HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-06-26
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 of 48 June 26, 2012
A Special Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Livonia was held in the
Gallery of the Livonia City Hall on Tuesday, June 26, 2012.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Matthew Henzi, Chairman
Craig Pastor, Vice President
Toni Audia Aloe
Edward E. Duggan, Jr.
Elizabeth H. McCue
Robert Sills.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sam Caramagno, Secretary
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 9
persons present in the audience.
(7:03 #1/172)
APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-05-17 Tabled on May 22, 2012): Scott Rowe, 27564 w.
Chicago, Livonia, MI 48152, seeking to erect a six foot tall privacy fence upon a
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY OF LIVONIA
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD JUNE 26, 2012
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 of 48 June 26, 2012
corner lot, resulting in the fence being excess in height, the fence not aligning
with fencing upon the adjacent property and the fence creates a sight obstruction
for drivers at the intersecting streets.
Privacy Fence Height on the Corner Side Street
Allowed: 5 ft.
Proposed: 6 ft.
Excess: 1 ft.
The property is located on the north side of W. Chicago (27564) between Cavell and
Arcola.
Henzi: Is there a motion to remove from the table?
Pastor: Mr. Chair, I will make a motion to remove from the table.
Henzi: Is there support?
Duggan: Support.
Henzi: All in favor say aye.
Board: (In unison) Aye.
Henzi: This is removed. Mr. Podina, anything to add to this case?
Podina: No, sir.
Fisher: Mr. Chair, may I just note on – Toni actually had it right the first time, slight is a
typo, it is supposed to be a sight obstruction.
Aloe: Yes, I’ve corrected it.
Henzi: Any questions for Mr. Podina?
Sills: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Sills.
Sills: Has anything been done, Mike, since the letter of April the 25th from the Safety
Department?
Fisher: Not that I’m aware of. The Petitioner just wanted to come right back before the
Board with the same proposal.
Sills: So, the Petitioner is coming back without any changes?
Fisher: Well, if there are any, he is going to tell you and me both about them.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 of 48 June 26, 2012
Sills: Okay. Thank you.
Henzi: Okay. Anything else? Will the Petitioner please come forward? Good evening.
Petitioner: Scott Rowe, 27564 West Chicago, Livonia 48150.
Henzi: What has happened since you were last here?
Petitioner: First of all, I would like to clarify the lawyer’s statement that I did contact the
officer, tried to have a discussion with him. And his basic comments were that what he
wrote in this letter was it. He had no further discussion about it. He did not want to
discuss any alternatives to what he wrote. If there was anything other than what he
wrote, it was unacceptable in his terms. I had plenty of alternatives that I could offer to
him, but he had no desire to listen to them. So, I did a little of my own research and I
brought some more pictures for you all to look at if you’d like to pass those around, of
similar scenarios of what I’m asking to do. One of them being this particular picture
right here right outside Cleveland Elementary Grade School where my children go to
school and they have to walk past the exact same scenario that I am asking to put up.
A 6-ft. privacy fence so that I can enclose my yard. Now, the concern in the officer’s
letter was pedestrian safety. The note the lady just read indicates traffic safety. So, I’m
not sure what the concern is whether it’s traffic safety or pedestrian, but either way I
think I can address both of them. The first issue is we discussed my fence previously
and I have a picture here that would show a facsimile of what the place would look like
with the 6-ft. privacy fence and a gate extending over the sidewalk preventing
pedestrians from passing over the sidewalk while a car is passing through the driveway
which would take a matter of one or two minutes whatever it takes to back out of a
driveway, which we don’t use for parking anyhow we use it for – our backyard is fairly
small. But that particular picture that just went by is an example of how it would cover
the sidewalk by about 3-ft. and still leaves 7-ft. between the end of the gate and the
sidewalk or the driveway approach to see oncoming cars for that case as well. Here are
several pictures of other lots that have exactly the same type of fence or the exact same
scenario the 6-ft. fence approaching a driveway or a garage. Some of them are even
obstructed by even more than a 6-ft. fence by 10 and 12-ft. bushes. But the primary
one that I submit here that shows, I mean, if it’s a safety concern then we’re probably
need to do more than just stop me from putting up a fence. We probably need to be
more proactive about fixing the issues that are out there. So what I propose is you
allow me to put my fence up if I use it for – reality is if there’s a car in the driveway, the
gate isn’t opening towards the inside anyhow. The gate would open towards the
outside and towards the road. It would block the sidewalk. Still leave 7-ft. for the driver
to see oncoming traffic, which there is no room to get any speed. I mean there is
literally a car-length driveway, a 6-ft. sidewalk and a about 8 or 9-ft. or approach. So,
there is no room to get any speed. Reality is there is a bigger issue of people driving
out of their 30-ft. driveway from a garage in the back where they’re just zooming on out.
But what I am willing to do is whatever you guys would recommend if that means
making a 5-ft. fence, if that means putting an audible alarm with a light on it so that
when the gate is open, that somebody sees it. It’s already blocking the sidewalk for a
moment or two while pedestrians are stopped. If it’s open so that if a car is trying to
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 of 48 June 26, 2012
pass through it, but I submit that there is plenty of other safety hazards that probably as
bad or worse than what the officer potentially says is a risk here. With every risk it can
be mitigated. I mean, I’ve offered a couple of opportunities here to mitigate that as
opposed to just not letting me have a fence. I will be happy to answer any questions if
you have.
Henzi: Which is the photo near Cleveland it says Inkster and --
Petitioner: The last one that went by. It’s a brown fence. I think it’s a red garage a
picture of a sidewalk, 6-ft. wooden fence.
Henzi: Got it.
Petitioner: And literally if that guy is backing out of there when school is getting out,
there’s hundreds of kids. I go there to pick my kids up every day during the school year
and if there was kids walking past there, that guy would not see them. I’d have a better
chance of seeing them with my approach than this guy would with his. These are all
within West Chicago, Plymouth and Harrison and Inkster. I mean literally, I’ve got 15 or
20 pictures just in that small area. So, I understand there’s a concern. I don’t think it’s
a real valid concern when you look at all the other scenarios. And like I say, if I can
open my gate out where it will block the sidewalk so that people can’t get through it
while I’m backing out of the drive and then get out of the car and close my gate, then
have we not mitigated that risk?
McCue: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mrs. McCue.
McCue: Is this at your driveway?
Petitioner: I put those up against my --
McCue: To get an idea of what it would look like.
Petitioner: Yeah.
McCue: But this is your property?
Petitioner: Yes.
McCue: Okay.
Petitioner: So, you can see there’s like about 7-ft. from the end of it and then it blocks
the sidewalk, so if a child was riding his bike or walking down there, they would literally
stop at the sidewalk and probably not get run over. I did some research looking to see if
there was any similar accidents in Livonia that involved people backing out of their
driveways and ran people over and I found nothing. And I’m not saying that that’s okay,
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 of 48 June 26, 2012
I understand that everything has a risk. I think that I have pretty good job of identifying it
and doing something about it.
Duggan: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Duggan.
Duggan: So from what you’re saying, you’re not going to be parking in the garage;
right, isn’t that what you said earlier?
Petitioner: I generally park on the street because --
Duggan: Right.
Petitioner: -- it’s very inconvenient to get in and out of that --
Duggan: Yeah, that was my question. So, usually you either park along Cavell or West
Chicago?
Petitioner: Well, there is no parking on West Chicago.
Duggan: So, it’s Cavell.
Petitioner: We have room for three cars along the side of our house for legal parking.
Duggan: So then just for me to understand, so let’s picture you’re going to have it so
your gate would open up if you were to park in the garage like this picture, it would open
out that way.
Petitioner: That is as much opening as it would be.
Duggan: That’s exactly how it is going to look; right?
Petitioner: Correct.
Duggan: Okay. And then if you were to park in the garage and back out, after you were
done you would push it back?
Petitioner: Correct.
Duggan: Okay.
Petitioner: We don’t have any desire to block the sidewalk, but I mean I think it’s
reasonable to think that somebody could open their gate, pull out of their driveway and
then close the gate. I mean I think that would be acceptable.
Duggan: All right. Thank you.
Pastor: Mr. Chair.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 of 48 June 26, 2012
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: I wasn’t here during the first case, but you’re wanting to block or put the gate
right across your driveway; is that what you’re attempting to do here?
Petitioner: I’m sorry?
Pastor: You’re trying to put your fence across your driveway?
Petitioner: Yes.
Pastor: That’s what you’re attempting? Because I’m looking at some of these pictures
and I don’t see where they’re – like this is not relevant. He doesn’t have his gate in front
of his driveway. This one the driveway goes in the opposite direction. This one he
doesn’t have a gate.
Petitioner: The concern was pedestrian safety walking on the sidewalk. Those show
that people would be walking into a blind, a guy – the term that he used in here was
“backing into a blind situation.” All of those show whether there’s a gate there or not
that individual is backing into a situation where he can’t see the traffic on the sidewalk.
Pastor: Well, with that representation right there if you’re pulling out of your driveway,
you’re not going to see the cars coming from the opposite direction. You can see the
cars coming from down your street, but from the opposite direction, you’re not going to
see a car – you may back into a car.
Petitioner: I disagree a car length plus 7-ft. of the approach that would still allow you to
see.
Pastor: That is – I would disagree with you. I’d say if that picture represents a gate, I’d
say there is only 7 to 10-ft. to the street.
Petitioner: Well, the sidewalk is 6-ft. wide, sir.
Pastor: How much?
Petitioner: 6-ft. wide on the sidewalk. I know they’re just getting ready to replace them.
Pastor: I understand that, but that goes past the sidewalk.
Petitioner: I know and then there’s another 12-ft. or so from the sidewalk to the curb.
Pastor: And what kind of a car do you drive?
Petitioner: I’ve got a Malibu and we have a BMW 530i.
Pastor: So, the Malibu is 20-ft. long.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 of 48 June 26, 2012
Petitioner: More like 18.
Pastor: Okay. So, the rear end of that car would be out in the street before you can
see oncoming traffic.
Petitioner: There’s 7-ft. of approach plus the width of a car --
Pastor: I’m looking at your picture right here.
