Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-08-14 City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 of 37 August 14, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF LIVONIA MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD AUGUST 14, 2012 A Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Livonia was held in the Auditorium of the Livonia City Hall on Tuesday, August 14, 2012. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matthew Henzi, Chairman Craig Pastor, Vice President Sam Caramagno, Secretary Edward E. Duggan, Jr. Elizabeth H. McCue Kathleen McIntyre Robert E. Sills MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Cathryn White, Assistant City Attorney Steve Banko, 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. Seven (7) 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 11 persons present in the audience. (7:05 #1/139) APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-07-34: Septimiu and Maria Puscas, 17155 Catherine Ct., Livonia, MI 48152, seeking to maintain two air conditioner condenser units City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 of 37 August 14, 2012 located in the front yard, next to the front of the dwelling, which is not allowed. The established front yard is to be used for landscaping only. The property is located on the west side of Merriman (20121) between Norfolk and Fairfax. Henzi: Is there a motion to remove from the table? Pastor: Mr. Chair, I make the motion. Caramagno: Support. Henzi: It is supported. Any discussion? All in favor say, ayes. Board: (In Unison): Ayes. Henzi: Opposed? This is removed. Mr. Banko, anything to add? Banko: Not at this time, sir. Henzi: Any questions for Mr. Banko? Hearing none, will the Petitioners please come forward? Petitioner: Good Evening. Henzi: Good evening. Petitioner: My name is Maria. I am the wife of Septimiu and last time it was my husband’s turn to talk so today I will. As we have committed at the last hearing, we are here to just let you know that we have delivered on the promise that we have landscaped as we had planned with 17 shrubs that are going to grow in height to between 7 and 10 ft. They will also grow in diameter and eventually there will be no area that will allow any visibility between them. In addition to that we placed a bench an 8-ft bench on the brick patio. We have also placed two boulder concretes one on the north side and one on the south side and we also have put on the grass, the sod and it looks awesome. So, we are here again to inform you that as we have committed we have delivered on that and we’d like to request and plead for your approval. I should have done this beforehand thank you very much for hearing our case on appeal. We have the ZBA detailed and revised site plan. Also, pictures with the grass in place and the before and the after, so that’s all we have to say and thank you very much for your time. Henzi: Thank you. Any questions for the Petitioner? Sills: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Sills. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 of 37 August 14, 2012 Sills: To the Petitioner, are you presently at 17155 Catherine Court? Petitioner: Yes, sir. Sills: And your appeal case is for the address at 20121 Merriman? Petitioner: Yes, sir. Sills: Is there any reason that you’re not in the Merriman address? Petitioner: We’re not ready to move in yet. We’re still finishing things. It’s a new house and we’re not exactly where we’d like to be before we move. Sills: Any idea when you’re going to move into this address? Petitioner: Well, before Christmas I hope. We don’t have a date. Sills: Thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience that wants to speak for or against the project? If so, come on up to the podium. Seeing no one coming forward can you read the letters? Caramagno: We have an approval from the property owner, Septimiu Puscas [21021 Merriman Rd] (letter was read), both property owners, same letters. Henzi: Thank you. Mrs. Puscas, would you like to say anything in closing? Petitioner: No, thank you. Henzi: I will just note that we have read your letters. We just don’t read them out loud when the Petitioner gives an oral presentation. So, I will close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mr. Sills. Sills: Well, I have gone by this home probably three or four times a week and I am more impressed with it every time I drive by. I think the Petitioner has done everything possible and everything the Board has asked him to do. I think the house is very pleasing in the neighborhood and I sure wish I could afford a house like that. Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre. McIntyre: I don’t have any comments to add. Thank you. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: Well, I have a couple I could mention. I think the landscaping that you put in makes the air conditioning units – there is no more visual distraction at all with the bench and the rocks and the bushes now. You could still see the units last time you City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 of 37 August 14, 2012 were here through the bushes. You have done a nice job with the landscaping. I don’t feel there is any sound impact with these units being in front of the house at all. You’ve got Merriman Road with constant traffic up and down, back and forth, so the sound impact shouldn’t affect your neighbors at all. You’ve got good setback there and I personally think it looks pretty nice. Petitioner: Thank you. Caramagno: It could have been placed around back I’m certain if you followed all the guidance and rules, but that’s why you come to this Board for that variance and it’s okay with me. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Yes, I wasn’t here the first time that we heard this case, but I’ve watched this house get built from day one. I live in the subdivision right in back of it. These people have done a wonderful job building this house or whoever the builder was. I don’t have any problem with this. The only sound that would be transmitted would be going forward towards the road, so it won’t impact any neighbors that I see. So, I will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: I, too, will be in support. I know last time you were here I mentioned I wanted to see kind of a proposal of what the final plan would look like. You guys went ahead and did it. I would approve it. I think it’s great. Any questions that I had you answered. I think it looks great. Good work. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I agree. I support what everybody else has said. Your house looks beautiful. You have done a lot of work and I don’t see any reason why I would not support this. Henzi: I, too, will support the variance. This is the first case of this kind that I remember hearing. Based on some opposition comments at the last meeting, I drove by dozens of times during the process in which you landscaped it. There is no way anybody walking in front or driving in front would know that there’s an air conditioning unit in front of the house. I think it looks tremendous. So, thank you very much. The floor is open for a motion. Upon Motion by Sills, supported by Caramagno, it was: RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-07-34: Septimiu and Maria Puscas, 17155 Catherine Ct., Livonia, MI 48152, seeking to maintain two air conditioner condenser units located in the front yard, next to the front of the dwelling, which is not allowed. The established front yard is to be used for landscaping only. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 of 37 August 14, 2012 The property is located on the west side of Merriman (20121) between Norfolk and Fairfax, be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because the two air conditioner condensing units are a considerable distance from the front yard setback approximately 80-ft, the closest neighbor is 72-ft. away, the units are high efficiency and very quiet running, having the units as close to the furnace as possible results in shorter piping and less refrigerant use. The uniqueness requirement is also met because this home is considered state-of-the-art and one of the most beautiful homes in the City. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because of the considerable time and money invested in the designing and building of this home. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because the home is a definite asset to the neighborhood and because the two air conditioner condensing units positioned in the front of the home are neatly concealed by arborvitaes, shrubs, and park-type bench. 4. The Board received (2) two 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 without any conditions or restrictions. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Sills, Caramagno, Duggan, McCue, McIntyre, Pastor, Henzi NAYS: None Henzi: The variance is granted. Congratulations. Good luck Petitioner: Thank you very much. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 of 37 August 14, 2012 (7:12 #1/480) APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-08-39 The Felician Sisters of Livonia, 36800 Schoolcraft, Livonia, MI 48150, on behalf of Lessee St. Mary Mercy Hospital, 36475 Five Mile Road, Livonia, MI 48154, seeking to modify a previous grant by the Zoning Board of Appeals (Case No. 2000-11-148), which encompasses refacing existing ground signs, removal of one ground sign and altering the height and area of a single sign. This sign shall be increased in height by three feet and an additional sixteen square feet in area. The modifications to the building wall signs involve removing five existing wall signs and replace them with three new wall signs located on different building elevations. Ground Sign Height Number of Ground Signs Ground Area Allowed: 6 ft. Allowed: Two Allowed: 60 sq. ft. Proposed: One @ 13 ft. Proposed: Five (30 sq. ft. each sign) Four @ 10 ft. Excess: Three Proposed: 279 sq. ft. Excess: 7 ft. Excess: 219 sq. ft. 4 ft. Number of Wall Signs Wall Sign Area Allowed: One Allowed: 200 sq. ft. Proposed: Three Proposed: 613 sq. ft. Excess: Two Excess: 413 sq. ft. The property is located on the west side of Five Mile (36475) between Levan and Newburg. Henzi: Mr. Banko, anything to add? Banko: I have nothing to add, sir. Henzi: Any questions for the Inspection Department? Hearing none, will the Petitioner’s representatives please come forward? Good evening. Representative: Good evening. I’m Angela Mathews of Little Fish Designs. I will be speaking on behalf of St. Mary Mercy of Livonia. I trust we have all received our extensive documents. Little Fish Designs has been retained by St. Mary Mercy of Livonia to study way-finding issues on the site. This effort is not only to analyze and discuss what was happening within the parking lots, but we actually went out to the extent of 275 and 96. We have coordinated efforts with the Michigan Department of Transportation, Wayne County and also the Traffic Commission of the City of Livonia to address some of the issues regarding the safety of the community finding their way to the new emergency center at St. Mary Mercy of Livonia. I’d like to turn it back to the Board to see if there is any questions on anything we have presented thus far. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 of 37 August 14, 2012 Henzi: Can you give us a general idea of why you’re proposing signs of this size? For example, these are precisely calculated, precisely sized signs. Why did you come with that, for instance if it says 13-ft, why wasn’t it 10 that sort of thing? Representative: Sure. Two reasons. If I can direct your attention to two pages in the book – actually three pages in the book. Page three in the book gives you aerial view of not only our extent of the property lines, but also Five Mile Road and Levan Road the speed limits of those roads and the braking of velocity required to decide, stop, and maneuver require between 800 ft. and 1,000 ft. Backing that up to the overall plan, we have calculated what an appropriate letter height is to decipher and read. If you flip forward to page five, you’ll see a summary of our calculations of how we have drawn those conclusions. Essentially, what we are doing is taking a rather complex and over- complicated system, simplifying it, and making it much easier for the community to navigate what will be the new St. Mary’s. We have too many signs on site and our signs are too big and they are tri-sided and that’s not helping anyone. What we need to do is actually close one of the drives, reduce the number of signs, but increase the signs that we are retaining making them double sided so that they can accommodate a 9 or 10-inch letter. A 9 or 10-inch letter is what you need to be able to read at the posted speeds and given the anxiety and stress level of somebody trying to find hospital care. Henzi: I’m not sure if you’re familiar, but there was a variance granted in 2000 for a sign package and obviously tonight’s presentation requests a significant amount more. I understand that there are many more buildings. Is that the primary reason why you’re asking for so much more? That there’s the new not finished construction, there’s the cancer center, and basically, you’ve got a much bigger campus that requires directional signs? Representative: Being unfamiliar with what more means prior to 2000 I agree. It is because of an ongoing expansion and renovation of the hospital. If you pull your attention to page 6 of that document, that’s a conceptual plan of how we’re moving traffic. Previously, we had three entries along Levan Road and I believe, and Mr. Vanderbrook (Ph.) there was an addendum to the site plan that we had previously submitted that was then approved to reduce the deceling lane that brought you into the previous entry to the emergency lane. That is being closed off because our emergency center is now being located south of our site. We found that to be actually very dangerous for people to decel, turn in, its now the wrong place to turn left back into traffic and you have to continue down. So, we’ve gone through quite a few site modifications to make it faster and safer for people to access the emergency center. In general, again without understanding the definition of more, in general what we have proposed in this package is less and that’s the messaging on our signs are less and the size of the signs are less, so that it’s easier to navigate the hospital. One other thing I would like to point out about page six, is internal movement given the expansion and the addition at the hospital, has dictated what we are doing on the exterior of the building. It is very clear now that this hospital is one building with two entries. We have a north and a south and since that’s all we need to know we also have an internal marketing campaign to roll this language out through it will be very easy to find your destination within the hospital. Instead of directing to eight possible centers and you see the City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 of 37 August 14, 2012 internal language on exterior signs, we’re simplifying that. So, if you park in the north or you park in the south, you come in the north entry or the south entry and then you find your destination within. Henzi: So, then inside the hospital throughout, directional signage will be north and south? Representative: Correct. Henzi: Or geared towards the north side of the property or south side? Representative: Yes. The second half of this package is an entire interior package that will bring forth that will re-enforce that nomenclature and hierarchy. Henzi: Thank you. Representative: You’re welcome. Henzi: Any questions for the Petitioner’s Representative? Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: You’re claiming that you’re asking for less but all of our figures on our paperwork say you’re asking for much, much more. Wall sign area allowed 200-sq. ft, proposed 613, excess 413, ground area allowed 64-sq. ft. (30-sq. ft. each sign) proposed 279 sq. ft, excess 219-sq. ft. Number of Wall Signs: allowed: one; proposed: three. How is this less? Representative: It’s more defined by square footage is what’s happening. If I could draw your attention to page six, page six will show you an exact photograph of what is on our campus now. 70 percent of our traffic, which is our primary service area as dictated by the State of Michigan, is accessing our site from the south. This is going to change with the future closure of 96, but that’s going to be a temporary change, so given beyond that closure we’re going to go back to the 70 percent access from the south. So, what you’re see – I’m sorry page eight – what you’re seeing on page eight is a photo of – we have stood 500-ft. back from what will become the dedicated emergency entrance, vehicular entrance to the site. If I can call your attention to the sign location seven, six, two and three and eight, those are all wall signs that are currently there. They do take up a certain amount of square footage, but quite honesty they’re not helpful. We have a couple of issues that we’re trying to overcome within the architecture. There are architectural clues that once you get on to this site that there should be a door there and we watched people park, they’re disabled, they’re trying to come for an outpatient surgery, they’re trying to come for chemotherapy appointment, and they’re walking in the opposite direction because the architecture tells them there’s a door there. They get there and there is no door. There are only two doors to this campus. So, if I can flip you forward to page -- City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 of 37 August 14, 2012 Pastor: Excuse me. Representative: Sure. Pastor: If both signs are not useful, why are we keeping them? Representative: No, we’re taking them down. On page 17, this is what we would like to do. The signs that I just noted we’re taking down two of those signs are currently channel letters announcing the canopy for the old emergency center. Those clearly need to come down, so that we can put up a singular sign at the new emergency center. Our new package as far as wall signs go only include three signs, one on the top of the new addition to mark that as the emergency center. We have purposely located to seven most points of that elevation because the southern most drive is the dedicated emergency drive. Sign locations seven and eight identify the hospital and identify the south entry, which is again the only door that you can actually go in. And what we are doing there is re-enforcing the one drive north, if you will, it’s the preferred drive if you’re going to access anything in the Marian Profession Center or farther into the Women’s Birthing Center, et cetera. Pastor: So I guess I’m really confused how we’re adding square footage and adding signs and you’re claiming you’re taking away signs and taking away square footage. Representative: Quite honestly, Mr. Pastor, I was also confused. When I read through the previous variance, we weren’t sure how to present this to the Board because we were already under a variance because of the tri-sided signs and because of what was previous up to re-calculate and make them two-sided signs and put up less in quantity perhaps the same in square footage. What we’re presenting to the Board is what we know is functional for the community. Banko: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Banko. Banko: If you could, Board Members, look at the 2000 appeal for the ground sign area. You’ll see that there is 60 sq. ft. allowed. At that time, they proposed 717 sq. ft. The excess is 657 sq. ft. If you look at what they’re proposing now, there’s proposed 279 sq. ft. and the excess is 219 sq. ft. I believe that’s where the large amount of square footage comes from. These are the tripoded signs that currently exist. Banko: Thank you, Mr. Banko. Pastor: Steve, is that the same type of situation we have with the building signs; too? The building signs are they – multiple variances or – she says she’s taking building signs down, but -- City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 10 of 37 August 14, 2012 Banko: Well, and that’s another whole issue. Basically, they’re condensing or removing a number of the wall signs and putting up fewer wall signs, but obviously the lettering is larger which -- Pastor: Gives you much more square footage. Banko: Gives you more square feet. Pastor: Thank you. Henzi: