Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA MINUTES 2015-12-08 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF LIVONIA MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING HELD DECEMBER 8, 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, December 8, 2015. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Pastor, Acting Chairman Sam Caramagno, Secretary Gregory Coppola Jim Baringhaus Ben Schepis Leo Neville MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Henzi OTHERS PRESENT: Eric Goldstein, City Attorney Craig Hanosh, City Inspector Patricia C. Burklow, CER-8225 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Acting Chairman Pastor explained the Rules of Procedure to those interested parties. Each petitioner must give their name and address and declare hardship for appeal. Appeals of the Zoning Board's decisions are made to the Wayne County Circuit Court. The Chairman advised the audience that appeals can be filed within 21 days of the date tonight’s minutes are approved. The decision of the Zoning Board shall become final within five (5) calendar days following the hearing and the applicant shall be mailed a copy of the decision. There are four decisions the Board can make: to deny, to grant, to grant as modified by the Board, or to table for further information. Each petitioner may ask to be heard by a full seven (7) member Board. Six (6) members were present this evening. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard by a full Board and no one wished to do so. The Secretary then read the Agenda and Legal Notice to each appeal, and each petitioner indicated their presence. Appeals came up for hearing after due legal notice was given to all interested parties within 300 feet, petitioners and City Departments. There were 22 people present in the audience. (7:05) City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 of 47 December 8, 2015 APPEAL CASE NO. 2015-10-56 (Tabled on October 27, 2015): An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by MKO Real Estate, LLC, 27472 Schoenherr, Ste. 140, Warren, MI 48088, on behalf of Lessee St. Mary Mercy Hospital, 36475 Five Mile, Livonia, MI 48154, seeking to erect three (3) wall signs, resulting in excess number of signs and sign area. Number of Wall Signs: Wall Sign Area: Allowed: One Allowed: 184 sq. ft. Proposed: Three Proposed: 226 sq. ft. Excess: Two Excess: 42 sq. ft. The property is located on the north side of Five Mile (36622), between Levan and Williams, Lot. No. 067-01-0110-003, C-1 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section 18.50H,b,(2), “Sign Regulations in C- 1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 Districts.” Coppola: Mr. Chair. Pastor: Mr. Coppola. Coppola: Motion to remove from table. Caramagno: Support. Pastor: Motion granted. Can I see the petitioners come forward? Beaubien: Good evening. Pastor: Good evening. Can you--do you have anything more to add to their petition? Beaubien: Mike Beaubien, I’m representing the building owners at 36622 Five Mile Road. This is a final package for us on our sign package for our building and we would appreciate consideration and approval for the signs to help with the wayfinding and safe travel to and from our building property. Pastor: Okay, thank you. I’m sorry Craig do you have anything to add to this case? Hanosh: Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Pastor: Thank you. Coppola: Mr. Chair. Pastor: Yes. Coppola: Question for Mr. Hanosh. I saw on the notice--I’ve misplaced it--that the proposed has a 226 square feet on the signage but when you look at the package that they provided it looks like they reduced that request to 184 square feet. Because it looks like they took the dead space on the St. Mary sign out of the calculation from the prior submission. So prior they had a 112 square feet and now its 79 square feet. Is that City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 of 47 December 8, 2015 appropriate way to measure? Which one is the appropriate way to measure? What are we--I guess what square footage should we be considering trying to approve? Hanosh: You know if I look at the St. Mary of Mercy of Livonia Outpatient Surgery Center, if you look at that as a square we could divide it into two but it is technically--they are counting that as one sign. So with that mind I would take the outside dimensions of that vertically and horizontally and that’s why we still come up with 183. Coppola: Okay. Hanosh: If that helps any. Coppola: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure I understood what we are approving. Pastor: Are there any questions? Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Pastor: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: The Urgent Care sign that was the issue we were at last time? That was on the-- Beaubien: That was not on the plan before and so this is now a final plan. Caramagno: This is the final, this is the best-- Beaubien: This is the final. Caramagno: This is the last and best for you? Beaubien: This is the last and best yes. Caramagno: Was it Urgent Care before or was it Emergency Care? Beaubien: No, it was Urgent Care that was up --that’s there. Caramagno: It was always was Urgent Care. Beaubien: Correct. Caramagno: Wasn’t there an Emergency Care banner or something up? Beaubien: It was Urgent Care--it had the brand--the company that runs the urgent care on there and this is just going to say Urgent Care. That’s all it is going to say. Caramagno: Okay, there was some other questions about other signage there that was up I think if I remember right. Beaubien: We--there was some temporary signs up there which we took down immediately after the meeting. Caramagno: And they’re down-- Beaubien: Some temporary signs-- Caramagno: They are down for good now? Beaubien: Yeah, they’re all gone. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 of 47 December 8, 2015 Caramagno: Okay. Beaubien: They were just temporary-- Caramagno: Thank you. Beaubien: --signs and--that went along with our opening. But we’ve taken those down. Caramagno: Thank you. Pastor: Any other questions? Baringhaus: Mr. Chairman. Pastor: Yes. Baringhaus: Your St. Mary sign and then you have another message Outpatient Surgery Center Michigan Bariatric Institute why do you consider that one sign when it carries two separate messages or represents two separate services? Shouldn’t that be considered two signs? Beaubien: I’m going to let Steve VanBrusel from St. Mary’s answer that question. VanBrusel: My name is Steve VanBrusel. I’m the Director of Planning, Design and Construction at St. Mary Hospital, 36475 Five Mile Road. For us I guess my interpretation is one sign is one tenant, one owner. And we are trying to get our services listed on the sign so our clients and our patients know where to come to. I don’t know if that answers your question? Baringhaus: Well generally I tend to view one sign would carry one message. If you are identifying St. Mary’s Mercy Hospital, in my mind one sign. Outpatient Surgery Center Michigan Bariatric Institute to me that constitutes a second sign. You’re arguing or you’re presenting the position that that represents one sign. VanBrusel: I am. As a tenant it is important for us to get the system message across but not only that with the services we offer there we don’t want people getting confused that this is the hospital or this is a different Urgent Care that is associated with us. We are trying to be very clear for our population--our patient population. Broullard: Sir, if I might add that--my name is Eric Broullard, 226 East Hudson, Royal Oak. So St. Mary is a tenant on the second floor. They take up the whole second floor. They have combined services in their suite so that--hence that’s why they put it together into one sign as a single tenant. Schepis: Mr. Chairman. Pastor: Yes. Schepis: So then just to be clear, St. Mary’s owns and operates the outpatient surgery center, the Michigan Bariatric Institute VanBrusel: Yes. Schepis: Okay. VanBrusel: Yep. They are hospital owned offices. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 of 47 December 8, 2015 Pastor: Any other questions? Seeing none is there anyone else that would like to speak? No one coming forward, any letters? Caramagno: Letter of approval from Martha Gardner, 36512 Roycroft (letter read). Pastor: Thank you. Do you have anything final to say? Beaubien: No, but certainly would appreciate consideration on approval on our plan. Thank you. Pastor: Thank you. I guess I’ll start the comments with Mr. Baringhaus. Baringhaus: Thank you Mr. Chair. Basically the question I had was the identification of St. Mary’s Mercy Livonia and then then the outpatient surgery center combined as one sign when I consider them really to be two signs. Also, the Urgent Care sign above the overhang. I think you have identification in other areas that state you are an Urgent Care center. The signage itself is nicely laid out around the building. The one thing that I think the package would help with is that you have a tendency to put additional signage on the property. You’ve done banners, you’ve done flags on Five Mile Road. You’ve done banners on Levan Road. So hopefully the signage package will end that and it will clearly identify the services you offer to the community itself. With that I’m inclined to support it. Pastor: Mr. Coppola. Coppola: Thank you Mr. Chair. Beautiful building again you did a nice job. I had the opportunity to be inside of it last Friday for unfortunate reasons. But nonetheless I like it- -I like the sign package. You know there was a question regards to whether it’s three signs or four signs or five signs. If it was five signs you would be under the wall signs area and just be over the multiple signs. Either way I think the package looks really nice, the building is very nice. The grounds are done very nice. I think it’s a great addition to the community and I’m in full support. Pastor: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: Well this has been before us multiple times. The last time the Urgent Care sign was the stickler at least for me. I wanted to see it and see it laid out and it looks as I thought it might look. And I really would have no objection to that. With that open item taken care of this redeveloped site, multi-tenant ownership, it needs the signage and it looks appropriate by the hospital there. Pastor: Mr. Schepis. Schepis: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I agree with Sam. This is a building that’s got a lot of moving parts to it. It’s got an Urgent Care, it’s got an orthopedic clinic and a couple of other things. And I think it makes sense to have signage that shows which entity is where in the building. And whether it is three or four signs I think the way it is set up looks good. And I would support it. Pastor: Mr. Neville. Neville: I echo the sentiments of the other Board Members and would add that I guess in light of the width or expanse of the building I don’t think the excess signage of 42 square City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 of 47 December 8, 2015 feet is unreasonable. I think it all fits within the design of the structure and I have no problem in supporting the request. Pastor: I will also support this. I think you guys have done a beautiful job with this project. I remember several meetings we have had about signage and I think you’ve finally nailed it. I will be in support. I’m looking for someone to make a motion. Schepis: Mr. Chairman. Pastor: Yes. Upon Motion by Schepis and supported by Coppola, it was: RESOLVED: APPEAL CASE NO. 2015-10-56 (Tabled on October 27, 2015): An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by MKO Real Estate, LLC, 27472 Schoenherr, Ste. 140, Warren, MI 48088, on behalf of Lessee St. Mary Mercy Hospital, 36475 Five Mile, Livonia, MI 48154, seeking to erect three (3) wall signs, resulting in excess number of signs and sign area. Number of Wall Signs: Wall Sign Area: Allowed: One Allowed: 184 sq. ft. Proposed: Three Proposed: 226 sq. ft. Excess: Two Excess: 42 sq. ft. The property is located on the north side of Five Mile (36622), between Levan and Williams, Lot. No. 067-01-0110-003, C-1 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section 18.50H,b,(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 the building has multiple groups that need signage for patients and the public to know what is available in the building. