Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-10-09 City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 of 25 October 9, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF LIVONIA MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD OCTOBER 9, 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, October 9, 2012. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matthew Henzi, Chairman Craig Pastor, Vice President Sam Caramagno, Secretary Edward E. Duggan, Jr. Elizabeth H. McCue Kathleen E. McIntyre MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert E. Sills OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Fisher, 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. 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 was 5 persons present in the audience. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 of 25 October 9, 2012 (7:04 1/140) APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-10-47: An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Wesley Tucker, 32908 Perth, Livonia, MI 48154, seeking to erect a six foot tall privacy fence upon a corner lot, along the side street property line, resulting in the fence being excess in height. Fence Height Allowed: 5 ft. Proposed: 6 ft. Excess: 1 ft. The property is located on the north side of Perth (32908) between Westmore and Loveland. Henzi: Mr. Banko, anything to add to this case? Banko: I have nothing to add at this time. Henzi: Any questions for Mr. Banko? Hearing none, will the Petitioners please come forward? You can take those two seats in front. Good evening. Can you tell us your names and address, please? Petitioner: Denise Kobelski-Tucker, 32908 Perth Street, Livonia, Michigan 48154. Petitioner: Wesley Tucker, 32908 Perth Street, Livonia, Michigan 48154. Henzi: Mr. and Mrs. Tucker, why don’t you tell us why you want to construct a privacy fence. Petitioner Kobelski-Tucker: Well, the 5 ft. privacy fence we don’t think will be tall enough because we have three dogs and because we have a lot of traffic from the school going back and forth. The older kids like rile them up and they come over and they throw – let’s say they’re walking their dog and they throw their little bags over and so forth. They throw all kinds of stuff over. And so we thought a 6 ft. fence would be nice. The dogs would be quiet and then they probably couldn’t get over and try to rile them up when they’re out there. Henzi: Do you know the height of the fences on either side of your property? Petitioner Kobelski-Tucker: I’m not sure. I don’t know. Henzi: Then in our packet we’ve got a picture of a fence called a Norfolk One; is that the one that you want to put up? Petitioner Kobelski-Tucker: Yes. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 of 25 October 9, 2012 Henzi: What color do you propose? Petitioner Kobelski-Tucker: We were thinking an almond color and we’re still undecided actually about if we’re going to do a wood fence, which we would do just natural with a stain or if we would do an almond color – what do you call it? Tucker: Vinyl. Petitioner Kobelski-Tucker: Vinyl fence with a gate. Henzi: What’s the first kind that you’re undecided about? Petitioner Kobelski-Tucker: A wood fence that is stained. Henzi: Okay. Any questions for the Petitioners? Duggan: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: Would the fence just go along the one side of your house? Petitioner Kobelski-Turner: Yes, just the Loveland side. Duggan: Okay. Thank you. Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: The fence in your backyard with the one with the vinyl slats there or the slats in it is that about 5 ft. tall; do you know? Petitioner Kobelski-Turner: The one that we have right now? Pastor: The one in the backyard with the vinyl slats in it? Petitioner Kobelski-Turner: Oh. Pastor: You have one on the side yard. Petitioner Kobelski-Turner: Yeah, but the one in the back that might be – no, I’m going to -- Turner: Yeah, that’s a little taller. Petitioner Kobelski-Turner: Yeah, that could be 4 ½ or 5 ft; yes. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 of 25 October 9, 2012 Petitioner Turner: Well, we don’t propose to put a fence across the back just on the side. Petitioner Kobelski-Turner: Just on the side, yeah. Pastor: Okay. And you’re saying kids are throwing things in your yard. Petitioner Kobelski-Turner: Yes. Petitioner Turner: They’re taunting the dog. They’re very excitable and they start barking a lot and everything. They’re hanging over the fence and taunting them and all this. Pastor: Who’s hanging over the fence the dogs or the kids? Petitioner Kobelski-Turner: The kids. Petitioner Turner: Oh, yeah, they get them going. Petitioner Kobelski-Turner: The dogs are little. Pastor: What kind of dogs are they? Petitioner Kobelski-Turner: One is a Labrador mix. They’re all 24 pounds. Pastor: Okay. Petitioner Kobelski-Turner: And two Puggles. Pastor: Okay. In your packet you show us this vinyl fence. Petitioner Kobelski-Turner: Star Fence Company. Pastor: Yeah, they show a fence in the same – I don’t know what I did with it. Here it is. They show a fence that has a lattice on top. Would you have any objections to putting the solid fence 5 ft. and then the lattice that last foot? Petitioner Turner: Well, the people walking by will still be able to see the dogs there and, you know, once they see them and they know they’re back there, I mean, I don’t know. Petitioner Kobelski-Turner: Yeah. Petitioner Turner: We’d like to restrict the view of the dogs from anybody walking by the side yard. That’s what we’re trying to do. Restrict the peoples’ view, too. Not only that the dogs are chewing up the backyard real bad. We live in a side lot, a corner lot. Pastor: I know the house very well. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 of 25 October 9, 2012 Petitioner Turner: Yeah, and there’s people across the street that face our backyard. When they walk out of their door, they see our backyard and our backyard is kind of tore up from the dogs so, we’re trying to kind of make it pleasant for them to look into. Petitioner Kobelski-Turner: The nicer we can make it look for them the better. Petitioner Turner: We could. I don’t want to do that, but if that’s all we got we might. Pastor: You propose to come within a foot of the sidewalk like your existing fence is? Petitioner Kobelski-Turner: Yes, we will have that taken out. Pastor: Thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against this project? If so, come on up to the table. I see no one coming forward. Are there any letters on this case? Caramagno: We have an approval from Joanne Demers [32924 Perth] (letter was read). Mr. & Mrs. Richard Groen send an approval [32953 Grennada St.]