Petitioner: Right. There’s 7-ft. of approach after that gate plus the width of a car to the
curb.
Pastor: Why do you need to go across your driveway with this fence? What’s the
reason behind that? I wasn’t here at the first meeting.
Petitioner: I want to put one up from the back of my house to go 4-ft. out to the sidewalk
and then 57-ft. down the length of it to the end of the property line.
Pastor: For what reason?
Petitioner: I have two Foster children in my house that the father is in jail right now for
domestic violence and the mother has threatened to steal those kids from us. And the
reason is I don’t want her coming – she’s already stalked us before. I don’t want her
coming seeing those kids out in the yard and snatch them over the fence. That was
what I put in my report. She’s told us she was going to do that. I’m concerned for their
safety.
Pastor: And you think a privacy fence is going to stop them from doing that?
Petitioner: If she can’t see them, then she can’t stalk them.
Pastor: She will be able to see them from the front of your house.
Petitioner: The house is blocking that view.
Pastor: You’ll still have the side yards unless you plan on going into the side yard as
well on this side. The other side of the house --
Petitioner: The other side of the house has the neighbor’s house and a bunch of
bushes. I mean if that’s the only place that people can see into my yard is through that
side yard right there, I mean our backyard is really not that big. When you live on a
corner lot, they’re not big.
Pastor: I know it is. I’ve been by it. I’ve been by your house.
Petitioner: I’ve talked to my neighbors. None of my neighbors – they’ve even offered to
come by down here. I told them I didn’t want them to waste their time, but they had
absolutely no problem with it. Some of them even wrote their letters and responded to
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 of 48 June 26, 2012
it. None of them responded negatively. As a matter of fact, the one on the other side
said, put it up over there and get rid of the chain link.
Pastor: That’s all for right now.
Henzi: Any other questions?
Aloe: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mrs. Aloe.
Aloe: You were here previously, did you say your gate at that time was a chain-link
gate?
Petitioner: It is.
Aloe: Okay. But now you’re saying that you would change it to the privacy fence?
Petitioner: You guys didn’t like the look of it and I wanted to go with the white one to
begin with, but I was concerned you guys wouldn’t like it and you said that you would
not like the chain link with the white privacy fence. And I would prefer that it would be
the white.
Aloe: All the same.
Petitioner: Correct. I mean my neighbor down one block over has got the exact same
thing going down the West Chicago side of his house and it looks beautiful.
Aloe: And which fence did you say that you --
Petitioner: Actually the one with the, it’s exactly that like fence, but it’s closer to the one
on the left.
Aloe: So, you wouldn’t consider the 5-ft. with the 1-ft. lattice.
Petitioner: I would consider coming down a foot, absolutely.
Aloe: Oh, so you would consider a solid one, but 5-ft. instead of 6-ft?
Petitioner: These are all just plastic. I could take my saw and cut a foot off the bottom
of every one of them and make it a 5-f.t fence. I’d have no problem with that. I would
not want to, but I would even probably consider it if I made it all the same height
potentially 4-ft. but I’d prefer the 5.
Aloe: Would you consider the 5-ft. with the lattice?
Petitioner: Honestly, I already bought the other stuff and my wife likes the solid better
than the lattice. Would I consider it? I guess I could probably exchange I don’t know.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 of 48 June 26, 2012
Aloe: When you were here the last time, you said you would angle –
Petitioner: Well, that’s what the officer wanted me to do. My backyard really does not
offer that. If I angle it, then I couldn’t put the fence gate properly. I don’t know where
the fence – but the gate would go. So I mean reality is if it doesn’t go straight to there --
Aloe: If you bring it up, I mean, it wouldn’t be at the end of your property line, it would
bring it up the driveway.
Petitioner: I just want you to picture this for me. If I did that, I would ultimately end up
putting a post in the middle of my driveway right now 6-ft. in from both directions and
drilling through cement to put in a post to hold that gate. I mean that’s – really, I mean
some of the people have seen my house. They drove by it. My backyard after the
doublewide driveway that we have from the sidewalk of the driveway to the back of the
house is 16-ft. of grass, that’s what we have. Putting that in 6-ft. to an angle, you know
what, I’d rather plant bushes to obstruct the view instead If that’s what it took just
because – not to sound sarcastic, but it’s ridiculous to angle it in and put a gate 6-ft. in
like that.
Aloe: I’m just trying to be clear --
Petitioner: I understand.
Aloe: -- what you’ve agreed to do and what you’re thinking to do.
Petitioner: That was what the officer suggested and that was all that he was willing to
live with other than potentially lowering the fence.
Aloe: Okay. Thank you.
Petitioner: You’re welcome.
Henzi: Anything else? Hearing nothing, is there anyone in the audience who wants to
speak for or against the project? If so, come on up. I see no one coming forward. Can
you read the letters?
Aloe: We have a letter of approval from Kathleen Lipka [9539 Cavell] (letter was read).
Letter of approval from Mary Kline Zaborney [27548 W. Chicago].
Henzi: Mr. Rowe, anything you would like to say in closing?
Petitioner: I’d love to have my fence.
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 didn’t recall you having a fence, a gate with your original petition.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 10 of 48 June 26, 2012
Petitioner: Do you want me to answer that? I mean are you talking to me or are you
just talking out loud.
Sills: To you.
Petitioner: Okay, fine. I didn’t hear the question.
Sills: If I could address the Petitioner?
Henzi: sure.
Sills: I didn’t recall a gate with your original petition. Did you have a gate with your
original petition?
Petitioner: I just asked for about 5-ft. from the house and then 57-ft. down the property
line and there’s currently --
Sills: Without a gate?
Petitioner: There currently is a gate there now and the intent was to replace the gate
with this.
Sills: Well, thank you.
Petitioner: You’re welcome.
Sills: I really don’t like to go against the Safety Department of the City of Livonia;
however, the Petitioner has made a pretty strong case here today and opening the gate
before he pulls the car out would block the sidewalk off from any pedestrians coming
down the sidewalk so that would be actually a safety factor in itself opening the gate up.
So, I think I will change my mind on from the original proposal and I think will support
your proposal.
Petitioner: Thank you, sir. I greatly appreciate that.
Henzi: Mrs. Aloe.
Aloe: Well, again listening to the Petitioner I understand what the police officer is saying
about the safety of pedestrians, but I also think that the Petitioner’s entitled to safety of
his family and listening to his reasons and his reconstruction of his gate and where it’s
going to be and who it is going to stop, I think I can be in support of it.
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: I was not here at the first meeting and I am trying to catch up here, but I don’t
think I will be in favor of this. I don’t like fencing off the driveway because once he
opens up that gate I believe whomever is backing out of the driveway won’t be able to
see oncoming traffic from one direction, so I don’t believe I’m going to be in favor of this.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 11 of 48 June 26, 2012
Henzi: Mr. Duggan.
Duggan: I will be in support. I think how you set it up for pedestrians, you know, the
reversing car was a question I had in the beginning, but you rarely park in the driveway
if ever from what I understand. You have a small yard to begin with so it’s a difficult fix
to put an angle on there. So, I like the changes that you made and I will be in support.
Henzi: Mrs. McCue.
McCue: Truthfully it always concerns me when you go against the police department
and somebody who has taken the time to evaluate the situation and give us an opinion
on the safety. And I think of the safety of kids and adults walking on the sidewalk is an
important thing. The only thing that I can say is the way that the fence will block the
sidewalk and pretty much stop traffic gives me cause to say that I suppose that I will be
able to support this considering the other circumstances that are going on within the
family so I will support.
Henzi: I’m going to go along with the Petitioner. I always give deference to Sergeant
Gibbs as well, but in my opinion his original letter didn’t consider tonight’s proposal
because the original proposal as I understood it was fence space where the driveway
exists and then another fence. Sergeant Gibbs problem was that vehicle versus bicycle
traffic was going to be hazardous if you swing the gates out open, you take care of that
problem. I think it’s fairly common in Livonia especially in that subdivision for fences to
exist on the corner lots including in front of the garage. So, that takes care of the safety
concern for me. I will approve it and I would like to condition that it will be 5-ft. which is
something that the Petitioner agreed to and that the gate must swing out covering the
sidewalk. The floor is open for a motion.
Upon Motion by Aloe, supported by Sills, it was;
RESOLVED CASE NO. 2012-05-17: Scott Rowe, 27564 w. Chicago, Livonia, MI
48152, seeking to erect a six foot tall privacy fence upon a corner lot, resulting in
the fence being excess in height, the fence not aligning with fencing upon the
adjacent property and the fence creates a sight obstruction for drivers at the
intersecting streets.
Privacy Fence Height on the Corner Side Street
Allowed: 5 ft.
Proposed: 6 ft.
Excess: 1 ft.
The property is located on the north side of W. Chicago (27564) between Cavell and
Arcola be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact:
1. The uniqueness requirement is met because the house sits on a corner lot facing
a somewhat major street.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 12 of 48 June 26, 2012
2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner
because the Petitioner is seeking both safety and privacy for his family.
3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit
of the Zoning Ordinance because it is consistent with other fences in that area.
4. The Board received two (2) letters of approval and 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 “Low-Density Residential”
under the Master Plan, and the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that
classification.
FURTHER, The variance is granted with the following conditions:
1. That the height of the fence not exceed 5-ft.
2. That the fence be vinyl as presented to the Board.
3. That the gates going across the driveway must swing out.
4. That the variance is good for one year.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Aloe, Sills, Duggan, McCue, Henzi
NAYS: Pastor
ABSENT: Caramagno
Henzi: The variance is granted with certain conditions. You have to erect the fence as
proposed meaning height and location, 5-ft. in height and the gates have to swing out.
Good luck.
Petitioner: I thank the Board very much. I appreciate it. Thank you.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 13 of 48 June 26, 2012
(7:28 1/868)
APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-05-20 (Tabled on May 22, 2012): Kenneth W. Mills, 9553
Laurel, Livonia, MI 48150, on behalf of Lessee Billy’s Roofing, 33710 Plymouth
Rd., Livonia, MI 48150, seeking to erect two wall signs upon a commercial
building (one on the north (front) elevation, the other on the east (left) elevation),
resulting in excess number of signs and wall sign area.