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because the public and patients would have difficulty finding the location of the group they need in the building. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because there is no objection from the surrounding neighbors. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 of 47 December 8, 2015 4. The Board received one 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 signs be installed as presented. 2. That no other temporary signage is allowed on the building or the property. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Schepis, Coppola, Baringhaus, Neville, Caramagno, Pastor NAYS: None ABSENT: Henzi Pastor: You’ve--your petition has passed with those conditions. Good luck. Beaubien: Thank you. VanBrusel: Thank you. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 of 47 December 8, 2015 APPEAL CASE NO. 2015-10-58 (Tabled on October 27, 2015): An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Joseph and Cindy Rivet, 15619 Ellen, Livonia, MI 48154, seeking to erect a four (4) foot tall open picket style fence upon a corner lot, resulting in the fence not aligning with any other fence on adjoining property and the fence being located in the front yard, which is not allowed. The property is located on the west side of Ellen (15619), between Edgewood and Roycroft, Lot. No. 063-01-0040-000, R-3C Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under City of Livonia Fence Ordinance, Section 15.44.090A,4bi and Section 15.44.090A,(2), “Residential District Regulations,” Pastor: Do we have a motion to remove from the table? Coppola: Mr. Chair. Pastor: Mr. Coppola. Coppola: Motion to remove from table. Caramagno: Support. Pastor: All in favor-- Neville: Mr. Chair. Pastor: Yes? Neville: I need to recuse myself I previously represented the association. Pastor: Okay, thank you. All in favor? Board Members: Aye. Pastor: Hi. Rivet: Hello. I think you know that this is the third time that we are back. The first time we wanted privacy panels and it was suggested. Pastor: Can you-- Rivet: I’m sorry, Cindy Rivet, 15619 Ellen. It was suggested that we go to the black aluminum four foot picket fence which we did with a two foot setback. When we were here last time there were still some concerns with that. It was the recommendation of the Board that perhaps an eight foot setback would be more appropriate. So that is our new submission is for the eight foot setback from the sidewalk. Pastor: I’m sorry. Mr. Hanosh, do you have anything to add? Hanosh: Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Pastor: Okay. Rivet: Sorry. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 of 47 December 8, 2015 Coppola: That’s okay. Pastor: Okay, is there any questions for the petitioner? Baringhaus: Mr. Chairman. Pastor: Yes. Baringhaus: On your property where you currently have the fence you have some hedges, a shed and a number of trees as well. Rivet: Correct. Baringhaus: What are your plans for those with the fence being moved back to the eight foot setback? Rivet: The hedge would be removed and the shed would be moved. Pastor: Why haven’t you moved the shed since--every time I’ve been by your property the shed has still been there? I am kind of wondering why you haven’t moved it and cleaned that area up? Rivet: Well we have four kids and two dogs that we are trying to contain in that area right now and that actually assists in doing that. My dog has gone through the hedge a couple of times. We have some things sort of lined up there trying to prevent that. It--the shed will get moved in the spring when the--now the landscaping company is going to take the hedge out but you know they are done until spring now. We’re--we have Clippers that is in Livonia, we’ve talked to them about taking it out. Once November hit they are not doing anything like that again until April or May. Pastor: Okay. Do you have any other questions? Baringhaus: Mr. Chairman. Pastor: Yes, sir. Baringhaus: On the side of the house it indicates that the fence doesn’t really start at the back corner of the house. It looks like it starts either--looks like by a door maybe a chimney? Rivet: A chimney. Baringhaus: A chimney? Rivet: The-- Baringhaus: Why would you start it by the chimney instead of the corner of that house? Rivet: Otherwise it overlaps on the patio that is outside. The side of our house which is considered the front of our house is just the driveway, the garage and the chimney. And if you come out from the corner of the house it overlaps where the patio is when you go out the sliding--back from--what we consider the back is technically the side and we really don’t want the fence cutting across the patio. We’d like to prevent that. Baringhaus: Okay. And then it is a four foot black aluminum fence? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 of 47 December 8, 2015 Rivet: Correct. Baringhaus: Okay. And then the height of your neighbors’ fence in the back of your property, how tall is that again? Rivet: Five foot. Baringhaus: Five foot? Rivet: The fence between our house and the next door neighbors is four foot and then the house we consider in the back of us-- Baringhaus: Next to you-- Rivet: Yeah. Baringhaus: --is five feet? Rivet: But this one that actually would be linking up to is five foot. Baringhaus: Okay, thank you. Rivet: You’re welcome. Pastor: Any other questions? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this case? If so, come forward. Good evening. Please state your name and address please. Kasprzyk: Ed Kasprzyk, 15644 Edgewood. Claire Kasprzyk: And I’m Claire Kasprzyk, same address. But basically I know they were- -the last time we left here was for the Rivets to work with us and come up with a decision but we haven’t heard from them. We’ve made ourselves available. I’ve been outside raking leaves, I’ve--so-- Ed Kasprzyk: Hanging Christmas lights, stuff like that. Claire Kasprzyk: So we don’t know where we are at at this point. Nobody’s addressed us in any way-- Ed Kasprzyk: To ask our opinion on what we thought would be a reasonable amount of space between the fence and the sidewalk. Speaking with some other neighbors everybody wants it to be aligned with my fence which is similar in the subdivision. Anybody that is on a corner lot all their fences are aligning and I can that this--his proposal for eight feet is not even allowed by the City for one. And two it’s not going to be very aesthetic looking. So we definitely agree that we should probably be--you know we don’t have no problem with the fence it just has to align with our fence. And then also just for the record it appears that the company that came out and surveyed his property my fence is about six to eight inches from the property line so if it does go that--just for the record my fence is not the property line fence. Pastor: Okay. Any questions? Baringhaus: Yes. What do you consider an ideal setback? They proposed--the Rivets have proposed eight feet, what would be you recommendation? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 10 of 47 December 8, 2015 Ed Kasprzyk: To align with our fence this way which is probably about 30 feet. I didn’t measure, I’m just saying to align with our existing fence. That way it looks like any other- -you know anybody else who has that type of fence it aligns for the subdivision. Claire Kasprzyk: And we know that some of the neighbors were concerned about how far back it would be from the sidewalk compared to you know some of the other houses in the subdivision how far back they are. So they’re kind of taking that into consideration. So we also want to take into consideration the neighbors and what their input is as well. Just because we live next door doesn’t give us the right to say we want this. So we want to take what other neighbors’ concerns are as well. Baringhaus: Mr. Chairman. Pastor: Yes. Baringhaus: Just as a clarification the fence that the Rivets are proposing that’s acceptable to you? That style that color? Claire Kasprzyk: Yes. Ed Kasprzyk: Yeah, the four foot black aluminum that’s fine. Claire Kasprzyk: Yes. Pastor: Do you realize if they put it 30 feet back they would be in the middle of their back porch? Claire Kasprzyk: Right, and we’re not-- Ed Kasprzyk: I don’t know about that. Claire Kasprzyk: We’re not saying 30 feet, we’re just saying-- Pastor: That’s what your husband just said. Claire Kasprzyk: --we’re--yeah, we’re just saying where our fence currently is, we have not measured. Ed Kasprzyk: Yeah, I don’t-- Claire Kasprzyk: To align. Ed Kasprzyk: Yeah, if that’s-- Claire Kasprzyk: To align. Ed Kasprzyk: --that case, I mean-- Claire Kasprzyk: Because the City of Livonia says in the letter shall align to the fence next door, that’s our house. So we’re-- Ed Kasprzyk: So we’re basing it on-- Claire Kasprzyk: --just basing on what Livonia-- Ed Kasprzyk: What the City wrote-- Claire Kasprzyk: --put in the letter. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 11 of 47 December 8, 2015 Ed Kasprzyk: Yeah, what your-- Claire Kasprzyk: What your-- Ed Kasprzyk: --regulations. Claire Kasprzyk: --we’re basically looking at what your recommendation is. We’re putting it kind of in your hands of what you think is fair. Pastor: Okay. Any other questions? Baringhaus: Mr. Chairman, question for the Inspection Department. Pastor: Okay. Baringhaus: To their point with the alignment of fences, is that code? Hanosh: Well the fence--your--do we have a rear facing yard facing a rear yard? Ed Kasprzyk: Have one-- Hanosh: Is your back of the house to the other back of the house? Ed Kasprzyk: To a certain extent and then our fence-- Hanosh: If it is on angle--if that’s the case you can actually go side yards abutting the street, you can actually go to 19 feet. And that can actually be--it can actually be built within the ordinance at 19 feet. So it’s not 30 it can be 19 if it--the difference is--I was asking you that because if it was your side yard then it would be 25 feet not 30. Ed Kasprzyk: Okay. That’s just--I don’t know where the 30 feet came from. We didn’t go out there and measure I think somebody else mentioned that. We were just--our concern was just so it aligns with our fence so aesthetically looks good. Like every other house in the sub. Pastor: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: Yeah, Craig the--these folks said their fence is six inches inside the property line--inside their property line. So let’s say the Rivets get approval to build this fence how would those two fences join and whose responsibility is it? Hanosh: It’s going to be a civil issue that we as a City don’t get involved with as along as it is between the two of them and you want it to align for aesthetic purposes it would be between the two parties. We wouldn’t get involved with that whether it was offset by six inches or not. Ed Kasprzyk: We’re fine with the fence going up to our fence, that’s not the issue. I just want to state that they don’t come across our property line from the rest of the fence they are going to add onto our property, that’s the concern we have. Caramagno: I’m sure the property line has to be respected but when it gets to your fence somebody is going to have to-- Ed Kasprzyk: That’s okay. Caramagno: --join those two. