Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA MEETING 2015-09-15 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF LIVONIA MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 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, September 15, 2015. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matthew Henzi, Chairman Sam Caramagno, Secretary Craig Pastor Gregory Coppola Jim Baringhaus Ben Schepis Leo Neville MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Fisher, City Attorney Dennis DeMeyer, City Inspector Patricia C. Burklow, CER-8225 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Acting Chairman Pastor explained that Chairman Henzi would be arriving late and then explained the Rules of Procedure to those interested parties. Each petitioner must give their name and address and declare hardship for appeal. Appeals of the Zoning Board's decisions are made to the Wayne County Circuit Court. The Chairman advised the audience that appeals can be filed within 21 days of the date tonight’s minutes are approved. The decision of the Zoning Board shall become final within five (5) calendar days following the hearing and the applicant shall be mailed a copy of the decision. There are four decisions the Board can make: to deny, to grant, to grant as modified by the Board, or to table for further information. Each petitioner may ask to be heard by a full seven (7) member Board. Seven (7) members were present this evening. The Secretary then read the Agenda and Legal Notice to each appeal, and each petitioner indicated their presence. Appeals came up for hearing after due legal notice was given to all interested parties within 300 feet, petitioners and City Departments. There were 9 people present in the audience. (7:05) City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 of 23 September 15, 2015 APPEAL CASE NO. 2015-06-26: An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Target Corporation, PO Box 9456, Minneapolis, MN 55440, seeking to add one (1) new wall sign while removing and relocating an existing sign, resulting in excess number of wall signs and wall sign area. Number of Wall Signs: Allowed: One Proposed: Three Excess: Two The property is located on the east side of Haggerty, (20100), between Eight Mile and Phillips, Lot. No. 022-99-0003-007, C-2 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section, 18.50H,(a),2, “Sign Regulations in C- 1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 Districts.” Pastor: Mr. DeMeyer, is there anything else to add to this case? DeMeyer: Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Pastor: I’ll ask the petitioner to come forward. Please state your name. Diehl: Tracy Diehl, 6529 Hemmingford Drive, Canal Winchester, Ohio, 43110. Pastor: Thank you. Do you have anything you would like to add to this? Diehl: I don’t know what’s happened in the previous meetings because I was not present for those meetings. So I would like to just reiterate what I am aware of has transpired. We made the initial proposal to add the pharmacy letter set to the front of the building to make patrons aware of the pharmacy service that is available inside the building that is not visible from the exterior. Because the pharmacy is a health benefit service to the community, Target wants to make sure that citizens are aware that it is present in this particular facility. It is not in all Target stores. Target also made a proposal to take a sign that is existing on the rear of the building and move it to an angled portion of the building that faces I-275 so that sign has visibility without adding any new signage. At that time they were proposing an additional sign which due to feedback of other members of--I believe it was the Planning Commission they removed that proposal because they want to do everything they can to try to just get this pharmacy sign up. Ultimately that is their final goal is to get a pharmacy sign. I don’t know if there were any questions that maybe haven’t been answered by the documentation but I’m definitely the best person to answer those questions. Pastor: Anybody have any questions? Baringhaus: Mr. Chairman. Pastor: Yes. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 of 23 September 15, 2015 Baringhaus: Thank you. You have a monument sign that’s located on Haggerty Road if I’m not mistaken? Diehl: Yes. Baringhaus: In your documentation you show--I think it’s indicated as sign number two. Diehl: Yes, sir. Baringhaus: Currently, you have a white sign with red lettering on it and then I think part of the proposal is replacing the fascia on that sign? Diehl: Yes, it is. Baringhaus: And can you describe the replacement fascia? Diehl: It’s a direct reface. The exact same size as what is existing, it’s really just taking the faded color scape of the Target letter set and reversing the color. Going from a white background to a red background. What they’ve discovered is that over time the background tends to--the colors in the illumination of the Target symbol itself tends to fade with the sun. So they are bringing this into compliance--into consistency with other Targets and just reversing the color scheme. And then adding the word pharmacy to that sign. Baringhaus: Okay. Back in 2001 there was a similar proposal to add this signage to the building, pharmacy. Diehl: Mm-hmm. Baringhaus: What’s--and that was denied, so what’s changed today? Diehl: Well at that time I believe it was denied because the person presenting the case presented it with just basically saying they just wanted a pharmacy sign. They didn’t--I read the transcripts and they didn’t clearly convey to anybody what the purpose of the pharmacy sign and why it would be there. The pharmacies are not in all Target stores. And so citizens are not always aware of the presence of a pharmacy. They do provide basic health care services, they provide vaccines and things of that nature in addition to medicines. And so--and blood pressure taking and all of those other things that could-- you know if you have a citizen that is in that area, hey look I don’t feel well, maybe I need to get my blood pressure checked, oh, there’s a pharmacy. Well if they didn’t know that that Target store--if they had never been inside of that Target store they wouldn’t know that that Target store had a pharmacy because not all Target stores have a pharmacy. So while they may be familiar with the Target brand, they’re not going to know what’s in that store. And during the previous variance they didn’t clearly convey that. They didn’t convey it in a way to explain to the Board that there is a need for the citizens of the community to know that this service is available. And without this sign they might not know it is available. Baringhaus: But you are proposing is one sign by Haggerty Road that says pharmacy on it and then a second sign on the building itself that again says pharmacy. Diehl: That’s true. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 of 23 September 15, 2015 Baringhaus: So why do you feel there is a need for two signs when you’ve clearly communicated initially on Haggerty Road? Diehl: The letterset on the pharmacy wording on the monument sign is only three inches I believe, my eyes are not that great. It is only three inches in height, so that pharmacy is not going to be visible from a distances. It’s not going to be visible from any of the other roads that are leading into that area. Whereas the pharmacy letterset on the building would be visible from a distance. So it gives them the visibility from a distance. Baringhaus: Well in terms of visibility, the sign on the building would be limited probably if you are in the parking lot area or close to the building itself. Where the sign on Haggerty is an area that is in really a high traffic area. So again, I’m trying to make--I understand your point, but I’m trying to distinguish the need for one sign versus two signs. I’m all set. Pastor: I’ll ask a question. If you said it won’t do you any good, why ask for it? Diehl: The sign on the monument sign? Pastor: Yes. Diehl: I didn’t even realize--I forgot that that was even in the proposal to be honest with you. It’s more so for them--it’s just to bring the sign current with what other Target monument signs look like. This is what other Targets in other areas are going to. And so they’re just trying to--they’re figuring well we’re going to hire a company to go out here and put this sign up, let’s go ahead and bring everything up and make sure that it is all current. Make sure it’s all attractive, that it’s all aesthetically pleasing, that it’s all up to date and since we are going to reface the ground sign why not put the pharmacy letterset on the--the pharmacy word on the ground sign. If the Board would like us to concede on putting that pharmacy letterset on the ground sign we would be happy to do that. Pastor: Okay. Diehl: Our ultimate goal is to get the pharmacy on the wall sign. Pastor: Any other questions? Coppola: Mr. Chair. Pastor: Yes. Coppola: Mr. Fisher, I don’t believe that they--do they need approval for the ground monument sign to make a change to that: In other words just to replace the sign or add pharmacy on to that? I don’t think it’s part of the--I don’t think it is part of the petition. Fisher: I guess I thought that was a conforming ground sign. You’re certainly right that it has not been identified as part of this petition. Coppola: Is there a requirement then if they were to make a change to the ground sign in such a manner would they be required to get a variance? Fisher: If it is a conforming ground sign they can put whatever they want on the face of it. Coppola: Thank you. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 of 23 September 15, 2015 Pastor: Any other questions? Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Pastor: Yes. Caramagno: I’ve got a question. The pharmacy--I’ve looked at these plans and I’ve see the pharmacy sign in two different locations, where exactly is that supposed to be closer to the Target sign or is it going to be farther to the right of the building. Diehl: Truthfully we’ll put it wherever you’re going to approve it at. That’s the honest answer. I believe that the answer I have--the most recent option that I have is to the far right. Caramagno: Far right. Diehl: I saw a scaled elevations, and I believe the scaled elevations--yeah, they show it- -here is the main Target letters center and then it is over to the far right. Which on these drawings it shows as sign number one, I believe. Sign number one where are you? Caramagno: So you are saying it is going to go to the far right? Diehl: Yes, sir. Caramagno: I’m looking at a plan that shows that so I understand it. Diehl: Yes, sir. Caramagno: Is there intended to be an entrance on that side of the building? Diehl: No, there is no entrance directly to the pharmacy. There is no visibility from the pharmacy in any way, shape or form from the outside of the structure. There is no way to even know that the pharmacy is inside of the building unless there is some kind of a sign on the building to identify it. What they typically do, is they typically locate where the pharmacy is within the building and place the pharmacy sign in that general vicinity so when somebody is looking at the building and they see the pharmacy sign on the right side of the building they think okay I’m going to go in and go to the right, the pharmacy is going to be to the right. Usually if the pharmacy sign is on the left side of the building then you go in and the pharmacy is on the left. Because you know different Targets are set up different ways. So I have not been to this Target, I’m sorry I haven’t had an opportunity to go. I just drove in today from southern Ohio but I believe that the way that they are proposing this would be consistent with that. Caramagno: I know that there was talk about this sign being two foot letters tall and 18 inches tall-- Diehl: Yes. Caramagno: --where did that end up? Diehl: This proposal shows a 24 inch letterset. Caramagno: And the intention here is just to grab traffic once it is in the parking lot or on the campus basically, is that what the intention is here? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 of 23 September 15, 2015 Diehl: I believe if they went with the 24 inch letterset it should be visibly from the main road which is Haggerty Road, correct? Caramagno: Right. Coppola: Mr. Chair. Yeah, I think generally you haven’t been there yet? You haven’t seen it? Diehl: No, I haven’t. Normally I do visit the site-- Coppola: You can’t--you can’t see the building from the road. Diehl: --before I come in. Okay. Okay, then so it would be once you are on campus. Thank you. Pastor: Anything else? I’ll close the public portion--I’m sorry, is there any audience participation? Anybody in the audience have anything to say? No one coming forward, you have the opportunity to make-- Caramagno: Craig, you want me to read the letter? Pastor: Oh, sorry. Caramagno: There is one letter. It’s an approval from Louis Dubicki, 39405 Windsome Drive, Northville, Michigan (letter read). Pastor: You have an opportunity for a final-- Diehl: I don’t have anything else to say, thank you. Pastor: I’ll close it and we will start with Jim. Baringhaus: Thank you. Looking at the proposal itself for the addition for the one new wall sign and then relocating one sign and then removing another one. There’s pieces of it I agree with and pieces of it that I don’t agree with. I think the removal and relocating of the existing signage based on the plans that you submitted seems reasonable. I guess your goal is to get a little more visibility on the 275 side of the building. And then the signage in the back of the building is being obscured by trees and you want to move that to a more visible location as well. The point that I’m not there on is really having two pharmacy signs versus one pharmacy sign. And the issue of the pharmacy sign has come up on this building once before. There was a variance request which was denied again, and that was a few years ago. And then today we have the same request and it is for a slightly larger sign than what was originally requested a few years ago. So again, I’m okay with part of it, I’m not okay with it. If Target was to come back and rework the position on the pharmacy, maybe just be happy with the word pharmacy on the monument sign, I would be inclined to support the proposal at that point. Thank you. Pastor: Sorry, go ahead Greg. Coppola: I understand Mr. Baringhaus’ issues with it, from my perspective the world has changed a little bit since 2001 when that was denied signage. It’s gotten a little more prolific then it was back then. From my perspective having a sign that says you have a pharmacy is helpful. There are multiple entrances into that area so you may not see the City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 of 23 September 15, 2015 monument sign that says pharmacy plus it is pretty small. Turning off of Haggerty I’m not going to spend a lot time looking at a sign I’m going to get off the road before I get rear ended. That being said, putting a pharmacy sign on I think is helpful. It provides knowledge to the residents that there is a pharmacy available. You guys advertise that and it is a helpful thing for the community. It’s not going to be visible from the road. So probably the size you are proposing may be a little larger than you necessarily need. Placement I think is from my perspective and I’m not an expert on signs, it would be important putting a pharmacy sign on the right hand side of the building where there is no entrance could be confusing especially to the older people. And maybe putting it underneath the entrance would make more sense. But I’m not opposed to this. I think it won’t be an eyesore in the sense it really can’t be seen from the road. It can’t be seen from anywhere else so no one is going to have an issue in regard to it being an eyesore. The signage in that area, there’s a lot of signage in that area on the building. And I don’t think what you are asking is excessive, it’s only 35 percent above based on these numbers--percent above what is normally allowed. So I don’t have--I would probably be in support of this request. Pastor: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: After reading through what is a pretty rigorous process you go through to move these signs and change them. Through the Planning Commission where it looks like you had a Target bullseye there as well that you were asking for and that didn’t fly. So it’s been knocked down. And I think rightfully so in that regard it was just too much signage for this building. You were over 500 and about 550 square feet of sign with that Target bullseye. But it comes back to moving the 275 sign, I think that makes perfect sense. It is virtually useless the way it is right now with the growth of the trees on the shoulder of 275 there. So moving that makes great sense it should do wonders so people know what that building is on the freeway. When I looked at the square footage after the bullseye being gone, your square footage is a little less than what your neighbor Costco has and to me that means a lot. It’s got to be similar, it can’t be one way over the other otherwise it just doesn’t make sense and it encourages the neighbors to come back for more signage as well. I asked the question about 18 inch letters instead of 24, I think that sign could be reduced to 18 inch letters but I don’t think I would make mandatory myself unless there is other support for that. You are a long way off the road. The other thing I couldn’t help but notice when I went through is the signage on the Costco building where it says tire installation, tire installation pretty large on a pretty un-meaningful side of the Costco building in my opinion. It doesn’t show off the parking lot very very well because it’s not frontage portion of that building. So your pharmacy sign does what you want it to do. It reaches out to anybody that pulls into that campus I’ll say, and I’ll support it. Henzi: I too will support it. Haggerty Road is one of the busiest thoroughfares in the City. It’s also a border road and I think what Target is requesting is not much greater than what its competitors across the street have. I also think that this is clearly meant for people within the campus, as you’ve described you’re not grab somebody just thinking about a pharmacy driving northbound Haggerty Road. That’s not going to happen. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 of 23 September 15, 2015 Diehl: Absolutely. Henzi: This is merely meant to sort of fashion the way people might park maybe or remind them. I think it is a good sign package and I’ll support it. Diehl: Thank you. Neville: Well, I’m not sure that the--well I guess that would be sign number two with the three inch pharmacy letters at the bottom. I’m not sure that adds much because I agree I don’t think visibility from the street level would be there. However, I--that being said I don’t have any objection to that. I don’t know if sign number three is actually going--if anybody is going to see it going southbound on 275 they are already going to be past Target before they even recognize it. I fully agree and will be in support of the placement of sign number one. And I think 24 inch lettering is not unreasonable. And I would clearly support the approval of that particular sign. So I guess I’m-- Schepis: I would also support this. I think it makes sense to have a sign indicating there is a pharmacy there. You know especially once you are on the campus that’s a busy and pretty complicated parking lot. And I think this makes sense. I don’t think the size of the signage that you are asking is unreasonable. And I also think a lot has changed in that area since 2001 when this last came before the Board. Haggerty has just developed so much that I think that is a meaningful difference. So I would support this. Pastor: I could support this, but I don’t think I could support the 24 inch lettering. Obviously you need to tell people there is a pharmacy there but I don’t think you need to tell them with that big of sign. I’m not a sign proponent. I would actually like to see an 18 inch sign but it looks like you have support for what you have so I will leave that to the Board to make a resolution. Pastor: Mr. Coppola. Coppola: Mr. Chair. Pastor: Mr. Coppola. Upon Motion by Coppola and supported by Henzi, it was: RESOLVED: APPEAL CASE NO. 2015-06-26: An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Target Corporation, PO Box 9456, Minneapolis, MN 55440, seeking to add one (1) new wall sign while removing and relocating an existing sign, resulting in excess number of wall signs and wall sign area. Number of Wall Signs: Allowed: One Proposed: Three Excess: Two City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 of 23 September 15, 2015 The property is located on the east side of Haggerty, (20100), between Eight Mile and Phillips, Lot. No. 022-99-0003-007, C-2 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section, 18.50H,(a),2, “Sign Regulations in C- 1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 Districts,” be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because of the inability to notify potential customers of a pharmacy service that would be useful to them. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because of the inability to communicate with the community of a service that is offered and needed. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because the area is well populated with large box buildings that have multiple signage. 4. The Board received 1 letter of approval and no objection letters from neighboring property owners. 5. The property is classified as “general commercial” in the Master Plan and the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification. FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions: 1. That the sign is compliant with all the conditions as set forth by the Planning Commission in its resolution approving this proposal. 2. That the sign has no exposed neon. 3. That the sign is not to be illuminated after one hour from closing. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Coppola, Henzi, Schepis, Caramagno, Neville NAYS: Baringhaus, Pastor ABSENT: None Pastor: The resolution passes, you heard so good luck. Diehl: Thank you members of the Board. Thank you so much. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 of 23 September 15, 2015 Pastor: Now I’ll turn the gavel over to Chairman Henzi. Henzi: Thank you, sorry I was late. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 10 of 23 September 15, 2015 APPEAL CASE NO. 2015-09-45: An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Michael Cutler, 36715 Ann Arbor Trail, Livonia, MI 48150, seeking to construct an addition to a nonconforming detached garage, resulting in excess garage area. Nonconformity is based on the existing detached garage being located in the side yard; detached accessory buildings are required to be in the rear yard. The existing accessory building in the rear yard is to be removed. Detached Garage Area: Allowed: 720 sq. ft. Proposed: 960 sq. ft. (Existing: 480 sq. ft.) Excess: 240 sq. ft. The property is located on the south side of Ann Arbor Trail, (36715), between Newburgh and Angeline, Lot. No. 126-01-0755-001, RUF Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section, 2.10(5), “Definition of Miscellaneous Terms; Garage, Private” and Section 18.24, “Residential Accessory Building.” Henzi: Mr. DeMeyer, anything to add to this case? DeMeyer: Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Henzi: Any questions for the Inspection Department? Hearing none--Patty, are you miked up over there? Okay. Recorder: Oh, over there, I’m sorry, no I’m not. Henzi: Sir, could you come over to this podium if you don’t mind? Cutler: Michael Cutler, 36715 Ann Arbor Trail, Livonia, 48150. Henzi: Good evening, Mr. Cutler. Can you tell us about the addition you want to build? Cutler: Yes, I presently have a two car garage that is detached. And I have a utility building behind the home which is larger than the addition I want to do. I just want to match my garage in essence in a mirror image. It is 20 feet wide, 24 feet long. I would have an overhead door in the back of the building and I could remove storage equipment that I have in the present storage building into the more modern and cleaner facility. Henzi: Can you tell us about the building materials? You know shingles to match-- Cutler: Yes, it will basically--what we would do is attach it, wood frame with trusses, shingling will be the same and then to recover the entire garage so that is not all pieced together it will look like it was constructed all at one point. For visual effects it will make it look a lot nicer. Henzi: And can you describe for us why you need the additional space? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 11 of 23 September 15, 2015 Cutler: I have two garden tractors and other lawn equipment stuff that I use within the present building, tools and things of that nature. Normally I would have my vehicles in the garage so that everything would be covered. At this time I go out there and I’ve got things stacked up and I’ve got to rearrange. But my building--the older building is tired and it needs to be--something done with it and I just feel that it would make it a lot more aesthetically appealing and it would make the area a lot neater. Henzi: Any questions for the petitioner? Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: In this new addition or in your existing garage do you have a shop of any type? Are you a wood worker? Cutler: I do wood work but that is not done in my garage, no sir. That is strictly storage. I say storage, you know automobiles, motorcycle, garden tractor, things of that nature. Pastor: How many automobiles? Cutler: Two. Pastor: This is a large building for just two lawn tractors and a motorcycle. Cutler: And other gardening equipment. I’ve have a number of pieces like that. If you saw the shape of the building how it was designed, the old building I am using, it is not conducive to put some equipment in as easily. Pastor: So what other equipment are you planning to go in? You say your shed is full, what is in your shed that you are going to put in here? Cutler: Besides the tractors I would have a--it’s called a leaf collector. It’s a large unit that goes on the back of one of my tractors. The blowers--the snow blowers for the big tractor or the bigger tractor of the two. I have wood chipper, small--you know--personal. Let me think what else is in that barn. Power sprayer, a couple of garden carts and a trailer that I can pull behind either of my tractors. It just takes up space but I can keep it under roof so it don’t get damaged that way and it doesn’t look bad in the neighborhood. Pastor: Thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? Neville: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Neville. Neville: Just for clarification, Mr. Cutler. You provided us with a few photographs. The one that is going to be dismantled is this red structure in the back of your-- Cutler: Yes, sir. Neville: What do you currently have in there? Cutler: That’s what I have in there now. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 12 of 23 September 15, 2015 Neville: Okay. And your plans are to relocate it to the addition. Cutler: Take that building out because it is old and tired, it would--I’m sorry--believe me I probably fill it up again but the point is it would just make it a lot cleaner and easier to use. Neville: Thank you, sir. 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 podium. Mr. Cutler have a seat, we will call you back. You will have a chance for a closing statement. Cutler: Thank you. Hollowell: My name is James Hollowell, 36825 Ann Arbor Trail, Livonia, Michigan. I’m the neighbor that’s three doors west of him. I received this in the mail, I looked it over today and I saw that the hearing was today and thought too late for me to mail it in so I brought it in. I believe you have so you can either read into the record or I can read it into the record whichever you prefer. Caramagno: Go ahead and read it. Hollowell: I mark this for approval. I’m the neighbor three doors to the west at 36825 Ann Arbor Trail. Our side of Ann Arbor Trail is a group of much older homes that were here long before this area was built up. My house was built in 1923. There is kind of a row of them on my side and then there are some on the other side which are like original houses here way before Livonia started to make neighborhoods. The zoning area here is rural urban farm, at least mine is I can’t testify for sure his is. And we have wide spaces between houses, large lot sizes. Most of the development I see in the area are sort of cookie cutter projects with minimum sized lots, garage doors out front on the street side, and neighborhoods packed with vehicles. In the 1990’s a twelve home project was built behind me on a very small piece of land. I believe many variances were granted to allow that Blake Street project to go forward. There is a large lot right next to me that has been approved for another ten or eleven home development. It hardly seems in character with our existing homes and lot sizes. Variances I believe are granted for that project also. It is my opinion that variances should also be granted for individual tax paying homeowners and not just for larger housing developers. It seems to me that Michael is requesting to upgrade his property by removing an unsightly backyard building and gaining the square footage by adding it to his existing garage. This would be an improvement from my point of view. I would encourage the Zoning Board to work with the homeowner to affect an agreeable solution. Perhaps the square footage could be added to the back of his building, apparently that is what he intends to do I guess I learned tonight. So it will be less visible from the street. Thank you for considering my input regarding this appeal. Henzi: Thank you. Caramagno: We have letters of approval from Earl Madison, 36722 Ann Arbor Trail (letter read), Charles Rogers, 36639 Richland (letter read) and David Cleck, 36651 (letter read). Henzi: Mr. Cutler, you have the opportunity to make a closing statement if you would like. Okay, thank you. I’ll close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mr. Coppola. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 13 of 23 September 15, 2015 Coppola: Based on the fact that he is removing the old and I’ll say somewhat run down structure and he’s adding a new structure that is similar in construction and size to the other structure it is not visible from the street. This is a very large lot and it shouldn’t be an issue in regards where it fits in the lot as long as it is built as proposed I am for it. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: Yeah, this is a winning situation as far as I’m concerned. You’ve got a building that is in need of removal, it looks almost like there is an opening on the side of it right next to a school. I think adding on to your garage, reducing your square footage from what you have now, is an absolutely necessary deal for you. I am in full support. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Yes, I will be in support as well. This looks like a nice little project and that back building does look like it is in need of serious repair. So I’ll be in support. Henzi: Mr. Schepis. Schepis: I agree with Mr. Caramagno. This is a big improvement and I would be happy to support it. Henzi: Mr. Neville. Neville: I agree with the comments that have previously been made and I too believe that removal of that red structure will be a tremendous improvement. There is sufficient property to support the proposed addition and I would fully support the request as well. Henzi: Mr. Baringhaus. Baringhaus: I share the opinions of my fellow Board members. I think it is a good project for the property. It is large enough to adapt the new garage to the property and I like the fact that he is removing the building off the property as well. I’ll support it. Henzi: I too will support it for all the reasons stated. I’ll add there is a hardship over the non-conformity based on the age of the building and the unique shape of the lot. And I think this is going to be a great addition to that strip of Ann Arbor Trail. It is a very nice part of the City. So the floor is open for a motion. Baringhaus: Mr. Chairman. Henzi: Mr. Baringhaus. Upon Motion by Baringhaus and supported by Pastor, it was: RESOLVED: APPEAL CASE NO. 2015-09-45: An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Michael Cutler, 36715 Ann Arbor Trail, Livonia, MI 48150, seeking to construct an addition to a nonconforming detached garage, resulting in excess garage area. Nonconformity is based on the existing detached garage being located in the side yard; detached accessory buildings are required to be in the rear yard. The existing accessory building in the rear yard is to be removed. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 14 of 23 September 15, 2015 Detached Garage Area: Allowed: 720 sq. ft. Proposed: 960 sq. ft. (Existing: 480 sq. ft.) Excess: 240 sq. ft. The property is located on the south side of Ann Arbor Trail, (36715), between Newburgh and Angeline, Lot. No. 126-01-0755-001, RUF Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section, 2.10(5), “Definition of Miscellaneous Terms; Garage, Private” and Section 18.24, “Residential Accessory Building,” be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because of the non-conformity based on age and the size and shape of the property and the ability of the new facility blending in with the current home. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because of the restricted storage space. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because the surrounding neighbors are in support of the variance and it will enhance the neighborhood. 4. The Board received 4 letter of approval and no objection letters from neighboring property owners. 5. The property is classified as “low density residential” in the Master Plan and the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification. FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions: 1. That the addition is constructed as presented. 2. That the old outbuilding is removed. 3. That the roofing materials and siding match the home. 4. That the five day waiting period for a permit is waived. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 15 of 23 September 15, 2015 ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Baringhaus, Pastor, Caramagno, Schepis, Coppola, Neville, Henzi NAYS: None ABSENT: None Henzi: The variance is granted with four conditions. That might be three. You’ve got to build it as presented. You’ve got to do it as soon as possible. You’ve got to match the existing roof and shingles. And then you’ve got to remove the existing out building. Coppola: Roof and siding. Henzi: Roof and siding, I’m sorry. Because of the weather, time is of the essence, does anyone consider moving to waive the five day waiting period? Pastor: I’ll support that. Baringhaus: Second. Henzi: Move and support, all in favor say aye. Board Members: Aye. Henzi: So Mr. Cutler, you can go to the ZBA office and talk to the Inspection Department and get a permit tomorrow if you would like. Normally you have to wait five days but because it is nice out and I’m sure you are raring to go, go in tomorrow and you can get a permit. Cutler: Thank you, I appreciate it. Henzi: Good luck to you. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 16 of 23 September 15, 2015 APPEAL CASE NO. 2015-09-47: An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Philip Kraemer, 18460 Doris, Livonia, MI 48152, seeking to construct an accessory building addition (shed), resulting in excess building area. Accessory Building Area: Allowed: 200 sq. ft. Proposed: 339 sq. ft. Excess: 139 sq. ft. The property is located on the east side of Doris, (18460), between Seven Mile and Curtis, Lot. No. 041-01-0035-000, RUF Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section, 18.24, “Residential Accessory Building.” Henzi: Mr. DeMeyer, anything to add to this case? DeMeyer: Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Henzi: Any questions for the Inspection Department? Hearing none, will the petitioner come to the podium? Kraemer: Philip Kraemer, 18460 Doris, Livonia, 48152. Henzi: Mr. Kraemer, go ahead and tell us about the accessory building you want to construct. Kraemer: Well due to storage I need more room. We have--our lot is almost an acre in size. About half of that is garden which requires a lot of equipment and we have a lot of potted plants that we want to preserve for the winter which would go in this building. We open our yard to the Livonia Garden Walk every chance we have. We have done it twice already. And pretty much the hobby around the house is gardening. Henzi: Can you tell us a little bit about the structure? I mean is it pre-fab? Kraemer: No, it will match the existing structure. It is going to be attached to the existing structure. It will be brick that matches. The roof is synthetic like shingles. Henzi: So the photograph in our packet is this an example. Kraemer: That is the existing building yes. Pastor: He’s going to match it. Kraemer: And it will match, the brick will be the same, the roof will be the same. Henzi: Oh, I see. Any other questions for the petitioner? Baringhaus: Mr. Chairman. Henzi: Mr. Baringhaus. Baringhaus: Yes, the area behind where the proposed addition is going are you going to remove trees, things like that? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 17 of 23 September 15, 2015 Kraemer: Yes, there is--those are four huge overgrown yews which actually I have already removed. If we don’t do the building we will just landscape it. Baringhaus: Okay. And then I was also looking at this diagram right here. You have some squares in the roof are those sun lights? Kraemer: Sky lights. Baringhaus: Sky lights, thank you. You show a picture of the east elevation of the building which is essentially the shorter side of the proposed addition. You have two windows I believe facing that. And then the one photograph with the sky lights in it, that is your south view of the building I believe? Kraemer: Yes. Baringhaus: What would the north side of the building look like, I didn’t see an illustration? Kraemer: That would just be brick, there would be no windows. Baringhaus: Solid brick. Thank you, I’m all set. Henzi: Any other questions? Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: How soon do you plan on putting plants away? Kraemer: Well I wasn’t aware there was a five day waiting period. I was going to pull a permit tomorrow. Caramagno: As long as it is 85 degrees outside your plants will do just fine. Kraemer: Yes, I would like this done before the cold weather so we can put these plants in it. Caramagno: Okay. 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. Bockman: Hi, Brenda Bockman, 18460 Doris Street, Livonia, Michigan. Basically, this started because of me. I’m the gardener, I’m the hobbyist here. So like I said I’ve been on the Livonia Garden Tour several times and right now I probably have about 50 containers throughout the yard that I put plants in. So what he proposed is to build me a greenhouse to store these. Because right now what I do is I compact them into the existing shed that we have with the two lawnmowers, the edgers, the shovels, the rakes, everything is compacted. So in the winter right now to try to get in there to move around is just impossible. A lot of my containers now I have to stack behind the house and buy tarps and cover them. And I’ve lost several due to the cold. So this extra storage is another place for me to store these containers and plants. And he just kind of plans on extending it and--so I do have the room for the storage. I also have a lot of hardscapes that I put in there. My mother-in-law she just recently stopped gardening so she lives in South Carolina so she shipped up a lot of things from her garden that are really City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 18 of 23 September 15, 2015 sentimental to me. Just a lot of things that I have in my yard that I also now have to put in for storage. And so we are just very limited I’ve been taking a lot of my plants to work and try to compact them into my office there. And that gets a little overwhelming. So this space that he is proposing and building for me would actually solve a lot of our problems and save a lot of time and money too. Because over winter a lot of these plants would-- save me a lot in the summer--you know the following spring so. It is just something that we could store. Henzi: Thank you. Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Do you plan on heating--sorry--okay-- Henzi: It’s either--Mr. Pastor had a question. Pastor: Do you plan on putting heat in this building? Kraemer: Yes. Pastor: Anything else you plan on putting in this building? Kraemer: No. Pastor: Okay. Bockman: That was one of the reasons for the windows so that it lets the light in because the existing she doesn’t have a lot of windows so the plants that I put in there now they survive in the cold, a lot of them are shrubs and things like that. But there is just not a lot of light in there. So the building that he is extending will--with the glass it will let more daylight in there so they would survive a lot easier. Pastor: Thank you. Henzi: Is there anyone else who wants to speak for or against the project? I see--oh, come on up. West: Julie West, 18440 Doris. We are the neighbor to the south of Phil and we totally agree with everything he has done. The shed that he has built is beautiful. Anything that he puts up I’m sure will be wonderful to go with it. Henzi: Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing no one else coming forward, can you read the letters? Caramagno: Letters of approval from Thomas McGraw, 18505 Melvin (letter read), Robert Gard, 18400 Doris (letter read), Karen Farkas, 18525 Melvin (letter read), Benedetto and Christiane Tiseo, 18634 Doris (letter read), Donald Anderson, 18424 Melvin (letter read), Amy Senczyszyn, 18601 Doris (letter read) and Michael Devine, 18425 Melvin (letter read). Henzi: Mr. Kraemer is there anything you want to say in closing or rebut that last letter. Kraemer: No. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 19 of 23 September 15, 2015 Henzi: Okay, great. I’ll close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: Well, you’ve got fantastic neighbor support and I think this is--well I know this is a well thought out shed. We don’t see many sheds come in before us built out of brick with synthetic slate roofing. We can’t get houses with brick on them. I don’t think the square footage overage has any meaning at all. You will not be able to see it, it is in the rear yard. And I’m in support. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: I will also be in support. I’m actually surprised you didn’t ask for something bigger. Your shed is beautiful. I went by it this evening and I went wow I wonder if that was built thirty years ago because people don’t build sheds like that today. So I congratulate you on your shed, on your house, and your yard, your yard is gorgeous. Although I was kind of curious why there was not brick on your dog-- Bockman: We’re working on it. Pastor: I’ll be in full support. Henzi: Mr. Schepis. Schepis: Yes, I would also congratulate you on your yard, it is beautiful. And I think what you have proposed here is really cool and I will support it. Your neighbors obviously are in support and that is important. So I am in favor of it. Henzi: Mr. Neville. Neville: I agree. One I don’t think the--I think it is consistent with the way the area is zoned right now, rural urban farm. You have plenty of room to support it and it is a beautiful structure if the addition is anywhere similar to what you have here I think it too will turn out quite beautifully. I think you’ve established a need for the additional room. And I would support your request whole heartedly. Henzi: Mr. Baringhaus. Baringhaus: Looking at the proposal very well thought out, very well designed. Congratulations. Even though it does remind me that I need to go out and weed my flower beds, I’ll definitely support it. Congratulations. Henzi: Mr. Coppola. Coppola: I am in support. Henzi: I too will support. The floor is open for a motion. Schepis: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Schepis. Upon Motion by Schepis and supported by Pastor, it was: City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 20 of 23 September 15, 2015 RESOLVED: APPEAL CASE NO. 2015-09-47: An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Philip Kraemer, 18460 Doris, Livonia, MI 48152, seeking to construct an accessory building addition (shed), resulting in excess building area. Accessory Building Area: Allowed: 200 sq. ft. Proposed: 339 sq. ft. Excess: 139 sq. ft. The property is located on the east side of Doris, (18460), between Seven Mile and Curtis, Lot. No. 041-01-0035-000, RUF Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department be under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section, 18.24, “Residential Accessory Building,” granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because this is a large heavily landscaped lot that requires storage for plants, lawn equipment and tools. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because of the need for storage for lawn equipment, tools and plants. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because the surrounding neighbors are in support of the variance, the proposed addition is a good addition, and the accessory building will not be visible to the street. 4. The Board received 8 letter of approval and no objection letters from neighboring property owners. 5. The property is classified as “low density residential” in the Master Plan and the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification. FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions: 1. That the addition is constructed as presented with materials and plans as stated. 2. That the five day waiting period for a permit is waived. ROLL CALL VOTE: City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 21 of 23 September 15, 2015 AYES: Schepis, Pastor, Neville, Baringhaus, Coppola, Caramagno, Henzi NAYS: None ABSENT: None Henzi: Your variance is granted with those two conditions. You’ve got to build it as presented consistent with the plans and then the five day waiting period is waived so you can get a permit tomorrow. Kraemer: Thank you. Henzi: Good luck to you. Bockman: Thank you. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 22 of 23 September 15, 2015 Pastor: Do we have minutes. th Henzi: Yes, July 28. Is there support? Coppola: I think there is a typo here. Pastor: Oh, I can’t do it I wasn’t here. Coppola: You were absent, it says you were here. Recorder: You know you are right, I saw that. I will correct it and send that change in tomorrow. Are you talking about the opening paragraph? Coppola: No I was talking about the fact that we have a secretary and an acting secretary. Recorder: Yes, I saw that. I cut and pasted. Coppola: Yes, that is what I assumed. Recorder: I will correct the cover sheet. Coppola: Approval with condition that there wasn’t an acting secretary. Henzi: Support? Pastor: Support. Henzi: All in favor say aye. Board Members: Aye. Henzi: Minutes are approved, is there a motion to adjourn? Pastor: I make a motion to adjourn. Henzi: Is there support? Baringhaus: Support. Henzi: Did you get that Patty? All those in favor say aye. Board Members: Aye. Henzi: We’re adjourned. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. _______________________________ Matthew Henzi, Chairman ______________________________ Sam Caramagno, Secretary /pcb City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 23 of 23 September 15, 2015