Number of Wall Signs Wall Sign Area
Allowed: One Allowed 30 sq. ft.
Proposed: Two Proposed: 57 sq. ft.
Excess: One (29 sq. ft. north elevation, 28 sq. ft. east elevation)
Excess: 27 sq. ft.
The property is located on the south side of Grand River (27513) between Rensellor
and Antago.
Henzi: Is there a motion to remove from the table?
Pastor: Mr. Chair, I will make a motion to remove from the table.
Aloe: Support.
Henzi: All in favor say aye.
Board: (In Unison) Aye.
Henzi: Opposed? This is removed thank you. Mr. Podina, anything to add?
Podina: No, sir, not at this time.
Henzi: Mr. Fisher, did you need to add anything about the revised notice?
Fisher: Well, it now reflects that there are two signs. Apparently, Randy indicated that
the reason he wrote the other one is because he didn’t know there was a second sign.
Henzi: Okay. Good evening, sir.
Petitioner: Good evening. Kenneth Mills, 9553 Laurel, Livonia, Michigan 48150.
Henzi: Is there anything you want to add? You were here once before and you
remember the confusion about the public notice anything else you want to tell us?
Petitioner: I will tell you exactly what happened is John from the Building Department
put everything together and he said, you’re good to go on this sign. Now, we have to
get the variance for the other sign so I talked with John about it and he’s – that’s the
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 14 of 48 June 26, 2012
way it happened. I clearly told John and he put all the paperwork together and he said,
here, you’re good to go. Give this to your sign company. Now, we have to work on
getting the variance for the other sign and I’ve never done this before so it was in their
hands, you know, and that’s the way I handled it.
Henzi: Okay. And then can you just tell us why it is that you want the signs in the
places that you proposed them?
Petitioner: Okay, yeah. I don’t know if you guys have all probably been by there, but if
you drive by the building, I’m kind of tucked in behind the bingo hall and if you’re going
by at 45 miles per hour or 50 miles an hour, you don’t really see the building. The east
wall just sticks right out there and I’d catch a lot of westbound traffic from Grand River if
I had it out there.
Henzi: Your neighbors all have two signs right by there, too.
Petitioner: Yeah, the pawnshop has got it and they don’t abut up to a main road and the
Steve Petix Tuxedo has it. And there’s only four or five businesses there and, you
know, the majority of them have it already.
Henzi: Okay. Any questions for the Petitioner?
Pastor: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: Yeah, I’m looking through the past notes and Mr. Fisher said you’re asking for
200 percent of the permissible sign area. I’m looking at our notes now and it’s 28 extra
– 28 extra square feet I think.
Fisher: Yeah, but only 30 is allowed to begin with so that’s basically 200 percent.
Pastor: Okay. Are these signs already made?
Petitioner: No, I didn’t want to spend that kind of money until I found out exactly what
was going on here.
Pastor: I’m looking at your rendering and there aren’t no real dimensions on the sign
itself, but it’s going to be approximately what 4-ft. tall?
Petitioner: Did you guys get a copy of this?
Pastor: I don’t have a copy of that. That’s all I got. Now, I got one right here. Thank
you. So why do we need 24-inch tall letters? Why can’t you go with something a little
bit smaller?
Petitioner: Well, westbound traffic on Grand River is a ways away across the median
over there.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 15 of 48 June 26, 2012
Pastor: I understand that, but on both signs I don’t see the – if you’re saying you need it
on the westbound side, the northbound side is not as visible to the traffic. Why do you
need it both? I’m just asking is there something you could live with that’s a little bit
smaller than this?
Petitioner: On the north side of the building there?
Pastor: Either side or total.
Petitioner: Yeah, well the eastside is the most important. I want people to be able to
identify me when they’re looking for it when they’re coming past the bingo hall. He’s got
another version drawn up here that shows it being 23-sq. ft. I don’t know – he
calculated it different. I don’t know if this is – I don’t know if we could live with that on
the front. I don’t know. He calculated it a little different. It came out to 23 so I --
Pastor: So, now that you have this in front of us why couldn’t you use both your signs at
this and reduce your percentages down?
Petitioner: I guess I could, but like I said, westbound traffic on Grand River is a ways
away over there.
Pastor: How much walk in traffic do you get?
Petitioner: We just opened up over there. I just cleaned the place up. I haven’t even
officially opened yet so that’s untelling.
Pastor: Have you had another building?
Petitioner: Oh yeah, I left my security over on Plymouth Road near Farmington to own
a building and try my luck at another part of Livonia.
Pastor: So, how much walk in traffic did you get there?
Petitioner: Quite a bit when I had somebody in there full time.
Pastor: Okay. Are you having someone in here full time?
Petitioner: It just depends on how it goes, you know, today’s economy you might have
to trim some fat away, you know, so I don’t know until I – I don’t know how it’s going to
work over there. I’m close to Oakland County I don’t know if I’ll pick up a lot more
business or, you know, it’s too early to tell this early in the game.
Pastor: How do you get most of your business?
Petitioner: W ord of mouth.
Pastor: No advertising?
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 16 of 48 June 26, 2012
Pastor: We get a little internet off the website and I do very little advertising.
Pastor: So, when I call Billy’s Roofing up and say I want a roof do I come to your
business or do you come to my house?
Petitioner: Well, I come to the house but I’ve got a show room over there. Once the
customer decides to go with me they come to the show room to choose a color.
Pastor: You do not bring the samples to my house?
Petitioner: It’s just – it saves you a lot of time and me a lot of time to come in and see
everything that’s available instead of me carting samples out. Then having to meet with
you again if you don’t like what I bring out and it’s a lot more efficient to do it this way for
both of us.
Pastor: That’s all for right now.
Henzi: I had a question for you. The phone number is on the proposal that you passed
around today, but it’s not on what we have in the original packet.
Petitioner: The phone number that I was going to put on the front of the building and
then the sidewall would not have the phone number on it, the east wall.
Henzi: So, the Grand River side has got the phone number?
Petitioner: Correct.
Henzi: Okay.
Pastor: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: On your original – oh, I guess it does show it on here on the original Grand
River side. Okay, forget it. I’m sorry.
Henzi: Anything else? Any other questions? Hearing none, is there anyone who wants
to speak for or against the project? If so, come on up. I see no one wants to speak on
this topic. Are there any letters on this case?
Aloe: We have one letter of approval from Jeff Smith [27432 Long Street] approval
(letter was read).
Henzi: Mr. Mills, is there anything you would like to say in closing?
Petitioner: No.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 17 of 48 June 26, 2012
Henzi: Okay. I will close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s
comments with Mrs. Aloe.
Aloe: Well, I will be in support. I have been up there. The Petitioner is on a main road.
People are going fast. He’s got a crazy angle of how his building sits there and he’s a
new business and I think he needs two signs.
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: As it is proposed, I would not be in favor of it. If he decided to do both signs at
the 23-sq. ft, I would be more inclined to be in favor of that. I think asking almost 100%
over on signage is a lot. I understand I have been by the building. The building looks
nice and whatnot, but I just don’t want to set a precedent that we’re starting to allow
hundred-percent overage on our signage because every business in town will be back
here knocking on our door. So I think if he would go both signs with the 23-sq. ft, I
would be in approval.
Henzi: Mr. Duggan.
Duggan: I will be in support. The location of your business right on the corner there I
think is enough uniqueness requirement. I even know where your building is and I
passed it the first time, so I will be in support. I think you need it and I think the building
looks great. Good luck.
Henzi: Mrs. McCue.
McCue: I, too, will support. The traffic there is crazy. The location of the building is
obviously an issue and again, you’ve gone and fixed it up. Neighboring people are in
support of what you are doing, so I will support.
Henzi: Mr. Sills.
Sills: I will also be in support. I intended to go along with Mr. Pastor’s comments about
going to a smaller sign for both positions rather than staying with the larger and the
smaller sign.
Henzi: Yes, I agree, I will go along with the Petitioner, but I think Mr. Pastor’s
suggestion is fair 46-sq. ft. between the two seems reasonable. So, the floor is open for
a motion.
Upon Motion by Duggan, supported by McCue, it was:
RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-05-20: An appeal has been made to the
Zoning Board of Appeals by Kenneth W. Mills, 9553 Laurel, Livonia, MI 48150,
on behalf of Lessee Billy’s Roofing, 33710 Plymouth Rd., Livonia, MI 48150,
seeking to erect a wall sign on the side (east elevation), which is not allowed.
Wall signs must be placed on the building front.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 18 of 48 June 26, 2012
Number of Wall Signs Wall Sign Area
Allowed: One Allowed 30 sq. ft.
Proposed: Two Proposed: 57 sq. ft.
Excess: One (29 sq. ft. north elevation,28 sq. ft. east elevation)
Excess: 27 sq. ft.
As revised by the Board at a hearing:
Number of Wall Signs: Wall Sign Area:
Allowed: One Allowed: 20 sq. ft.
Proposed: Two Proposed: 46 sq. ft.
Excess: One Excess: 16 sq. ft.
The property is located on the south side of Grand River (27513) between Rensellor
and Antago be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact:
1. The uniqueness requirement is met because the building is located on a main
road and its location creates a hardship for customers to find the building with
only one sign.
2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner
because customers would have difficulty finding the building.
3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit
of the Zoning Ordinance because it does have support from neighboring
properties.
4. The Board received one (1) letter of approval and 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 the total sign area not exceed 46-sq. ft.
2. That the variance is good for six (6) months.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Duggan, McCue, Aloe, Pastor, Sills, Heinz
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Caramagno
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 19 of 48 June 26, 2012
Henzi: The variance is granted with those two conditions. Good luck.
Petitioner: Okay. That was 46-sq. ft. and what was the other condition?
Henzi: It’s good for six months.
Petitioner: Oh, okay.
Henzi: It doesn’t expire in six months it means you have six months within which to put
the signs up.
