Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-17 City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 of 29 April 17, 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT: Matthew Henzi, Chairman Sam Caramagno, Secretary Toni Audia Aloe Edward E. Duggan, Jr. Elizabeth H. McCue Robert E. Sills MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Pastor, Vice Chairman OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Fisher, Assistant City Attorney John Podina, City Inspector Helen Mininni, Court Reporter The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Henzi then explained the Rules of Procedure to those interested parties. Each petitioner must give their name and address and declare hardship for appeal. Appeals of the Zoning Board's decisions are made to the Wayne County Circuit Court. The Chairman advised the audience that appeals can be filed within 21 days of the date tonight’s minutes are approved. The decision of the Zoning Board shall become final within five (5) calendar days following the hearing and the applicant shall be mailed a copy of the decision. There are four decisions the Board can make: to deny, to grant, to grant as modified by the Board, or to table for further information. Each petitioner may ask to be heard by a full seven (7) member Board. Six (6) members were present this evening. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard by a full Board and no one wished to do so. The Secretary then read the Agenda and Legal Notice to each appeal, and each petitioner indicated their presence. Appeals came up for hearing after due legal notice was given to all interested parties within 300 feet, petitioners and City Departments. There were 8 persons present in the audience. (7:00 #1/94) APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-03-05: JOMA, LLC, 1214 Copperwood Dr., Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302, on behalf of lessee Joe’s Produce, 33152 Seven Mile, Livonia, MI 48152, seeking to erect wall signs upon a commercially zoned tenant space within a multi-tenant retail center, resulting in excess number of wall signs and wall sign area. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF LIVONIA MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD APRIL 17, 2012 City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 of 29 April 17, 2012 Number of Wall Signs Wall Sign Area Allowed: One Allowed: 81 sq. ft. Proposed: Three Proposed: 128 sq. ft. Excess: Two Excess: 47 sq. ft. The property is located on the north side of Seven Mile (33066) between Shadyside and Mayfield. Henzi: Mr. Podina, anything to add to this case? Podina: No, sir. Henzi: Any questions for the Inspection Department? Hearing none, can you use the other podium, there is no microphone working at that one, sorry. Good evening. Representative: Good evening. Pam Brown representing Joe’s Produce, 33152 West Seven Mile, Livonia. Henzi: Okay. Why don’t you tell us about the proposed sign package? Representative: The proposed sign package is – additionally, we just wanted to add the logo be it like an artwork so that we could tie the two stores together. We currently have the produce, which is 33152 and then we recently are building the meat market, which is next to it and we just wanted to tie the two together even though one will be called Joe’s Meat and Seafood. They will still be falling using the same ownership. So, we thought that it would be a way to tie in the two companies so that the customers know that we’re still the same, they will get the same quality and everything that we have in the produce station. Henzi: The only question I think I have for you is, this sign package looks very familiar even the font to Papa Joe’s on Woodward in Birmingham; is that similar to what it is going to look like? Representative: No, it should be the one that they have had since what -1962, the one that is on the building right now. Henzi: I mean just the words, the style, the letters. I’m not suggesting changing the name from Joe’s. Representative: It is Garamond type, they have used that since, I think 1978, which is in all of their brochures and all of their promotion things that they have used since then. As far as I know, it hasn’t changed; it has always been that since the designers designed the addition. Henzi: Okay, any questions for the Petitioner? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 of 29 April 17, 2012 Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: How does the bigger sign, the Joe’s Meat and Seafood, line up with the other stores in the plaza? Representative: It should be quite consistent. I think we sent over something, it was about the same, a little bit bigger than Byrd’s but they put a whole thing together with what was there, the Breadsmith, and Joe’s Meat and Seafood, and the sizes weren’t that different. Caramagno: So, this is not an overbearing sign for that area? Representative: Right, no. Caramagno: Although it has a long -- Representative: Right. Caramagno: -- long frontage there, the letters are proportionate in height? Representative: Yeah. That was just a replacement sign, the logo is the one that they were trying to put on the tower type. Caramagno: That’s all I have. Henzi: Any other questions? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against this project? If so, come on up. Seeing no one coming forward, are there letters? Caramagno: I think there is one. No objections from Gerald Blaize [33012 Seven Mile Road]. We have another one. Approval from Robert Weaver [33111 W. Seven Mile Rd] (letter was read). Henzi: Is there anything else you would like to say in closing? Representative: No. Henzi: Okay, thank you. I will close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mr. Sills. Sills: Well, I am quite impressed with the new building. In the past everything Joe’s Produce has ever done has been on a positive side for the City of Livonia. He has always been a pleasure to deal with as far as the Zoning Board of Appeals is City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 of 29 April 17, 2012 concerned. He has always been very cooperative and has always extended anything he may to make his projects be favorable by the Zoning Board. We have dealt with Joe’s Produce for many years and he is kind of a landmark right there at Seven Mile and Farmington. There used to be a Byrd’s Meat Market there, I was by there today and Byrd’s is gone, so I guess Joe’s is going to be the only meat market there. I think everything that he has done is in good taste and I will be in full support. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: I also will be in support. The whole shopping center, the total renovation there has just been spectacular and, actually as Sam asked, this sign is consistent with the other tenants there so I will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: Yes, this is a nice package here. This is very easy to read, very clear, very nicely done as usual. It is kind of a campus area; you’ve got the meat market and the fish store next store. This only adds further class to the area. When I think about the Byrd’s meat sign and now this just freshens up everything and it looks good to me. I will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: I, too, will be in support. Originally I thought that the three signs would be a lot but when you take into account what Joe’s Produce is as far as a landmark in the City of Livonia, I think the plans look great and now he owns two of the buildings. It’s like your own little corner with the other shops there. But it is a landmark right there at Seven Mile and Farmington so, yeah, I will be in support. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I, too, will support. I think Joe has done a phenomenal job in general with what they have done on that corner, a lot of investment into Livonia and I think considering the area and how they are trying to market, I also will be in support. Henzi: I agree with all the other Board members. I consider this to be a corner of a large shopping center and for all the reasons said already, I will be in support. So, the floor is open for a motion. Upon Motion by Duggan, supported by Caramagno, it was: RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-03-05: JOMA, LLC, 1214 Copperwood Dr., Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302, on behalf of lessee Joe’s Produce, 33152 Seven Mile, Livonia, MI 48152, seeking to erect wall signs upon a commercially zoned tenant space within a multi-tenant retail center, resulting in excess number of wall signs and wall sign area. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 of 29 April 17, 2012 Number of Wall Signs Wall Sign Area Allowed: One Allowed: 81 sq. ft. Proposed: Three Proposed: 128 sq. ft. Excess: Two Excess: 47 sq. ft. The property is located on the north side of Seven Mile (33066) between Shadyside and Mayfield, be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because the additional signage will be used to unify the separate market and the original store. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because without the signage customers would have difficulty differentiating the produce market from the meat and seafood store. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on the neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because there have been multiple letters of support from its neighbors. 4. The Board received two (2) letters of approval/ no letters of objection from neighboring property owners. 5. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the purpose or objective of the Master Plan because this property is classified “General Commercial” under the Master Plan, and the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification. FURTHER, this variance is granted with the following conditions 1. That Petitioner shall meet all requirements as imposed by City Council Resolution 109 –12. 2. That the construction of the sign be completed within six months. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Duggan, Caramagno, Aloe, McCue, Sills, Henzi NAYS: None ABSENT: Pastor Henzi: The variance is granted with those two conditions. You have to comply with the City Council requirements set forth in a prior meeting and it has to be constructed within six months. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 of 29 April 17, 2012 Representative: Thank you. Henzi: Thank you. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 of 29 April 17, 2012 (7:11 #1/373) APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-04-13: Julia A Churchvara Living Trust, 14453 Garden St., Livonia, MI 48154, seeking to erect a six foot tall privacy screen upon a corner lot, resulting in the screen extending beyond the side of the home toward the street, which is not allowed. Privacy screens cannot extend beyond the side elevations of the home. The property is located on the west side of Garden (14453) between Lyndon and Jacquelyn. Henzi: Mr. Podina, anything to add to this case? Podina: Not at this time. Henzi: Any questions for Mr. Podina? Hearing none, will the Petitioner please come forward? Good evening. Petitioner: My name is Mark Churchvara. I am the main occupant/dweller of the property at 14453 Garden Street. I am requesting a variance for a 6-ft. tall vinyl privacy screen for the property with an 8-ft. extension on the south side to the sidewalk. And for it to run towards the driveway approximately 35-ft. basically for privacy, number one, and also it’s part of the master landscape plan that I have planned with new landscape, sod around this fence, and the property irrigation. The main concern is the lack of privacy that I don’t have. As a matter of fact, on the property I have all the traffic coming from Middlebelt Road down Jacquelyn Street, which is part of my backyard, which is quite open. I have had a few incidences in the past of vandalism, lawn furniture and plants on the property in this location, along with the theft of a couple chairs about eight years ago. So, with this request I would like to enclose with that 8-ft. extension, the patio area for those reasons and for my privacy. Henzi: Can you tell us why you want a privacy screen as opposed to a corner lot privacy fence, which would be closer to the sidewalk? Petitioner: Because it’s really not necessary to go to the sidewalk. It’s just to enclose the main area, only 8-ft. out, which I plan for it to include the whole landscape. If I went to the sidewalk – there was concerns from some of the neighbors that they would not like that too much for a fence going to the sidewalk. According to the letter that they received, they questioned me about it and it was sort of unclear. They thought it was going all the way to the sidewalk and I said, “No, no, no.” It’s only 8-ft. from the edge of the house and then directly west. So, one neighbor was concerned about his line of sight would be blocked from the one side of the street if I would have went to the sidewalk, 8-ft. is all that is required. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 of 29 April 17, 2012 Henzi: Okay. And then you’ve got a photo of the type of fence that you would like. What color is the vinyl fence going to be? Petitioner: The vinyl fence is going to be a combination tan and adobe color. So, as far as matching the brick on the house and the siding, it will be a nice match. Henzi: What you do mean – you mean those two colors mixed so that it’s a light beige, or is it going to be every other panel? Petitioner: No, the posts are one color and then the panels are a lighter tan color. Henzi: Okay, thanks. Any questions for the Petitioner? Aloe: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: Can I just ask, that really tall cyclone fencing that you have up currently, what -- Petitioner: Yes, that was originally my garden area. It’s between the garage and the house and I used that fence for my vegetable garden. I use it for a trellis. I grow peas up on it, tomatoes. So, it’s sort of a garden area, a sectioned area that I have back there. I don’t have that much space and I’ve had that fence there for 10 years, 12 years, so it’s for that purpose for growing vegetables. Aloe: Can I ask you why you wouldn’t have considered the 5-ft. fence with the lattice on the top? Petitioner: I looked at it and the models that the contractor had – I noticed that my neighbor has the lattice fence and I prefer the solid design better instead of the lattice. Aloe: All right, thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against this project? If so, come on up. I see no one coming forward. Are there letters on this case? Caramagno: Actually I have one question. Henzi: Okay. Caramagno: I was able to catch you outside today and talk to you about your project and we talked about some of the questions I had there. I had one other thing that I had written down but I didn’t have in my hand when I spoke to you. Behind your garage, between you and the neighbor to the west of you, there’s something on the fence there, it’s kind of a, it’s kind of a – I don’t know what it is almost – it looks like it’s a piece of City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 of 29 April 17, 2012 plywood attached to the fence at what would be your northwest corner of your property. What is that on that fence there? Petitioner: That’s a piece of painted corrugated metal that I had put up there to block the view. That’s where I normally store my garbage cans. Caramagno: Okay. From the road I couldn’t tell. I pulled in the driveway real quick and I looked and when I saw you come out, I went around to talk to you and I forgot to ask you that question. Petitioner: All right. Caramagno: Okay. That’s a little area for trashcans. That’s the only question I’ve got. Henzi: Anything else? No letters? Caramagno: No, I don’t see anything, no. Henzi: Mr. Churchvara, anything you would like to say in closing? Petitioner: No. Henzi: Okay. I will close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: Well, I think the Petitioner has been very reasonable in what he’s asking for, I mean, the fact that he’s only coming up - if I read this right, 12-ft. or no, it’s 8-ft across but out to the side of the house. Petitioner: Oh, okay. Aloe: You’re not even going to see it if you were just driving by on Garden Street. And also the fact that he has kept the fence so far away from the sidewalk so I really don’t think there would be any issue with vision as far as being able to see some small person going by or someone on a bike going by. So, I really appreciate that. I do have to say though I wish you would reconsider the other fence, I mean, it’s just – these are so stockade looking and believe me if I was on that corner, I would want privacy, too, so it isn’t that. It’s just that it’s just not as attractive, it’s more stockade, sterile looking. I don’t know what you would say, but I’m not saying I wouldn’t approve it. I think what you have designed here is very reasonable so I definitely would approve that. Petitioner: Also, if I could add, part of the landscape again of the whole total picture because it will be landscaped in front of that fence as you’re viewing it from the street. The plan is hopefully by June, July of this year all that will be landscaped in front with new sod. There’s going to be flowers, shrubbery in front of that fence. I plan on, you know, making everything match in with the landscape so it’s not just going to be just a City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 10 of 29 April 17, 2012 plain fence. I believe with that landscape with the added landscape to it, it will enhance it quite a bit. Aloe: Okay, that’s good. Petitioner: All the way around, all the way around, not just the one section, so everything on the outside will be landscaped. Aloe: Thank you. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: When I look at your request here, I look and say what is the reason for the fence? Why is it needed? And you can clearly see why it is needed if you come down Jacquelyn heading east. And I don’t know what room that is there behind your house where headlights have got to shine in there for years and I probably would have wanted to do something sooner than what you have. And the fact that when you sit outside when the weather is nice and you’re on your bench, you’re at your patio, whether you’re drinking coffee or having a soda pop for all the world to see, there’s no privacy at all. So, I think it’s a good solution for you. I like the fact that you’re going to put bushes and flowers and things around this fence so it doesn’t stick out like tan wall in the middle of a yard. The house next door has something similar, it doesn’t stick out quite as far, but I think this will solve what you’re looking for and I will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: I will be in support. I think you do have a very unique property, you’re right on the corner. So when you go out on your picnic table there, you are in, you know, for everyone to see. So I totally understand why you want some privacy and you’re right off of Garden and Middlebelt so I totally understand that. And even driving around your subdivision especially down Jacquelyn there were a number of other privacy fences I saw driving through, so I will be in support. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I agree. I think considering the location and the setup of the property and the number of years that, as you had mentioned earlier, you’ve had to deal with some of that traffic passing by. I will also be in support. Henzi: Sills: Sills: I will also be in support. I think that the Petitioner has taken very good care of his property and from what I understand his parents, I guess, had the house prior to him and they’ve been in the area since 1964, I think you said. Petitioner: Correct. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 11 of 29 April 17, 2012 Sills: And the home was built in ’58. Petitioner: Uh-huh. Sills: So, he’s been a long-time resident of Livonia and I think his requests are reasonable. And I think his homework was well done, I think his design is good and there shouldn’t be any problem with visual contact as he’s backing out of his driveway or anything of that nature, so I will be in full support. Henzi: I, too, will support the request. When I drove through the neighborhood, I thought that it was fairly common to see privacy screens. In fact, there was one very close to this Petitioner’s house. So, for all the reasons stated I will be in full support. The floor is open for a motion. Upon Motion by Sills, supported by Caramagno, it was: RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-04-13: Julia A. Churchvara Living Trust, 14453 Garden St., Livonia, MI 48150, seeking to erect a six foot tall privacy screen upon a corner lot, resulting in the screen extending beyond the side of the home toward the street, which is not allowed. Privacy screens cannot extend beyond the side elevations of the home. The property is located on the west side of Garden (14453) between Lyndon and Jacquelyn, be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because the Petitioner has a corner lot with a considerable amount of traffic going by his home on a daily basis including a school bus that stops on that corner. Petitioner is vulnerable to vandalism being on that corner and has no privacy. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because he lacks the privacy preventing him from enjoying his home. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because the request is not unusual for corner lots. 4. The Board received no letters of approval/objection from neighboring property owners. 5. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the purpose or objective of the Master Plan because this property is classified “Low-density Residential” under the Master Plan, and the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification. FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions: City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 12 of 29 April 17, 2012 1. That the fence will be constructed with the materials and location as presented to the Board. 2. That the fence be built within four (4) months. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Sills, Caramagno, Aloe, Duggan, McCue, Henzi NAYS: None ABSENT: Pastor Henzi: The variance is granted. You’ve got to construct it within four months and then have the same type of fence that you’ve presented in your plan in the place as you presented it. Petitioner: Thank you. Henzi: Good luck. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 13 of 29 April 17, 2012 (7:28 #1/832) APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-04-14: Jay Nitzkin, 33428 Five Mile, Livonia, MI 48154, seeking to construct an addition onto the rear of a nonconforming building, which is not allowed. Existing nonconformity is based on the front yard setback of zero feet where sixty feet is required. The property is located on the north side of Five Mile (33428) between Farmington and Surrey. Henzi: Mr. Podina, anything to add to this case? Podina: No, sir, not at this time. Henzi: Any questions for the Inspection Department? Hearing none, good evening. Petitioner: Good evening. I’m Jay Nitzkin and the office is at 33428 Five Mile Road and what we are planning on doing is adding to the back of the building towards the alley. And the reason for the variance is because of the front of the building doesn’t conform to the rules, but we’re not doing anything with the front ,it’s all about the back. Henzi: How long have you occupied that building? Petitioner: About 10 years. Henzi: Okay. And you’re just now growing and need more space and there’s only one place to go; right? Petitioner: Uh-huh, back. If I went forward, it would be into Five Mile Road and that wouldn’t be good. Henzi: Your patients are nervous enough probably as it is. Petitioner: Yes, they are. Henzi: Any questions for the Petitioner? Sills: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Sills. Sills: What is the basic reason for this addition to the back? Petitioner: We wanted to add a couple more treatment rooms, a little more space for a lunchroom for the staff. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 14 of 29 April 17, 2012 Sills: And the parking lot that you have, it seems as though you share a parking lot with the old Perkos Shoe Store; is that correct? Petitioner: Well, Perkos, they had their own parking lot, but unfortunately as you probably know, they went out. They are no longer. Sills: No, they are no longer there. Petitioner: No, but they had their own parking lot, but they used our parking lot and some of their customers did, which is fine. And the Bates Burgers on the other side of us, a lot of their customers used our parking lot as well like around lunchtime. Sills: Did you have an agreement with Perkos Shoes to share the parking lot? Petitioner: Well, I talked to Paul before when I first moved 10 years ago and it was never an issue because we had plenty of parking. He’s a nice guy, too. Sills: Yes, he is, nice family, too bad they’re gone. Petitioner: It really is. Henzi: Anything else? Sills: I don’t have any more, Mr. Chair. Aloe: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: To Mr. Podina, I noticed that there were cars parked there taking away that parking in the back of the building, that doesn’t affect their parking requirements, does it? Podina: No, I wouldn’t think so. Aloe: It was never like part of -- Podina: We’ve never had any complaints on it, I know that. Aloe: Yes. Podina: I would imagine that all those businesses kind of shared the parking lot -- Aloe: I think so. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 15 of 29 April 17, 2012 Podina: -- because there were vehicles this afternoon parked behind the building actually on Farmington Road there and I seen one guy parked there and he walked over to the hamburger place. I’m sure everybody just shares the parking lot. Aloe: Okay, thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? I have maybe one or two more. We don’t have plans that describe the building materials, but the renderings make it look as if your goal is to blend in with the brick so that it looks like this was all one building, it always existed that way as opposed to a building and then an addition. Did I sum it up okay? Petitioner: You did it exactly right. Henzi: Okay, anything else? No? Anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this project? I see no one coming forward. Are there letters? Caramagno: Yes. We have Myron Rubin [15357 Farmington] has an objection (letter was read). An approval from Gail McLaren [15483 Surrey] letter was read). James Powell [33504 Five Mile] with two letters of approval (letters were read). Powell sent three letters. With the letters I have a question, Mr. Chair. Henzi: Sure. Caramagno: Rubin, Myron Rubin is he – I don’t know, his letter confuses me. Is he talking about your parking lot or is this his parking lot? Petitioner: I’m not sure. He’s the dental office just behind us. I’ve never met him. Caramagno: So he’s to the north of you, perhaps then? Petitioner: Yes. Caramagno: So, he must use your lot and he’s concerned you’re going to give spaces away. Okay, that’s it. Petitioner: And there is a little bit of litter from time-to-time, but it’s really not that big of a deal. Usually you will see Bates’ bags and cups once in a while, but it’s really not an issue. We just pick it up when we see it. Henzi: Okay, anything else you would like to say in closing, Dr. Nitzkin? Petitioner: No, thank you. Henzi: Okay. I will close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mr. Caramagno. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 16 of 29 April 17, 2012 Caramagno: I think you’ve told us why you need the room. It appears you have plenty of parking there for your issue and it’s not even an issue on the case tonight. I’m sure that the addition will be tastefully done and the fact that it comes out further into the alley – as I’m looking down that alley there’s buildings to the west of you that come back in the approximate area in which you’re going to come back to, so it’s not going to interfere with traffic. It will remove those three or four spots so Bates will have a hard time on Saturday afternoon, but they’ll have to get through it and I will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: I, too, will be in support. I think going back is your best plan. I think the plans look great and I’m glad you’re looking to expand in Livonia, so I will be in support. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I agree. I don’t think there’s any other logical way you can go other than back and, obviously again, we support businesses that want to improve here in Livonia. I will also be in support. Henzi: Mr. Sills. Sills: Well, I think you’re kind of stuck in as far as which way to go unless you wanted to go up. You could make that a high rise if you’d like, but I think your decision is the right one. Petitioner: My architect would object to that idea. Sills: I will be in full support. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: Yes, I also will be in support. We are not adding to the nonconformity, it’s not going to affect parking, so I will be in support. Henzi: So will I. The only reason that the Petitioner has to come before us is because of an existing nonconformity that has existed for a long time because of a building that was built with a setback to match many of the pre-existing buildings built probably in the forties and fifties. I think that there is a lot of general office space nearby, in fact, there’s a dentist closer than Dr. Rubin who didn’t send in an objection. Dr. Rubin’s office fronts Farmington. I can’t imagine that Dr. Nitzkin’s office or patients were the cause of his problems. This is a property that I drive by almost every day and I am in full support and I am glad that somebody is building. I think that’s terrific. So, the floor is open for a motion. Upon Motion by Aloe, supported by Sills, it was: City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 17 of 29 April 17, 2012 RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-04-14: Jay Nitzkin, 33428 Five Mile, Livonia, MI 48154, seeking to construct an addition onto the rear of a nonconforming building, which is not allowed. Existing nonconformity is based on the front yard setback of zero feet where sixty feet is required. The property is located on the north side of Five Mile (33428) between Farmington and Surrey, be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because this is an existing nonconforming building dating back to the 1940’s. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because the Petitioner is a business and it is a business that is growing and he needs space in which he can grow into. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because this building is consistent with other buildings along the Five Mile corridor. 4. The Board received two (2) letters of approval and one (1) letter of objection from neighboring property owners. 5. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the purpose or objective of the Master Plan because this property is classified for “General Commercial” under the Master Plan, and the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification. FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions: 1. That the addition be constructed to match and conform to the existing building. 2. That the addition be enclosed within 90 days following commencement of construction. 3. That the variance is good for one year. 4. That the addition must comply with the 2/29/2012 Council resolution. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Aloe, Sills, Caramagno, Duggan, McCue, Henzi NAYS: None ABSENT: Pastor Henzi: The variance is granted and I will read those four conditions one more time. The first is that it is going to be constructed to match the existing building as you City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 18 of 29 April 17, 2012 planned. You have got to enclose it within 90 days after construction commences. It’s good for one year. That doesn’t mean it expires in one year, it means you’ve got one year within which to complete the construction and then you’ve got to comply with the Council’s rule of February 29, 2012. Good luck to you. Petitioner: Thank you. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 19 of 29 April 17, 2012 (7:39 #1/1164) APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-04-15: Bostick West Properties, on behalf of lessee Sherwin Williams Floorcoverings, 12256 Hubbard, Livonia, MI 48150, seeking to erect a wall sign within a multi-tenant industrial complex, resulting in the individual tenant sign being excess in sign area. Sign Area Allowed: 10 sq. ft. Proposed: 48 sq. ft. Excess: 38 sq. ft. The property is located on the east side of Hubbard (12256) between Plymouth and the cul-de-sac. Henzi: Mr. Podina, anything to add to this case? Podina: No, sir. Henzi: Any questions for the Inspection Department? Hearing none, good evening. Representative: Good evening. Patrick Steibert, 33650 Giftos Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan. Henzi: Do you want to tell us why Sherwin Williams wants this excessive sign? Representative: Yes. Well, they are moving into this multi-tenant leased space and trying to get their name out there for recognition. They feel like they have a lack of identification with the way that the code reads for them to only have a 10-sq. ft. wall sign. This is the size of the sign that they would like to have. They wanted me to come here to this meeting tonight with these drawings and, you know, show you what they are looking for and get your feedback on it and possibly come to some sort of agreement on possibly something that would be acceptable in excess of the 10-sq. ft. They realize where they are at it’s a multi-use industrial area. They feel like where they are at they are setback at that dead end part of the road and that they needed something to, you know, give them some sort of better identification so that people can identify where they are at. So, they do feel like they have a hardship, and again, would just like you to review the drawings in front of you and get your feedback if possible. Henzi: The application states that the Petitioner wants to have identification for the public; what does that mean? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 20 of 29 April 17, 2012 Representative: I think that that wording is just, you know, identification. As far as - you mean - like the general public? Henzi: Yeah, does public mean the five vendors who might call on this place as opposed to customers who are going to pour in everyday? Representative: I know that it is more of a commercial sign, but I do think that they do have customers that will go in there to look at things. Henzi: I’m only one Board member, but it’s hard for me to understand why somebody says we want to brand our image and then they lease space in a cul-de-sac in the middle of an industrial complex. Representative: Yeah. Henzi: That by four o’clock is empty. Representative: Yeah, I hear you. I asked the same thing. I guess where the actual decisions come from, the corporate offices, maybe it had something to do with the cost of the space. Henzi: I will be honest, I saw the logo, I knew right away it was Sherman Williams. Representative: Yeah. Henzi: Okay. So, it’s possible that somebody is suggesting it’s a Sherwin Williams space, this is the sign we always use, see if we can get this approved. That’s one possibility. Representative: Yeah, obviously it’s a family of signs, you know, it’s a little bit different because it’s got the floorcovering verbiage on it for that side of the business. Henzi: Okay, any other questions for the Petitioner’s Representative? Aloe: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: Mine is to Mr. Podina. I was over there and the only thing I saw was when you got down to that building there was a sign that gave addresses with an arrow; is there anything else there? Podina: No, there’s signs on the building. That’s actually – well, it faces Hubbard. I believe there is two addresses there. The only thing I saw with Sherman Williams was on the glass door. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 21 of 29 April 17, 2012 Henzi: Yes. Aloe: But what does everybody else have then? Podina: There was nothing really there. Aloe: Oh, it’s empty. Podina: Yeah, there’s two buildings there. Aloe: Yeah. Podina: An “A” and a “B” building. The “B” building denotes those two addresses and the “A” building is the first two addresses, and in between the two buildings is basically an entrance to AM General. When I was there today, they must have been changing shifts because I turned around in the parking lot between the buildings and I had to pull over to wait to get out because there was 30 cars coming out. It must have been a shift change coming out of AM General there. Aloe: That first building there are tenants there, do they have -- Podina: Yes, I didn’t notice who the tenants were. Aloe: So, what do they -- Podina: There was a sign down there, but I didn’t notice what it was and what it was used for. Aloe: So, basically they just get 10-sq. ft. on their door? Podina: That’s all I saw was a small sign about this big, maybe a little bit bigger than a bowling ball on a glass window. That’s the only thing I saw when I was there. Aloe: To the Petitioner, and just to piggyback on Matt’s question to you, really who comes to this business? Representative: Like I said, contractors. There will be some people from the general public going there as well. Aloe: Is there a showroom? Representative: There is samples, yes, sample showroom. Aloe: So would you say sometimes the contractor says to their client, go over there and look at the samples? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 22 of 29 April 17, 2012 Representative: I think so. Aloe: And then contractors come here to pick up; is this a warehouse, too? Representative: I don’t know how much stock they have there. It might be more of a – they have some stock, but most of this kind of stuff gets ordered. It’s like an ordered- type stuff material. Aloe: How many square feet is Sherwin Williams occupying there? Representative: 9,450. Aloe: Wow. So what’s all occupying all that then, that’s a lot of space? Representative: Yes. The front is all office area and then the back has storage, you know, for some material and stuff like that. Aloe: Okay, thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? Sills: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Sills. Sills: If there was anything that I did notice going down Hubbard was a lack of signs. None of those buildings had a sign on them and I had to look for the address to find this one. Representative: Yeah. Sills: And I think if you guys put a sign up, you’d probably be the only one that had one. Representative: There are some other tenants within the industrial area that do have some wall signage. I think, you know, some more than others in those types of areas they don’t want signage even. They don’t have people coming to them, that type of thing. Sills: And the location of the building itself is quite questionable to me. I mean the one Sherwin Williams up on the service drive on Schoolcraft makes a lot more sense than this one here does. Representative: Yeah, that’s a paint store though. Sills: Right. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 23 of 29 April 17, 2012 Henzi: Any other questions? Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: I guess back to whether this is a retail establishment or what this is going to be. How many other stores like this, are there floorcovering stores for Sherwin Williams around the Metro Detroit area? Representative: I’d say there’s about five. Caramagno: Do you do all the sign work for them? Representative: I do. Caramagno: Are they all similar in size with the sign? Representative: Absolutely. Caramagno: Are other floorcovering stores in industrial areas like this or do they have -- Representative: There are. And there are some paint stores, too, that are industrial areas as well that are open to both public and contractors. Caramagno: Now, would this be similar – I don’t know, you’re from the east side, I don’t know if you know much about our area here. Over in Farmington Hills on Indoplex Drive behind the Harley Dealership there, that’s like tile central. There’s 15, 20 tile stores there. People come in, contractors go in there, people go in, there’s displays of tile on the floor and on the walls. Is that what they’re trying to do here is have a layout where you can look at different samples, you know, glued to the floors, nailed to the floor? Representative: I don’t know if it’s to that extent with huge displays. I mean, I went by – I’ve been by the site a few times myself and more recently they started putting stuff in there. You can see samples in through the windows and the office areas, but I don’t think it’s going to be a huge showroom, you know, that type of thing elaborate or anything like that. Caramagno: Okay. Well, I listened to what Bob said and certainly if you’re looking for an address, it’s tough enough to see the address on the building to me. I drove by it and I’m going to hit the railroad tracks in a minute and not see the building. Representative: Yeah. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 24 of 29 April 17, 2012 Caramagno: All right. Another thing is, right off the bat, you started with this is the size presented here tonight as if there’s an option on the size, a smaller size; is there? Representative: Well, obviously, that’s the sign that they want to have to get some identification with the two words on it so you can read it for readability, you know, but the issue is that the code reads 10. We’re asking for 48 and this is not a very big sign right here. It’s 3-ft. by 16-ft. A lot of it is blue area and space and logo, so readability becomes an issue, but that’s why we’re here to discuss it. If we can get this sign, that’s what we would like to have, but if you guys feel like it’s too excessive, then what do you feel would be acceptable? The smaller you get it with the double copy for Sherwin Williams than the floorcovering, you know, the readability goes down, you know, just because of the size of the letters. I mean, the floorcovering letters are what - on this size only 8-inches tall. Caramagno: What’s 8-inches, the floorcovering or the Sherwin Williams? Representative: The floorcovering. Caramagno: What’s the Sherwin Williams? Representative: They should be 12-inches. Caramagno: They’re 12. Okay, that’s all I’ve got. Henzi: Any other questions? Hearing none, I see no one in the audience who wants to come forward. Did you have something to say? Representative: No. Henzi: Were there letters on this case? Caramagno: One. Lee Lacey [12280 Hubbard Street] approval (letter was read). Henzi: Mr. Steibert, anything you want to say in closing? Representative: No. Henzi: Okay, thanks. I will close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mr. Duggan. Duggan: I was driving down the street the other day and I got lost. I tried to find the address and I kept driving by it. I had to go back around to get it. So, I think you do absolutely need a sign, especially if you have customers going over there even if it’s only periodically or contractors. I was hesitant because you are asking for five times the allotted amount just for 48-ft. The ordinance allows 10. But you said it’s pretty standard for corporate and you have 12-inches for the Sherwin Williams and 9-inches for the City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 25 of 29 April 17, 2012 floorcoverings. You’re at the max there in its own little area although on the other, you know, those office buildings back there. So, I think you do need the sign and I will be in support of your plan here. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I totally get what you’re saying as far as getting lost in Industrial Park because, I agree, in plenty of those areas back there it’s difficult unless you’re going strictly by address. That being said, in most of those industrial parks, there are not signs on the buildings. I am a little concerned about the inconsistency with what’s going on with everybody else in the park. So, I want to hear what everybody else has to say and that going along with the size, I’m a little concerned. I’m not really sure yet exactly where I will fall. Henzi: Mr. Sills. Sills: I personally would look for a tabling resolution for more information. What’s going on in this building? Is this going to be used strictly for contractors? Is it going to be used for the general public? Representative: It’s both. Sills: Or just what? And if it’s just going to be used for general contractors, I found it with just the address. I don’t see why the general contractors wouldn’t be able to find it. So, I think maybe the big sign that you’re proposing to put up would be unfair to the neighbors in that particular area because like I said, I didn’t see any signs up there at all and I’m not sure what the building is going to be really used for yet. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: Well, I have some real concerns, too. I mean, when you think about it there is a uniqueness, but it’s really self-imposed because you have a commercial business that has put itself into an industrial area, so, I don’t know. But yet, you, see all these vacancies and you know these industrial areas are never going to be occupied the way they were and then this one, I mean, being on Hubbard which is actually on a road, but at the same time you’re not advertising to the public because there’s nobody that’s going to be going down that street looking for you. Someone is going to tell them that Sherwin William’s Floorcoverings is there, go over there and look at floor samples. They’re not going to be shopping on their own going down that street and I know I’m rambling on and on and it’s a fight with myself. I cannot support a 48-sq. ft. sign in this industrial area, in this kind of a setup, and I really don’t know what I would support so I just don’t have an answer right now, I guess. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 26 of 29 April 17, 2012 Caramagno: We’re all over on this one. I thought it hard to find the place. I thought the trees in the front were overgrown, and the door is shaded, and I couldn’t see the address, I couldn’t see the sign, the Sherwin William sign until actually I got real close and looked at it, maybe my bad eyesight is partly to blame. When I look at the sign, I think it’s probably a little bit too big, but I do think you need some signage there better than what’s on that door. When I look at it, we could have signs all across the building because I’m sure there’s other tenants in there and I think just to the south of you there is a sign on the corner of that building, much smaller, it’s probably only 3-ft. wide by 4-ft. tall, something like that. Do I think the sign on the top of this building is going to be offensive to anybody? I really don’t think so. You are kind of in a no man’s land there. There’s a truck dock across the street so I don’t think you’re going to get much complaints, obviously, you don’t have any right now. I think a smaller version of the sign I would support. Henzi: I certainly won’t go along with a 48-sq. ft. sign. I haven’t been presented with any evidence that there’s a problem with lack of identification. I found it, but admittedly, I had a map and perhaps everyone who goes to this property won’t. But clearly, this is not a business that needs to catch somebody who’s going 45 down Plymouth Road to get their attention so that they turn in the right entrance way to a shopping center. One of the biggest reasons that I can’t go along with this is that Phillips Service Corporation, probably one of the biggest office holder on that street – it’s probably a three or four story building, if their sign is bigger than 10-sq. ft. I’d be shocked. It’s PSC, it’s a tiny logo. I hate to say these things to you, Mr. Steibert, because you’re just the messenger, but I really get the impression that Sherwin Williams just is running this up the flagpole because this is just the sign that they use. And it would be much different if you came to me in a different part of town and had evidence where, for example, we’re open Monday, Wednesday and Friday to the public and we’re constantly getting calls from people who can’t find us. I don’t think that’s ever going to happen because of the location. They’re going to turn around in the cul-de-sac and find the place. Having said all of that, I don’t think that having something a little bit greater than 10-sq. ft. would be entirely unfair, but 48-ft. absolutely I can’t go for it. So, having said that is there a motion? I guess either there’s consensus for something smaller than 48 or -- Duggan: How small would you guys want to go? Do you have to have Sherwin Williams Floorcovering, does it have to say floorcovering? You said Sherwin Williams, the name. Representative: Yeah, the key would be to have the floorcovering on it. They’d rather have something than nothing, you know, so a square footage number would be great if we could put a cap on it larger than 10 to just give them something extra. Henzi: I understand but from my point of view, what I would say in response is get bigger address numbers. Aloe: That would help. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 27 of 29 April 17, 2012 Henzi: I’m not going bigger than 15 or 20-ft. because every other business, and I do remember seeing other business names back there. It’s just I was never presented any information so that’s what I’m looking at. Sills: Would a tabling resolution be out of order? Henzi: You could do that, too. Sills: I would propose a tabling resolution for Sherwin Williams to come back with a smaller sign, or larger letters, or numbers for the address. Something different than what you’ve got now. The sign is absolutely too big. Representative: Okay. If that’s what you want us to do. Henzi: Well wait, hang on, there’s got to be support for the motion. Is there support for the motion? Sills: Louder, I can’t hear you. Duggan: If we could do something around 15 or 20-ft. I don’t know if we have support for that. We can try 20-ft. Henzi: Well, that is fair. If the Board wants to horse trade before somebody supports it then – because we can’t discuss the motion. Duggan: Right. Henzi: At that point, I mean, if you wanted -- Fisher: Well, why don’t we ask this question then, is the 15 to 20-ft. range sign going to be acceptable to Sherwin Williams? Representative: They really aren’t going to have a choice. So, if we could propose to get approval for a wall sign, not illuminated, not to exceed 20-sq. ft., if that seems to be the consensus here. Now, whether I leave here and come back with a drawing at 20- sq. ft., its still going to be, you know, 20-sq. ft. But does that consensus to the Board sound fair, you know, based on what I’m hearing the sign is too big? Henzi: Mr. Sills was offering you an out in case Sherwin Williams says, hey, there are some reasons. Of course, if there were, I would have expected to see them in the packet. Representative: Yeah. Henzi: So, that’s the question, if there is support for a 15 or 20-sq. ft? I really don’t need to hear the case again, personally. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 28 of 29 April 17, 2012 Caramagno: I will support a 20-ft. sign, not illuminated. Duggan: I’ll support that. Caramagno: There’s two, there’s three. Henzi: Okay. So, the motion to table fails for lack of support then. Does somebody want to make a motion? Upon Motion by Duggan, supported by Aloe, it was: RESOVLED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-04-15: Bostick West Properties, on behalf of lessee Sherwin Williams Floorcoverings, 12256 Hubbard, Livonia, MI 48150, seeking to erect a wall sign within a multi-tenant industrial complex, resulting in the individual tenant sign being excess in sign area. Sign Area Allowed: 10 sq. ft. Proposed: 48 sq. ft. Excess: 38 sq. ft. As revised at the meeting of April 17, 2012 by the Zoning Board of Appeals: Sign Area Allowed: 10 sq. ft. Proposed: 20 sq. ft. Excess: 10 sq. ft. The property is located on the east side of Hubbard (12256) between Plymouth and the cul-de-sac, be granted in part and denied in part for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because the property only allows for a 10 ft. sign, which would be too small for customers to see from the road. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because it would present a lack of identification and would be difficult for customers to find the location. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because it does have approval from one neighboring property owner. 4. The Board received one (1) letter of approval and no letters of objection from neighboring property owners. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 29 of 29 April 17, 2012 5. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the purpose or objective of the Master Plan because this property is classified “Industrial” under the Master Plan, and the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification. FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions: 1. That the sign will not exceed 20 sq. ft. 2. That the sign will not be illuminated. 3. That the sign will be erected within the next six (6) months. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Duggan, Aloe, Caramagno, McCue, Sills, Henzi NAYS: None ABSENT: Pastor Henzi: It is granted with those three conditions. Good luck to you. Representative: Thank you. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m. _________________________ SAM CARAMAGNO, Secretary _________________________ MATTHEW HENZI, Chairman /hm