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 12 of 47 December 8, 2015 Ed Kasprzyk: We understand that--we understand. That’s fine. Caramagno: Whose responsibility is that? Ed Kasprzyk: That would be theirs because they’re proposing the fence right? Caramagno: Right, and it’s their responsibility to build a fence on your property? Ed Kasprzyk: If you saying you need a little piece of fence to stick out I can be responsible for that. Caramagno: That’s what I’m getting at. Ed Kasprzyk: Yeah, that’s fine. Caramagno: That’s what I’m getting at. Ed Kasprzyk: I can extend mine out yeah sure. Pastor: Any other questions? Baringhaus: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. th Pastor: Yes. Going back to the original meeting notice on October 12, you cited an ordinance, Section 15.44.090 Residential District Regulations. And then paragraph (i) referring to the fence says that the fence has to align with any corresponding fences on an adjacent property. Question for the Inspection Department how does that apply here? Hanosh: It doesn’t that’s why we are here for a variance. If the neighbors’ fence behind actually extended out then we wouldn’t be here right now because it is a non-site obscuring fence and its four criteria we are looking for and one of them is aligning on the fence. It doesn’t align, they are trying to extend it out. So that’s why this variance is actually here with us today. Coppola: Mr. Chair. Pastor: Yes, Mr. Coppola. Coppola: Quick question, Craig. Could they--could the homeowner then instead because they are six to eight inches inside the property line could they just run their fence along their property line all the way across the back even though there is another fence there? They could ignore that fence? Hanosh: Double fences are not allowed in the City. Coppola: Okay. Hanosh: It would be classified as that. Coppola: So--so then the property on the corner the petitioning property owner is considered to be--require a variance to put the fence up because the other property owner decided to put their fence off the property line. Is that kind of what-- Hanosh: We’re actually-- Coppola: --because they are not adjoining right? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 13 of 47 December 8, 2015 Pastor: What happens--they eventually join up. Coppola: I believe someone has to add a-- Pastor: Six inch piece. Coppola: Yes, but it wasn’t because of the petitioning property owner it was because how the neighboring property owner put in their fence that they are forced to get a variance? Hanosh: Yes, if the neighbor behind them were extending out all the way they could actually join right up to the sidewalk as a non-sight obscuring fence. But in this circumstance there is no other fence it’s aligning with that’s being extended out toward the street--towards Edgewood. Coppola: Okay. Hanosh: That’s why we’re here today. Coppolla: Thank you. Baringhaus: Mr. Chairman. Pastor: Yes. Baringhaus: I have a question for Mrs. Rivet. Claire Kasprzyk: Do you want us to step-- Rivet: Hi. Baringhaus: Hi. Given the amount of debate and controversy that your fence has created within your neighborhood and given the fact that you’ve had to meet with us several times, why haven’t you discussed this with your neighbors further? Rivet: When we originally approached them in May, as long as we did black aluminum they were fine with that and that was without any setback at all. And then we did have issues with the association part of our settlement was that our attorney was informed by their attorney Leo, that he said he has stated that he had talked--the President of the Association had spoken with Ed and he was in agreement with letting us go forward with the fence as proposed. So between being told in May that they were fine with black aluminum and then being told by our attorney that their attorney that Ed was fine with the plan, we’re a little bit confused about why that changed. You know as far as--we really thought this was our backyard. That we were very surprised to find out it was considered our front yard considering there is no door to the property and our address is an Ellen address not an Edgewood address. It was--we were really surprised to find out that’s a front yard, it’s not our address. We don’t have a door--it we set back the fence--you know- -to line up with his our sliding glass door, our patio, everything is not going to be within that fence. It’s over--it just wouldn’t be feasible for us to use that as reasonable space for the kids and the dogs. We couldn’t even open the door and let them out. Pastor: Is there anyone else in the audience who wants to speak at this time? I see no one coming forward. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 14 of 47 December 8, 2015 Caramagno: Mr. Chair, I want to ask Ed and Claire another question. Pastor: We will give you another chance to respond. Ma’am--oh. Caramagno: This--the news that your fence is now six feet--six inches on your property line is new. I don’t think I heard that at the last couple of meetings. Ed Kasprzyk: Again, that’s based on the stakes that whoever did the surveillance (sic). I don’t know the actually property line. I’m just basing it on what I see. Caramagno: On the current survey is that what you mean? Ed Kasprzyk: Where they put the current stakes which are still there. It just appears that way to me, yes. Caramagno: Okay, and-- Ed Kasprzyk: And that was just for the record. Caramagno: Okay, that leads me to another question. Ed Kasprzyk: Okay. Caramagno: If in deed your fence is six inches in on your property line, who maintains that six inches of property there? Are you going to rely on the Rivets to maintain that for you? Or how are you going get in their yard and maintain that six inches? Ed Kasprzyk: Well the people who have lived there have been cutting the grass and didn’t have any problem with it back then. Caramagno: I realize that and they didn’t want a fence before now there’s going to be potentially a fence. So now we’ve got a six inch issue if trees start growing there or weeds start growing there. Are they really obligated to cut that grass? Claire Kasprzyk: The fence was put in before we-- Ed Kasprzyk: Yeah, we didn’t-- Claire Kasprzyk: --when we bought the house because-- Ed Kasprzyk: --put the fence in. Claire Kasprzyk: --we have an in ground pool. Ed Kasprzyk: That was-- Caramagno: I understand that. Ed Kasprzyk: --put in about thirty years-- Claire Kasprzyk: Right. Caramagno: I understand that but you’ve always had the ability to trim around your fence on both sides. Once this fence is in there how do you get in their yard to maintain your side--or your six inches of property there? Ed Kasprzyk: We can’t not if they put a fence up there, it would be-- City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 15 of 47 December 8, 2015 Caramagno: Right, it becomes a-- Ed Kasprzyk: --trespassing. Caramagno: --little more of a--just another nagging issue on this whole on this whole deal. And clearly you folks don’t get along. Ed Kasprzyk: Oh, it’s not that at all. Caramagno: Well, believe me you don’t get along. Ed Kasprzyk: We get along great. Caramagno: I’ve been listening to you, you don’t get along. Ed Kasprzyk: They just-- Caramagno: Okay, that’s the only question I had. Claire Kasprzyk: Basically the way I look at it is when someone moves in we’re not the ones putting in a fence. If somebody wants to approach us we’ve been out there. Ed Kasprzyk: We told them-- Claire Kasprzyk: We’ve been nothing but cordial. Ed Kasprzyk: --when he came and approached me the first time, I said hey-- Claire Kasprzyk: It’s uncomfortable-- Ed Kasprzyk: --if you want to put a fence up-- Claire Kasprzyk: It’s uncomfortable. Caramagno: I’m more worried about that six inch strip now. Ed Kasprzyk: Yeah. Caramagno: I’m not concerned about that right now. Claire Kasprzyk: Yeah. Caramagno: Thank you. Ed Kasprzyk: When they--yeah, when they approached me the first time-- Claire Kasprzyk: Thank you. Ed Kasprzyk: Thank you. Pastor: Thank you. Ed Kasprzyk: Okay, thank you. Pastor: Anyone else? Can the petitioner step forward please? Rivet: Can I just say that we’ve always been maintaining that strip-- Pastor: Step up-- City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 16 of 47 December 8, 2015 Rivet: --back there since we’ve moved in. Any mowing, weeding, I mean that’s--we’ve always been maintaining it, we didn’t realize that wasn’t ours to maintain. The stake was put in--I believe the one you might be referring to between our house and the next door neighbor’s house for the property line of where that fence needed to stay inside of, there’s another stake out towards their driveway. And I haven’t exactly walked it to--it looks like it would meet up with their fence but I haven’t-- Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Pastor: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: So you continue--you’ll continue to maintain that property? Rivet: Of course. Caramagno: Good. Pastor: Do you have anything else to say? Rivet: No, I really just--you know my dogs have gotten out, we’ve had an incident with my daughter where she fell, she got hurt, I turned to help her, I look my two year old is taking off around to the driveway side. It’s a busy intersection I am really just trying to keep the people I love safe. Pastor: Thank you. I’ll close the public portion of this meeting and start the comments with--oops sorry, letters. Caramagno: Letters of objections from Joseph Gillen, 15628 Ellen Drive (letter read), Debbie and Dave Koch, 15682 Edgewood (letter read), Duane Johnson, 15629 Edgewood Drive (letter read), and Margaret Ogden, 15651 Ellen Drive (letter read). Pastor: Mrs. Rivet I will give you an opportunity if you would like to address any of these concerns. Rivet: I think-- Pastor: Please come to the podium. Rivet: I think part of it is when people see the front yard and the notice they think we mean the Ellen side of our house because that is where our front door is, that’s where our address is. But I guess technically would be a side yard which would be within code to put a fence on then which would be not our preference because that would sort of ridiculous because it functions as our front yard. You know I understand that there is some resistance to fences that are probably thirty percent of the sub has some sort of fence. There’s a lot of cyclone fences in between houses that don’t happen to be corner lots. And some of them do not have pools, they have not required association approval. I think it is just because of our specific lot that all of this sort of drama has evolved and I just really want to be done with all of it. We were very excited to move into that house. We moved from a mile away, we needed more space for your family. I grew up in Livonia, I graduated in Livonia. My mom lives in Livonia, we went to church in Livonia. I worked at St. Mary’s until after we had our last kid. It’s my home. It was very difficult to find a home in Livonia last spring. The house we bought sold in three days, when we sold ours City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 17 of 47 December 8, 2015 it sold in two. You know we just thought a corner lot wasn’t our ideal, but when we drove through the sub and saw a lot--you know there was a fair amount of fences, the homeowner said no there’s no restrictions that we are aware of. Fence existed, we thought great we found a great house, in a great neighborhood, we can stay where we want to live and it is an easy fix. Which obviously has not turned out to be true. Pastor: Okay, thank you. I’ll close the public portion of this meeting and start comments with Mr. Coppola. Coppola: Well this has been in front of us several times. The applicant has made adjustments as we have requested. This is a difficult one. I think in a sense there is a lot of opposition in the neighborhood and I think a lot of that could have been avoided if communication between the parties had been a lot better. This is an odd lot, the house is situated facing Ellen and City zoning rules say that it actually has a front yard on Edgewood Drive creating a major issue here. I mean it is clearly the way the house is set up it’s been here for decades it’s the--the Edgewood side clearly is notwithstanding the rules is the backyard. I understand having had small children and pets myself being able to you know when