Petitioner: Thank you everybody for your time.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 20 of 48 June 26, 2012
(7:42 #1/1270)
APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-06-26: ADI Management, LLC, 34036 Parkdale, Livonia, MI
48150, seeking to increase the amount of indoor seating and install outdoor
seating, resulting in deficient amount of parking.
Parking Spaces
Required: 96
Proposed: 82
Deficient: 14
The property is located on the north side of Plymouth (34110) between Stark and
Farmington.
Henzi: Mr. Podina, anything to add to this case?
Podina: No, sir.
Henzi: I just wanted to let the Petitioners know we’ll take both your cases
consecutively.
Petitioner: Thank you, Mr. Henzi. We were going to ask you if you would do that.
Henzi: I think it was just a mistake. Even if it wasn’t a mistake we would do it because
you’re first up on the agenda so we can handle both of them the first one is the parking
spaces so, take it away.
Representative: (Kokenakes) That is correct. Thank you for hearing us tonight. Frank
Kokenakes, 39040 W. Seven Mile Road, Livonia 48152. I would note the City Council
on June 7th did approve the site plan that was prepared by Mr. Tiseo and his
architectural group. They did allow us the additional seating of 186 seats. There is a
typo in the petition it says 189, it’s actually 186 I want to correct that 130 interior seats
and 48 outdoor patio seats. And, of course, the purpose of this request for a variance is
in fact the outdoor seating. I would mention that the prior restaurant before Mr. Isa
bought the restaurant it actually was approved for 124 seats, but somehow they had
144 seats in it, so actually we have decreased the amount of indoor seating we will tell
you by 6 to 138. Let me indicate a couple things, Mr. Isa and his company ADI
Management, LLC, did purchase this property. I’m sure that you’ve had a chance to
view that property. It was noted by Council and also by the Planning Commission, and
I’m sure by Zoning members, that it’s a location that has turned over quite frequently.
It’s not what we would consider a thriving restaurant site. It’s on the north side of
Plymouth Road. Most of the restaurants that are thriving along Plymouth Road are on
the south side. I bring this up historically because Mr. Isa, who sits to my left, has a lot
of experience in the restaurant business. He was General Manager for 10 years for TGI
Friday’s and owned restaurants also in Indiana. He came in and he had a concept he
wanted to bring forward because he wants this location to thrive and part of his concept
was in fact to put the outdoor seating. As you all have noticed, there is outdoor seating
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 21 of 48 June 26, 2012
across the way on Kickers, down at Buddy’s Pizza, and he believes this is an important
draw. By putting this, and I did attach in fact, a copy of the site plan prepared by Mr.
Tiseo which shows the outdoor seating that would be on the front of the building. This
was approved but it does cause us an issue and that is the adjustment of the parking
situation. If you went by the property, you’d note that behind the restaurant there is this
green space and initially when we pulled the legal description up from the City, that
green space was included. But during the process we realized that that green space
had actually been sold off and so at one time we were going to land bank the 14 spaces
no problem. It turned out that we didn’t have that land. Mr. Isa actually did approach
the purchaser of the property for 10-ft. which would have given us the ability to do the
land bank and he said – well, I think it’s about a 2 acre area, is it, 1½ acres, 2 acres?
And Tony tells the story, he says, well, I’ll tell you what. I’ll sell you the 10 acres for
$150,000 and I’ll give you the other acres. So, I mean, he just wasn’t going to sell the
property. We also did approach Zerbo’s, which was to the west and they weren’t willing
to give us any parking privileges there. To tell you the truth, I don’t think that Mark
Taormina was too thrilled by that, he didn’t seem like he ever really wanted us to even
try that. But be that what it may, we do have a problem because the setback is 65-ft. on
the building. In fact, where the building is situated, we’re only at 45 to 50-ft. instead of
the 65 and then we’re putting the outdoor patio seating in for 12 tables, which Mr. Isa
believes is crucial to the success of his restaurant. Obviously, it is a seasonal thing, so
it’s only going to be 3 or 4 months a year. Because of the situation of the building, we
do have a practical difficulty. I would indicate that historically there has not been a
problem with parking at that site. I guess we wish that was a problem, but it’s not, has
never been and so he’s trying to build a business that way. And he has done some
interesting concepts, which he can address to you pizza ovens and those types of
things. He’s got some really good concepts to kind of change the whole environment of
that particular restaurant to actually be a welcomed addition to the Plymouth Road
Development. It would be another location, another draw location and we think it’s very
important that we have that patio which necessitates an adjustment on the parking. In
regards to specific adjustments on the parking, Mr. Tiseo can get into any real specifics
that you may have, but basically understand that we are 14 spaces deficient and we
would request that we be granted a variance on that site. If I may just digress into the
second petition because it kind of goes hand and glove because of putting the patio
there, there is a pre-existing sign. We want to move that sign because the patio is right
where the sign is now. We actually want to use exactly the same sign with a different
faceplate. We’ll have a different name it will be Tony’s Kitchen rather than Dee Dee’s or
whatever it is. We just want to move that sign and that is going to require a variance
because we want to place that as the drawing shows in front of the outdoor patio. So,
we want to move exactly the same sign that is there in front of the patio, which requires
the variance and there was another small request. The current sign does have ribbon
of neon on the outside, which we want to retain. I don’t want to add it. We just want to
retain this ribbon of neon, which we understand other restaurants on Plymouth Road
have like Thomas, I think Thomas Dining has a small ribbon –
Petitioner Isa: Buddy’s sign is just neon.
Representative: (Kokenakes) Oh, Buddy’s sign is just neon?
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 22 of 48 June 26, 2012
Petitioner Isa: That’s all it is, is a neon sign. When it lights up at night, it’s a neon sign.
Representative: (Kokenakes) Okay. But ours is a very limited request on that. I would
ask Mr. Tiseo of Tiseo Architects to make any comments that he might on the first
petition. Thank you.
Representative: Ben Tiseo, 19815 Farmington Road. Again, I just want to reinforce the
fact that when the building was originally granted a permit in 1998, the seating capacity
was 144. At the time we went into the restaurant it actually had 144, so somehow 20
more seats snuck in there. And I would just like to share a couple of comments from
some of the Council members and the Planning Department if you haven’t heard them.
When we started talking about the seating, everyone had the same perception parking
will not be a problem. For one thing that should be our worse problem if business is
doing so good that you have a parking issue there, but nobody believes that parking will
be a problem on the site. And we actually are taking out 6 seats from the interior of the
restaurant to allow for the reconfiguration near the entrance and also to allow for a door
going out on the south side on to the patio. So again, we are actually reducing the
number of seating on the inside of the restaurant. Plus, I did my best to re-
accommodate some more parking. We’ve actually added 4 more parking spaces from
what are currently on the site now to help accommodate any kind of shortage. We re-
configured the driveway in front frankly to make it safer. Right now, you could pull in the
driveway and hit the first handicapped spot there so I re-configured the driveway so if
we have a curve it’s better there with some landscaping that would block anybody from
driving into those first parking spots. So, that’s part of what we did to help that out. And
like it was said earlier, we’re just trying to move that sign forward so that we can get
more visibility.
Henzi: I had a couple questions. First, about the parking, to any of you gentlemen, I’ve
driven by a ton of times I really don’t think I’ve seen people park in the front. Have you
ever noticed?
Petitioner: (Isa) That’s exactly the point that everybody at the Council and everybody
we talked to made is why I don’t know there’s so much parking required. That would
never come close to even being half full. So, nobody knows why we have to have so
many parking.
Henzi: It just seems that the lay out and the way that it flows its certainly a turn-around.
I mean, you go in and then –
Petitioner: (Isa) One in and one out; that’s correct.
Henzi: So, you want to be on the side to get in or out; isn’t that true?
Petitioner: (Isa) Yeah.
Henzi: The other question was, can you go over things like how many spots you need
for the employees that sort of thing.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 23 of 48 June 26, 2012
Petitioner: (Isa) We’re figuring probably 10 to 12 employees tops depending on
hopefully the volume dictates the higher end, but that’s about it really. I figure four
cooks and probably, you know, 7, 8 servers.
Henzi: So, that’s your busiest might be 12?
Petitioner: (Isa) Yeah, yeah, I don’t see much need for more than that 5 table sections
for the most part.
Henzi: And what’s the hours of operation?
Petitioner: (Isa) 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. long days. Want to get the breakfast crowd and then
want to be able to have late night have a pizza and a beet and relax and maybe watch
the Tiger game until it’s over with and go home and there you.
Henzi: Okay. The next question I had was about the sign. Now, we’ve got this ribbon
of neon. Do you have to do anything to that sign or you’re just refacing it?
Petitioner: (Isa) All I’m doing is refacing the panels, that’s it.
Henzi: You’re keeping --
Petitioner: (Isa) Everything the way it is just refacing the panels. That’s the goal just to
reface the panels. I don’t want to put any more money into that. It’s a decent sign. No
need as far as I’m concern to do anything else to it.
Henzi: Okay. Any questions for the Petitioner?
Pastor: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: Are you putting any signs on the building itself?
Petitioner: (Isa) I was going to – by the way I’m Tony Isa and I apologize. 34036
Parkdale, Livonia, Michigan. So I am literally a block away from my restaurant behind
the Senate. So anyways I am just replacing – I am taking down the DeeDee’s that’s on
the south side of the building. It’s a scripted sign and I just want to keep the square
footage available to put a sign back up to it. That’s it right there not anything more than
that.
Pastor: So, you don’t know what the square footage would be?
Petitioner: (Isa) 44?
Representative Tiseo: Possibly 44 sq. ft. that’s existing now and we’re asking to
replace it with 44-sq. ft.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 24 of 48 June 26, 2012
Pastor: Did that have a previous variance on it?
Representative: (Tiseo) I don’t believe so.
Pastor: And the pole sign out front doesn’t have a variance on it?
Representative: (Tiseo) It does not.
Pastor: Okay. Thank you.
Henzi: Any other questions? Is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for
or against the project? If so, come on up.