I have one more question. The large wall sign that faces Five Mile, I didn’t see in the packet is that going to stay? Representative: We have no adjustments to that sign that will remain. McIntyre: I’d like to ask a question. Has your firm done work for other hospitals? Representative: Yes. McIntyre: And is there some sort of, and understanding this is the only hospital in our community, but does this correspond with the direction other hospitals are going? In other words, are there some standards that we’re trying to achieve with this signage? Representative: There are in terms of reading, reaction, and the maneuver of time. In general, the hospitals that we have consulted with have all agreed that they do need less. There has been – given the state of health care right now – there’s always an internal struggle between is it a marketing message or is it a directional message? St. Mary has actually been a absolute pleasure to work with because they absolutely put the health of the community at the top. And so the idea that this is potentially a marketing message or if it is an actual message, was very easy to work through and what we have in this package is strictly directional. We have worked with hospitals in Florida and in Indianapolis, but have had a bigger struggle because of what their recent agreements tie them into. Part of what we are recommending that we take down is some donor recognition from million-dollar donors and I do think it should be noted to the Board that these donors also recognize that this is what needs to happen so that the campus is very functional. Henzi: Any other questions? Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Steve, if there were other signs on this building such as on the Five Mile side, why isn’t that in our calculations as overage? Banko: I can’t answer that question. I didn’t make the calculations. I don’t know. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 11 of 37 August 14, 2012 Pastor: Because I find it a little bit hard to make a decision on inaccurate information. Thank you, Steve. Henzi: Anything else? Any other questions? Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: The sign at the corner of Levan and Five Mile Road is that currently a square block sign? Representative: Yes, it is. Caramagno: Is that going to be a triangle though; is that what I’m seeing there? Representative: No, if I can draw your attention to page 12 or page 13, excuse me 12 and 13. Page 12, the photo on the right side shows you the existing and the existing letter height. The picture on the left is what we are proposing, so on page 13 because we are part of the St. Joseph Health System, which is part of Trinity Health we do have some health-system identifier that is required on that sign by our corporation. What we are suggesting is that we move that to the top in a sense we are increasing the height of that sign by 26 inches, but we are not making any changes to the existing sign other than refacing it. Currently, we have a 4 ½ inch letter directing to the Emergency Room and it is simply not big enough to be read when you are traveling on Five Mile and you’re traveling westbound. You are more than 1,000 ft. away when you have to make the decision to be in the left turn lane to turn left to access the Emergency Center, which will eventually be on your right off of Levan. So, what we would like to do is not increasing the sign area of what’s existing, but refacing it so that we can have – essentially the signs that are two we would like to merge them into one so we can accommodate a 9 inch letter. Caramagno: How much space do you figure to use for Out-Patient Services or what will now face the north entrance? Representative: As far as property area or as far as sign face area? Caramagno: Just as far as sign face area. I don’t see any -- Representative: The sign face area doesn’t change that’s still going to be 11 – if you calculate from ground to height. It will still be 11 ft. tall by the 6 ft. 8 wide. Each panel in between is roughly 15 inches tall. So, if you would like to calculate that 6’8 wide by 15 inches times 3. Caramagno: I guess what I am getting at there’s no use for anything underneath the north entrance there? Representative: No, actually that was a very deliberate decision on our part because of the roofline of vehicles. Whether you have a four-door sedan or you have which is more City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 12 of 37 August 14, 2012 community an SUV, a mini-van, or a pick-up truck, you need at least the word emergency to be at a minimum of 8 ft. tall. The word North Entrance will be blocked by a light pick-up truck, but that’s as high as we could get it on that sign with the appropriate letter. Caramagno: Let me ask you about the lighting on these signs then. Representative: Sure. Caramagno: Is the lighting on these signs going to be completely different than what’s lit out there as it sits today? Representative: I may have to check with Mr. Vanderford (Ph). Are we currently illuminated on all for sides? (Unidentified Speaker): It’s not changing from what it is today. Representative: It’s not changing. The crown, if you will, that we’re putting on the top that is internally illuminated; however, they are pushed through letters so each letter will be illuminated not the entire 26 by 80 inch area. Each panel in between just the letters Emergency South Entrance and North Entrance would be illuminated. It would not be a glowing red panel. Caramagno: The only reason I ask is as I go by at night by the hospital and that property, I don’t feel it is illuminated well enough myself. I think it is poorly lit to be grabbing your attention at night where you are visiting or whether you’re in a hurry to get there. That’s my opinion. If you look around at the gas stations and the other buildings around, you clearly see price of fuel from a half mile away and yet you can’t see the name of this sign and you’re going there for maybe a life or death situation. So, the lighting I think is poor as it sits now and if this doesn’t improve it any, I don’t your doing a lot of justice for night vision. Representative: If our area is approved, if it pleases the Board, we would submit a construction drawing detailing light. We could also calculate current lumens and what the increased lumens would be -- Caramagno: My opinion only. That’s just what I think. Representative: Thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against the project? If so, come on up to the podium. I see no one coming forward. Are there letters? Caramagno: Yes. We have an approval from Todd Marcus [36650 Five Mile Road] (letter was read). R. Patel [15370 Levan] no objection (letter was read). Elizabeth Clark [36345 Jamison] (letter was read). City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 13 of 37 August 14, 2012 Henzi: Mrs. Matthews, is there anything you would like to say in response to the lettersor in closing. Representative: No, thank you. Henzi: Thank you. I will close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s discussion with Mrs. McIntyre. McIntyre: As someone who lives near the hospital now, I do find, and that’s not my regular hospital though I have been there I do find the signage distracting and confusing and not – the current signage – does not give a sense of the most modern in current hospitals. I think this is much more consistent and much more than just visually pleasing. I think this eliminates a lot of confusion certainly for emergency it’s a brighter – not necessarily brighter, but larger and clearer sign I think with closing that one drive will be good. But going to the nomenclature of north entrances and south entrances Beaumont is the hospital that I go to and also U of M those are huge hospitals, but because they use the north entrance/south entrance you know what clues to look for and this to me makes it a much more usage and efficient way for people – both emergency certainly – but also people, outpatient visitors whatever to find their way around. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: Well, I would agree with those comments. The signs although they are going to be a little larger clearly will be more descriptive and better for the overall facility. When I look at some of the height of them and the lighting as I mentioned earlier, some of those gas station signs are even larger than what you are proposing and again when you look at the importance of getting a gas tank of fuel or perhaps going there for an emergency procedure, I think importance knowing where you’re going for the hospital. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Well, I will say this is the most complete sign package I have ever seen with a lot of data, but I am a little disheartened to find that they didn’t include all the building signs in their calculations. I think this is a great looking sign package. I think it will help, but I’d like to know how much they are over by, you know, how many other signs around this building that’s not in our calculations to look at to say is 400 sq. ft. too much or too little? Is it 1,000 sq. ft? I don’t know because I don’t have it in front of me and I didn’t get on a ladder to measure all your signs. So, at this particular point I would actually table this motion, but I will leave it up to the rest of the Board. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: I like the sign package. I think with the size of your building, you know, it’s a unique property especially with the big hospital as well. I think that the signs look great. I think the presentation was terrific. This is the best packet that we’ve gotten since I’ve been on the Board, so I will be in support. I think it’s a great package. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 14 of 37 August 14, 2012 Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I would agree. To me, less is more. When you’re going into an emergency situation, you need be pointed in a direction and not have to guess as to where you’re going. So to me, the increased size of the sign and reduction in the number makes total sense to me and I think just the visual between these two pages help tremendously just for us to get a good idea, so I will absolutely support. Henzi: Mr. Sills. Sills: It’s been forever since I’ve seen a better package put together than this. I just assume they put hours and hours to come up with all of these things and not to mention the dollars that beautiful pamphlet contains, but I go along with some of the comments made by the Board members. Kathy mentioned that she goes to Beaumont and U of M and so do I and the signage there is a lot clearer than it is at St. Mary’s at the present time, so I will be in support of this package. Henzi: I agree with Mr. Pastor’s comments that the excess is probably much greater than what is stated and that was initially a problem for me, but I think that the design is well planned and there is good reason as stated by all of the Board members for approving this sign package. I know in the past we were critical of St. Mary’s parking and encouraged St. Mary’s to modernize its parking with respect to its campus. It did that. It is modernizing the campus. I think that everything St. Mary’s has done in the last five years has been to get into that regional hospital level and to me I think the signage is appropriate and necessary. So, I will approve. The floor is open for a motion. Duggan: What about lighting? I know they said it was going to be the same as before, can we do anything with that? Henzi: That’s good point. Generally, if you say as presented, then they’re going to reface it . W hat exists now will continue to exist. Duggan: Right. Henzi: Are you talking about encouraging them to make it brighter or – Duggan: I don’t know if the Board wants that. I would be open to it, but I don’t know if anyone else would be open to it. Caramagno: I just thought there was some opportunity there to brighten those signs up a little bit at night. I felt that it was tough to see. They said they were going to present it to the Engineering Department. Who were you going to bring that lighting to? Representative: What we would like to do is put those details in our construction package. Before we fleshed out our construction drawings, we wanted to make sure we had permission of the Board to continue forward. We would be happy to resubmit that City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 15 of 37 August 14, 2012 construction package if necessary. There are a couple options we can do for lighting that sign. We did have size concerns. What we presented to the Board was minimum necessary. We could go above and beyond because it is a major intersection, but we really did not want to impact the community more than we needed to, so that’s why what was presented is presented. If you would like us to calculate lumens can show you the lighting options on that specific sign we could pull that to the side and submit that again if you’d prefer. Henzi: My only concern is I would like to see it brighter, but you know, there were two doctors who wrote in an approval of this. But the one neighbor who wrote in said she didn’t want it brighter and I can emphasize. If you live to the east of Levan, you don’t want some bright light shining in your family room all night long because these are 24/7. Representative: May I address that? Henzi: Yes. Representative: If you notice on page – let me pull this back up again. I believe it’s page 8. We do have a – sorry, page 10. We do have elevations showing our illuminations. We preferred not to illuminate especially location 5, which is I believe where the citizen that submitted her letter. That’s closer to where she is. Not so much the corner of Five Mile and Levan, but further down south on Levan. There’s a very large red area notifying that that is the preferred entry to emergency. The only part that we want to illuminate there is the actual emergency letters. There is some discussion using a day/night acrylic where it would be white during the day and red during the night, but only the letters. We are not suggesting to illuminate an 80 inch wide/80 inch tall red square. That is where we would completely understand our neighbors having that shine in their windows. We were eliminating that to just the letters. As far as Levan and Five Mile, we could swap out as I suggested we could calculate lumens and show you some options where that’s a bigger red emergency panel to compete with signing and the lighting of the other businesses on that corner. Henzi: I guess what you could do is you could table it, you can approve it, you can give them the discretion to work with the Building Department for the Five and Levan sign. Caramagno: I think discretion with the Building Department I think is good. What do I know about lumens? Duggan: I don’t want to send them back again to have them come back again. Caramagno: It doesn’t need to be lit up like daylight all night long, but it should be something that you can see from a far distance in my mind. Duggan: Okay. I agree with you. Henzi: Okay. So you’d make two conditions one it’s going to be built as presented and two, the Petitioners are granted the discretion to work with the Building Department for the Five and Levan sign. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 16 of 37 August 14, 2012 Duggan: Okay. Henzi: Anything else? Please call the roll. Upon Motion by Duggan, supported by McCue, it was: RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-08-39 The Felician Sisters of Livonia, 36800 Schoolcraft, Livonia, MI 48150, on behalf of Lessee St. Mary Mercy Hospital, 36475 Five Mile Road, Livonia, MI 48154, seeking to modify a previous grant by the Zoning Board of Appeals (Case No. 2000-11-148), which encompasses refacing existing ground signs, removal of one ground sign and altering the height and area of a single sign. This sign shall be increased in height by three feet and an additional sixteen square feet in area. The modifications to the building wall signs involve removing five existing wall signs and replace them with three new wall signs located on different building elevations. Ground Sign Height Number of Ground Signs Ground Area Allowed: 6 ft. Allowed: Two Allowed: 60 sq. ft. Proposed: One @ 13 ft. Proposed: Five (30 sq. ft. each sign) Four @ 10 ft. Excess: Three Proposed: 279 sq. ft. Excess: 7 ft. Excess: 219 sq. ft. 4 ft. Number of Wall Signs Wall Sign Area Allowed: One Allowed: 200 sq. ft. Proposed: Three Proposed: 613 sq. ft. Excess: Two Excess: 413 sq. ft. The property is located on the west side of Five Mile (36475) between Levan and Newburg, be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because due to the location of the building being off of I-96, the size of the building, and the campus as well as the speed at which people would be traveling in order to get to the hospital. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because many of its patients and its visitors will have trouble finding the correct entrance. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 17 of 37 August 14, 2012 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because it is beneficial to the community as well as the people who need to use the hospital. 4. The Board received two (2) letters of approval and one (1) letter of objection from neighboring property owners. 5. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the purpose or objective of the Master Plan because this property is classified “Community Service” 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 presented to the Board. 2. That the Petitioners are granted the discretion to work with the Building Department regarding the illumination of the Five Mile and Levan sign. 3. Five-day waiting period waived. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Duggan, McCue, Caramagno, McIntyre, Sills, Henzi NAYS: Pastor Henzi: The variance is granted with those two conditions that we just read. Representative: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We would also like to petition that the waiver for the permitting of the signs be granted. We did try to get on ours and as of last month we did miss that, but the opening of our Emergency Center is scheduled for very early November, so if we could have that waived, we would like to get going with the construction drawings and the permit process as soon as possible. Henzi: Okay. Does anyone want to make a motion to waive the five-day waiting period? Duggan: I will make that motion to waive. Henzi: Is there support? Caramagno: Support. Henzi: All in favor say “aye.” Board: (In unison) Aye. Henzi: Opposed? Okay. You can go ahead and contact the Inspection Department. The five-day waiver is granted. Good luck City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 18 of 37 August 14, 2012 Representative: Thank you. (7:45 1/1489) APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-08-40: Nickolas Lin, 873 Patricia Place Dr., Westland, MI 48185, seeking to operate a grocery store with restaurant in an existing building, resulting in deficient number of parking spaces and parking lot aisle width. A cross parking agreement is required with adjacent property owner(s) as required by City Council. Parking count provided assumes this agreement will be obtained. Parking Spaces Aisle Width Required: 83 Required: 22 ft. Provided: 79 Proposed: 20 ft. Deficient: 4 Deficient: 2 ft. The property is located on the south side of Plymouth (28455) between Garden and Harrison. Henzi: Mr. Banko, anything to add to this case? Banko: I have nothing to add, sir. Henzi: I was just going to ask you about the existing parking lot. Do you have any idea what the aisles are and I know that it’s hard to see because the striping is so poor. Banko: Well, it’s not only the striping, there’s the deterioration of the parking lot itself, which is going to take quite a bit of extensive work. There is nothing – you would have to go out there and physically measure because there is no striping out there. Sills: It looks like a war zone. Henzi: I can remember many occasions where the Petitioner wants a 9 ft. wide spot, but I don’t ever remember seeing an aisle width variance. How common is it for -- Banko: I have never seen it before the aisle width being a little bit smaller than what it usually is 22 that’s required down to a 20. Henzi: So if the Petitioner was denied and we said you could have less spots, but you have to stay with the width, they would just reconfigure how the spots are be? Banko: Yes, because when you look at the site plan of the property, there’s an area in the rear that shows to be grass, which I believe is an excavation that occurred there to work on the sewer a number of years ago and that’s just how it ended up in the back southeast corner of that property. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 19 of 37 August 14, 2012 Henzi: Okay. Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: Steve, so that area is considered part of the parking or not considered part of the parking? Banko: When I was looking at the site plan for this, it shows it has a grass area, but as I recall a number of years ago that was part of the parking lot and they excavated that because they were trying to do – they had a sewer problem back there. Caramagno: Okay. Let me ask you something. I know when it was looked at by the other commissions there was talk about repairing this lot. How do you repair such a lot; do you know? Banko: If you want my opinion – Caramagno: I know I have an opinion. I’m just asking you – yes. Banko: I would rototill that up or take a bulldozer in there and I would -- Caramagno: Start all over again. Banko: -- resurface the lot. I don’t know that you could really make a path work of the lot that’s been in there or not. Caramagno: Okay. Thank you. I’ve got another one – excuse me. The gutters on that building they just dump out of that plastic PVC tube into the parking lot. It looks like 4 inch, 5 inch PVC. Banko: It’s been like that for years. It’s always done that. I’m sure for the remodel of the building any everything I’m sure that would be addressed so it drains properly into it otherwise it would be draining down into the parking lot. Caramagno: Yeah, creating ice and everything else in the wintertime. Thank you. Henzi: Any other questions for Mr. Banko? Good evening. Can you tell us your names and addresses. Representative: Sure, Zack Ostroff, 2640 Water Oaks Drive, West Bloomfield, Michigan 48324. Nickolas Lin, 873 Patricia Place Drive, Westland, Michigan 481815. Henzi: Why don’t you tell us a little bit about the proposed business? Representative: First of all, I worked on the architectural plans not so much on the site plan, but I can give you a little bit of a background on where we came to and where we City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 20 of 37 August 14, 2012 are right now. Basically, obviously it was an existing bowling alley and my client purchased it and wants to put a restaurant, Chinese restaurant and a Asian grocery store, so that it will have two uses. In doing so, we went to the City Hall, City Council. We got our approval for that. We submitted a site plan that showed we were deficient about – actually we were deficient more parking spaces. We showed an 18 ft. aisle width instead of the 20 that we’re showing currently and told us to come back with something different. We tried to get as many spaces we need 83. We are trying to get as many as we can, you know, to code, so that’s where the 20 ft. aisle width came into play. We’re happy to make the 22 ft. aisle width, but we’re going to lose quite a bit of parking spaces. So, this was the best scenario that we could come up with that would maintain somewhere close to the number that we needed. And in terms of the amount of people that they will actually have on site, the owner doesn’t feel like it’s going to be, you know, it’s not going to be the parking lot all 79 or 83 spaces are not going to be full at one time just based on the use of what it is. Again, it’s not like the grocery store, it’s not like a Kroger or something like that, it’s more specialized. And again, he’s going to have a lot of people coming in and out fairly quickly for, you know, Chinese take out and there is some seating on the inside, but that’s where the majority of the parking stems from is the restaurant. I can answer any questions that you might have. Henzi: If you had 22 ft. aisle, how many spots would you lose? Representative: We would lose approximately that center of the 15 in the center. We’ve got the parking – if you see there’s a circle in the southwest corner of the lot that says 19, that butts up right next to a masonry cinderblock wall that separates the residential neighborhood from this commercial property. We can’t physically go any closer than what we are to that. We do have a civil engineer that put this together and he’s come up with a few different scenarios. We’ve maxed out as much as we could. We’ve got the detail for the double-striped parking as the City Council asked us to do and this gives us as much parking as we can. We realize that it’s deficient by the 2 ft. for the aisle width. Henzi: There was talk at Planning Commission about a marketing plan was there some sort of document that was passed out? There was some comments like suggesting that there was a great marketing plan and I didn’t hear any discussion. Representative: Honestly, I don’t know. I’ve been to all the meetings and I don’t know what you’re referring to. Henzi: There was talk about that this was a creative re-imagination of the building and that it was a great marketing plan. I guess that leads to my question ultimately is why does your client want this building? Representative: I’ll let him answer. Petitioner: The reason I purchased this building is it was in a great area. That’s the only reason I bought it. The neighborhood I can generate a lot of business. Sills: Mr. Chair. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 21 of 37 August 14, 2012 Henzi: Mr. Sills. Sills: Did you realize that there was a Chinese restaurant about a block away from where your building is? Petitioner: Yeah, I’m making it Asian and not only Chinese, but Asian. It’s not only going to be Chinese. Sills: That restaurant has been there forever. It’s been there for a long, long time. Did you check and see what type of business they will be having as far as volume was concerned? Petitioner: Yeah, yeah, I took a look at it. I took the menus. I will probably have similar but not the same, just similar, but major difference. Henzi: Any other questions? Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: There’s talk about the cross-parking agreement where is that at on this map? Representative: We don’t have the agreement drafted yet, but we’re on the east side of the property you can see there’s a circle with a 13 on it and two circles with 4. That’s the area that needs the cross-parking agreement. Caramagno: Have you talked to those people and asked about getting that agreement? Representative: He’s talked to them briefly, yeah. We don’t feel it’s going to be a problem. We just waited to make sure that we’re good with the Board before we proceed with that. Caramagno: Okay. So, you don’t feel that’s a problem. You don’t have any structure with them set up yet? Representative: No. Caramagno: Let me ask you this, what’s the plan with the parking lot? How are you going to – I see your spots, I see your lines on the paper here. What’s the plan to fix this parking lot to make it work this way? Representative: It’s going to be repaired, removed and replaced most likely, you know, to be adequate for a normal parking lot. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 22 of 37 August 14, 2012 Caramagno: You said repaired, removed or replaced. There’s a big difference between repairing and removing and replacing, which is it going to be? Petitioner: We are going to resurface. Caramagno: Resurface. Petitioner: Yeah, resurface. It is staying parking. Caramagno: As in taking this parking lot out and putting a new one down or fixing what you’ve got? Petitioner: We’re going to try to fix and resurface. I talked to one guy he recommend co-mill (sic) to me, co-mill the parking lot. Co-mill it, I’m not sure I’m using the correct word. Caramagno: You talked to a parking lot company about fixing this lot? Petitioner: No, I talking to the civil engineer that’s what he recommend to me. Representative: Not Mark Taormina, Scott Miller, I believe. Caramagno: He’s told you what about fixing this lot? Representative: We were told by the City Council that we need to make sure that the parking lot was adequate for parking. It’s kind of big. Caramagno: That’s what I’m getting – Representative: Well, we don’t know yet. We’ve got to talk to come contractors and find out, you know, what’s the best way of doing it. I mean, obviously it’s going to meet code and we’re not going to have potholes in it. We don’t want to throw good money after bad sinking money into a parking lot and have to completely gut it, you know, two years down the road. So, he’s got to get some estimates. He’s not quite at that point, but the parking lot will be a smooth surface. It will be, obviously, it will be passed by the Building Department that’s kind of what we are thinking for right now. Caramagno: Where’s the entrance? How are you going to enter the building? Where’s it entrance? Representative: There’s two entrances. There’s an existing entrance on the north side. Caramagno: Okay. Representative: And we’re proposing a new entrance on the south side. Caramagno: Are both entrances for both the restaurant and the grocery store, or how does that work? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 23 of 37 August 14, 2012 Representative: The entrance on the north side is simply for the grocery store – I’m sorry I mean for the restaurant. The entrance off the south is for both. The grocery store is in the back in the south corner, southeast corner of the building. Caramagno: Southeast. What percent of the store is grocery store? Representative: 25 percent, 30 percent. Caramagno: So, just this corner here? Representative: Correct. Caramagno: Mr. Banko, as far as handicapped parking, how is that supposed to be laid out on an establishment? If the restaurant is in the front and the entrance right, but the closest handicapped parking is all the way back in this south side of the building? Banko: It’s supposed to be close to – is the only entrance in the front? Representative: No, no, no, the primary entrance is going to be on the south side. Entrance for take out is on the south side, the entrance for the grocery is on the south side, and the main entrance for the restaurant is on the south side. We’re just simply maintaining – nobody really will probably use the north side. Banko: So your handicapped parking is going to be on the south side? Representative: Yeah, we to maintain it there, I mean, there is really no other place to put it. Caramagno: Where is going to be the entry? I see a door on the southeast corner of this building. It looks like about a 42 inch door wide. Is that going to be the entrance for the whole building? Representative: Correct. It’s a 6 ft. door. Caramagno: 6 ft. tall? Representative: No, 6 ft. wide. It’s a double door. Pastor: Sam, where do you see the door? Caramagno: Well, I went to this I seen the door. Pastor: Oh. Representative: No, no, the doors that’s existing? No, those are not anything. We submitted three sheets or sheets on the site plan and the architectural. I’ve got it right here if you don’t have it. This is the south side, this is the north, this is the restaurant, City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 24 of 37 August 14, 2012 this is the kitchen, a bunch of storage, and this is the main entrance of the south side. This is the parking lot. Caramagno: So, you come in and walk south? Representative: The grocery you come in and he’s going to have a reception here for the, you know, to come in to the restaurant or for take out as well. Caramagno: So, that’s the back parking lot? Representative: Correct. This is the back. This is the street. Caramagno: Is this a house? Representative: Yeah, yeah, it was cemented. McIntyre: I saw that the City Council – I think that was part of the discussion of what was regarded as the marketing plan because there was a lot of explanation at the City Council meeting. Representative: Right, right. McIntyre: I think that’s maybe what was considered the marketing plan. Representative: I know we got approved. I know he got the approval for the restaurant here. Caramagno: How many seats is the restaurant going to have? Petitioner: 64. Caramagno: 64 seats. So, the existing doors Representative: So, these existing doors right not anywhere -- Caramagno: Yeah, this helps a lot. Representative: I’m sorry I only brought one, but I did submit them. McIntyre: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre. McIntyre: On the entrances will there be two-way traffic on both the north and the south entrance because it seems that those are fairly narrow? Representative: Yeah, it does meet it as one way currently, so it’s going to be one way. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 25 of 37 August 14, 2012 McIntyre: So, it will stay one way? Representative: Correct. McIntyre: Because it didn’t seem to me that there would be enough room. Representative: Right, yeah, there’s no way to do a two way, right. McIntyre: Okay. And I assume it will be clear to people entering and exiting. Representative: Absolutely. McIntyre: Because there is so much congestion in that area. Representative: Right. McIntyre: Okay. Representative: Right, yeah, there is now, but we’ll make sure that there’s – it’s even more evident. I know there’s a sign on what would be the east side of the building there’s a couple signs that say one way, but we’ll make sure that we designate parking on our construction documents for that. McCue: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: How many times – I’m sorry, I’m going back to the parking lot issue and the reason that I do that is that it seems that I’ve been in multiple meetings and multiple locations at multiple times the parking lot or one of the lanes will come up. How many times has that been repaired; do you know? Banko: It may have been repaired when I first started here 16 years ago, but there has been nothing done with that lot since then. There might have been a little bit of patchwork that was done back in the day. McCue: And I’m assuming that you are clear how big of a problem that parking has been? Representative: Absolutely. We know the pipes that coming down, I mean, that’s all going to be addressed. We’re just trying not to get ourselves – you know, if we say that we’re going to remove and replace it, we don’t know – he hasn’t gotten any bids from contractors yet to see if it’s even repairable maybe it’s not even repairable. We don’t know yet. McCue: And again, it’s not for me to say one way or the other but I want to make sure that you are clear with how many problems there have been and how many times – City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 26 of 37 August 14, 2012 Representative: Absolutely, it’s not in good condition. We know that and we know that we have to bring it up to a parking lot that nobody is going to get hurt on and, you know, up to code. McCue: Well, and drainage and everything else, too. Representative: Absolutely. McCue: Thank you. Representative: You’re welcome. Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Have you talked to the Plymouth Road Development Authority yet? Representative: I’m sorry? Pastor: Have you talked to the Plymouth Road Development Authority yet? Have you talked to them about this project? Have you gotten their blessing anything? Representative: Not that I know of, no. We’ve been working with Mark Taormina pretty closely, but that’s about it and the Building Department as well. McCue: I know that Mark has discussed – we haven’t had real regular meetings. Pastor: Okay. McCue: So, he has discussed the plan and the idea. We have known that that is part of the discussion. There has not been, however, a formal presentation. Pastor: Do you plan on going -- Representative: I honestly don’t know exactly what is involved. McCue: The Plymouth Road Development Authority is basically kind of the guilding body just to make consistency up and down the Plymouth Road corridor. Representative: Right. McCue: Many of the landscaping, any of the projects, any of the new businesses coming in we kind of like to review that prior -- Representative: Okay. McCue: -- to get into City Council or to get into Zoning Board. Unfortunately, we’ve had some budgetary issues so I think it hasn’t been as predominant as what we had before, City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 27 of 37 August 14, 2012 but we do like to see those things. But in all fairness, Mark has brought that to the meetings. Pastor: Okay. McCue: Just not a formal presentation. Representative: We’ve asked from the beginning when we started, we asked Mark what procedures, you know, what meetings we need to go, what do we need to supply for each meeting, and this is the first time I am hearing about this so, not to throw him under the bus or anything, but I haven’t heard about it. Pastor: Okay. What happens if you don’t get a cross-parking agreement with this other building? How are you going to address that? Representative: Well, right now we don’t think it’s going to be a problem. Pastor: That wasn’t my question. My question was how are you going to address it? Representative: We’ll have to do something – Pastor: Because you’re going to put yourself in a pretty tough position. You’re kind of putting the cart before the horse. I would have negotiated something with the guy before coming here because now you don’t have a back-up plan. Representative: Well, I mean it’s a catch 22. If we had it and you didn’t approve it, then it’s a worthless document. Petitioner: Can I make a comment? Pastor: Sure. Petitioner: I think in the beginning next door, the doctor, he submitted a letter in the planning meeting. We went to the Board members. He didn’t have any problem with it and a lot of time when I go to my property, I see a lot of time the patients they even park their car in my parking lot. I think he would be happy if I fix the parking lot. I don’t see he would give me any problems from the doctor. Pastor: Well, that’s today when he’s using your property for free. Tomorrow you want to use his property and his patients may not be able to get into his parking lot any longer. Petitioner: Yeah, I think most times my parking lot is not going to be full. Pastor: So, you don’t expect to have any business? Petitioner: No, no, I’m not going to say. I’m not going to be able to fill the parking lot, I mean, not likely. I don’t think so, but in the busy hours the grocery store will be close so the restaurant will use all the parking space. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 28 of 37 August 14, 2012 Pastor: How do you envision your restaurant? I’m assume it’s not a breakfast restaurant, or is it? Petitioner: No, it’s full service without liquor. Pastor: Pardon me? Petitioner: It’s a full serve restaurant without serving liquor. Pastor: Okay. But are you going to be open for breakfast? Petitioner: No, no. Pastor: Okay. So, we don’t have that issue. So, basically from lunch and dinner those are busy hours? Petitioner: Yeah, yeah, lunch and dinner. Pastor: Okay. So, you don’t envision the doctor next door, I assume because you said it was a doctor, having a hard time that your parking lot is full and he can’t get his patients in because you’re all of a sudden taking all his parking spaces up at lunchtime? You don’t think that’s going to be an issue? Petitioner: No, no, not likely, I mean, I don’t think so. Pastor: Thank you. Petitioner: You’re welcome. Henzi: Any other questions? Is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against the project? If so, come on up to the podium. Henzi: You guys can have a seat and I’ll call you back. Martin: Christopher Martin, 12275 Inkster Road, Livonia 48150. Let’s not lose track that this is a vacant building. Okay? Some of the questions that were brought up – the Plymouth Road Development Authority is not necessarily a step that you have to go through in the process. I went to them. They wrote a nice letter – didn’t have much of an effect. So, I can see them working with Mark Taormina. As far as the parking lot, multiple questions on that. Whatever Engineering and Inspection approves that’s it at the end of the day no matter what your ideas might be. In regards to another restaurant, Asian restaurant somewhat close, you still have Huntington Bank. How many banks are there that’s on Plymouth Road? You worried about the competition? Let him try to put a restaurant in a vacant building. If he succeeds or fails at that, it’s up to him. So, I’d approve it. Henzi: Thank you. Are there any letters? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 29 of 37 August 14, 2012 Caramagno: Yes. There’s Sanchez at [11445 Harrison] an approval (letter was read). There’s Lydia Gold at [41839 Sunnydale] approval (letter was read). Ronald Piwowar [11449 Harrison] approval (letter was read). Dr. Charles Lechwin [28435 Plymouth Road] sends an approval (letter was read). Frances DeLuca [28501 N. Clements Circle] approval (letter was read). Henzi: Gentlemen, is there anything you would like to say in closing? Petitioner: No, do you have any more questions? Henzi: I don’t think so. Caramagno: I do. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: You’ve got a big sign in front. What’s the plan for the big sign in front? Petitioner: The big sign. We’re just using the existing posts and put a new one there. Caramagno: New signage in the existing sign? Petitioner: Yeah, yeah. Caramagno: Okay. Because it’s all busted out. Petitioner: Yeah, it’s all busted out. I’m going take the old one out. Caramagno: Okay. Henzi: Any other questions? Anything else? Petitioner: No. Henzi: Okay. I will close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: The site plan you provided helped, it helped a lot because before that I couldn’t picture this looking right at all. The issue of deficient number of parking spaces and lot width, aisle width – of course, we’re talking about parking. The number of spaces I don’t think are going to be a very critical deal and lot width is probably not going to be a critical issue as well. But what is critical for me is that the parking lot is done and is done properly because it is terrible the way it is. And I’m sure the Building Department and the Inspection Department I’m sure they will make good decisions there, but you’ve probably got a lot of money tied up or will have a lot of money tied up in this parking lot one way or the other. The other issue is your agreement with your neighbors. Certainly this doesn’t go forward in my mind without having that agreement, City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 30 of 37 August 14, 2012 so this would be pending the agreement with your neighbors for the current parking number that you suggested here tonight. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: I actually agree with Sam that nothing goes forward on this without the somewhere around 20 spots from your neighbor. The couple of deficient spots there that doesn’t give me any heartburn, the 20 ft. kind of does, but with the smaller vehicles that we have today I think it won’t be too difficult to maneuver around. So, I will be in somewhat of support. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: I will go along with the issue of the parking it was a big question. I know we spent a lot of time on it, you know, and if you can’t get an agreement with your neighbor, you guys admittedly are in some trouble. I commend you for coming up with an innovative idea for the building, but parking is a very important role. So, I will support with what Mr. Caramagno said and good luck. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I’m always excited about the fact that somebody is going to put a new business on Plymouth Road. I think that’s great and I hand it to you and I would say that most of the comments, obviously you want the parking lot and things like that done correctly, but more than anything I just want to make sure that you’re clear and that everybody has made it clear the amount of problems that you have. So, as long as we’re good with that I am okay. I would agree with my other two partners here in the fact that you actually have to have that agreement with the neighbors and I just think all of this is somewhat a moot point if we don’t have that. So, I would definitely agree that anything we would go along with would be contingent on that agreement. If you have that, I would agree I can overlook some of the parking I think with the timing and the flow in and out that I don’t think that that should be a big issue. So as long as you have that agreement, I will support. Henzi: Mr. Sills. Sills: I’m going to go back on Mr. Martin’s comments that he came up and he said, “Keep in mind that this is an empty building.” And I’ve had that in mind all the way through this discussion. I just hope that the Petitioner understands what he is stepping into. I would be a little bit – I don’t think I would feel as strongly towards this as you would, but I’m kind of conservative. I would like to see you make a go of this thing, but I would not like to see the building become empty again after a few months. So, I think you better take a good look at that parking lot because I’d be afraid to drive through there with a four-wheel drive today. It looks like a war zone back there and I don’t think you can repair that lot. I think you’re going to have to scrape it all out and start all over again and that becomes very costly, so I’d like you to keep that in mind. Enough said I agree with Mr. Caramagno on a lot of his comments and I’ll be in support. If you’re willing to go, I’ll go with you. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 31 of 37 August 14, 2012 Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre. McIntyre: I was at the City Council meeting as an audience member when you came and presented. I thought just from a resident’s perspective it was nice to see a new concept something new on Plymouth Road. I liked the concept of an Asian market and restaurant. And again, just a perspective from the City Council meeting, I think it will be important to get the message out to people that you are there because putting my ZBA hat on we would hate to see that business empty again and would have to start all over again. But I think it’s a good plan and I think having just a few parking spaces short of the requirement provided again that there’s the cross-parking agreement again is probably very workable given the nature of your two businesses in there. So, I would be supportive. Henzi: This is a very difficult case. All of the parking cases that we deal with talked about the deficiency. Today we talked about some different issues because of the uniqueness of your business. You’re at a disadvantage because it’s very difficult for you to gauge how much parking you’re actually need. When folks at Menard’s come in, they can point to their 150 other stores throughout the country and tell us how much parking they’re going to need. You have no idea. You’re going to learn during the next couple of years that you have the business. I’m not in favor of granting the variance for aisle width. I’d rather see you have many less spots, but comply with the aisle width. I would propose a temporary variance because of the unknowns going forward with how much parking you’ll actually need. You might only need 40 spots. Your parking lot might be a quarter to 50 percent full even if you comply with the aisle width. It’s impossible for us to tell. So, in any event to cut it short, I would propose a one-year temporary variance. So, the floor is open for a motion. Caramagno: I think you make a very good point of the temporary. The investment in the parking lot is going to be huge. Do you have to develop that whole parking lot if you don’t need it? Henzi: Yeah, I almost brought that up. Caramagno: That’s a good point. Henzi: You might decide you might not even want parking because it is so cost prohibitive. Representative: You’re saying basically just not to stripe the 15 in the middle and have less parking and comply with – you’ve have basically 60 ft. high width in the middle there and be deficient that many parking spaces for a year and then revisit it; is that -- Henzi: That’s what I would like. I mean, I’ve heard from the Inspection Department that he’s never seen an aisle width case ever. And so then I don’t feel the necessity given your client’s application to grant an aisle width. I know it’s only 2 ft. but – Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Instead of that, excuse me gentlemen, instead of not striping could you not take some striping and put it on an angle to increase the aisle width, but you would probably City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 32 of 37 August 14, 2012 decrease the amount of parking by probably 3 or 4 cars if you put it on an angle, use angle parking there so you’re shorting up the parking, but you can also drive through. You’ll lose a couple spots only because they are on an angle and still kind of meet in the middle with both of these situations. I mean, you’ll probably lose as I say another 3 maybe even 4 spots. Representative: My engineer did try keeping the middle. We did have a proposal out there with the middle aisle where -- Pastor: I understand that, but he was trying to maintain as many spots as possible. My proposal is lose 4. If you understand what I’m saying, that way we’re only 6 spots short or whatever it is I’m sorry – 8 spots short, but now you’ve got you’re 22 ft. aisle widths. And I know we’re trying to do this on the fly, but I really I’m not really in favor of Mr. Henzi’s idea. Sills: You know with all the question marks that are involved here with this particular case, would it be in order to table it? Pastor: I’m half tempted to do that, too. Representative: Yeah, if it would be okay doing it with just -- Sills: You know, we don’t know if we have permission from the neighbor for parking spaces. We don’t know if he needs the whole parking lot in the back. There’s a lot of questions that we don’t know. Pastor: But what I did hear was an approval letter from him. He was the doctor with the approval letter. That’s the only reason I’m not going down that road because I would have said absolutely not without an approval letter – or approval. Sills: Or pretend you didn’t read the letters. Pastor: We’re not trying to make it more difficult we’re just trying to do this once. Representative: We’re fine with coming back in a year, you know, after it’s open for a year whatever and see how much volume it is. I mean, it’s just striping so it’s cheap to put in. The parking lot will still have to be