. James Rees [32923 Perth] approval (letter was read). Noel Francis Mullett [32950 Perth] sends an approval. Winifred Heimiller [14166 Loveland] approval (letter was read). Lawrence Zebley [32909 Perth] approval. Henzi: Mr. & Mrs. Tucker, is there anything you would like to say in closing? Petitioner Kobelski-Turner: No, just thank you for having us here and we would like to put it up and we can assure you that it will be an enhancement and something that’s best for the whole neighborhood. Keep their big mouths shut and also have us have a little bit of privacy and not have our neighbors have to look at them out there also. Henzi: Thanks. I will close the public portion of the case and begins the Board’s comments with Mrs. McCue. McCue: It makes sense to me. I can’t imagine having three dogs in my backyard and I can totally see high school kids walking by having a fun time with that at the end of a school day. I like the fact that it will quiet the dogs, which will give you peace. But also give the neighbors peace in addition and it will help to mask the backyard that you said has been dug up by the dogs, so I will support. Petitioner Kobelski-Turner: Thank you. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: I, too, will support. You’re right on the corner. I think the privacy fence will look great right there as well, so I will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 of 25 October 9, 2012 Pastor: Yeah, I’m not a proponent of the 6 ft. privacy fence. I understand the reason you’re asking for it. I know that subdivision extremely well since I grew up on that particular street. So, I’m torn. I’m not sure if I’m going to support this or not at this moment. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: As I drove by, it was on the verge of being dark and as I came around the lights from the vehicle were shining basically in your yard and to some extent there. The reason for the fence is your dogs you say and I can see where dogs can bother by people walking up and down the walk there. You made less comments that you wanted it for your own personal privacy. If I lived there, I would want it for my personal privacy because your yard is there for all the world to see. Is it Loveland there? Petitioner Kobelski-Turner: Yes. Caramagno: It’s a pretty main drag for traffic getting out of the subdivision. Petitioner Kobelski-Turner: Right. Caramagno: So, I will be in support. I think the fact that you’re going to do it in vinyl even makes me further support it. I feel stronger about it because vinyl is nice and it will always be nice. So, those are my reasons. Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre. McIntyre: I think that it is a very reasonable request. I drove around the neighborhood. I didn’t see any 6 ft. privacy fences in the property immediately adjacent to you, but throughout the neighborhood there are 6 ft. privacy fences. I think when you’re on a heavily trafficked – part of your yard is on a heavily trafficked road as Loveland is, it’s very appropriate. Whether or not you have dogs it’s an issues of privacy, it’s an issue of security. I know you said that you were thinking about a wooden fence. Personally, I like the look of wood the problem is if you’re not diligent in upkeep and I’m only saying that from somebody deck; right, oh every year we’re going to be out there and, you know, do it - and it is hard to keep up with. I favor the vinyl for privacy fences just because of the issue of maintenance and I think that that’s the predominant material now that we’re seeing in the city so, I think it tends to get into – not that everything should look uniform, but it gives kind of a nice long-term good appearance so, I don’t have any issues supporting that. Henzi: I will go along with the request, too, for all the reasons stated. There is really nothing that I can add. The floor is open for a motion. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 of 25 October 9, 2012 Upon Motion by Duggan, supported by Caramagno, it was: RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-10-47: An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Wesley Tucker, 32908 Perth, Livonia, MI 48154, seeking to erect a six foot tall privacy fence upon a corner lot, along the side street property line, resulting in the fence being excess in height. Fence Height Allowed: 5 ft. Proposed: 6 ft. Excess: 1 ft. The property is located on the north side of Perth (32908) between Westmore and Loveland, be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met due to the Petitioner’s location on a corner and off a main drag. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because it would be extremely inconvenient for them due to the location of their property, car lights, and foot traffic. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because there is overwhelming support from neighbors. 4. The Board received (5) five letters of approval and no letters of objection. 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 fence be built as presented to the Board. 2. That the existing fence be removed. 3. That the fence be constructed of vinyl. 4. That the fence be built in four months. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 of 25 October 9, 2012 ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Duggan, Caramagno, McCue, McIntyre, Henzi NAYS: Pastor ABSENT: Sills City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 of 25 October 9, 2012 (7:18 #1/550) APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-10-48: An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Hart & Leidal Investment Company, LLC, 12100 Globe St., Livonia, MI 48150, on behalf of Lessee Continuum Services, 32225 Schoolcraft Rd., Livonia, MI 48150, seeking to erect a wall sign upon a multi-tenant industrial building, resulting in excess wall sign area. Existing wall sign to be removed. Wall Sign Area Allowed: 10 sq. ft. Proposed: 79 sq. ft. Excess: 69 sq. ft. The property is located on the south side of Schoolcraft (32225) between Hubbard and Merriman. Henzi: Mr. Banko, anything to add to this case? Banko: I have nothing to add, sir. Henzi: Any questions for Mr. Banko? Good evening. Representative: Good evening. My name is Keith Murray. I work for Visual Entities. I’m presenting this on their behalf as the tenant of the owner’s building Leidal and Hart. I just want to make a note here on the pubic notice. It says existing wall sign to be removed. There is no sign on the building for Continuum. There is a sign for Step – Leidal: Yeah, what there was -- Henzi: Can you say your name and address, please? Leidal: Don Leidal. Leidal and Hart, Hart and Leidal Investment. What happened is we had this letters, of course, I think everybody in Livonia has seen Leidal and Hart up there on the building for 50 years. And we’ve had those letters and when, you know, when we got the tenant, we told them – I said, hey, there’s a good chance you guys can have the same signage, but put your letters up there. And so they said fine and they liked the idea and that’s really where we’re at now because my superintendent I told him not to take the letters down. We were in Florida and they took them down. So, anyway they’re down and meanwhile they want to put the letters back up in their name. That’s what they want to do. Representative: The client I am representing, Continuum Services, he’s in a traffic jam and he might make it here or not, but – Henzi: You’re from the sign company; right? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 10 of 25 October 9, 2012 Representative: I’m from the sign company. They hired us to come in with the variance. I found a photo of this on a website just to show you what was there previously the signage on the building, which has since been taken down. There is some ancillary signage on the side of the building as you enter the building. When Continuum signed the lease in January of 2011, the only thing on the lease was signage is your problem. You pay for and, you know, you can put it up. But they also saw this Leidal and Hart sign on the building prior to that coming down. So, it was an assumption they made – well, okay, we’ll be able to do something similar. So, they contracted us back in I think May or June to talk about signage. Now, what we proposed was proportionate to their leased space, which I think is in your packet. That’s what we’re here for. So, you know, like everybody nobody thinks about signage until it’s all over and done. You go up and down Schoolcraft a lot of the signage is proportioned to the building, but it doesn’t mean that it could be in a different zone. That’s what we tried to explain to our clients that what you see doesn’t necessarily reflect what you want on your building. So, we presented our package to the City and obviously it was too much. Leidal and Hart, the signage there was much larger in square footage than what we’re proposing, but it doesn’t mean anything because it’s a multi-tenant space now. There’s two tenants there. So, when we look at this and as much as I’ve traveled up and down 96 and sat along the highway, different speeds going west and east, it’s very evident that the signs on all of those buildings are there for a reason. One it helps in exiting the highway. I’ve noticed many, many businesses along Schoolcraft that have helped me get off at the right exit and a lot of times you may have to turn have to turn back around back on the overpasses to get to it, but they’re very visible. I’ve got a couple other – well, I think everybody knows what the building looks like right now without the signs; correct? Leidal: Here. Representative: No, that’s okay. Under what’s by code, 10 sq. Ft. I’m passing this around. This is what the sign would look like on the building. It is scaled correctly to the size of the building and their frontage. What I’m passing around right now is taken from Schoolcraft. It was a little tough getting some photos from the expressway with the shoulder and stuff and I didn’t feel like getting run over but – so I came up across on Schoolcraft to take this next photo showing the sign that’s allowed by code right now, which is at 10 sq. ft. You can’t see the sign from the highway. You can’t see the tenant next door to Continuum from the highway. You see an object on the building. You can’t identify it. Continuum is a company that has 80 employees. They deal with multi- vendors, deliveries throughout the day whether it be salt, fuel, landscaping. They contract a lot of employees out so this is a constant influx of people coming to this building. And they service a lot of companies and owners of other properties, plus they are contracted with some of the cities as well. So, there’s a lot of traffic coming through to the site and you’ve only got one way to get there. So, if you’re not familiar with the area like all the other signage on all those buildings, it’s very helpful. It becomes more of a – I want to say there’s some safety involved here because you’re not going to have to strain going 75 miles an hour on the highway to identify a building and you can identify them. I drove in the slow lane and I at 70 miles an hour I could see the buildings coming up, so I could make that proper exit to get to the building I wanted to get to. So, with the sign that they are allowing, it presents in my opinion more of a City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 11 of 25 October 9, 2012 safety issue. This here is the sign that we’re proposing on the building from the same vantage point on Schoolcraft heading west. I will show you this one. I don’t know if you have this in your packet. This is just more of the place – again, the sign that we are proposing on the building so you can see it standing in front of the building. Leidal: What are they doing with this? Representative: Well, that’s the sign we are proposing right there. This is a little different. Leidal: Oh. Representative: Because it’s how you have to put it in the photo. Leidal: Oh. Representative: We certainly don’t think it would be a detriment to the community being that most of the businesses are commercial. It certainly wouldn’t be bigger than the signs along Schoolcraft. I think it was 69 sq. ft. over what’s allowed. To put a 10 sq. ft. sign on that building would – you’re not going to see it. Henzi: I have a couple of questions for you. Representative: Sure. Henzi: In our packet there’s