile if you’re at the right angle but if you’re driving by you can’t see it until you’re right on it and that’s kind of why I wanted that sign out front, I’m trying to get that out, get the State Farm and the name and number as well so when you’re driving by you can also read the number to call. And with the flag pole that’s actually on the --- it’s 10 feet or would be right in the middle of that sign as well, so we’re trying to move it out of that so it wouldn’t be in the middle of that flagpole as well. Henzi: I mean I’ve looked at the photos and I know the area very well and I appreciate your concern, you know, there’s a couple lawyers that are next to you that have signs up close to the street, again, the Harris Funeral Home right there, the difference is that Harris doesn’t have a giant sign that says funeral home, you know what I mean? Petitioner: He has four signs actually that does say funeral home on each side of the building and on the front. And I’m not trying to be rude --- Henzi: No, I appreciate that, that’s good. McIntyre: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 23 of 47 September 10, 2013 McIntyre: I want to make sure I understand my notes clearly. What we’re being asked there’s no variance being requested in the numbers of signs or actual signs, is that correct? Henzi: Correct. Petitioner: I didn’t understand, I’m sorry, Mrs. McIntyre. McIntyre: No. I just wanted to make sure there was nothing in the package, that the only variance that you’re seeking is on the setback, not on the additional sign or size of the sign. Petitioner: Yes, just that. McIntyre: Thank you. Duggan: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: Who are your customers, are they new customers or they know where they’re going when they come to see you? Petitioner: Well, I have existing customers but yes, I do between 1,200 and 1,500 new clients every year. Duggan: So do people, do you have new clients just drive past you? Petitioner: I do get that, actually a lot more now since I’m actually at that location, but also I do a lot of marketing as well. Duggan: Thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? There’s nobody in the audience, any more questions? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 24 of 47 September 10, 2013 Caramagno: How much signage are you allowed on this? It seems like a lot of signage with the awning. Petitioner: Well, the awning I think that you’re looking at the color. Caramagno: Mike, how much signage is allowed on this building? Fisher: This is C-2 zoning so you’ve got the one square foot per lineal foot on the wall and he’s got 6 foot high, 3 foot, 30 square foot ground sign. Caramagno: So it’s not a normal signage issue although it looks excessive. Fisher: I think where you’re struggling is because this seems like an OS area where signage is a lot more restricted. Because this is a C-2 Zoning District, you get more Signage. And I can understand you saying it seems in appropriate for the area. Caramagno: Yeah, it seems a little much to me, too. Petitioner: Like I told you, I think in response to Mrs. McIntyre’s point, I’m just trying to move it up literally 5 feet from where it would be like in the middle of the flagpole basically. Caramagno: So are you saying that the sign on the building, the State Farm awning is not effective for you? Petitioner: I believe that it’s very effective, I truly like that sign a lot, I do, yes. Caramagno: I think it sets the building off nice myself but it’s not grabbing something, it’s my understanding what you’re looking for a sign to do is grab the traffic on Five Mile Road? Petitioner: also the people who are missing it. The biggest thing is people are literally missing it and to have --- my biggest factor of moving to that zone was the two way traffic and people having to turn around and come back, that’s distractive to a client, it really is. I don’t think it is as much but I’m the owner myself, but that is distractive so when they do miss it, they’ve got to make a whole turnaround, come back and that gets frustrating, especially sometimes clients that don’t like to drive or others City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 25 of 47 September 10, 2013 that don’t want to drive and they’ll just drive right on. And this happened. Caramagno: There’s a lot of claims in all that turning around. Petitioner: I’m sorry? Caramagno: A lot of claims. Petitioner: I see your point. Caramagno: Scott, how many insurance agencies are there? Kearfott: That’s an impossible question to answer. Caramagno: Percentage-wise, auto insurance agencies in the city, do you know how many there are? Kearfott: I don’t know. I really wouldn’t know on that. Caramagno: I thought we had a handle on that quite a while back, but be that as it may, is this an advertisement for people who drive by and might need insurance? Kearfott: Me personally I’ve never bought insurance by driving by and seeing a sign. I’d do it out of the phonebook or --- Petitioner: But to your point there if you see that sign after twenty-five times and you get your renewal in the mail and you say, you know what about that guy with that sign out there? Kearfott: But I will say that just not far down there’s a Farmers Insurance that got granted the exact same variance. But I don’t know if he has a big awning sign on the front. Petitioner: He has the same awning sign, it’s white, it’s not red which I think is probably why it’s so distracting as far as signage because the actual signage is in line with the City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 26 of 47 September 10, 2013 linear foot of the square foot building, because the only sign I have there is the State Farm so it’s to Code, I guess. Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Scott, he can put a sign on the property if he’s go back another --- Kearfott: Six feet, correct. And he wouldn’t even have to be here. Pastor: All right. Thank you. Henzi: Mr. Parrish, I’m looking at the plans, the more detailed ones that you have and I don’t see the flagpole. I was just trying to get an idea how far the proposed sign would be from the flagpole because you’re saying I need to move it closer to the road in part to avoid the flagpole, right? Petitioner: In part. Henzi: How far forward do you need to bring it to avoid the flagpole? Petitioner: Well, it would be almost touching that where I’m at right now as far as with the variance, so I’d be just touching it, it would be right in the middle of the sign doing the sign exactly by Code. Henzi: Thank you. Any other questions? Can you read the letters? Caramagno: Yes. We have an approval from Jay Nitzkin at 33428 Five Mile, (letter read). We have Gail McLaren at 15483 Surrey, (letter read). Henzi: Mr. Parrish, anything you’d like to say in closing? Petitioner: Thank you. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 27 of 47 September 10, 2013 Henzi: I’ll close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mr. Duggan. Duggan: I will be in support. The sign you have is in compliance, the issue for me as far as the setback, you can move it up six feet. The one right next door to you is a foot from the sidewalk so compared to the one next door you’re further back, you have new clients, new customers coming to you, I think it’s easy to pass that, I missed it the first time and had to turn around so I will be in support. Petitioner: Thank you. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: I very rarely do this but I think I’m going to change my mind and support this. The only thing we’re making a decision on is how close it is to the road and that’s a no-brainer being there’s signs down the street closer so even though I don’t like it I will support it. Petitioner: Thank you. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: At first I wasn’t going to support it, it looked a little excessive to me, but I see you have the right zoning to have that. And this is cramped quarters so it’s difficult to see, I think one of your picture shows a bush. Petitioner: I’m hoping to take that down because --- Caramagno: It will block people coming southbound, southbound traffic from seeing your sign. Petitioner: Yes, yes. Caramagno: If you take that down and you’re telling me you will so based on all the other comments I will support this. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 28 of 47 September 10, 2013 Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre. McIntyre: Thank you for staying in Livonia, I appreciate that. You’re clearly a hard driving, successful business person, we’re always very happy to keep those businesses. The only thing you’re asking us to approve is a variance in location for a compelling reason. I appreciate the fact that you scaled your sign down so you’re only seeking one variance, I don’t have any problem. You know, I’d want my name and my phone number there, too, and I think it adds a sense of who you are and that you’re accessible so absolutely I will be in support. Petitioner: Thank you. McIntyre: And I missed it, too, and I know right where you are and I could not picture the State Farm. Petitioner: Thank you. Henzi: Mr. Sills. Sills: I will support small business in any way I can, I’ll give full support. Petitioner: Thank you, sir. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I would just reiterate Mrs. McIntyre’s thoughts. You’re compliant in every other aspect, you followed every guideline we asked you to follow for the City. The other signs on the street are closer to the road, you want yours to be seen, I will be in full support. Petitioner: Thank you. Henzi: Even though we’re only talking about ground sign setbacks, I think the fact that there is ample signage is reason not to grant the variance because you don’t need it. However, I’m going to support it for a different reason and that is I’d rather see the sign in the place that you propose it because it looks more uniform with everyone else’s and to have signs at different points along that very cramped area. There was one other thing that I wanted to say, I think your signs are very effective. I happen to think they City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 29 of 47 September 10, 2013 look terrific. They talk to me. I think like Mr. Fisher said, it seems like an office zone when it’s not, but I think your plan is very nice. Petitioner: Thank you. Henzi: So, the floor is open for a motion. Upon Motion by McIntyre, supported by Sills, it was: RESOLVED: APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-09-41: Don Parrish (N.H.D., LLC), 15401 Farmington Road, Livonia, MI 48154, seeking to erect a ground sign with a deficient setback from the property line. Ground Sign Setback Required: 10 feet Proposed: 4 feet Deficient: 6 feet The property is located on the west side of Farmington (15401), between Five Mile and Roycroft, Lot No. 064-01-0205-000, C-2 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section 18.50H,(a)1 “Sign Regulations in C- 1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 Districts,” be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1.The uniqueness requirement is met because of the nature of signage existing along Farmington Road. 2.Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because new clients would be unable to find the building and as it is setback further from surrounding buildings. 