you put them in the backyard knowing that they are going to be in the backyard is kind of important especially on a--I wouldn’t call it a busy corner but nonetheless corner of a house. I think there has been some compromise here. I think moving it back eight feet helps the one neighbor with their ability to back out. That’s the length of a vehicle. You should be able to see oncoming traffic with the eight foot setback. A four feet fence is not an over imposing size fence. It’s going to be black--the black iron wrought fence, I mean I don’t think you will be able to see it at a distance. So although again I appreciate the opposition and I get the feeling some of it is just a matter of how things were done that at some point you just kind of dig your feet in and say I’m going to oppose this. I would have to say the compromises that we have asked for have been done. I think what it is now from my perspective is acceptable in light of the challenge of this particular lot. So I’m inclined to support this. Pastor: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: This has certainly come a long way from where it was originally. When we first took this case on it had a--half this auditorium was filled with people opposing this. We heard about architectural committees, we heard about lawsuits, we heard from the neighbors immediately adjoining this property and everyone else in the subdivision. It’s come a long way from there. We are down to four letters of opposition. I think the architectural committee is now supporting this. And there’s also been--of course you’ve also heard adjustments from what we have asked for which are reasonable accommodations to move this thing back into the yard eight feet from the sidewalk. As I said I feel that is reasonable. This is not a privacy fence. It’s not unattractive by any stretch. It’s identical to the fence on the adjoining property. It’s attractive. For those reasons I’m going to be in support also. Pastor: Mr. Schepis. Schepis: I agree, this is a challenging case. This is an odd sized lot that is requesting a fence and there’s been a fair amount of opposition to it in the neighborhood. At the same City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 18 of 47 December 8, 2015 time this isn’t a privacy fence. And I think at our last meeting we specifically said eight feet would be something that we would be looking for and that’s what happened here. So with that in mind I think I could support this as it is now. Pastor: Mr. Baringhaus. Mr. Baringhaus: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I agree with my colleagues on the Board. It’s been a very challenging case. There has been progress that has been made. We started at two feet and now we are back to eight feet. In my mind I keep going back to the makeup and sort of the nature of the neighborhood. Looking at other houses in the neighborhood especially ones that are sitting on the corners that do have fences, they are actually back further than eight feet and I keep referring back to this as I hear arguments on both sides. In addition, if you were to look at the fence I think from the perspective of Edgewood and Ellen, earlier I referred to the fact that there were basically shrubs, a shed, and also trees that are running along that sidewalk as well so you get rather cluttered line of sight if you were driving coming up to that corner. The Rivets have indicated the shrubs would be removed, that the shed will be moved, but you still have the trees and you will still have a black aluminum fence that I still think well its moved at eight feet could probably be moved further. I guess I’m also troubled by the fact that there has been no discussion of the eight feet with neighbors, and no effort to make any kind of consensus with the neighbors to get agreement that eight feet is acceptable not only to the Association but to the adjoining neighbors to the home. So based on that I’m not inclined to support it. Pastor: Well it is a very few times that we have a case come in front of us so many times but this is a challenging lot and that corner--that particular corner with the neighbors is kind of challenging because it is not a squared up lot where two back yards are aligned up or a backyard and a side yard exactly are lining up. It is a little mixture of everything. The petitioner has demonstrated a willingness to help or move the fence back as the Board has requested. So I think I can support this. Is there anyone who wants to make a motion? Coppola: Mr. Chair. Pastor: Mr. Coppola. Upon Motion by Coppola and supported by Schepis, it was: RESOLVED: APPEAL CASE NO. 2015-10-58 (Tabled on October 27, 2015): An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Joseph and Cindy Rivet, 15619 Ellen, Livonia, MI 48154, seeking to erect a four (4) foot tall open picket style fence upon a corner lot, resulting in the fence not aligning with any other fence on adjoining property and the fence being located in the front yard, which is not allowed. The property is located on the west side of Ellen (15619), between Edgewood and Roycroft, Lot. No. 063-01-0040-000, R-3C Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under City of Livonia Fence Ordinance, Section 15.44.090A,4bi and Section City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 19 of 47 December 8, 2015 15.44.90 A,(2), “Residential District Regulations,” be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met due to the uniqueness of the lot and the placement of the home on the lot. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because of the inability to provide for the safety of her family and pets and containing them in a secure area 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because this takes into account the difficulties of providing for a fence which is allowed and the difficulty in how the lot is aligned with its neighbors and the neighborhood 4. The Board received no letters of approval and four 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 fence be installed as presented. 2. That the fence be installed eight (8) feet from the sidewalk and that fencing along the west side be adjoined to the existing fence. 3. That the fence be black aluminum and four foot in height. 4. That the hedge that exists on the south side of the property be removed. 5. That the shed on that property be moved from the southwest corner to the northwest corner of the property. 6. That the project including the installation of the fence, moving the shed to the northwest corner of the property, and the removal of the hedge be completed within seven (7) months. 7. That the neighbor’s property that will be located on the petitioner’s side of the fence be maintained by the petitioner. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 20 of 47 December 8, 2015 ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Coppola, Schepis, Caramagno, Pastor NAYS: Baringhaus ABSENT: Henzi ABSTAINED: Neville Pastor: Your petition has passed with those conditions you’ve heard. Good luck. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 21 of 47 December 8, 2015 APPEAL CASE NO. 2015-12-62: An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Toebeck Realty Corporation, 9986 Manchester Road, St. Louis, MO 63122, on behalf of Lessee Panda Restaurant Group, 1683 Walnut Grove Ave., Rosemead, CA 91770, seeking to erect a one story restaurant within a multi-tenant commercial retail center, resulting in deficient number of parking spaces. This site was before the Zoning Board of Appeals previously with Appeal Case No. 2014-01-11 where it was granted a deficiency of 62 parking spaces. Number of Parking Spaces: Required: 792 Proposed: 762 Deficient: 30 The property is located on the west side of Middlebelt (13701), between Schoolcraft and Industrial, Lot. No. 101-99-0004-002, C-2 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section 18.38(17) and 18.38(31) “Off-Street Parking; Schedule.” Pastor: Mr. Hanosh, anything to add to this case? Hanosh: Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Pastor: Okay. Good evening. Fleming: Good evening members of the Board. My name is Todd Fleming. I am with Greenberg Farrow. We are the architects and civil engineers of record. We are here on behalf of our client Panda Express who will be a lessee of this pad within Livonia Commons Shopping Center. The Center itself is owned by Toebeck Realty Corporation. Regarding this appeal case I’ve nothing new to add to the application and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have though. Pastor: Thank you. Any questions? Coppola: Mr. Chair. Pastor: Mr. Coppola. Coppola: Just real quick there appears to be an appeal case previously back in 2014 early. You were granted a deficiency of 52 parking spaces. Has anything changed since that--you’re actually asking for less but has anything changed in the layout, the design, anything-- Fleming: No. Coppola: --that would suggest that the prior approval would need to be considered? Fleming: No, it’s the same consistent layout that was proposed a couple of years ago as part of the Livonia Commons Shopping Center. Coppola: Okay. What’s the seating in this restaurant? Fleming: Seating is 52 inside interior seats. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 22 of 47 December 8, 2015 Coppola: So everybody-- Fleming: There’s only 16 outside. Coppola: So everybody drove--if everybody each drove their car here you would still have 710 spots left? Fleming: Correct. Coppola: Okay. I didn’t include drive thru sorry, let’s put three in drive thru. Fleming: Okay. Pastor: Any other questions? Baringhaus: Mr. Chairman. Pastor: Yes. Baringhaus: What percentage of your business is sit down dining versus drive thru? Fleming: It’s around thirty percent. Obviously it varies from location to location but the national average is about thirty percent drive thru. Pastor: Anything else? Caramagno: Mr. Chairman. Pastor: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: I have a questions for our attorney. Being that we approved this for a deficiency of 62 spots for the entire complex last time and now we are changing this to a 30 spot deficiency does that completely wipe that 62 off the board? Goldstein: I’m not sure how the prior use would come into play in light of a new decision involving a new property. Perhaps you can elaborate on your concern. Caramagno: Well this variance for this required 792 parking spaces, proposed 760 this is for the entire complex not just for the Panda Restaurant. We approved it to be allowed a 62 spot deficiency when it was in its development stage. Now we’ve got the restaurant they need less parking--less of a deficiency then last time. So I’m assuming this change overrides our prior variance of 62? Goldstein: Now I understand the question better. Caramagno: Sorry. Goldstein: My apologies for asking for clarification. I believe this would free up the other spots for calculus on connection with the rest of the complex and you would not be barred from relieving that burden that you applied previously. You have more room to breathe with the other parking spots. My answer is more cumbersome then your question, I apologize. Caramagno: It’s just something I was thinking about. I have a question for the petitioner as well. You represent the Panda Restaurant Group and their need for parking in this area and you may or may not be able to answer this but when I went to look at the property City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 23 of 47 December 8, 2015 today there’s a backhoe that pushes snow. It has a big blade on the front of it a big push bar, and that would be parked right now in what I would consider prime parking for your restaurant. Fleming: Okay. Caramagno: Is there a reason why the shopping center would not tell them to park that machine out back somewhere? Because that is taking up--the way it was parked today three or four spots at a minimum were occupied by that machine alone. Fleming: I can’t comment from the shopping center owner standpoint. I can only suspect it is undeveloped as of this point so that is why they are storing it there. Obviously when we go in there and we build I can-- Caramagno: I think it would be worth mentioning because you have a parking necessity you certainly wouldn’t want to take that up--at least front parking with a machine that is used occasionally when it snows that would help you at least help your customers or Panda’s customers. Fleming: There’s going to be terms within the lease once it is signed that is going to prohibit the shopping center owner from taking our parking and what not so. Caramagno: So you have a cross agreement with them? Fleming: Yes, absolutely. Caramagno: Okay. Pastor: Any other questions? Is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak on this case? Seeing no one coming forward, are there letters? Caramagno: There are no letters. Pastor: Do you want to make a closing statement? Fleming: No. Caramagno: I think I start. Pastor: Pardon me? Caramagno: I think I start with the comments right? Pastor: Yes. Caramagno: Yes, this is a fairly simple request. There appears to be plenty of parking in this area and when you are looking at a parking lot this time of the year that is typically a very busy time of the year and on any given day when I’ve driven by there there is more than adequate parking for this restaurant. I don’t see where it is going to be a problem for this variance at all. Pastor: Mr. Schepis. Schepis: I agree this is pretty minor request as far as the overall amount of parking spaces. I would support it. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 24 of 47 December 8, 2015 Pastor: Mr. Neville. Neville: I guess one thing I guess looking back at it historically I think when the initial variance was granted back in 2014 it might have been anticipated that a restaurant was going to be erected on the site but at that point in time nothing definitive had been planned. So which might result in the fact that you need the extra seats or parking spaces than had been previously proposed. My visit to that site I echo the comments previously made, there seems to be more than sufficient parking available that would accommodate everybody and I think the request for this variance is reasonable in light of those facts. Pastor: Mr. Baringhaus. Baringhaus: I agree. I think adequate parking exists so I would support the motion. Pastor: Mr. Coppola. Coppola: I am in support. Pastor: I’ll also be in support. This actually brings down the deficiency of what we approved years ago. So I will be in support. Does anyone want to make a motion? Baringhaus: Mr. Chairman. Pastor: Mr. Baringhaus. Upon Motion by Baringhaus and supported by Caramagno, it was: RESOLVED: APPEAL CASE NO. 2015-12-62: An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Toebeck Realty Corporation, 9986 Manchester Road, St. Louis, MO 63122, on behalf of Lessee Panda Restaurant Group, 1683 Walnut Grove Ave., Rosemead, CA 91770, seeking to erect a one story restaurant within a multi-tenant commercial retail center, resulting in deficient number of parking spaces. This site was before the Zoning Board of Appeals previously with Appeal Case No. 2014-01-11 where it was granted a deficiency of 62 parking spaces. Number of Parking Spaces: Required: 792 Proposed: 762 Deficient: 30 The property is located on the west side of Middlebelt (13701), between Schoolcraft and Industrial, Lot. No. 101-99-0004-002, C-2 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section 18.38(17) and 18.38(31) “Off-Street Parking; Schedule,” be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because of the adequate number of parking spaces and capacity that is proposed for the current restaurant. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 25 of 47 December 8, 2015 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner due to increased costs incurred with re-planning and reorganizing parking for the proposed business 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because there is no objection from the surrounding neighbors. 4. The Board received no letters 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 project be completed as presented. 2. That the project be completed within twelve (12) months. 3. That the petitioner secure a cross-parking agreement with the landlord of the retail center. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Baringhaus, Caramagno, Schepis, Coppola, Neville, Pastor NAYS: None ABSENT: Henzi Pastor: Your variance is granted. Good luck. I guess you are the next case as well. Fleming: Thank you. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 26 of 47 December 8, 2015 APPEAL CASE NO. 2015-12-63: An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Toebeck Realty Corporation, 9986 Manchester Road, St. Louis, MO 63122, on behalf of Lessee Panda Restaurant Group, 1683 Walnut Grove Ave., Rosemead, CA 91770, seeking to erect three (3) wall signs, directional sign, menu board sign and identification ground sign, resulting in excess number of wall signs, wall sign area, directional and menu board sign that are excess in area and the identification ground sign is not allowed based on other nonconforming ground signs which required previous approval for this multi-tenant retail site by the Zoning Board. Number of Wall Signs: Wall Sign Area: Directional Sign Area: Allowed: One Allowed: 40 sq. ft. Allowed: 2 sq. ft. Proposed: Three Proposed: 312 sq. ft. Proposed: 6 sq. ft. Excess: Two Excess: 272 sq. ft. Excess: 4 sq. ft. Menu Board Area: Allowed: 30 sq. ft. Proposed: 44 sq. ft. Excess: 14 sq. ft. The property is located on the west side of Middlebelt (13701), between Schoolcraft and Industrial, Lot. No. 101-99-0004-002, C-2 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section 18.50H,(b),(1),(2) and 18.50H,(m) “Sign Regulations in C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 Districts” and Section 18.50D,(i) “Permitted Signs.” Pastor: Thank you. Anything to add from the Building Department? Hanosh: Nothing at this time, Mr. Chair. Pastor: Thank you. Good evening once again. Fleming: Good evening members of the Board. Todd Fleming again from Greenburg Farrow here on behalf of the applicant Panda Express. A couple of clarification points. I just want to call to your attention as part of the application there are quite a few signs on here we are going to be discussing tonight. Two I wanted to call special attention to, actually three. The first one would be the direction sign. Pursuant to City code we are allowed two square feet. If you look at part of the plans provided in the application Plan C 4.1 we are proposing a monument sign at the end of the drive thru. Its roughly a three and a half foot high monument at the end of the drive thru where one side it will be a thank you sign, on the other side will be a do not enter sign to prevent people from coming in. The sign itself including the full monument exceeds the two square feet at six and a half square feet. But the lettering itself for the sign is only 1.7 square feet. So the signage itself is less then what is required by code. Second point I wanted to discuss is the menu board. Pastor: Excuse me--excuse me. Fleming: I’m sorry. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 27 of 47 December 8, 2015 Pastor: You said what page, C what? Fleming: C 4.1. Pastor: 4.0? Fleming: One. Pastor: I have a 4.0 I don’t have a 4.1. I’ve got a 1.2 and a 4.0. Fleming: No 4.1? Pastor: No, sir. We have a small issue. Fleming: We do. Coppola: This has legends for all of the signs, most of the signs I think. Pastor: Except we don’t have the actual sign. Coppola: Could it just be a labeling issue? Fleming: No, there’s a-- Coppola: There’s another one? Fleming: Yeah, there’s a 4.1 submitted as part of the application I believe which actually has details of the signage. Most of the signage--there you go. Pastor: Okay. Fleming: This is it. Pastor: It is attached to that, at least in Sam’s it is. In mine it is not. Coppola: Do we have only one copy? Baringhaus: No, I don’t have it either. Caramagno: What I will do is I will pass it around. Fleming: It is at the top here. Caramagno: Thank you very much. Coppola: Okay, I see it. Pastor: Okay. I’m sorry, would you go back over where you were talking about 4.1 now? Fleming: Of course. Pastor: So we can see what you are talking about. Fleming: I apologize. I’d direct you to where it is but I have my plan up there. I think there’s a detail for the direction sign. It’s a small monument sign at the end of the drive thru. The monument sign itself is 24 inches by 39 inches so the monument portion itself is 6.5 square feet. I just wanted to call your attention to the sign itself. Within that monument, within that 6.5 square feet only 1.67 square feet is actually comprised of the thank you or do not enter portion of the sign. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 28 of 47 December 8, 2015 Pastor: Okay. Fleming: I know City code requires or provides a maximum of two square feet for the directional sign so I just wanted to call your attention that that portion of the sign would be less than two square feet. Pastor: Thank you. Fleming: On the same page of 4.1 is also the menu board. Similar situation pursuant to City code we are permitted 30 square feet. The whole sign itself is 44 square but if you look at the detail you’ll notice that there is a cabinet, there is a base that is actually a good chunk of that 44 square feet. The actual menu itself is only 25.7 square feet. So again the actual sign itself is less then what is required--the maximum permitted by code. Pastor: How are you calculating your 25 square feet? Fleming: The menu board--the menu itself is seven feet two inches wide with a height of three feet seven inches. The actual menu board the cabinet itself I’ll call it is about five feet high. Pastor: Thank you. Fleming: Five and a half feet high. The third point I wanted to bring to your attention. If you notice part of the application is asking for three walls signs. One of those wall signs we are asking to build on what I’ll call the front entrance wall. It will be the north wall of the building. I just wanted to point out that on this--within the same shopping center there is a multi-tenant building to the south of us, Aspen Dental as well as Jimmy Johns are the end cap users there and they both have two signs. One along the frontage on Middlebelt as well as one on the south side and north side, so they each have two signs as well. So we are simply asking for the same right. Other than that I am happy to answer any questions you guys may have. Pastor: Okay, I can start out you are asking for three wall signs not two. Fleming: Understood. Pastor: Your square footage, you’re what six times more in wall sign area then what is allowed? Fleming: Yeah, the majority of that square footage has to do with what I will call a Panda mural. If you look at the elevations I believe it is A--A 100, the top left the northeast view, part of the Panda image product of the 1200 stores across the country they have this interior wall sign. It is recessed behind a glass window along the front as well as the entrance wall. It is recessed somewhere between three and three and a half feet behind the front wall. The sign itself is 22 feet by 9.5 feet. Now that is split over two walls, it is actually bent around the corner as you can see in the image. So of that excess wall area we are asking for 209 square feet is actually that Panda mural. Pastor: Mr. Hanosh, I thought we didn’t count signs or what I would consider signage that is on the interior of the building? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 29 of 47 December 8, 2015 Hanosh: In this circumstance behind that you can call it a mural but I think it was proposed to Council when it came forward it was supposed to be the Great Wall of China. It was supposed to be a different mural. Or it was proposed that way--the Panda that’s a trademark so we are classifying it as a sign. Pastor: Okay. Hanosh: That is their trademark so that is--whether it is inside or not when we looked at it we considered it a third sign. Pastor: Thank you. Any other questions? Schepis: Mr. Chairman. So every one of your stores has this same-- Fleming: No. Sure hop up. This is Hakim Yala, he is from Panda Restaurant Group. Pastor: Please state your name and address please. Yala: Hakim Yala, 2242 Dow Avenue, Westchester, Illinois, 60154. I’m the regional construction manager for the Midwest and Canada. Speaking of that fact I just opened a location in Brighton, Michigan this morning and it has the same--this is the trademark. I opened about seven locations in western Michigan area. We do have the mural behind at about three and a half feet and it did not--different localities did not count it as a sign. But we would be more than happy to accommodate. And I just pulled a picture if you guys want to pass it around just for Brighton that opened this morning if you want to take a look at it I would be happy to pass it around. Pastor: Sure. Baringhaus: Sure, that would be great. Hanosh: Mr. Chair. Pastor: Yes. Hanosh: What about--Petitioner, what about your store in Allen Park or the one in Dearborn--Fairlane? Yala: The recent one-- Hanosh: Neither one of them have the Panda like this. Yala: Yes, we do. The Allen Park location we do, sir. I opened it December--January th 4, 2015. Hanosh: It’s not on the street side, it’s on the opposite side there? Yala: Because it is facing the business on the inside. You know the street is--most of the business exposure is out--it’s on the--facing the other businesses. I can pull some pictures from our computer for Allen Park and I can show it to you. Baringhaus: Mr. Chairman. Pastor: Yes, Mr. Baringhaus. Baringhaus: Regarding the Panda sign, is that illuminated or backlit or-- City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 30 of 47 December 8, 2015 Fleming: I’m sorry, I missed that first question? Baringhaus: Yes, regarding the Panda mural is there any kind of lighting, back lighting, directed to the-- Yala: It’s a wall paper, it’s a wall paper mural and there are some fixtures on the top that illuminate at the bottom. Coppola: Mr. Chair. Pastor: So, it is illuminated by lights shining on it? Yala: If you look I can give you another picture-- Pastor: Well it is a yes or no question. Is it illuminated or not? Yala: Yes. Pastor: Thank you. Fleming: From the inside yes. Yala: Sorry, from the inside. Pastor: Mr. Coppola. Coppola: Mr. Chair. You just made a statement you said that that’s actually a wall paper that is put on a wall and it is a wall that is setback? Yala: Yes. Coppola: From the window? Yala: Yes. Baringhaus: Mr. Chairman. Pastor: Yes. Baringhaus: Regarding the mural how far back is it set from the window from the exterior of the building? Fleming: Three and a half feet. Baringhaus: Three and a half feet. Okay. Pastor: Any other questions? Schepis: Mr. Chairman. Pastor: Yes. Schepis: I’m sorry, you said this before but I don’t remember. How many square feet of the excess is this Panda sign? Fleming: This sign is 209 square feet. However it is wrapped around the corner of the building. In this case that would be what 104 and a half per wall. Neville: Mr. Chair. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 31 of 47 December 8, 2015 Pastor: Yes. Neville: Just for clarification I’m looking at your photographs. There is actually two decals or murals in there? Yala: This one is special it is an end cap drive thru-- Neville: Okay. Yala: And it does have kind of a column in the bottom but specifically I can show you another picture typical for free standing drive thru. It is one piece that goes on the corner. Neville: All right. So you’re just going--your proposal is to just have the one mural? A decal? Yala: Yes, it comes in one piece. Neville: Okay, but would it be setback similar to what you have in these photographs? Yala: Yes, sir. Neville: All right. Yala: If you-- Neville: So they are kind of setback a little bit from the glass it appears to be anyways in the photograph? Fleming: Three and a half feet behind the glass yes. Neville: Okay, all right. Baringhaus: Mr. Chairman. Pastor: Yes. Baringhaus: Referring to the northeast view-- Fleming: Okay. Baringhaus: --of your diagram here, the sign Panda Express and then the Panda Express logo on the side of the building-- Fleming: Yes, sir. Baringhaus: --both signs are illuminated? Fleming: Yes, internally yes. Baringhaus: Will that signage be on timers? Fleming: I’m sorry? Baringhaus: Will the signage be on timers? How many hours will it be lit? Yala: Yes, we use the timers. Usually they start from 7:00 p.m. or when it gets darker until we close at 10:30--11:00 p.m. I just want to explain the detail. I have another picture which exactly the same as this one. So you may take a look at it. Baringhaus: Oh, terrific. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 32 of 47 December 8, 2015 Pastors: Any other questions? Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Pastor: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: How do you come to the size of the Panda? What is--is it just someone dreams up a size of a panda mural? Do you have any type of-- Baringhaus: Panda criteria? Caramagno: Yeah. Tell me about that. Fleming: I can’t answer that but I can reassure you there is someone in L.A. right now that spent a lot of time on the size and the graph. Caramagno: Do you do all the signage work? Fleming: Yes. Caramagno: Are there other sized Pandas in different restaurants or is this your standard- -is this your only sized panda? Fleming: For free standing drive thru like this stand-alone this is the only size. Obviously when you go to endcap like Hakim just showed you depending on what kind of space we have yes it does get altered. Caramagno: Do you have larger and do you have smaller? Fleming: We do not have larger. Yala: For typical we have a criteria that shows the details on typical buildings for typical building free-standing we try to get all the same size. Fleming: So to answer the second part of your question for any free-standing drive thru we do not have any smaller mural or panda I should say. Caramagno: Thank you. Yala: Sure. Pastor: Anyone else? Coppola: Mr. Chair. Pastor: Mr. Coppola: Coppola: I’m trying to get my head around the panda here, how it constitutes--I’m trying to understand how it constitutes a sign. It’s--I understand it is in the window and its--but it is three and a half feet away from the window. Does that mean that anybody is prohibited from putting any type of sign inside their building that is not--you know is in front of the window but not on the window? And would that--what constitutes a sign, I’m kind of--I don’t know who answers that if it is a legal question or that is a zoning question but I want to make sure that--you know--I think what I don’t want to do is start a wild run of people doing large mascots three feet behind their windows. I’m trying to understand is this a sign or not so whatever we approve we are approving the right thing? I don’t City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 33 of 47 December 8, 2015 know if it is a legal question, a zoning question but I just wanted to make sure I understood so we are kind of--making sure we are approving what we are approving? Pastor: Craig? Hanosh: We classified it as a sign because it is a trademark. Coppola: I don’t mean to mean argumentative but-- Pastor: It’s a trademark? Hanosh: It’s a trademark. Coppola: So if they had--if you had a Ronald McDonald stand up and you put it in your window three feet away from the window would that--do they have to get an ordinance variance to have a stand up Ronald McDonald? Hanosh: That would be a judgment call I would think. I don’t know Eric-- Schepis: Can I-- Hanosh: --I-- Schepis: Oh, I’m sorry. Hanosh: I’m only-- Coppola: I don’t mean to be argumentative I’m just trying to really get the-- Hanosh: Yeah. Coppola: As I understand it is their logo and if they had that as a decal attached to the window I would understand. Hanosh: But even a temporary--let’s say a--I don’t know if we are looking at a temporary window sign or a permanent window sign but we do have a permanent window sign-- Coppola: Is it-- Hanosh: A permanent sign--let’s say if we classify this as a sign or something we are only allowed not to exceed ten square feet in area. Coppola: But my point is it is not attached to the window. Hanosh: It’s behind it but it is still--I understand, it is a touchy situation. Coppola: Yeah, it is something I don’t think has been contemplated in the past and that’s- - Schepis: Does the fact that its three feet from the window matter? I mean does that go into the calculus at all? If it were 20 feet away from the window if it were in the back of the building and you could just see it through? I guess what I-- Hanosh: I would rather if it is three feet behind or flush with the window it is still is a sign. It’s not like something on the first floor where people are having habitable space in front of it, this is something that is erected on the second story of a building above everywhere City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 34 of 47 December 8, 2015 else you can walk through. We have classified it as a sign and I will have to stick by that as an emblem. It is an emblem of a business of a Panda. Baringhaus: Mr. Chairman. Pastor: Yes. Baringhaus: Question for the Inspection Department. What if it was a car dealership and it was a photo of a vehicle three feet from the window? Hanosh: It would still be classified as a possibly a sign, it’s the same thing. Baringhaus: Even though there is no tie to the trademark? Hanosh: An automobile is part of their trademark depending on what automobile it is and what they are selling. Baringhaus: Brand logo versus the automobile? Hanosh: It is still an automobile, actually it is still--it depends it is a hypothetical. As we compare the two we looked at it from our department and realized it is part of the signage and that’s our position. I’ll have to stick by that. Baringhaus: Okay. Mr. Chairman, regardless of the content is, I mean it if was a picture of the Himalayan Mountains that would still be considered a sign? Hanosh: It would have to be. Baringhaus: Okay. Pastor: Anything else? Is there anyone in the audience who wants to make a comment on this please come forward. Martin: Christopher Martin, 11037 Hubbard, Livonia, 48150. Many times I have seen discussions like this but years ago the Big Boy--it’s no longer a Big Boy restaurant now but the mascot that was out front there was quite a discussion on that. Is that a sign? You know the chubby character that was out front, on the front of him there were letters that said Big Boy. And once that went away I don’t think then that they referred to the mascot as a sign. It’s my--it’s the way I remember it. But to get past that there is a lot of discussion how far in board the size of a panda--here is what happens every two years at a City Council election and an election for mayor, different other positions in the City. Livonia is business friendly, we welcome you. Come on, okay. Whether you build a building or whether you go into one that has been vacant for years, we want to welcome you we are business friendly. Then I go to various meetings and I see the discussion of a panda--the size of a panda. How far inboard is in from a window? Is it designated as a sign? And people actually say Livonia is business friendly after that. You would rather see--you would have in my opinion a vacant building on a major road and you guy have no problem with a sign that says for sale or lease--available. Wouldn’t you rather have a business in a vacant building? Wouldn’t you rather encourage someone to construct a building and yet be able to advertise what service he provides or what he sells? Why would you want to restrict that? A discussion like that-- the size of a panda? Unbelievable. Sit back and think what’s happening tonight. Are you really business City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 