a copy of a permit from 1972, which states that the Leidal and Hart sign is 47 sq. ft. Representative: Okay. Henzi: Did you know that? Representative: No, I didn’t. Henzi: Did you think it was bigger than 47 sq. ft? Representative: Based on just measuring including the ancillary signage, so I don’t know if that was for their main building sign. Leidal: What year was that? Henzi: 1972. The permit fee was 21 bucks. Leidal: All right. We can go back to a history lesson here. We built the building in 1970. We got the permit. And of course in 1972, we pretty well probably could have had our sign out there, but the building was only 60 ft. wide and 100 ft. deep. That’s how we started and then along about ’59 Step – well, WCAR at that time, and we went ahead and made a deal with them and then we put on the 15,500 sq. ft. on to the City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 12 of 25 October 9, 2012 building. That’s what made the building as big as it is today and then we were able to come back and put our sign up like you see here. Henzi: So, you think the sign as of when you last had it was bigger than 47 sq. ft? Leidal: Oh, I have no idea back then I don’t remember. Representative: If you put a rectangular – well, I don’t know. I’d just be purely guessing at this point. Henzi: Okay. Representative: Because this photo here I don’t know how old it is. Henzi: That’s fair. We’ve all seen it. Representative: Yeah. Henzi: I want to move on to make sure that I understand your argument on the - you’ve got some text here and it’s in our packet. You talked about the fact that with the property so visible from traffic traveling west on I-96, the building would not be identified for safe exiting on to Schoolcraft. I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying that the property is visible, but the signage isn’t. Representative: Well, the property is certainly visible, but at 10 sq. ft. traveling west at 10 sq. ft. and with the drawing – with the sign at 10 sq. ft. you’re not going to see that in order to exit properly your next exit. You can’t identify the sign that’s on the building now, which is the other tenant. Henzi: All right. The next question is I don’t know what Continuum does and one of the problems I have is that this isn’t like a CVS. Representative: Right. Henzi: Where you get spontaneous traffic or even somebody who’s looking to pick up a prescription. You’re getting a specific group of people going into that building most of them know I exit at Farmington or I exit at Merriman. What is it that Continuum does that you think is necessary for somebody to see from the highway. Representative: Well, they do have a change of people. They have a change of vendors that come there. They’re using salt trucks. They’re looking at the best price, so you’re not always getting the same truck driver going there. They have contract employees – excuse me. Mulligan: Yes. Representative. Scott, perfect timing. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 13 of 25 October 9, 2012 Henzi: And maybe this is the guy for that question. Representative: Yes. Henzi: Good timing. Can you say your name and address, please? Mulligan: Sure. My name is Scott Mulligan. I’m with Continuum Services. The address is 3125 Schoolcraft Road, Livonia. Henzi: All right. I’ll repeat my question to you. We’re looking for an explanation of what it is Continuum Services does and who are the folks who are going to your business? Specifically, what we want to know is why is it the folks who need to see your sign from the highway as opposed to knowing I get off at Farmington. Do you have the kind of people who are going to go there once a year or are you only getting the same people coming there everyday? Mulligan: Well first off, we’re a facility services company and out of that location we run our exterior services operations, which is snow removal and landscaping. We also have sweeping, irrigation and full service. So, we have deliveries each and every day, different vendors. We have about 80 employees that come out of there and about 60 trucks. A pretty high turnover business as you can imagine because they’re not highly skilled, highly paid employees and we use a staffing company as well so they are placing people to our location. Many of them car pool together so, we get a lot of traffic that comes in and out of there. Often times people are coming eastbound and westbound on I-96 and it’s not until you see the sign on the building that you even know what exit to get off on. So, it’s pretty difficult to get to and for the last 10 months of being an occupant in the building, we’ve had several missed deliveries whether it be salt vendors last winter, whether it be mulch vendors in the spring, whether it be daily flowers, plant material, trees, shrubs that type of stuff. Henzi: All right. And you have 80 employees stationed on any given day? Mulligan: Correct. Henzi: Okay. Thank you. Mulligan: And in then winter we’re operating, you know, any time it snows so there can be people coming in at two in the morning and all different hours of the night. Henzi: Okay. Thanks for the explanation. Mulligan: Yes. Henzi: Any questions? Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 14 of 25 October 9, 2012 Pastor: Mr. Leidal? Leidal: Yes. Pastor: You say this is a multi-tenant building, how many square feet is this building and how many square feet does this particular tenant have? Leidal: Well, the whole building I think is around a little over 22,000 sq. ft. So, well, it’s Leidal and Hart or Continuum probably occupies about 8,000 sq. ft. and Step, which is next door probably has 15, 5000. Pastor: Is that Continuum, you’re saying Step? Continuum, how many square feet does Continuum have? Leidal: About 8,000. Pastor: So, you have three businesses in there no more. Murray: No, just two. Leidal: We have two tenants. Pastor: You have two tenants and yourself? Leidal: Well, no, I’m not in there. We’re in Globe Street. Leidal and Hart moved to Globe Street. We needed more room so we got five acres there at Globe Street right there the other side of Amrhein. And Leidal and Hart grew to a – a little bigger. Well, I’ve got the young guys doing it now so I’m not doing it. Pastor: So, your other tenant that has the larger part of the building are they going to be here next week for a sign? Leidal: No, no, Step doesn’t – they don’t