repaired, or fixed, or new, or whatever. Is that kind of what you’re thinking? Henzi: Well, I understand that any new business owner is trying to comply with the requirements and fit as many spots as possible. I don’t know that 79 is necessary maybe it is, but I’m saying I don’t like the aisle width deficiency. Maybe you can reuse some of that middle spot. Representative: We can definitely get some parking in there, but it’s not – right now we’re deficient 4 like you said, we might be deficient 10 or -- City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 33 of 37 August 14, 2012 Henzi: See that’s where I’m coming from and I’m just one person. If you were deficient 10, I’d rather see a deficiency of 10, but no aisle width deficiency. Representative: That’s fine with us. That’s fine. That’s fine with the owner. He’s fine with that. Henzi: But the Board members will talk about it because there’s – perhaps people will say, well, we want to see the site plan and what that’s going to look like. I don’t know. Pastor: Let me ask you this. If we tabled this for a new site plan for some angle parking, how does that hurt you? Representative: It hurts us because we’re trying to get everything – we’ve got almost everything wrapped up, you know, for the building and he’s trying to get in for a permit and obviously we want to do the parking lot. It would be one of the first things to get done, try to get that done before the winter so he can open up. Pushing it back another month would, you know I mean -- Pastor: Well, you have to do the parking lot either way. Representative: What’s that? Pastor: You have to do the parking lot. All’s we’re talking about is striping now. As you said, that’s easy to do. Representative: Right. Pastor: You have to repair the parking lot. It doesn’t matter if it’s 84 spots, 184 spots, or 10 spots you have to repair the parking lot. Representative: As long as, I mean, if you give some sort of approval that we can go ahead and submit plans, search and documents and then we can work this out with the striping, I mean I can get – that’s fine. That’s fine if that works. Pastor: I’m not sure how to do it though. Henzi: The next available meeting is September 11th. McIntyre: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre. Representative: Yeah, we could definitely have something by then. That’s no problem. We could probably have it in a few days. McIntyre: Do you have an idea of how many spots you would lose? Did you look at the calculations of how many spots you would lose if you didn’t get the variance from the aisle? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 34 of 37 August 14, 2012 Representative: I mean initially, I mean, I’m not a civil engineer. Initially, I know that those were middle aisles from what my guy was telling me was that we were going lose – to maintain the 2w ft. aisle width, we’re going to lose those 15 in the middle. And we could do some parallel parking in there. He says, he doesn’t recommend it - it doesn’t work real well. He did try angle parking like you suggested and he said he didn’t work real well. McIntyre: So then that would give us a variance of 19? Representative: That’s correct, 4 that we are missing now plus 15. Henzi: Well, if there’s consensus to just grant it, so you might want to consider that, too. I’m only one vote. I will say to the other Board members, if there’s consensus to approve it, I would suggest making it temporary. Duggan: If we do the temporary for a year, they would still have to fix it and then we would be coming back to talk about striping? Would that be the -- Henzi: That would basically in part. When we do the temporary variances for parking, it’s done so that we can evaluate whether it’s appropriate. So, in a year they would come back. We’d go out to the site several times. He would tell us a little bit about what his peak hours are, what his usage is. We would visualize. We would say, hey, I went there four times in one week and there were only three cars there. So, he’s got way enough parking or if there’s all kinds of neighbors complaining because there’s too much parking. If the doctor now says, hey, I can’t even fit my patients in this is ridiculous, then he’s asking us for another variance. We re-decide. And I’m of this thinking because we’ve got a bowling alley that’s going to be a restaurant/market. This doesn’t happen very often and it’s impossible for them to even gauge what he needs. McCue: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: In following your thought because the concern of the aisle width reduction, we could do a temporary variance for a year with the required width; correct? And then, at the end of the year to come back and see whether a reduction of that many parking spots would actually hamper the business? Henzi: Right. Pastor: Why don’t you do it the opposite way? Give them the 20 ft. variance and if it doesn’t cause a problem, we’re done. If it causes a problem, it could still be a one year, you can still see what you want to see when it comes closer to our other than the 2 ft. depth difference – that 2 ft. is not 2 ft. it’s 4 ft. It’s 2 ft. on each side. Henzi: That’s fine by me. I really don’t care. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 35 of 37 August 14, 2012 Pastor: Because if we give them one year now, he goes forward. If we don’t give him the one year now he can go forward, but then he’s going to go forward with questions especially as you presented. All of a sudden, we have a bunch of letters from the neighbors saying these guys are parking in my front yard – I don’t know. McIntyre: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre. McIntyre: Point of information. What are the implications for the usability of the parking lot and for customers and for traffic flow of reduced aisle width? Henzi: Mr. Banko? Banko: Personally myself, I don’t believe that it would be a real issue and I don’t think that if you granted the variance temporarily for a year or two years or you visit the issue two years from now, obviously if there’s no problems with the aisle width as it stands, it could be a case in point for anything in the future. Henzi: All right. I’ll go along with that as long as it’s temporary. I will approve a temporary. If Steve’s not concerned, then I think it would be fine. Pastor: 20 ft. long Banko: I really don’t think that it would be an issue. Of course, that’s only my opinion. Henzi: They’re going to have to do something with that middle aisle because people are going to park there no matter what. Pastor: But if there’s no other parking, they’re going to park in the center. Representative: That might be dangerous. Pastor: Without striping I think it’s very dangerous. Representative: I know some people go on an angle and some straight. Pastor: Go to any construction site and see the parking lot before the stripes are there. Henzi: Right. So, because my concern was primarily let’s wait and see what kind of parking needs and make sure we have, then I’m satisfied that I would go along with these as long as it’s temporary and then they come back. I mean, we could keep giving temporary or we can make it permanent at that point. That’s just my suggestion. You don’t have to follow it. So, anybody want to make a motion? Upon Motion by Caramagno, supported by Pastor, it was: City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 36 of 37 August 14, 2012 RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-08-40: Nickolas Lin, 873 Patricia Place Dr., Westland, MI 48185, seeking to operate a grocery store with restaurant in an existing building, resulting in deficient number of parking spaces and parking lot aisle width. A cross parking agreement is required with adjacent property owner(s) as required by City Council. Parking count provided assumes this agreement will be obtained. Parking Spaces Aisle Width Required: 83 Required: 22 ft. Provided: 79 Proposed: 20 ft. Deficient: 4 Deficient: 2 ft. The property is located on the south side of Plymouth (28455) between Garden and Harrison, be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because this is an existing ex-bowling alley that is going to be converted into a restaurant/specialty market. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because it would not allow him to pursue a vacant building that has been sitting on Plymouth Road deteriorating for many years. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because we are not sure at this point the number of parking spaces required and it’s only very few in deficiency right now. The parking aisle width is minor at this point and we are not sure if it is going to be a major issue, which would allow us to put a one- year variance for this aspect of the petition to review in a year. 4. The Board received five (5) 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” 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 there be a two-year temporary variance for the aisle width. 2. That the parking lot be resurfaced to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and Building Department. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 37 of 37 August 14, 2012 3. That the building is built and remodeled consistent with the plans of the Planning Commission and the Livonia City Council resolution of July 2, 2012 and with the plans presented to the Board. 4. That there be a cross-parking agreement with 17 spots as set forth by the City Council requirement. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Caramagno, Pastor, Duggan, McCue, McIntyre, Sills, Henzi NAYS: None Henzi: The variance is granted with these conditions. You’ve got a two-year variance for the aisle width. It’s got to be resurfaced with the satisfaction of Inspection and Engineering. It’s got to be built and remodeled according to the plans and in accordance with the Planning Commission including the Council’s resolution of July 2, 2012 and then you’re required to get the cross-parking agreement for 17 spots as set forth by City Council requirements. Good luck. Representative: Thank you very much. Petitioner: Thank you. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m. __________________________ SAM CARAMAGNO, Secretary ___________________________ MATTHEW HENZI, Chairman /hm