35 of 47 December 8, 2015 friendly? You are getting instructions from the Inspection Department. This is what that individual thinks a sign is. That’s his opinion. Why would you stand in line and listen to that? You are making the decision. In your mind are you business friendly? What is it in your mind? Is it a sign? Is it a mascot? What is it? But don’t lose focus on are you attempting to make Livonia business friendly? That’s the issue because I’ve seen business and don’t think--they tell other people--oh, man, don’t even attempt it in Livonia. Forget it, try Westland. Go over and talk to Bill Wild he is a nice guy, try Westland don’t locate here because they are just too many hoops and especially when they set those hoops on fire to jump through those. So you know reevaluate this whole thing guys. Are you business friendly by your actions or not? Do you want this to succeed or is it just a power play? I want the panda to be this size. So I’m going to ask you to think it over. Go ahead and approve it, don’t you want somebody to be successful? What is the issue here tonight? I think we have one of the--and they talk about it, we really have to change that sign ordinance. They never--they are never going to change that sign ordinance. City Council will never review that step. They should but they won’t. So I’m speaking in favor of this tonight because this discussion in my mind is just spiraling out of control as far as the size of a panda as their logo. So let’s approve it, let’s show that not only this business owner but others that might step in front of this podium in the future that you are indeed business friendly. So I’m in favor of it. And if I was sitting there, I wouldn’t be asking the questions that some of you guys are. Seriously I wouldn’t. Thank you. Pastor: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing no one coming forward, letters? Caramagno: There are no letters. Pastor: Do you need time for a closing statement? Fleming: Sure, not really a closing statement. I just want to call your attention I’d say half a mile south on Middlebelt there is a McDonald’s right there not only do they have the McDonald sign on the roof but they also have the McDonald Golden Arches on the front window. So I’m not sure if that sets a precedent or what but I just want to make you aware that there are some other businesses along this corridor that have something similar. Pastor: Thank you. Fleming: Other than that we appreciate your time. Pastor: Thank you. Starting the Board’s comments with Mr. Schepis. Schepis: In general I think this building looks nice. The signage, the two other wall signs I think are pretty consistent with what we’ve--with variances that we’ve granted other buildings in this sort of development. The only thing I think that gives me pause is just the size of the excess for this third whatever it is sign. But I think in this case this is unique enough where it’s--it can sort of be distinguished I think from other types of signage. And for that reason I think I would support it. Pastor: Mr. Neville. Neville: Well for the record our ordinance 18.50 (a) defines what sign--what constitutes signs in the City of Livonia which would include the fact that the Panda which is a logo and--not only constitutes a sign but even it is setback from the window it constitutes a City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 36 of 47 December 8, 2015 window sign. So the question is whether or not a variance is reasonable and proper. I have to tell you when I looked at the blueprints and the plans initially I thought it was quite gaudy. However, I think the photographs that your client has with him portray it in a much different light and I think it actually works with the design of the building. I think because of the fact where it situated it doesn’t look like--I know this is a two dimensional diagram so my point is I think it works much better and for that reason I’m not as bothered by the fact that now you’ve got this excess if you’re going to look as it being a wall sign. In light of that I would have no problem in supporting their request for a variance with respect to the signage because I think it flows with the character and I don’t think it detracts either from this business, from the strip or from any of the surrounding businesses. Pastor: Mr. Baringhaus. Baringhaus: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I agree with Mr. Neville in theory. I tend to view the panda sign more as a supporting theme or accent to the general signage of the building. Looking at the design of the building very well executed, it would be a very positive upgrade for our community. I’m inclined to support the variance. Pastor: Mr. Coppola. Coppola: Well first of all welcome to Livonia. I’m excited for you guys to be open and not withstanding certain opinions, I’m always excited with there is new business in town and always look to support it any way I can to make sure that it is successful. I don’t’ find any issue with any of the requests. I thought this gentleman made a good point when I first saw the picture with the panda I didn’t grasp that it was setback I actually think it is down relatively tasteful. Now if you had painted the thing on the building I would have had a little bit of an issue. But I think that is pretty tastefully done. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t have a problem with the directional sign I think the way it is done again very tastefully. It is nice thing do not enter, unfortunately these days you have to tell people not to enter into something that obviously they don’t belong in but I think that is appropriate. I don’t see any problem with the menu board area even though it is slightly over itself on the property it won’t affect anybody else. I don’t see any issue with that. So I’m fully supportive of this. Pastor: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: The way I look at it the monument sign I think you are taking advantage of the two sides of that to send two different things, a thank you and a do not enter. I have no issue with that at all. The menu board, we’ve approved similar in the area and similar in size if I recall. And I’ve got no issue there. On the two outdoor wall signs, we have done similar things for business right within that new development there. I think they look good, they look to be effective to me so you are going to catch your traffic. They are readable in mind and again effective. As far as the panda goes the panda wall sign mural, to me when I look at it and with the photographs and if you look at this objectively a couple different ways here, to me that is a wall sign. But it is a wall sign inside your building. And I know this is a unique way of advertising your business and I am curious to see what is going to come in the future in regard to this for other businesses. This may start something like it or not. But three and a half feet--three feet inside your building I am City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 37 of 47 December 8, 2015 going to be in support. I think if it was on the outside as Greg said, on an outside I might look at it differently. This is inside your building. This probably not a whole lot different than me telling you what color to paint your walls in there. So I realize it is a logo but it is inside your building and I look at it a little differently. I’m in support. Pastor: I will agree with Mr. Caramagno up until the logo. I think it is excessive. I know why you are doing it, it is to avoid the sign ordinances. I’ve seen other buildings do the same thing. So I don’t think I can support that part of it. I can support everything else up to that but I cannot support. So I will not be in support. Anybody want to make a motion? Baringhaus: Mr. Chairman. Pastor: Mr. Baringhaus. Upon Motion by Baringhaus and supported by Neville, it was: RESOLVED: APPEAL CASE NO. 2015-12-63: An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Toebeck Realty Corporation, 9986 Manchester Road, St. Louis, MO 63122, on behalf of Lessee Panda Restaurant Group, 1683 Walnut Grove Ave., Rosemead, CA 91770, seeking to erect three (3) wall signs, directional sign, menu board sign and identification ground sign, resulting in excess number of wall signs, wall sign area, directional and menu board sign that are excess in area and the identification ground sign is not allowed based on other nonconforming ground signs which required previous approval for this multi-tenant retail site by the Zoning Board. Number of Wall Signs: Wall Sign Area: Directional Sign Area: Allowed: One Allowed: 40 sq. ft. Allowed: 2 sq. ft. Proposed: Three Proposed: 312 sq. ft. Proposed: 6 sq. ft. Excess: Two Excess: 272 sq. ft. Excess: 4 sq. ft. Menu Board Area: Allowed: 30 sq. ft. Proposed: 44 sq. ft. Excess: 14 sq. ft. The property is located on the west side of Middlebelt (13701), between Schoolcraft and Industrial, Lot. No. 101-99-0004-002, C-2 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section 18.50H,(b),(1),(2) and 18.50H,(m) “Sign Regulations in C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 Districts” and Section 18.50D,(i) “Permitted Signs,” be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because the mural which is considered a sign is within the interior of the building. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 38 of 47 December 8, 2015 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner due to the lack of brand recognition by business customers. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because there is no objection from the surrounding neighbors. 4. The Board received no letters 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 project be completed as presented. 2. That the Petitioner incorporate all provisions of the City Council and Planning Commission. 3. That the signs be installed within one (1) year. 4. That the waiver is intended for the excess of signage created by the interior mural that was presented and any change to the mural would require approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Baringhaus, Neville, Schepis, Coppola, Caramagno NAYS: Pastor ABSENT: Henzi Pastor: Your petition has passed with those conditions. Good luck. Fleming: Thank you for your time. Yala: Thank you very much everyone. Coppola: Good luck. Yala: Thank you. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 39 of 47 December 8, 2015 APPEAL CASE NO. 2015-12-65: An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Kingston Terrace Condominiums, 9403 Lamont, Livonia, MI 48150, seeking to erect two (2) ground signs, resulting in excess number of ground signs. Number of Ground Signs: Allowed: One Proposed: Two Excess: One The property is located on the west side of Middlebelt (9723-10033), between Orangelawn and Robert, Lot. No. 137-02-0005-000, R-7 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section 18.50E (l), “Sign Regulations for Residential Districts,” Pastor: Good evening. Pavlichek: Good evening. I’m Michael Pavlichek, I’m with Majestic Condo Management. I’m the management for this complex, Kingston Terrace condominiums. We’re requesting to be able to put up two signs at Kingston Terrace one at each end of the complex. These are pretty much the same signs that you have in your annex actually made by the same company. We are requesting two because of the size of the complex along Middlebelt Road. We have 900--it’s 900 feet long. Where it would be nice to put one in the center we have parallel parking along Middlebelt Road and with cars parked there you wouldn’t be able to see the sign. So they would be placed on--one kind of a 45 degree angle on Middlebelt toward Orangelawn and the other one at the south at Robert Drive. You should have the drawings showing the complex. Pastor: I’m sorry what was the reasoning behind you wanting these signs? Pavlichek: We have issues with people thinking they are still apartments and they were converted back in 1965 to condos. Knocking on people’s doors because they can’t find an office. We need to identify it as a condominium. I mean it is not an advertising it is just identifying it because it’s--we don’t do--all sales since it is condos all sales are through realtors individually not the association. So just identifying the complex itself. Pastor: Okay. Any questions? Baringhaus: Mr. Chairman. Pastor: Mr. Baringhaus. Baringhaus: As I understand it there is no existing signage? Pavlichek: That is correct. Baringhaus: In any location? Pavlichek: Yes. We’ve discussed it many many years and never got to this point. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 40 of 47 December 8, 2015 Baringhaus: And then based on the illustration provided that is not illuminated signage? Pavlichek: No it is not. Baringhaus: Okay. One question, I notice you have one location at Orangelawn and Middlebelt-- Pavlichek: Correct. Baringhaus: --and the other location that is Robert Drive and Middlebelt? Pavlichek: Correct, the complex literally goes between those two roads. Baringhaus: Okay. I thought it was Elmira Street but maybe I was one off. Pavlichek: Elmira doesn’t--isn’t on the west side of Middlebelt that is on the eastside of Middlebelt. Baringhaus: Okay. Pavlichek: Over by the Bread Basket. Baringhaus: Great, thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Pastor: Any other questions? Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Pastor: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: A couple of quick questions for you. Are the signs going where the stakes are at both ends of the property? Pavlichek: Yes. Caramagno: Okay, and what is the material of the signs? Pavlichek: The same as your signs at the annex. It’s a plastic. It is half inch thick, PVC that is routed and then painted with the name and the condomiums and along the edge to get that white border. Caramagno: Okay, and then the uprights what are those? Are those plastic are they wood? Pavlichek: They put a sleeve over four by four wolmanized posts. Caramagno: Okay. Never had a sign before, answered that question and why now, you’ve answered that question. Okay, thank you. Pavlichek: Okay. Pastor: Anyone else? Baringhaus: Mr. Chairman. Pastor: Mr. Baringhaus. Baringhaus: Yes, just one follow up question on the signage. You indicated that it wasn’t going to be illuminated will there be any kind of flood lights posted on the sign? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 41 of 47 December 8, 2015 Pavlichek: No. Baringhaus: Thank you. Pavlichek: Okay. Pastor: Any other questions? Hearing none, no one in the audience. Richards: Yes. Pastor: Sorry, someone in the audience. Pavlichek: My boss. Pastor: Come forward. Richards: I’m Mary Richards and I live at 9332 Eastwind Drive in Livonia. I used to live in that complex many many years and then I moved to another condo complex in Livonia. And I have retained rental property over there since before I moved out and as Mr. Pavlichek has said there has been no signage at all ever. And minor detail but from delivering pizzas to delivering a house full of furniture, they go what’s the name of your complex, Kingston Terrace Condominiums. But there is no sign, just make sure you come there if you hit West Chicago you’ve gone too far. And so it is an identifier. The other-- one of the other reasons that we like the sign is Livonia is doing a lot to enhance the City. Not to only make it more business friendly but to also make it more family friendly. And I think that the signs give a warmth to the area. We as the management company, I’m on the board of directors, I am the President right now, we want to be part of that growth. We want our property values--they took a terrible dive a few years ago as everybody’s did. And we have worked very hard to enhance the neighborhood, enhance our property, to keep everything up and I think this is just one more step that we can do to make it a welcoming complex, a welcoming area. Especially with all the restaurants and the stores and everything down the street. You know with Target and Wal-Mart there it’s is just an ideal location for many many things and we would like to be identified. Pastor: Thank you. Richards: You’re welcome. Neville: Mr. Chair. Pastor: Yes. Neville: I just want to ask you a question because there has been a suggestion that the placement where you proposed to put the signs they might create a visual obstruction for somebody who might be pulling out onto Middlebelt Road seeing traffic coming from the north or the south, how would you address that? Richards: Do you want to take it? Pavlichek: Okay. When we first requested to have the parallel parking when the repaved Middlebelt almost twenty years ago now, we got the parallel parking they required us to put landscaping which is basically on the right of way on the three--we call them the three islands. The two ends and in the middle. And we put a weeping cherry. We had to take City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 42 of 47 December 8, 2015 them down this year at both ends at Robert and Orangelawn, we took them down because they were blocking the view for people pulling out of those side streets onto Middlebelt. So we took them down. These are now on the sidewalk within the property--behind the sidewalk so people can pull up. There is no view. I did have one homeowner right behind the association make that comment. Well you’re not going to put them where you took the trees down, no they are way back, you saw the stakes. They are actually not even-- we could have put them right at eleven feet I believe it is from the back--from the sidewalk. We actually moved it back and to the side a little bit because there is a tree there okay. But this by no way blocks any driving line of sight. Pastor: Okay. Any other questions? Richards: Can I make another comment about why we want the two signs? It is so northbound and southbound could see. If you’re coming southbound and the sign only shows on the northbound, you know that is just not helpful, it is not useful. Pastor: Thank you. Anything else? Caramagno: Letters of approval from Gerardo Atilo, 11022 Middlebelt (letter read), Sally Randall, 9915 Middlebelt (letter read), and letters of objection from Veronica Colucci, 9807 Fremont (letter read) and Ilene Hodge, 29467 Robert Drive (letter read). Richards: There is no parking signs right in front of Robert Drive there between Middlebelt and where the houses start. Pavlichek: We actually requested that some years ago and they put the no parking signs all the way from our rear driveway to Middlebelt because garbage trucks couldn’t get in and out with cars parked there. So they are already there but people and I don’t know how but somebody put up a handicap sign on a no parking sign right in front of the complex on Robert Drive. Richards: It wasn’t us. Pavlichek: And then there’s people in one of the units there that actually park there when they have a parking space in the back go figure. Pastor: Thank you. Pavlichek: As I explained we took the tree down so you have a line of sight, the sign is behind the sidewalk. Pastor: Thank you. I’ll close the public portion of the meeting and start the comments with-- Unidentified Person: We were wondering why you took the tree down. Pastor: --with Mr. Neville. Richards: Because if you drove an SUV you wouldn’t get out. Neville: I think in light of the fact of the expanse of the property they’ve indicated that it is over 900 feet-- Caramagno: There is one other comment. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 43 of 47 December 8, 2015 Pastor: I’m sorry. Brown: My name is John Brown and I live at 28460 Orangelawn. I would welcome the signs because the biggest majority of my summer day when I can get outside because most of the time I have to stay indoors because of the emphysema. When I do get out I am questioned by several visitors to the condominiums where is Kingston Terrace. Now I know where Kingston Terrace is because there is a little sign in the alley that the garage guys use that identify it as Kingston Terrace and it is only this high and it’s that wide. So I welcome the signs near the sidewalk so people will know that is Kingston Terrace. That’s just my take. Pastor: Did you give your address? Coppola: Yes, he did. Pastor: Okay, thank you. Brown: Thank you. Pastor: I’ll close the public portion and start once again with Mr. Neville. Neville: Thank you Mr. Chair. I could not have said it better myself. In light of the fact that the expanse of the property over 900 feet off Middlebelt and the ordinance allows for one I don’t think the extra sign at the opposite end of the property is unreasonable. Based on the representative of the fact that the proposed signs do not create any sight problems with respect to traffic I would be in favor of supporting the petitioner’s request for a variance. Pastor: Mr. Baringhaus. Baringhaus: I agree with Mr. Neville’s comments. Again, there is a definite need to identify the condominium complex to the public and I am in support of the variance. Pastor: Mr. Coppola. Coppola: I am in support. Pastor: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: Very few condos in the City do not have signage and this was one of them. The--you certainly need it, it’s as you said you are unable to tell the name of the facility so I am in support. Pastor: Mr. Schepis. Schepis: I agree I think it makes sense to have a sign that you can see coming from both north and south on a busy stretch of Middlebelt. So I would support it too. Pastor: I’ll also be in support. I will leave it to the Board for a motion. Schepis: Mr. Chairman. Pastor: Mr. Schepis. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 44 of 47 December 8, 2015 Upon Motion by Schepis and supported by Caramagno, it was: RESOLVED: APPEAL CASE NO. 2015-12-65: An appeal has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Kingston Terrace Condominiums, 9403 Lamont, Livonia, MI 48150, seeking to erect two (2) ground signs, resulting in excess number of ground signs. Number of Ground Signs: Allowed: One Proposed: Two Excess: One The property is located on the west side of Middlebelt (9723-10033), between Orangelawn and Robert, Lot. No. 137-02-0005-000, R-7 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section 18.50E (l), “Sign Regulations for Residential Districts,” be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is because the Condominium Association has no signage identifying their property 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because the lack of signage makes it difficult to locate the condominium complex. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because it will improve safety and visibility from Middlebelt Road. 4. The Board received two letters of approval and two 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 signs be constructed as presented. 2. That the signs be placed in the area as presented. 3. That the signs be installed within six (6) months City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 45 of 47 December 8, 2015 ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Schepis, Caramagno, Coppola, Baringhaus, Neville, Pastor NAYS: None ABSENT: Henzi Pastor: Your motion passed, good luck. Richards: Thank you. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 46 of 47 December 8, 2015 Pastor: I think we have some minutes to approve? Coppola: We do. Pastor: Is there a motion to approve the minutes? Coppola: I would be happy to make a motion Mr. Chair. A motion to approve the minutes for Tuesday, October 13, 2015 and Tuesday, October 27, 2015. Baringhaus: Support. Pastor: All in favor? Board Members: Aye. Pastor: Motion to adjourn? Coppola: Mr. Chair. Pastor: Mr. Coppola. Coppola: Motion to adjourn. Pastor: Support? Baringhaus: Support. Pastor: All in favor? Board Members: Aye. Pastor: We are adjourned. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:51 p.m. Craig Pastor, Acting Chairman Sam Caramagno, Secretary /pcb City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 47 of 47 December 8, 2015