Martin: Christopher Martin, 12275 Inkster Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Very familiar
with the city along Plymouth Road. My business is actually the beginning or the end of
the Plymouth Road corridor depending on how you look at it. As far as the patios along
Plymouth Road, you have Kicker’s, you have Eastside Mario’s. When Robert Jacobs
was here on two occasions from Buddy’s Pizza and I was in support of that. It looks
fantastic over there. He appreciated my comments so much that I had a number of free
drinks over there for quite some time. The sports bar on the north side that’s currently
under construction the patio there I spoke in favor of that. These are nice settings when
you can sit outside in nice weather providing on a nice day. For years I had attended
those PRDA meetings and your different comments we need to make this look like a
downtown Birmingham or this or that. In this economy though as I mentioned in the
past, that anyone that wants to do an improvement, invest in their property, generate
some traffic along Plymouth Road should be encouraged not discouraged. So, this is
one of those occasions again where you can all be on board or you can act like it’s
1960. So, I would hope that you would vote in favor of this.
Henzi: Thank you.
Martin: Thank you.
Henzi: Anybody else want to speak for or against this project? Do we have some
letters?
Aloe: Yes, we have an approval from Jimmy Henry [34381 Plymouth Road] that’s on
the first case. The second case we also have an approval Jimmy Henry and we have
an approval from Dominic Liburdi [33939 Plymouth Road] (letter was read).
Henzi: All right. Mr. Kokenakes, we’ll handle both.
Representative: (Kokenakes) We appreciate that. Yes, thank you.
Henzi: Petitioners, right now if you don’t mind. Anything you want to say about either
one in closing?
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 25 of 48 June 26, 2012
Representative: (Kokenakes) I think we’ve covered all the issues. I think it’s important
that the petition be granted and I think because I know that Mr. Isa is excited about
moving forward with the project and the construction work that he has to do.
Henzi: Mr. Pastor, you have something?
Pastor: I’ve got one more question. On the patio, do you ever plan on enclosing that
putting a canopy above it, a tent above it or anything such as that?
Petitioner: (Isa) At this point in time, no.
Pastor: That was my question. My question was do you ever plan on it and you made it
very vague.
Petitioner: (Isa) I’ve seen Buddy’s Pizza. I’ve looked at theirs and the way that they
have enclosed everything. I don’t want to rule that out as never being an option. I don’t
know is that a bad idea?
Pastor: I’m just asking.
Petitioner: (Isa) Okay. Then I’m asking, is that – I don’t know --
Representative: (Kokenakes) We did not present that the Council.
Petitioner: (Isa) I have not --
Henzi: I will follow up and I just want to make sure you intend this to be an outdoor
spot, so if you put an awning up, you still want it to be outdoors. You’re not going to
enclose it so that it’s more inside seating?
Petitioner: (Isa) No, I want it to be – listen, there’s nothing better than sitting down,
relaxing, enjoying a beer, talking about what happened during the course of the day.
When you enclose it, it becomes more of a stuffier feel. Outdoors is so relaxing, I
mean, that’s the goal on a nice cool summer night relaxing and kind of just doing your
thing, you know, a glass of wine, a couple appetizers, or whatever. So, my goal is not
to ever enclose it for sure.
Henzi: Okay.
Sills: If you want it enclosed, you can go inside.
Petitioner: (Isa) There you go.
Henzi: Okay. I will close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s
comments with Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: Yeah, I don’t think there’s on the, the first case that the parking spaces, I don’t
have any problems with that. This property seems to have an abundance of parking so
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 26 of 48 June 26, 2012
good luck with that. On the other issue, keeping the neon, I’m not really in favor of
moving the sign forward, I don’t care. It’s not forward from the sidewalk or any
obstructions, so I don’t have a problem with that. The neon, I think, I don’t think I can be
in favor of leaving the neon, but the rest of the Board members can make their
comments.
Henzi: Mr. Duggan.
Duggan: I will be in support. The parking if you think you can do it with less that’s
great. The signs the Tony sign I think will look good. The neon, I know I usually don’t
like the neon but it’s already there so because it’s already there I will be in support. So,
I will be in support as presented here tonight and good luck.
Henzi: Mrs. McCue.
McCue: I agree pretty much repeating what he just said. The parking spaces makes
total sense to me. I don’t see that that’s going to be a conflict whatever. The signs, I
agree that we don’t like to deviate a whole lot from how we want our signage to be on
the corridor; however it’s already there. There are plenty of others that are there as
well. So, I will be in support as it is presented as well.
Henzi: Mr. Sills.
Sills: My compliments to Mr. Kokenakes on a very well presented case. I don’t see any
problem with the proposed parking spaces. I think the nature of the business is a come
and go and if you’ve got problems with parking spaces, people aren’t eating fast enough
so I don’t have a problem with that. I think the petition is very well laid out. I was
surprised on how large it was when I went into there. It’s very large for a restaurant and
I’m surprised it wasn’t a church in Livonia its either a church or a restaurant and we
need another restaurant anyways. I will be in support.
Henzi: Mrs. Aloe.
Aloe: I will also be in support. I agree with the comments made by the other Board
members so I will be in support also.
Henzi: I agree. There’s not that much I can add except to say that I think that the patio
is a great use of space that isn’t getting used right now. I don’t think people would park
there or have parked there. I think it’s a great idea. The sign, I agree with Mr. Duggan,
it’s been there. It’s hard for me to penalize somebody when its existed for long. So, I
will go along with that. I would just suggest that one of the conditions is that the
Petitioner comply with the City Council’s requirements set forth. I think it was June 7th.
So, the floor is open for a motion. I guess if you want to make a motion for both cases
you can do that or do you have to do two, Mike.
Fisher: I think we better do two one for each. Sorry.
Henzi: Whoever wants to do either one parking spot or sign.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 27 of 48 June 26, 2012
Henzi: I just want to confirm because this is a parking lot you don’t mean it’s going to
expire you want them to do it.
Duggan: Yeah, do it within one year.
Henzi: Okay. I just wanted to make that clear for the record. Anything else? Please
call the roll.
Upon Motion by Duggan, supported by Pastor, it was:
RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-06-26: ADI Management, LLC, 34036
Parkdale, Livonia, MI 48150, seeking to increase the amount of indoor seating
and install outdoor seating, resulting in deficient amount of parking.
Parking Spaces
Required: 96
Proposed: 82
Deficient: 14
The property is located on the north side of Plymouth (34110) between Stark and
Farmington, be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact:
1. The uniqueness requirement is met because of the size of the property and the
inability to expand the parking lot allows them to use the parking lot even though
there is a deficient number of parking spots.
2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner
because they have exhausted every option for expanding the parking lot.
3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit
of the Zoning Ordinance because there is support from neighboring businesses.
4. The Board received one (1) letter of approval and 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 the Petitioner comply with the City Council resolution of June 7, 2012.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 28 of 48 June 26, 2012
2. That they install the same 82 spots as proposed to the Board.
3. That the variance is good for one (1) year.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Duggan, Pastor, Aloe, McCue, Sills, Henzi
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Caramagno
Henzi: I will go over those conditions one more time. It is granted. You have got to
comply with the City Council resolution. You have got to erect the parking spots
according to the proposed site plan given to us and it’s going for one year meaning you
have to do this within one year. There’s a second case.
Upon Motion by Duggan, supported by Aloe, it was:
RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-06-31: ADI Management, LLC, 34036
Parkdale, seeking to relocate an existing ground sign, resulting in the sign now
being deficient in setback from the right-of-way line and maintaining exposed
border neon tubing on this sign.
The property is located on the north side of Plymouth (34110) between Stark and
Farmington, be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact:
1. The uniqueness requirement is met because this is a previously existing
building.
2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner
because they will be changing the layout of the building and pursued all other
options for compliance.
3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit
of the Zoning Ordinance because there is support from neighboring businesses.
4. The Board received two (2) letters of approval and 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 the signs be built as they were presented to the Board.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 29 of 48 June 26, 2012
2. That there be no alterations of the neon signs other than refacing.
3. That Petitioner complies with the resolution from the City Council meeting of June
7, 2012.
4. That the variance is good for one (1) year.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Duggan, Aloe, McCue, Sills, Henzi
NAYS: Pastor
ABSENT: Caramagno
Henzi: The variance is granted with those very similar conditions. Good luck to you.
Petitioner: (Isa) Thank you very much.
Representative: (Kokenakes) We appreciate the Board’s actions tonight and I’d also
like to take a moment to offer my appreciation to many years of service by Mrs. Aloe. I
understand that she is going to be stepping away from the ZBA. I wasn’t sure she was
going to be here tonight I’m glad you are and it was a pleasure working with you all
these years. Thank you.
Representative: (Tiseo) Thank you all very much.
Petitioner: (Isa) Come on down and see some unique pizza.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 30 of 48 June 26, 2012
(8:08 #1/2140)
APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-06-27: Cliff and Meredith Thomas, 27566 Grandon, Livonia,
MI 48150, seeking to construct a patio enclosure attached to the rear of the
existing dwelling, resulting in deficient rear yard setback.
Rear Yard Setback
Required: 30 ft.
Proposed: 19 ft.
Deficient: 11 ft.
The property is located on the north side of Grandon (27566) between Inkster and
Cavell.
Henzi: Mr. Podina, anything to add to this case?
Podina: No, sir.
Henzi: Any questions for the Inspection Department? Hearing none, good evening.
Petitioner: Good evening.
Henzi: Can you introduce yourselves, please?
Representative: I’m Brian Dotson, 40480 Grand River, Novi, Michigan.
Petitioner: I am Cliff Thomas, 27566 Grandon, Livonia, Michigan.
Petitioner: Meredith Thomas, same house.
Henzi: Okay. Tell us why you want to construct a patio in the backyard?
Petitioner: (Meredith Thomas) We live in a cul-de-sac right off Inkster Road. It’s
probably the newer of the homes that run off of Inkster and there’s a woods that lines
our property in the rear, which is one of the reasons why we bought the house. We like
the privacy. We don’t like to see somebody in their living room through our living room,
but what we didn’t realize was that we are so close we are on the curve of the cul-de-
sac. We are the closest ones to the woods that when we sit on our patio, we get eaten
alive by mosquitoes. And it’s really unfortunate because its beautiful property. It’s got a
nice brick patio that’s already existing out there but we can’t use it. Our kids can’t play
in the backyard they play in the front yard so we want to enclose it so that we can
actually use that space that is so beautiful out there and we can’t do that without it.