need the advertisement like we did and like Continuum did. No, they don’t need it. Pastor: What do they do? Leidal: They’re with the -- Murray: It’s a resource -- Leidal: They’re with the retarded – I hated to use the word, but they’re with the retarded people and, you know, that type. They’ve been there since about 25 years. Pastor: Okay. So, I can assume that they’re not going to be asking for any signage. The reason for my question is you’re asking for a large amount of over signage on this building and you’re telling me there is another tenant. I’m worried about the other tenant coming in next week, next month, next year and saying -- City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 15 of 25 October 9, 2012 Leidal: Look at how much signage we had and you’re not having – Pastor: I understand that but you had the whole building. Leidal: We didn’t have the whole building. Murray: No. Leidal: We never did have the whole building. We only had the 8,000 sq. ft. Murray: Right. Leidal: And we don’t have the signs down here no more and they’re going to reduce this sign considerably. Pastor: Reduce what sign considerably? Leidal: The Leidal and Hart Mason Contractors sign. Pastor: Are you putting that back up? Leidal: Oh no, we’re over on Globe Street now. Pastor: Well, you’re saying reduce it considerably. I’m trying to figure out – Representative: I think he’s trying to correlate what we’re putting up is probably a little less. Chairman, I think you had a permit from some time ago so, I don’t know how old this photo is. I grabbed it off the website, but no, I think that’s what he’s referring to is that comparable or a little smaller than what was up there already. Leidal: It’s a lot smaller. Pastor: Okay. Thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? McCue: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I’m just trying to reflect a little bit about other signage up and down Schoolcraft and not just the building right that is adjacent to it. I’m not arguing that maybe they’re smaller than what other people would like, but I don’t really that we have a whole lot of signs that are really large up and down Schoolcraft. Representative: Sixteen. McCue: Pardon? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 16 of 25 October 9, 2012 Representative: Sixteen. McCue: But signs according to size in relation to what we are looking at. Representative: Correct, but they’re all visible from the highway. You’ve got the gun range, you’ve got World Wide Net, you’ve got Blimpe, you’ve got the furniture place. Again, they may have bigger frontage, but the point – they’re not large signs, but they’re visible from the highway. McCue: And again, they’re still based on the square footage of the building. Representative: Correct. McCue: And that goes back to my concern every single time we have this signage issue is we start doing variances and what Mr. Pastor is saying, you know, it’s hard to know where to cut that off so, I think that’s probably most of our biggest concern here. Okay. Thank you. Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: You’re asking for 79 sq. ft. a little more than almost eight times what is allowed. What can you really get away with and so we can both compromise? Can you get down to 50 sq. ft; would that still work for you? I have a hard time going eight times over our ordinance. Representative: But that’s like going eight times over zero; do you know what I’m saying? Pastor: If you go eight times over the speed limit, you’re still speeding. Representative: With all due respect it’s - I know, but 10 sq. ft. Pastor: I’m on board with that. I’m saying I’ll give you some more, but I’m not sure I’m going to give you this much more. Representative: I understand where you’re going and again I’m trying to keep things in perspective, too, in that we didn’t really feel – I mean you look at what we’re looking for again over what’s allowed. In my opinion, I don’t think it’s a lot, but I’m sitting here and you guys are sitting there. So, I’m trying to convince you that based on the highway and the amount of traffic going through this area this services that they’re providing we think it’s a viable solution and we’re not even talking about the MDOT stuff that’s going to come up next year that’s going to just rip this whole place apart and, you know, going to make it even worse. Pastor: MDOT is a temporary situation. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 17 of 25 October 9, 2012 Representative: I understand. Pastor: So, I can’t base my decision today on something temporary down the road. My question was is there something else, you know, 204 lineal inches, 57 inches tall, I don’t know what your individual letters are because it doesn’t really tell me on this. But is there something else that you guys can present to us that might be a little smaller to help, at least me, with a decision? Is this the absolute only thing you want to do? Leidal: I personally think that’s a nice-looking sign. Now, if you start screwing around with the thing, it’s going to make it where it’s not as good looking as it is. Mulligan: Part of our challenge is our name long, right? Continuum is not like Brix, which has actually the sign down the road for a construction company in which we do business with that makes it very easy to find because it’s lit up and you can see it from the expressway you know exactly where to get off. His letters are actually larger than ours, but his sign is smaller because the name is Brix. Many of the signs are larger than ours on the road, but our name is much larger. McIntyre: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre. McIntyre: This is directed to the visual entities. Do you have any calculations that show how much time people need to see a sign? I know when we were looking at some sign packages from St. Mary’s Hospital, which is very different -- Representative: Right. McIntyre: -- because it’s public safety. It was compelling data because they could show how large a sign had to be to be recognized at a certain distance and at a certain rate of speed. The issue we get into is we all acknowledge 10 sq. ft. is not sufficient if you need to be recognized from the highway. I don’t like arbitrary variances because this is what we think we need. Data that would support the sign that you need and at the same time I will say that I know one of the