3.The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because it doesn’t harm other businesses in the neighborhood. 4.The Board received two (2) letters of approval and no objection letters from neighboring property owners. 5.The property is classified as “Commercial” in the Master Plan and the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 30 of 47 September 10, 2013 FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions: 1. That it be constructed as presented. 2. That it be completed within 90 days. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: McIntyre, Sills, McCue, Duggan, Pastor, Caramagno, Henzi NAYS: None ABSENT: None Henzi: The variance is granted with those two conditions, you have to build the sign, the type of sign in the spot where you presented it and you must complete it within 90 days. Petitioner: Thank you. Henzi: Good luck. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 31 of 47 September 10, 2013 APPEAL CASE NO: 2013-09-42: Rocco Corsi, 18892 Maplewood, Livonia, MI 48152, seeking a variance for a deficient front yard setback created because of a proposed property division. What was previously a corner street side yard will now become the front yard. Front Yard Setback Required: 50 feet Proposed: 37 feet Deficient: 13 feet Henzi: Mr. Kearfott, anything to add to this case? Kearfott: Not at this time. Henzi: Any questions for the Inspection Department? Hearing none, will the Petitioner or Representative please come forward? Representative: Lousi Corsi, 36078 Birwood Court, Farmington Hills. Henzi: Mr. Corsi, can you tell us about this project? Representative: Yes. It’s my father’s home, his home is on Maplewood, 18892 Maplewood, and this property is directly behind it. It’s a double lot when he bought it, he’s been there for a long time. He’s 86 now and we would like to split that and have somebody else --- we’re going to sell his home and then that lot would be available for sale to build a new home on. Henzi: Now, when I drove by I did see that there is a sign, I couldn’t tell if you’re offering people to buy the entire lot and the house or split it? Are you offering, somebody could walk up and buy the empty lot or they could buy the whole thing? Representative: Yes. Henzi: And then do you have plans for a house that you’d like to build or are you not the builder? Representative: I’m not the builder. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 32 of 47 September 10, 2013 Henzi: And how far along are you, if at all, with the lot split process? Representative: It should be next door at the Planning Commission, right? Henzi: Okay. Representative: I haven’t heard anything. Henzi: So, you’ve applied for a lot split? Representative: Yes. Henzi: Any questions for the Petitioner? Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: Just so I’m clear, the existing lot is considered Maplewood but with this change from the split the front will become? Representative: Clarita. Caramagno: So that the house doesn’t move it will not be closer to the house across the street from the other side of Maplewood, this is just pertaining to this lot in the back half here and then that house will eventually face Clarita? Representative: Correct. Kearfott: Then there’s the possibility if they sell the house with the lot that nothing changes. Representative: Correct, that possibility also exists. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 33 of 47 September 10, 2013 Kearfott: Right, according to the sign I saw. Caramagno: Is it a possibility that everything comes down and three houses go there? Kearfott: From my understanding it’s a two house split. Petitioner: There’s nothing being built, nothing changes from lot to lot configuration, that’s all. Caramagno: Thank you. Henzi: Scott, I have another one, there’s a house, there’s a vacant lot I should say to the east from this property on Clarita; do you know whether it’s being prepped for a new build? Kearfott: I do not. I did not look at that. I can’t tell you. Petitioner: I can answer that. Henzi: Okay. Petitioner: That used to belong to my father, there used to be two smaller homes, we sold it and they knocked it down. There’s nothing in the plans yet to build there but the plan is to put another home on that property. Henzi: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against the project? If so, come on up. Seeing no one coming forward, are there letters? Caramagno: No. Henzi: Mr. Corsi, is there anything you’d like to say in closing? Representative: Nothing. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 34 of 47 September 10, 2013 Henzi: Thank you very much. I’ll close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mr. Pastor. Pastor: I don’t see any problem at this point. I’m not sure why we’re actually getting this case before it’s actually split but I don’t’ have a problem with this. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: I don’t see any reason not to be in support. Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre. McIntyre: I don’t see any issues, I think it gives the homeowner the flexibility to sell the lot and we end up with an additional taxable property and a nice house, a really nice house, so I will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Sills. Sills: I’ll support the petition. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I, too, will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: I, too, will be in support . Henzi: I, too, will support because even if the house is built, I think it will blend in the neighborhood. To me this has been a vacant lot that stands out as opposed to blend in so I agree with the other comments of the other Board members so the floor is open for a motion. Upon Motion by Duggan, supported by Pastor, it was: City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 35 of 47 September 10, 2013 RESOLVED: APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-09-42: Rocco Corsi, 18892 Maplewood, Livonia, MI 48152, seeking a variance for a deficient front yard setback created because of a proposed property division. What was previously a corner street side yard will now become the front yard. Front Yard Setback Required: 50 feet Proposed: 37 feet Deficient: 13 feet The property is located on the east side of Maplewood (18892), between Pickford and Clarita, Lot No. 046-99-0090-001, RUF Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section 5.05 “Front Yard,” be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1.The uniqueness requirement is met because it is located on a corner lot and a portion of the property is vacant. 2.Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because it would limit his ability to sell the property. 3.The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because it has neighbor support and no letters of objection were received. 4.The Board received no letters of approval and no objection letters from neighboring property owners. 5.The property is classified as “Low Density Residential” 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 variance is conditioned upon lot split approval. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Duggan, Pastor, McCue, McIntyre, Sills, Caramagno, Henzi NAYS: None ABSENT: None Henzi: This variance is granted with the condition that the variance is granted with the condition upon lot split approval. Good luck. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 36 of 47 September 10, 2013 Representative: Thank you. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 37 of 47 September 10, 2013 APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-09-43: John Lewis Enterprises, 22383 Lancaster Court, Novi, MI 48374 on behalf of property located at 11500-516 Middlebelt, seeking to erect two identical ground signs resulting in each sign being excess in height and a deficient setback from the right-of-way line. Ground Sign Height Ground Sign Setback Allowed: 8 feet Allowed: 10 ft. Proposed: 12.2 feet Proposed: 8 ft. Excess: 4.2 feet Deficient: 2 ft. Henzi: Mr. Kearfott, anything to add to this case? Kearfott: Not at this time. Henzi: Are there any questions for Mr. Kearfott? Hearing none, will the Petitioner please come forward. Good evening. Petitioner: Hi. I’m John Winkler of John Lewis Enterprises, 22383 Lancaster Court, Novi, Michigan. Representative: I’m LeAnn Decker with Vital Signs, 37037 Schoolcraft, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Henzi: Tell us a little bit about the proposed signs. Petitioner: Okay. We’re proposing internally lit multi-tenant signs, one at our driveway at the Middlebelt drive and the other one at the Plymouth Road Drive. We’re asking for the height so that we can have visibility above the existing wall. The setback is 8 feet and we’re trying to keep it out of the right-of-way of the lanes in the parking lot. Henzi: That’s the Plymouth Road decorative brick wall, right? Petitioner: Correct. Henzi: Does that mean that you want to build it up? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 38 of 47 September 10, 2013 Petitioner: Well, we figure at that height we are just over the wall, it would be like putting the box sign right on the wall. You know as far as visibility, it’s about 6 foot from the asphalt to the top of the wall. Henzi: You said internally illuminated, does it go off on photocell or is there a timer? Petitioner: Well, we’ve got to take electricity out there and I believe it’s going to be on a timer. Henzi: Any idea when it goes off or is that adjustable? Petitioner: It can be adjustable. I mean I didn’t have any plans because --- does it matter if it runs dusk to dawn on a timer? Henzi: I don’t know. I was asking more of whether you thought of it, that’s a pretty crowded intersection, I wouldn’t expect it to come off at 10:00 o’clock but that’s just my opinion, if it goes all night. You’ve got a Walmart across the street. Petitioner: I haven’t really had any thoughts as far as come on at dusk, go off at midnight, I haven’t given any thought to that. Henzi: I mean sometimes we tell petitioners to turn it off an hour after close, you know, but a lot of times that’s when it is shining into a neighborhood, you know that’s a very important concern. But for me it’s Middlebelt. Petitioner: I just can’t imagine that type of sign illuminating much more than 10, 20 feet as far as shining light, and with the lenses on the inside. Henzi: I mean your overhead street lights might be brighter. Petitioner: Well, the ones on Plymouth and Middlebelt are definitely brighter, yes. Henzi: Okay. Is there any other questions? Pastor: Mr. Chair. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 39 of 47 September 10, 2013 Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Scott, I see that they’re going to use two parking spaces. Kearfott: That’s correct. Pastor: Is there ample parking for this mall? It looks like there’s ample parking but there are some stores here. It looks like there’s enough parking. Kearfott: It does. I’ve never seen that parking lot packed. Pastor: I understand that but I know the ordinance requires a certain amount. Kearfott: And I did look at that, it looks like they are using one space on each end. Pastor: All right. Kearfott: And the variance request did not include parking. Pastor: Well, this says required parking 147, existing parking 132. Fisher: Well, I don’t know whether the Inspection Department determined a different number was required. Pastor: Or maybe someone missed this. Fisher: That’s entirely possible. Pastor: So the next question is since now the Notice could be wrong, we know it’s partially wrong, is this something we continue with? That’s about 10 percent missing. This is a significant number. Fisher: You guys can ahead if you have any more questions. I will check to see what the correspondence received by the Planning Commission says. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 40 of 47 September 10, 2013 Pastor: I don’t have any more questions. Henzi: Do you have any recollection of any parking deficiency coming up? Petitioner: Well, it was the Family Buggy at one time and they used to pack the place, I never had a problem with parking there. I had two restaurants there at one time, one was The Family Buggy and the other was a Coney Island. And it was high seating capacity, never had any problem. Henzi: That’s kind of what I remember it being, a Family Buggy, and parking may have been more restrictive in terms of the ordinance. Petitioner: I’ve never had a problem with parking there. McCue: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: Have you discussed the sign piece of this with the PRDA or with Mark? Petitioner: I have met Mark and Mr. Bishop out at the site there and we talked about it to see where we wanted to be and we discussed the wall problem and they basically said get a design and I took it to them and he would notify me as to where he wanted me to be as far as the process to go through, and as far as I know this is the only board I needed to visit. McCue: I know that we’ve discussed the wall situation. Petitioner: Right. McCue: And I will say that you guys have really spent a lot of time, effort and money into this property. Petitioner: Thank you very much. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 41 of 47 September 10, 2013 McCue: So I just wanted to acknowledge that. Petitioner: Thank you very much. McCue: I just wanted to know if you and Mark have discussed this. Petitioner: Yes, we have talked to him on multiple occasions and delivered the plans to him. McCue: Thank you. Petitioner: Thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: When will construction begin? Petitioner: I hope to this all in and done before the ground freezes. Caramagno: What about the sign, when will that be done? Petitioner: I hope to have that done by the end of the month. Caramagno: Okay. The only other question I’ve got for you is the sign currently says Livonia Crossroads which runs parallel to Plymouth Road and Middlebelt Road, what’s the plan for that? Did they knock it right down? Petitioner: Yeah, one is not there because seems to like it more than I do so they take it away. I know that one on Middlebelt can’t stay there and I don’t know if the foot traffic, City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 42 of 47 September 10, 2013 but they seem to desire it more than I do. I haven’t replaced that one since I’ve come up with this proposal. Caramagno: So that was down --- Petitioner: Yeah, that one only sits 32 inches off the street or the sidewalk there, the ground, the bushes cover it most of the time. Caramagno: Those are all the questions I have. Henzi: Any other questions? Is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against the project? Seeing none coming forward, can you read the letters? Caramagno: We have an approval from Robert Lafortune at 11504 Middlebelt. And Jeannette Page at 29148 Elmira writes an objection, (letter read). Henzi: Mr. Winkler, is there anything you’d like to say in closing? Petitioner: No, just that I’d like you to approve my proposal. Thank you. Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Mr. Fisher, did you find anything? Fisher: Well, Mr. Hanna of the Inspection Department wrote that he has no objections. Now, this means one of two things, either that the Inspection Department somehow determined it was compliant notwithstanding what is written on the plans, which is certainly the Inspection Department’s prerogative or alternatively, that it was somehow missed or thought to be pre-existing or something like that, that they didn’t articulate. So, I guess because everything that comes before this Board comes in effect on appeal from the Inspection Department, if they haven’t identified that as a problem I don’t think that’s an obstacle to proceeding. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 43 of 47 September 10, 2013 Pastor: So, even though our Notice was incorrect, partially incorrect, this is partially incorrect, we should proceed? Fisher: Well, I know what you’re talking about with reference to the partially incorrect, we all know it’s incorrect either because they somehow determined that the drawing is wrong as to what it says about required parking or because it was determined to be pre-existing, there are at least two possible explanations as to why that has not been identified this as a variance. I certainly feel your pain though. Pastor: Let me ask you this: Could we approve this but send it back to the Building Department to check on parking and if they have an issue it will have to go back? Fisher: Absolutely. Pastor: Okay, thank you. Henzi: I’m going to close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: And I currently have no trouble with the signs you presented here today, it’s been through the Planning Commission, City Council, looks reasonable to me, quite an improvement on this property and I understand your hardship, the brick feature on the corner there, I think this will help you and I don’t think it looks out of line at all so I will support it. Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre. McIntyre: I think that it adds nothing but an improvement, what you’re doing to this building is great, the sign is very appropriate, the variances are understandable, I think it’s just a nice upgrade to a very tired shopping center. It’s also nice to see the multi-tenant sign with some recognizable logos, I think it’s great. Personally, I don’t have concern about the parking. There’s no longer a restaurant there and save the two weeks before Christmas when all shopping centers are busy and in my observation, I drive by that intersection a lot, I would guess that you would hope and expect that once all the remodeling has taken place, business will pick up and I still don’t see that there’s deficient parking. My biggest concern has always been handicapped parking and you have one more space than what’s required. Petitioner: Thank you. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 44 of 47 September 10, 2013 Henzi: Mr. Sills. Sills: I think the signs are needed, I think they’re well thought out as far as positioning them, I do miss the Family Buggy restaurant, I frequented that place quite a bit when I was gainfully employed. I had many happy luncheons there. And I don’t think eliminating two parking spaces is going to affect anything because I agree with you, I’ve never seen that parking lot totally filled. And I just recently purchased some blinds for my cottage from Very Very Vertical and had I not known exactly where they were, I would have had trouble finding them without the signs, so I will be in full support. Petitioner: Thank you very much. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I will support you. Honestly it looks nice, it’s a very nice improvement and I’m going to go back to how hard you worked with the City. The signs to me are reasonable, I think the location is fine, and the uniqueness requirement is met because of the height of the wall so I will be in support. Thank you for working with the City on this. Petitioner: Thank you very much. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: I, too, will support this. It’s an upgrade and you’ve got appropriate signs on proper locations, it’s definitely an upgrade and I will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: I will also be in support. I don’t mean to cause you heartache about the parking, but I do read the plans and that is the reason, but I will be in support. Henzi: I, too, will be in support. I think this is the definition of a hardship because the City has erected a wall that blocks the view. I will support the variance, so the floor is open for a motion. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 45 of 47 September 10, 2013 Upon Motion by McCue, supported by McIntyre, it was: RESOLVED: APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-09-43: John Lewis Enterprises, 22383 Lancaster Court, Novi, MI 48374 on behalf of property located at 11500-516 Middlebelt, seeking to erect two identical ground signs resulting in each sign being excess in height and a deficient setback from the right-of-way line. Ground Sign Height Ground Sign Setback Allowed: 8 ft. Allowed: 10 ft. Proposed: 12.2 ft. Proposed: 8 ft. Excess: 4.2 ft. Deficient: 2 ft. The property is located on the east side of Middlebelt, (11500-516) between Plymouth and Elmira, Lot No. 142-99-0014-000, C-2 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section 18.50H(b)1 “Sign Regulations in C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 Districts, ” be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1.The uniqueness requirement is met because of the location of the sign in conjunction with the wall erected by the City which blocks the view of the current sign. 2.Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because people would pass by without seeing the sign. 3.The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because of the location of the sign and the Board receiving no objections as to the location and height. 4.The Board received one (1) letter of approval and one (1) objection letter 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 Council’s requirements from July 2, 2012 be incorporated in the variance. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: McCue, McIntyre, Sills, Duggan, Caramagno, Henzi NAYS: Pastor ABSENT: None City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 46 of 47 September 10, 2013 Henzi: The variance is granted with just one condition, that Council’s requirements from July 2, 2012 be incorporated into the variance Good luck. Petitioner: Thank you very much. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 47 of 47 September 10, 2013 Elections were held for the positions of Chair, Vice-Chair and Secretary POSITION OF CHAIRMAN: By Caramagno, supported by Pastor, to nominate Henzi for the position of Chairman. Henzi accepted nomination. All were in favor. POSITION OF VICE CHAIRMAN: By Duggan, supported by McCue, to nominate Pastor for the position of Vice Chairman. Pastor accepted nomination. All were in favor. POSITION OF SECRETARY: By Duggan, supported by Pastor, to nominate Caramagno for the position of Secretary. Caramagno accepted nomination. All were in favor. _____________________________________________________________________ There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. _________________________ SAM CARAMAGNO, Secretary _________________________ MATTHEW HENZI, Chairman /bjm