Henzi: Okay. And then to you or your builder, can you tell us about the building
materials and what this is going to be?
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 31 of 48 June 26, 2012
Representative: (Dotson) Yes, this is a very non-obtrusive structure. All of the walls are
glass and screen from top all the way down. You can literally see from one side to the
other and so it blends in with the nature be able to enjoy the outdoors, keep the
mosquitoes out. And so we tried to work with this architecturally to blend in with the
house so Meredith and Cliff and their children can enjoy the outdoors and that’s why
they really would like to have this. Also, it’s really a non-conforming property with a cul-
de-sac there and so obviously when they set the guidelines of rear yards it’s based on a
square or rectangle and unfortunately with the curves and twists along there they’re kind
of thrown for a loop.
Henzi: Is this going to be what some people might call a three-season room or is there
going to be heat?
Representative: (Dotson) This is seasonal, yes, and non-heatable.
Henzi: Okay. Any questions for the Petitioners?
Pastor: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: To the builder, this looks like it’s almost got a deck or something or is this --
Representative: (Dotson) This is actually a brand new stamped engineered architectural
deck with peer footings, but it’s based on live loads which is stronger than a deck load,
an outside deck load. So, structurally it’s very, very well built.
Pastor: So, it’s going to be up in the air. There’s not going to be any walls going down
into the ground, no knee wall.
Representative: (Dotson) No.
Pastor: So, it’s going to be built much like a deck.
Representative: (Dotson) Very similar.
Pastor: Is the floor of a decking material or is it a carpet or --
Representative: (Dotson) It’s actually a ¾ inch plywood and they are going to be putting
indoor outdoor carpeting or maybe linoleum. It’d be up to you.
Petitioner: (Meredith Thomas) Yes.
Pastor: Lighting, fans?
Representative: (Dotson) Very little. There’s an outlet, there’s a house light there that’s
already there.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 32 of 48 June 26, 2012
Pastor: This is a prefab roofing system, I assume?
Representative: (Dotson) This is a modular insulated roofing system with thermal-break
I-beams every 3-ft. on center.
Pastor: No heat?
Representative: (Dotson) No heat.
Pastor: Thank you.
Henzi: Any other questions? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience who wants
to speak for or against the project? No one is coming forward. Any letters/
Aloe: We have an approval from Debbie White [27489 Grandon Ct.] (letter was read).
We have a letter of approval from Carol (& John) Targosz [27500 Grandon]. Letter of
approval from Henry Jackson at [9047 Cavell] (letter was read). Letter of approval from
Justin Pelachyk [27588 Grandon] (letter was read).
Henzi: Mr. and Mrs. Thomas, is there anything you would like to say in closing?
Petitioner: (Cliff Thomas) No, just that my wife had mentioned I think in 2011 that, you
know, because we had bought a patio set of wrought iron and it kind of sits out there
because we just haven’t been to sit in the summertime. It’s extremely hot and in the
evening time we decide if we want to go out there the mosquitoes and so she was just
saying that it would really be nice just to get an enclosed thing and she said that would
be something I would want for 2012 so that’s when we decided to check into a couple
places. And we checked with Brian here and after showed us what it entailed in
building it then that was exactly what we wanted because there were times when we
would like to go out there and have a cup of coffee or just be able to have coffee out
there on the patio and that’s one of the main reasons. We would love to be able to – we
can’t go out there because of that, but that’s the reason why we want to have this built.
Henzi: Okay. Thank you. I will close the public portion of the case and begin the
Board’s comments with Mr. Duggan.
Duggan: I will be in support. You have unique location way back in the corner there
against the woods there. I think your house looks great. So, good luck. I think the
plans look great I will be in support.
Henzi: Mr. McCue.
McCue: I would agree. I can’t say much more. You definitely have a unique situation.
It’s unfortunate that you can’t take advantage of your property. So, I also will be in
support.
Henzi: Mr. Sills.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 33 of 48 June 26, 2012
Sills: I also will be in support. I did upon visiting the Petitioner question the hot tub that
was in the back. You’re building an addition on to the house and enclosed addition to
get away from the mosquitoes. Now, what do you do about the hot tub?
Petitioner: (Meredith Thomas) Well, actually the steam that comes off of the hot tub
really kinds of deters them from being in your space, but we only use it what 3, 4 times
a year?
Petitioner: (Cliff Thomas) And that is usually in the fall or winter time because that’s
where you get the most benefit from a hot tub is using it when the weather is kind of
cool.
Sills: Your existing patio is paver bricked; right?
Petitioner: (Meredith Thomas) That’s correct.
Petitioner: (Cliff Thomas) Yes.
Sills: Now, is this enclosure going to exceed the length of the patio that you have now?
Petitioner: (Meredith Thomas) It’s actually shorter. Our patio is 17-ft. out and we’re only
going 12-ft. deep and it would be 14-ft. wide.
Sills: Okay. Thank you.
Henzi: Mrs. Aloe.
Aloe: I’ll also be in support. I think the Petitioners have done a good job representing
their hardship.
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: I also will be in support. This will be a good project for the Petitioner.
Henzi: I agree. I will support the request and I will just add that the shape of the lot
causes part of their problem and I think that it’s appropriate to grant the variance. So,
the floor is open for a motion.
Upon Motion by Pastor, supported by Sills, it was:
RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-06-27: Cliff and Meredith Thomas, 27566
Grandon, Livonia, MI 48150, seeking to construct a patio enclosure attached to the rear
of the existing dwelling, resulting in deficient rear yard setback.
Rear Yard Setback
Required: 30 ft.
Proposed: 19 ft.
Deficient: 11 ft.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 34 of 48 June 26, 2012
The property is located on the north side of Grandon (27566) between Inkster and
Cavell, be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact:
1. The uniqueness requirement is met due to the fact that Petitioner’s backyard is a
unique shape and unusable because of the wooded area behind their home.
2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner
because they cannot use their property due to the mosquitoes and bugs.
3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit
of the Zoning Ordinance because it is not unusual for this type of house to have a
patio on the back of it.
4. The Board received four (4) letters of approval and 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 “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:
1. That the patio enclosure be built as presented to the Board.
2. That there be no heat in the patio enclosure.
3. That the patio enclosure be constructed within six (6) months.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Pastor, Sills, Aloe, Duggan, McCue, Henzi
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Caramagno
Henzi: This is granted with those three conditions. You have to build it within six
months, you can’t have heat in it, and build it as a three-season room as you have
described. And then you build it as presented.
Petitioner: (Cliff Thomas) Thank you.
Petitioner: (MeredithThomas) Thank you.
Henzi: Good luck.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 35 of 48 June 26, 2012
((8:20 #1/2541)
APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-06-28: Ramco/Lion Venture, 13100 Middlebelt, Livonia, MI
48150, on behalf of Lessee Five Below, 13212 Middlebelt, Livonia, MI 48150,
seeking to erect a wall sign, resulting in excess wall sign area.
Wall Sign Area
Allowed: 50 sq. ft.
Proposed: 76 sq. ft.
Excess: 26 sq. ft.
The property is located on the east side of Middlebelt (13212) between Schoolcraft and
the CSX Railroad.
Henzi: Mr. Podina, anything to add to this case?
Podina: No, sir.
Henzi: Any questions for the Inspection Department? Hearing none, good evening.
Petitioner: Good evening. My name is Carrie. I’m here actually with Allied Signs on
behalf of Five Below and I’m assuming that the landlord’s name for this shopping
center. We’re here requesting as the variance says an additional 26-sq. ft. for the wall
sign that we would like to put up there. The hardship that we feel that we have is that
the building is actually setback well over 1,000-ft. from the main thoroughfare and would
be difficult to see at any smaller than that and it would get harder and harder to see that
it’s actually sitting back there.
Henzi: Do you know anything about the tenant?
Petitioner: Five Below?
Henzi: The type of business, yeah, anything like that.
Petitioner: It’s kind of similar to like a Dollar Tree type of a store. We’ve actually been
doing a lot of them. In the Metro Detroit area we did Shelby Township was one that we
just did recently. I can’t think of any other. There have probably been about 5 or 6 in
the Metro Detroit area over the last year and-a-half.
Henzi: Thanks for bringing that up. When you’ve done those other signs is it the exact
same package as this one?
Petitioner: Very, very similar to that. The only difference is that we’ve seen is that a lot
of times instead of it being the building bringing the architecture with the blue
background they’ll sometimes put a panel up based on access and different things like
that, so the design for all of these stores is exactly the same the sizes as well. They
don’t usually very too often.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 36 of 48 June 26, 2012
Henzi: So, you’re putting up roughly 76-sq. ft. in signs on these types of tenant spaces?
Any questions for the Representative?
McCue: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mrs. McCue.
McCue: There is not also a Dollar Tree in there or a Dollar Store, I mean?
Podina: There is a Dollar Tree at the north end of that building. This is similar to a
Dollar Store but everything is lower than five dollars is basically what it is. That’s what I
understand from the general contractor on the site.
McCue: I just drove by today and I wasn’t sure what it was.
Podina: There is a Dollar Tree --
McCue: Okay. Mr. Chair?
Henzi: Mrs. McCue, yes, go ahead.
McCue: The other stores?
Podina: Well, Ulta hasn’t opened yet. They’re still working on the interior build out
that’s the store next door.
McCue: Right.
Podina: It was actually separated into 3 different spaces. The space that we’re talking
about now is Five Below, Ulta and I don’t the name of the third tenant space.
McCue: Okay.
Podina: But then there’s a couple of stores and then on the end of that building is the
Dollar Tree before Home Depot.
McCue: What about size of the other signs? Dollar Tree?
Podina: They haven’t – oh, the Dollar Tree? It’s a standard Dollar Tree sign.
McCue: Right. But in relation to what they’re asking to do there?
Podina: Well, this is a lot wider space than the Dollar Tree is. The Dollar Tree is a
much narrower space. I have no idea what the square footage of the sign is, but it’s
Dollar Tree --
McCue: Michael’s is there as well, right?