most dangerous situations you have on a roadway are varying speeds and on a freeway we all see the problem, right? When you have people going 80 and then you have people going 30, or 50. or 45 to look for a building. So, something that helps – and you know, a lot of us think, oh, there’s GPS now, right, but the bottom line is a lot of people who are coming to your business don’t have GPS that says exit at Farmington Road and make a u-turn. So, data that would help us understand what size you need to be recognized, you know, both to support a Livonia business; right? And not impede your business by not having people be able to find it and then, you know, contributing to a safer driving experience on I-96. That data for me personally would be very compelling in helping figure out exactly what size I’d be comfortable or the extent to the variance that I would comfortable approving. Representative: Let me ask the Board this, is this a general consensus? Would this be fair to say is a reasonable request? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 18 of 25 October 9, 2012 Henzi: Yes. Maybe not so much the data about stop/start for me personally -- Representative: Right. Henzi: -- but why 79, why not 109, why not 59? Representative: Right. Henzi: You were going to get asked that question by somebody. Representative: Oh, absolutely. You meet how often? Henzi: Twice a month. The next available meeting is November 13. Representative: Would we have to still come and do another application fee or – only because I’d like to run the numbers obviously because I can’t just say, yeah, we can do this and then we have the same problem. I could consult with my client and look at this as a reasonable request from board and see what we come up with. Henzi: You don’t have to pay what happens is we could table your request and then you would contact the ZBA office. If you do that before Wednesday, October 24th, then you could get on for November 13th. And then you come back you can do the exact same proposal. You could have a more definitive statement that specifically answers Mrs. McIntyre’s questions or you can say, I think it’s 79 because 21 ½ in letters are according to some standard seen from 200 ft. away et cetera. McIntyre: I didn’t mean to suggest – it’s got to be very technical -- Representative: No, but I don’t -- McIntyre: But some of that, you know, how right - exactly what Chairman Henzi said. Representative: If we were to just stop right now and let you vote, it could possibly be done. Henzi: Right. The incentive for you is if it’s tabled, you don’t lose. Representative: Correct. Henzi: The other thing that we don’t like to do is get into horse trading and then you’re on the spot and you say, well, we’ll go down to 59, but it turns out you really would want 69. Representative: Right. Mulligan: Right. I appreciate the willingness to allow us to have the variance and have a bigger sign. I can tell you to some extent without scientific calculations we’ve gone through the exercise. The original sign that was designed was much larger than the City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 19 of 25 October 9, 2012 one we are proposing to you today for 79 and when we found out that it was limited to 10 sq. ft, which I’m told that was designed just to put the address, which really doesn’t do any good because now you don’t have a name of a business so, that’s why it’s written that way from what I’ve been told. We shrunk it down significantly from our original design and as Mr. Hart (sic) is saying, significantly shrunk it down from what was there existing. So, my impression when I was attracted to the facility was the ease to get on and off the expressway and be able to have great signage based on the existing tenant that was there. So, we shrunk it down more than half of what it was previously. Henzi: That’s a fair comment, but you did miss – we talked about the fact that there’s a building permit within our packet that says 1972 a sign permit was granted for 47 sq. ft. Mr. Leidal says he’s not sure, but there’s general consensus that you had bigger. It was bigger than 47 sq. ft. and so I’ve driven by and seen it many, many times, but I don’t remember if it’s bigger than 47 sq. ft. That’s another thing that if you came back to us and said, look, Leidal and Hart sign was 85 sq. ft. For me personally, I might be a little bit more inclined to just say, fine, take the 79. Leidal: Well, at that time the building was only 60 ft. wide. Representative: Well, we do have the ability with this photo to calculate it. Fisher: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question? Henzi: Sure. Fisher: Is the tenant space we’re talking about, the Continuum tenant space bigger than 60 ft. wide? Leidal: No. When we built the building originally, it was 60 ft. wide. Fisher: Right. Leidal: Now, we put on 15,000 sq. ft. so that building probably is about 150 wide. Representative: Their lease, the frontage from what I understood is 60 ft. Ledial: No, the building is 200 ft. Representative: No, no, no, their leased space. The frontage of the building facing Schoolcraft. I don’t know other than looking at the site plan how deep it is. McCue: The addition was placed on the back; correct? Leidal: Pardon? McCue: Was the addition placed on the back or on the front? It didn’t necessarily increase the frontage on Schoolcraft; correct? It went behind it? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 20 of 25 October 9, 2012 Leidal: We only did the frontage – Representative: So, it went deep into the property 700 ft, I think. McCue: Okay. Leidal: Well, originally that property was 13 or 14 – about 13, 1,400 ft. deep originally because they came through and put Hubbard Road in and they put Industrial which split our property which we built another building in back of that so we have an industrial building back there. Henzi: Well, I defer to you. It seems like you may be at a point where you would like have us table this so that you could come back. Murray: Well, I want to do what’s best for the client because I have to make a judgment call, too. If I say, let’s vote on it, we’re done. We don’t have another opportunity because we could come back and we’ve done all the calculations and we’re still at where we’re at. I can do can calculations on that and if they come close, then we’re in a better situation to come back in a couple of weeks or whatever than to just have you decide right now. Henzi: Well, to be fair to you we’ll go around the table and see what the members think and then you can get a flavor of what everyone is thinking. If there’s a consensus, we’ll take it from there. Mrs. McCue, what do you think? McCue: I think I’d go back to what Mrs. McIntyre was saying if we can make – none of us want to be unreasonable. We certainly want to help with your, you know, obviously we’re huge proponents of having the business here so we don’t want to be unreasonable. But I think when we have the information to make an educated guess, like she said, when we start making arbitrary variances, not only does that create just a kind of a gray area for you, but it then creates a gray area for everyone else down the road. So, I think if we could possibly have some of those numbers, we would be able to make a more educated decision. Representative: Right. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: With what we have now, it’s way too much. I was going to talk to you about you said you have the long name. I was going to ask you guys about cutting off the “Services” on your name, which would change up your name, but you’re asking for eight times the amount that we have that we’re allowed to give. I know you need more. I’m totally for more, but you’re asking for eight times the amount and the one thing we have to compare it to is the 47 ft. on this permit. So, I’d like to see a little more information. I’m definitely open to giving you guys more. I think you need it especially if you have 80 employees in and out there all the time. Just at this time there is no way I would go for 79 ft. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 21 of 25 October 9, 2012 Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Petitioner: Yeah, I agree with that. I was thinking the exact same time what does the “Services” provide them? Continuum is the name of the company. “Services” is kind of a generic issue there. Mulligan: Our legal name is Continuum “Services”. Representative: Yes, you can’t separate them. It’s like CVS Pharmacy or any other, you know -- Pastor: That’s fine. I’m giving you my comments. Representative: I understand where you’re coming from, but it’s a corporation’s right. You can’t break it up. Pastor: Okay. Representative: We have to come to some other conclusion on our end, but no, I appreciate -- Mulligan: Ideally, if I could get to the point where I could just put the “O” like Apple, or like Nike, I would eliminate all the letters and just have the “O.” Pastor: Then you could have a really big “O.” Mulligan: As I dream at night about the progress of our business since we started it, that’s always been my goal is just to have that logo. McIntyre: I’m sorry I think Oprah took it. Mulligan: Sorry at my effort at some humor in my ambition. McCue: That’s okay. Pastor: That was my comment. Also, even though you may have some statistical data for me on the highway, you know, we all know that we can bend that stuff around. I can see someone coming in to me and saying, oh, yeah we’re wrong. We need 90 sq. ft. now because we can’t see the sign 600 ft. down the road. I’m going to pay a lot more attention to this case next time around and I hope your data is reasonable. Henzi: Go ahead. Caramagno: I think the information that is going to mean something to me is going to be what the existing sign, the Leidal and Hart sign that was there. If I remember it from driving by a lot of times, that was awful large lettering there. I don’t have anything that tells me what it is. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 22 of 25 October 9, 2012 Representative: Right. Caramagno: Leidal and Hart Mason Contractors are more letters than even the long name of Continuum Services. If those letters are in Continuum are similar to what was there in Leidal height and width wise, there is less of those letters. If they are similar in size, this sign is completely smaller. It would help to know that. And also the fact the masonry - is not going to be there on the lower half of the building means something to me as well. I don’t know that this is too large or too small at this point. I realize it’s multiple times the ordinance, but I got to look at what was there prior to. The other thing that concerns me a little bit is that when I looked at your pictures we talked about westbound traffic seeing your Continuum sign and I realize that. Do we not care about eastbound traffic? Representative: You can see it eastbound as well. Caramagno: As I look at these trees, I see a lot of obstruction to seeing your sign. So, if the sign is truly important to you and you want people to see it, maybe we need to trim out some of this other stuff that’s in the way and redo that. I don’t know, but those are some things I recognize and notice and those are my comments. Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre. McIntyre: I’m much less concerned about, you know, is it six times or 10 times because I think, you know, the 10, the original 10 was to accommodate an address, right? And so, I’m concerned about what size sign you need to accomplish what you need to do for your business. And also to Mr. Caramagno’s point, knowing what the original sign was only because it’s a reference point for all of us because we can remember what that sign looked like and it wasn’t – and maybe it’s just because I’ve seen it for 48 years or however many long, a lot of years, but being able to have that as a reference point is a helpful data point, too. But any data you can bring about how big that sign needs to be to be visible is for me much more compelling and important than, you know, its this many times larger than what we allow. Representative: Okay. McIntyre: And I will make one other comment. I love the fact that you put some design work into this and I know that its brand identity, but I also think when you’re driving along – I mean, you don’t want it to look like a carnival; right? You don’t want all this crazy different lettering, but I think it also just gives a nice sense of the fact that we’re a progressive business community when you see people who have taken some time to put design work into a sign. And I realize that helps you, but I think it also, you know, it kind of brings a sense of progress and we don’t have all 1930’s businesses along Schoolcraft that are defunct with all due respect to Leidal and Hart because they are a very growing and prosperous business, but I do appreciate the design element. Mulligan: Thank you. McIntyre: I know that adds expense, too. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 23 of 25 October 9, 2012 Mulligan: Expense and there was a lot of design time and expense to come up with it. McIntyre: Yes. Henzi: I feel much the same. Representative: Okay. Henzi: There’s not much that I can add, but the prior sign size is key for me. If there was a 150 sq. ft. Leidal and Hart for 50 years, I’d be a little more inclined to go along with 79 sq. ft. If it wasn’t, then we’ve got to deal with that. I’m not so much concerned about the other tenant. I don’t know that you need to bring in letters from the other tenant because, quite frankly, it could be a different tenant in five years who will come in and that is in the back of our mind that at some point, some day, somebody is going to want to use the other tenant space and they’re going to want what you got. Mulligan: I can tell you from my standpoint and probably not a big secret, but we’re a young, growing, thriving business and if that space becomes available, we intend to occupy it and we wouldn’t want a second sign on the building there wouldn’t be a need for that. So, if that relieves a little bit of your concern, if it was available now, I would have occupied it already. I have a second operation in Southfield that I would love to move to Livonia and condense my operations. It’s closer to where I live in Plymouth. It’s more central for expressway. It just took me 2 ½ hours to get from Southfield to here. Southfield Freeway was shut down with three-fatality accident. The other thing I guess I would just add, I mean, we’re going to do the calculations. I can guarantee you the Leidal and Hart sign was much, much larger than ours. We just don’t have the numbers, but I can guarantee you by looking at it its pretty obvious. What I heard commonly from all of you is you recognize that sign, you’ve seen it for years you know it. I want my sign to be recognized. I want my business to be known. I don’t want them to say continua. I want them to know what Continuum means and so that’s really why I’m here. You have all recognized Leidal and Hart for 45 years. I want to be recognized in the community from across the expressway, from cars driving by and I want to be a business that people want to stop in and work with. Henzi: I think everyone agrees. You’re on the money. Mulligan: Thanks. Henzi: So, would you like us to table it and then you can come back? Okay. Representative: Yes. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 24 of 25 October 9, 2012 Upon Motion by Pastor, supported by Caramagno, it was: RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-10-48: An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Hart & Leidal Investment Company, LLC, 12100 Globe St., Livonia, MI 48150, on behalf of Lessee Continuum Services, 32225 Schoolcraft Rd., Livonia, MI 48150, seeking to erect a wall sign upon a multi- tenant industrial building, resulting in excess wall sign area. Existing wall sign to be removed. Wall Sign Area Allowed: 10 sq. ft. Proposed: 79 sq. ft. Excess: 69 sq. ft. The property is located on the south side of Schoolcraft (32225) between Hubbard and Merriman, be tabled to allow the Petitioner to return with more information in order for the Board to make a well-informed decision. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Pastor, Caramagno, Duggan, McCue, McIntyre, Henzi NAYS: None ABSENT: Sills Henzi: Like I said, October 24th is your deadline to call Marilyn and either you take another packet down or you just ask to be rescheduled. Representative: Okay. I will probably take care of that next week. Henzi: And the date is November 13th. Representative: Okay. Henzi: That’s the earliest. Representative: Thank you so much for your input. We certainly appreciate letting us come back. Mulligan: Thank you. We appreciate your time. Henzi: Before we close, Mr. Fisher, can I ask you about your letter about the ??? Pastor: Do we need to do that on the record? Can we do that without the record? Fisher ??? Pastor: Does it matter? I don’t care. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 25 of 25 October 9, 2012 Henzi: Does it matter? Fisher: I don’t know what you’re going to ask. Henzi: Oh, I was just going to ask you – you wrote that because the burden of proof is on a petitioner in a variance case -- Fisher: Correct. Henzi: -- one would expect that a neighbor would prevail. What do you mean by that? Fisher: Oh, okay. Well, as we – it’s been a while since we have had one of these seminars where we discussed this, but the burden of proof is on the petitioner in a variance case meaning it’s their responsibility to prove – whoever it is – it’s their responsibility to prove that they need this variance and that the four findings you’re suppose to make are justified. You’re justified in making them. Consequently, when a petition challenges your denial of their petition, they are standing in a hole because they had a burden of proof on these four points and if they lose any of them, they lose. And that’s part of the reason that we haven’t yet lost one where a variance petitioner appealed and sought to have his denial overturned. By the same token, in a situation where there are people who say this variance should not be granted obviously the burden of proof is not on them; it’s comparatively easy for a Reviewing Court looking at this to say, well, they didn’t meet their burden of proof, the petitioner didn’t meet their burden of proof. So, that’s why in theory a neighbor’s – like an angry neighbor’s-appeal should be more successful than a petitioner’s appeal. There have been times when, you know, you probably know this the variance that you’ve granted, or not even necessarily this cast of characters, but the variance that the Board has granted has been sort of dubious. And for whatever reason the neighbor never seems to challenge that variance. The neighbor only ever challenges the variances that are rock solid and cannot be shaken as in this case. Henzi: Okay. Thank you. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m. __________________________ SAM CARAMAGNO, Secretary __________________________ MATTHEW HENZI, Chairman