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 37 of 48 June 26, 2012
Podina: At the south end of that, but this is a much bigger space than the Dollar Tree
that is there. It’s not like the Dollar Tree at Five and Merriman. That’s much bigger they
took over – they widen up there. The Dollar Tree at this strip is not nearly as large.
McCue: I guess my big question is, is how does it relate to the other signage on that
area. I think we’ve got Michael’s in there, the pet store in there, the Dollar Tree in there.
My question is, is it going to be much larger than the others in proportion? I just can’t
tell from this diagram. Famous Footwear is in there, right, that’s right next to it?
Henzi: Maybe I don’t remember any of them needing a variance, but then again they
more linear feet they could have a bigger sign.
McCue: Exactly.
Henzi: Yeah, that’s a good point.
Pastor: Mr. Chair?
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: To the Petitioner, have you been by the site and you’ve seen the site?
Petitioner: Not in person just in survey.
Pastor: I’m sorry?
Petitioner: Just in a survey. We did a field survey of like the shopping center.
Pastor: Okay. Did you do a field survey of the other stores, the sizes of the other
stores?
Petitioner: No, that would like full on survey. Usually when we do a field survey, we get
photos of, you know, what’s existing so that the client can see, get a good idea of like if
they’re individual letters mounted to the building. If their cabinet signs are on raceways
and things like that so they can kind of get a good feel and make a good proposal based
on that and we then we survey the actual space that they’re proposing to go into based
on size so that we know what based on your requirements are this is one-to-one so if it
was 50-ft. long, you would get 50-sq. ft. of sign. Beyond on unless there was another
requirement or question that came up and the customer had asked us to, then we would
have gone and, you know, measured up the other folks that are existing within the
shopping center.
Pastor: So, how did you come up with an excess of 50 percent more than we allow 26-
sq. ft. excess? How did you come up with a sign that big?
Petitioner: Well, actually when we initially filled this out, we were going through the
paperwork today and we were under the impression that we were only 17-sq. ft. over.
We had thought we had 58 lineal feet, which would have put us that roughly 17-sq. ft.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 38 of 48 June 26, 2012
over. So, this does present a little bit of a larger gap than we initially thought we thought
we would be at coming here this evening. So, one of my questions was I guess is
where the 50-sq. ft. number came from? Because what we had submitted said 58-sq.
ft. was allowable, which gave us a deficit of 17-sq. ft.
Henzi: Did you get 58 from the survey? John, do you know?
Petitioner: Because I don’t know if maybe when they built it out if it changed slightly
which very well could be the case, but that’s --
Henzi: Typically, John, would your department just go on the site plan back from when it
was approved to try and calculate?
Podina: That whole facing of that building for both of those units that went in the space
next door all of that frontage is all new
Pastor: Is all what?
Podina: All of the frontage, you know the façade in the front, you would think that they
would have submitted something much sooner than now for the size of – for the
allowable signage.
Henzi: Yes.
Pastor: I want to ask you another question and you may not be able to answer it
because obviously – being larger, what benefit do you see the sign giving you because
you’re not going to see it from any major thoroughfare? So, why are you asking for a
larger sign inside of a shopping area that I cannot see any benefit coming from
Middlebelt or Schoolcraft especially since you’ve got Costco and some of the other big
boxes already in front of you?
Petitioner: Well, just for that very reason. When you’re coming into the shopping center
and you see a larger store and then you see a disproportionately smaller sign on a
larger facia, you tend to look past those. The ones that are bigger you see easier when
you’re driving around whether it be a major thoroughfare, which we already know is over
1,000-ft. from where the front of that building is all the way to where the actual traffic
goes. So once you’re inside the shopping center and you’re looking for the store that –
you see it out on the monument, you’re like well, okay, I want to go to Five Below or
Famous Footwear or the Dollar Tree and you want to be able to just see it with
maneuvering through the parking lot and things like that. And the smaller you make it,
the harder it’s going to be able to be seen from those, as you said the big box stores
which are positioned at the front of the property.
Pastor: But – okay maybe I’m – if I’m in this parking lot, if you have the 50-sq. ft. sign I
think I could be able to see it just as easily why are you asking for – what’s your
uniqueness? Why should I give you this sign and not the guy next door the same thing
or what’s your uniqueness?
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 39 of 48 June 26, 2012
Petitioner: The setback off of the road is over 1,000 –
Pastor: Yeah, but you’re not going to see that from the road so that’s not a uniqueness.
I’m never going to see it from Middlebelt. I’m never going to see it from Schoolcraft.
Unless you make it --
Petitioner: But you’re still I mean even if you come into the parking lot and you’re at the
buildings at the front of the property, that’s still probably going to put you right around
900-ft. back unless I’m completely wrong. I can’t image those stores that’s 1,460
something I think is what it measured is what the measurements again that we had out
there. So, those stores if you gave them 500-ft in from the road, you’re still looking at
900-ft. from those stores all the way back to where those other stores are located at. To
me that’s a great distance and I do a lot of driving around in different towns and trying to
find things and the smaller the sign the more difficult it is safely find something that in
my own personal experience that’s what I found and that’s not just here obviously it’s
been within other townships and municipalities as well.
Pastor: Thank you.
Aloe: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mrs. Aloe.
Aloe: Did you determine that our 50 and her 58, 50 is correct, John?
Podina: I’m sorry?
Aloe: Is her 58 correct and our 50 wrong or is her 58 wrong and our 50 is correct? Do
we know that?
Podina: I always thought it was 58.
Aloe: You thought it was 58?
Podina: Yes, I thought it was 58, but I can’t be positive about that.
Aloe: But the notice says 50?
Podina: Yes.
Aloe: So, you believe 58 is correct?
Podina: I believe so.
Aloe: So now we’re 18-ft. off? And then in answering the question that Mrs. McCue
asked, do you feel that this sign is very inproportionate to the other signage in that strip?
Podina: I would say yes.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 40 of 48 June 26, 2012
Aloe: Okay. Thank you.
Podina: That’s my opinion.
Aloe: Okay.
Podina: I’m in that particular area quite often.
Aloe: Are you in a position to offer anything less that this 76-sq. ft. sign?
Petitioner: If we could get anything more than the 50 or, and/or 58-sq. ft. depending on
what the frontage measured out to, they would be very happy with that. They just want
to get – they’re very happy about being here in Michigan first off in the Metro Detroit
area. Their stores are doing decently well being as most of us in here probably hadn’t
even heard of a Five Below. I hadn’t until we got the first order in and we were like,
what? What is this? We looked it up and did a little research found out exactly what it
was that they did and to them, you know, any business owner really it’s to get the most
that they can on the store front as much recognition as they possibly can that still makes
you happy and obviously them happy as well.
Aloe: Where did they originate from?
Petitioner: I don’t know.
Aloe: Are they just a Michigan franchise?
Petitioner: No, they are in other states as well. The company that does the
manufacturing and has given us the work is out of Wisconsin.
Aloe: John, what do you think would be fair in line with the other stores that are there?
Podina: Well, from what I see on the drawing that they’re showing here I’ve got a
feeling that there’s going to be problems with one next door as well with the Ulta sign if
you look at it. If we go with the 58 for her, and we’re probably going to have the same
issue when it comes up to Ulta’s sign.
Aloe: But you said 58 is really what’s allowed? That’s the correct --
Podina: I’m almost sure it’s 58.
Aloe: All right. Thank you.
Pastor: Mr. Chair?
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: You wouldn’t happen to know the store frontage? Do you know what they
leased?
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 41 of 48 June 26, 2012
Petitioner: We measured it as 58.
Pastor: Yeah, but is that their store frontage?
Petitioner: That would be –
Pastor: I can measure the rest of this building and say I have 300-ft.
Petitioner: Well no, because –
Pastor: How do you know where the lease line is?
Petitioner: Because when they’re building it out, they will put up the partitioned walls in
there so we’ll measure from --
Pastor: 58 is an unusual number that’s why I’m asking. In most leases they’re usually
20-ft, 30-ft, 40-ft, 58 is an odd number.
Petitioner: Well, that’s why I was asking if something had changed from when we had
surveyed because some things change sometimes, you know, but when we were out
there and we did the survey, as odd as that may be that’s what it measured out to.
Podina: I don’t recall the actual building inspections were told better than myself, but I
know that they are odd measurements at the columns inside where they had built two
dividing walls in there to separate this large space into three spaces and that could be
the reason for that.
Pastor: Granted but I’m just – there’s confusion here.
Podina: Yeah.
Pastor: And I’d like to get to the bottom of that.
Podina: I don’t know what the reasoning is for the odd number of footage on the facia,
but I know it’s all new for both of those spaces.
Aloe: What was there, do you know?
Podina: I don’t recall.
Henzi: I had a question about what’s described as interior puck display. This is a 3-ft.
sign? What is that?
Petitioner: It’s like a --
Henzi: Your second logo or something like that?
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 42 of 48 June 26, 2012
Petitioner: Kind of, it’s more like a window sign. Like an open sign except for that it
says Five Below and, obviously, the name puck describes it. It’s just a circular shape
that hangs in the window.
Henzi: And then there are window signs showings in our rendering.
Petitioner: Yeah, those I --
Henzi: Is that going to be advertising some special or is that another logo?
Petitioner: No, I think those are temporary. I have not seen those go up as – we’ve not
put anything like that up as like a permanent thing other than maybe a point of purchase
thing when they first open.
Henzi: Well, is that something that Five Below typically does at its other locations it will
have some of those up?
Petitioner: Not that I have seen so far, no.
Henzi: It just seems – I’m not trying to be difficult, but I don’t know why they would be in
the rendering if Five Below never does it.
Petitioner: If they weren’t there? Yeah, as far as what we do and the elements of
signage that we install here, it’s the store front sign and then like you said that little puck
sign that you see there hanging in the window. Those other signs things that store
managers may put them up after they open that’s not something that’s in our scope that
we would typically put up and if they did, I wouldn’t imagine that it would be anything
permanent.
Henzi: Okay. And then a question for Mike, is that interior puck display even
considered a sign?
Fisher: It depends on how far interior it is. Generally things that are inside the stores
are not regulated by the sign ordinance.
Henzi: Well, this looks like it’s on the under hangs of the facia.
Pastor: On the outside.
Henzi: Yeah, outside.
Petitioner: I know for sure that that’s definitely inside the building.
Henzi: It’s inside the building?
Petitioner: Yes, absolutely.
Pastor: Mr. Chair?
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 43 of 48 June 26, 2012
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: Is this puck sign a lit sign?
Petitioner: Yes, they do light and if there is a restriction that the Board wishes to put on
how far back it needs to be within the building, I am sure they will not have a problem
with that.
Pastor: So, just bear with me for one second.
Petitioner: Okay.
Pastor: If we could tell you to put it 50-ft. from the back – they’re not going to have a
problem with that?
Petitioner: Well, I --
Pastor: That’s why I’m asking the question. You made the statement I want to ask the
question.
Petitioner: Okay. Well, then within reason. I mean, you know, like if you want to say
like --
Pastor: So, it is a sign that’s meant for people outside to see?
Petitioner: To see, yes, as part of the feel if you will of the store itself, but it –
Pastor: And the reason I say this looks like it’s on the outside is because it’s called
covering up a (inaudible) in your rendering.
Petitioner: It’s not the best artwork.
Henzi: So, it’s not a decal. Actually, all of those signs are supposed to be on the
inside?
Petitioner: Yes. If they are putting those up, they would be on the inside of the
windows. You’re talking about the squares ones to the left of where the puck is at?
Henzi: Yeah, for the puck we imagine we’re looking through a window and can see it.
Petitioner: Yes.
Henzi: I got it. Okay.
Pastor: Where the other ones would be considered like cling ons like Burger King
would put in their window or something like that.
Henzi: I got it. Okay.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 44 of 48 June 26, 2012
Pastor: But this other one is a lit sign. What does that puck sign say on it?
Petitioner: It’s got dollar signs, $5.00 signs on it. It says Five Below, Below Five.
Pastor: Is that all because I really can’t see it.
Petitioner: I think I have a – hold on. I think in here I should have the whole thing in
here.
McCue: Mr. Chair?
Henzi: Mrs. McCue.
McCue: What about on the road? Will you have a sign on the - what do you call it?
You know, a larger sign out on Middlebelt that lists all of the stores that are inside?
Petitioner: They’re proposing to take a space that’s empty right now or was when we
did the survey below Meijer.
McCue: Okay. So, that means we will have the road sign, the sign on the building, and
the hockey puck sign; correct?
Petitioner: Yes, it’s a – do you want to see?
McCue: I’m sorry. It could be more technical, I guess. I guess my question is what is
our, going back to what our allowance is, isn’t it one building –
Fisher: Yeah.
McCue: And one road?
Fisher: So, this is three – what is this like a 3-ft. circle?
Petitioner: Yeah.
Fisher: Well, here is what the ordinance actually says in the definition of signs: “The
definition includes interior and exterior signs, but not signs primarily directed at persons
within the premises of a sign owners and does not include goods displayed in the store
window.” And I guess my inclination in this situation is that this sign is small enough
that it might actually be seen by people in the parking lot, but there’s no possible way
that anybody even driving around that circle drive is going to be able to see the hockey
puck. So, I don’t think that’s an issue.
Pastor: How close are they to opening?
Petitioner: Pretty close. Once we get through this then the turnovers usually come
pretty quickly.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 45 of 48 June 26, 2012
Pastor: Have you received the sign?
Petitioner: Oh, gosh, no. We would never tell them to manufacture unless we had an
approval and the permit.
Pastor: Well, a lot of franchises have them in stock that’s why I’m asking.
Petitioner: I’m sure that they do have like standard size ones like the sign family, you
know, 2-ft. sets, 3-ft. sets, 5-ft. sets and so on and so forth. But as far as we’re
concerned we wouldn’t say, you know, yeah, no problem go ahead and make that sign
and have them ship it out until we know for sure that we get through this step and then
the permitting with the City because there’s so many things that can happen from point
a to point b that can change what we’re doing and make something custom. And then
all of a sudden, you have a big problem and an extra sign that they shipped that we
don’t need sitting in our yard so we don’t do it that way.
Pastor: Thank you.
Henzi: Any other questions? There’s nobody in the audience. Are there any letters on
this case?
Aloe: No, there is not.
Henzi: Is there anything you would like to say in closing?
Petitioner: Thank you everybody for your time tonight and I appreciate you considering
the additional square footage for them.
Henzi: Thank you. I will close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s
comments with Mrs. McCue.
McCue: I’m excited that there’s going to be, you know, that we’ve got some new stores
going in there. I think that’s fantastic. I really hesitate right now to approve that just
because again I go back to my original statement, unfortunately in relation to the other
stores, number one, number two and as Mrs. Aloe has indicated we are also going to
end up with two other merchants within that three-section piece so my gut feeling is that
we are going to see two other merchants in here and so we definitely are starting a
precedent. I hesitate to say that I will support this. I will hear why other people have to
say, but my inclination right now is to not support.
Henzi: Mr. Duggan.
Duggan. I’m similar. If you wanted a few extra feet I would go for it, but to go too much
like was said, there’s more coming that are right next to you especially with all of the
other businesses that over in that corner to deviate too much from the allotted amount,
but if you want a few extra feet, I’d be open to that but as is presented here that’s too
much.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 46 of 48 June 26, 2012
Petitioner: Well, how many, may I ask, how many extra square feet you would be
willing to entertain?
Duggan: Well --
Petitioner: Because we’re at --
Duggan: Maybe 65, would that be too much even less than that? They’re saying 58.
Let me hear what everyone else has to say I think we’ll probably have a discussion
similar to that at the end when everyone is done talking.
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: I agree, as presented I would not approve this and for more than one reason.
Even though you’re asking for more, I’m uncomfortable knowing what we actually have
for frontage. Our notice says 50, yours says 58 or whatever, and Matt caught it I didn’t
catch it. This puck sign I would consider a 3-ft. sign as part of the sign package. You
have it listed here. It’s sign B. It doesn’t give me a square footage, but I suppose we
could figure that out. So, due to the fact that there are going to be other people in here,
due to the fact that I don’t know what the standard size signs are, you know, I do work
with national companies as well and they’ll have – I think this was 3’3, 2’6 or 2’9. I don’t
want to tell you that you have to have 54-sq. ft. and all of a sudden they’re custom
making a sign costing someone a lot of money. I believe we need to see what other
packages are available. I’m sure you can get a little more sign square footage, but once
again I myself would include that hockey puck into the sign package. Maybe the rest of
the Board wouldn’t. I think 3-ft. diagonal sign is big enough for you to see quite a ways
out in the parking lot. So, at this particular moment I would table the motion.
Henzi: Mrs. Aloe.
Aloe: Yes, I would agree with Mr. Pastor and Mrs. McCue. We need to know the total
that we’re going to be looking at over there. I don’t want to set a precedent and give an
approval on this knowing there’s two more tenants coming up. So I, too, think a tabling
motion is probably in order.
Henzi: Mr. Sills.
Sills: I agree with Mr. Pastor and Mrs. Aloe. I agree to go with the tabling motion on
this particular case.
Henzi: I think that that’s reasonable. I’d really like to see somebody from the landlord
here next time because this is a refacing of the property and let’s say Ulta has got a
sign package that’s also in excess, you know, Famous Footwear is going to come and
say, what in the world – I’ve got six more years on my lease and --
Petitioner: I want something bigger, too.
Henzi: Yeah, I want something bigger, too.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 47 of 48 June 26, 2012
Petitioner: Right.
Henzi: And Mr. Pastor makes a good point, you know, if we said 66 and it’s going to
cost you an extra $10,000.00 that’s not right either.
Petitioner: Right, right. Okay.
Henzi: So, I think it would be reasonable and I can tell you that the next available
meeting assuming this is tabled would be July 24th if you got your packet in by
Wednesday, July 3rd, after that August 14th. So, July 4th, I mean that’s not too far
McCue: July 3rd would be a Tuesday.
Fisher: That would be on Wednesday, July 4th.
Henzi: I’m sorry, Wednesday, July 3rd even if you called and rescheduled and asked to
be put on the July 24th meeting. If you want July 24th, you have got to call before next
Wednesday.
Petitioner: Okay.
Podina: Isn’t Wednesday the fourth?
Aloe: Wednesday is the 4th --
Henzi: Tuesday.
Pastor: Tuesday.
Fisher: Tuesday.
Henzi: Otherwise you’ll get --
Podina: That’s means I’ll have to work that day.
Henzi: For a special meeting on July 4th. All right, Mr. Pastor go on.
Upon Motion by Pastor, supported by Aloe, it was:
RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-06-28: Ramco/Lion Venture, 13100 Middlebelt,
Livonia, MI 48150, on behalf of Lessee Five Below, 13212 Middlebelt, Livonia, MI
48150, seeking to erect a wall sign, resulting in excess wall sign area.
Wall Sign Area
Allowed: 50 sq. ft.
Proposed: 76 sq. ft.
Excess: 26 sq. ft.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 48 of 48 June 26, 2012
The property is located on the east side of Middlebelt (13212) between Schoolcraft and
the CSX Railroad, be tabled so that the Petitioner can return with more information and
to clear up some of the discrepancies in the notice.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Pastor, Aloe, Duggan, McCue, Sills, Henzi
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Caramagno
Henzi: This is tabled and I gave you the dates. And I will add, you can tell the landlord
that the Board members really would like to see somebody representing the landlord
here.
Pastor: It doesn’t necessarily have to be him.
Henzi: Yeah, it doesn’t have to be Mr. Ramco or Lion, but – somebody familiar.
Petitioner: Somebody familiar with the project and the build out, and what they’re doing
out there not just what’s effective for what we want, but for the other folks in the
neighboring spaces as well. And we need to verify leased space length as well.
Henzi: Yeah, when you call to reschedule, you just talk to Randy would probably be the
person. Good luck.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at
8:50 p.m.
_________________________
SAM CARAMAGNO, Secretary
__________________________
MATTHEW HENZI, Chairman
/hm