Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 2014 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF LIVONIA MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 2014 A Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Livonia was held in the Gallery of the Livonia City Hall on Tuesday, February 11, 2014. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matthew Henzi, Chairman Sam Caramagno, Secretary Ed Duggan, Jr., Elizabeth H. McCue Robert W. Sills MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Pastor Kathleen McIntyre OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Fisher, Assistant City Attorney Dennis DeMeyer, City Inspector Patricia C. Burklow, CER-8225 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Henzi then explained the Rules of Procedure to those interested parties. Each petitioner must give their name and address and declare hardship for appeal. Appeals of the Zoning Board's decisions are made to the Wayne County Circuit Court. The Chairman advised the audience that appeals can be filed within 21 days of the date tonight's minutes are approved. The decision of the Zoning Board shall become final within five (5) calendar days following the hearing and the applicant shall be mailed a copy of the decision. There are four decisions the Board can make: to deny, to grant, to grant as modified by the Board, or to table for further information. Each petitioner may ask to be heard by a full seven (7) member Board. Five (5) 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 3 people present in the audience. (7:05) City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 of 19 February 11, 2014 APPEAL CASE NO. 2014-01-03: OSI Restaurants, LLC, (Outback Steak House), seeking to construct a new restaurant on property resulting in deficient number of parking spaces. Number of Parking Spaces Required: 132 Proposed: 109 Deficient: 23 The property is located on the east side of Middlebelt (13010), between Schoolcraft and C and O Railroad, Lot No. 097-99-0021-005, C-2 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section 18.38,(17) "Off-Street Parking." Henzi: Mr. DeMeyer, anything to add to this case? DeMeyer: Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Henzi: Any questions for Dennis? Hearing none, if petitioner's representatives come on up. Good evening. Abernathy: Good evening, my name is Elizabeth Abernathy. My address is 2202 Northwest Shore Drive, Tampa, Florida. I'm here representing Outback Steakhouse. Do you want me to-- Henzi: Have a seat. We're going to talk about the parking spaces first, so if you could tell us why--why you think the deficiency requires a variance? Abernathy: Should I reiterate what's on the letter that I submitted or do you want me to more talk generally? What's the protocol? Henzi: I guess if you want to talk generally, I know the one thing that the Board will ask you to focus on and that is why do you think 109 is more than enough. So for example when national chains or retailers come in and say we know that 109 is more than enough than we say okay, why is that and usually they'll say well we've got 200 stores in the Midwest and 100 is the max you know at many of those stores, that sort of stuff. Abernathy: Sure. Henzi: That's the kind of information that we will be looking for. Abernathy: Sure, so-- Henzi: Go ahead. Abernathy: So we do have an outdoor patio which won't be used year round unfortunately so that reduces the overall demand. The parking ratio does include the patio. And we do have an opportunity for additional parking on the Meijer parcel if needed. And if there were an issue the site could be redesigned to reduce the landscape buffer to create additional parking. But rather than reducing that buffer because there is ample overflow parking on the Meijer lot, we designed the layout such that we could retain that existing buffer to Middlebelt Road--that landscape buffer. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 of 19 February 11, 2014 Henzi: Do you have a shared parking agreement or are you just relying on the easement that I think is referenced in the packet? Abernathy: Yeah, the R.C.O.E.A.--I'm probably not saying that right--I can't think of the exact legal terminology which is the overall agreement for all of the center and any of the outparcels and users does provide for cross parking throughout the center. Henzi: All right. And then can you talk a little bit about--you know--how many employees you'll have, why 109 is more than enough spaces, that sort of thing? Abernathy: So there's typically at the largest shift about 25 employees and--so we feel that again that the number of spaces on site will be adequate for a majority of the days and the operating hours and again at peak times there's ample overflow parking in the Meijer's lot. Henzi: Do you have a general parking study what like--for example when you go in and develop a site do you say the minimum we need is 75 spots or the minimum we need is 120 spots, anything like that? Abernathy: Yeah, it's--it's a range generally. We like to see a little bit more but we also again have a patio that won't have year round use here. So it's--it's kind of recognizing that as kind of a compensating factor to the demand at this location. Henzi: Got it. And hopefully my last question is how does this request compare with similar requests in other communities like ours? Abernathy: It's very typical for our stores. We also own Carrabba's and Bone Fish Grill, as well as Outback. When we're located in shopping centers that there is a shared parking and our peak operating times in the evening are not the peak operating times of the main retailers on the site so the shared parking works for us. And I didn't do a specific ULI shared parking study for this project but we have done those in the past for other projects where you look at peak hours of the different users in the center to verify that at peak times there's adequate parking for everyone in the shopping center. And we did review this site based on our own internal standards for shared and it met all of our internal standards for the overall parking of the shopping center. And there's ample overflow parking available when at again--at our peak which peak hour--peak season there--there will be occasionally the need for overflow but for the majority of the operating hours and the majority of the year the onsite parking is--will be adequate. Henzi: Thanks. Any questions for the petitioner's representative? Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: I think I know the answer to this question but let me ask you. What are peak hours and what are peak days for you? Abernathy: Friday, Saturday night. Caramagno: Is that right? From what six--seven? Abernathy: Yeah, till nine, right which is not the peak hours for the Meijer's grocery store and the other retail tenants. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 of 19 February 11, 2014 Caramagno: And your intent would be to be--the over flow would come into what would that be the north--northwest side of the Meijer parking lot right there across the--across the access road there? Abernathy: Right--right. Caramagno: Okay and you use that in other locations as well though? Abernathy: Right--right, and we're--we're of the--you know--farthest away those tend to be open spots anyway--you know--on occasion we will when needed designate employee--employee parking areas so it doesn't disrupt the clients of any of the operations. They will typically use a remote area for employee when needed. But again I don't think--I don't foresee that that's going to be an issue or situation here just because we're so far out away from the Meijer's entrance and that every occasion I've been to the site there's no cars anywhere near that area. So we don't foresee--you know--any issues or conflicts overall. Again peak hours of operation--we will be open for lunch here but our lunch business is typically 50--about 50 percent of the dinner so there will be more than ample parking during the day on site for the lunch operation. Caramagno: Thank you. Henzi: I thought of one more. I see that the lots--or the spots are double striped, are they the typical--we usually like to see 10 by 20 spots, is that size? Ten feet wide? Abernathy: So I can defer to my civil engineer, Jim Butler, who I brought here with me today because he can probably quickly answer that question. Butler: Yes, they are ten by twenties. Henzi: Got it. Butler: Okay. Henzi: And did you say you do have employee only parking? Abernathy: There is no designated area at this time but it's something that if there were ever any issue we would work with--you know if Meijer's had any concerns we could designate an employee parking area. I've seen that on other projects I guess that's why I brought it up. I don't see the need for it here because again we're so far away from their entrance that I don't think there will-- could potentially be a conflict but that is another option we have on sites that--where there's a lot of different users. Henzi: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against the project? Seeing no one, are there letters? Caramagno: No letters. Henzi: Miss Abernathy is there anything you would like to say in closing? Abernathy: No. Henzi: Okay. I'll close the public portion of the case and begin the Board's comments with Mrs. McCue. McCue: I'll be--I'll be in support of this. It makes total sense just the location, the Meijer- -1 would agree with you very rarely have I ever seen that many parking spaces filled going City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 of 19 February 11, 2014 back to Meijer. And I think you definitely have a bit of a different situation considering where that property is located on Middlebelt Road. And obviously I appreciate the intent that you guys are going to try to keep some of that green space there-- Abernathy: Right. McCue: --because I agree that--that's a huge piece and it makes it much more attractive. So I will support. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: Well, I too will support. You have the unique location with the Meijer right there too. Furthermore, I don't think you'd build a restaurant with too little parking--you know-- that would be--it wouldn't be good for the brand. But regardless to say you have a unique location right there, you got the parcel attached so I think you have enough overflow parking that will work out just fine. So I'll be in support. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: I have the same feelings as Mr. Duggan. I don't think that you would ever build a restaurant without adequate parking for your customers, there's too much risk there. Furthermore, the fact that you've got all that excess area from the Meijer parking lot which really--really far out from the entrance of the Meijer shopping center only makes its natural for overflow traffic to park there. And there is a reason they push big snow banks over there because nobody parks there. And that will be for all your big nights. So I'll be in support. Henzi: Mr. Sills. Sills- I will also be in support. Isn't it true that Meijer's own the property that the Outback is going to build on? Abernathy: They currently do, we are purchasing that out lot from them. Sills- I view the parking as a 109 spaces is more than adequate because everybody is not going to come in the restaurant at the same time, eat at the same time, and leave at the same time. It's--it's kind of like people complaining about highways not being designed properly. There are peak hours where--where the--where you're going to have gridlock on the highways and there are going to be peak hours in the restaurant where you're going to have heavier parking lot flow. But there will be days where that parking lot will be empty. So I will be in complete support. Henzi: I too will support the request. I'm persuaded that this is more than enough parking. I think that the fact that Outback is going to construct a patio according to our ordinance you have to more parking than maybe you even need for a patio you're only going to use- -well hopefully several months. But the way it's been here lately it could only be a couple of months. And you also are keeping a buffer that--that would be--to me that's an extreme hardship to make you level that. You also have ten by twenty double striped spots; I would rather see that with a deficiency then hit the number on the button with nine foot spots. So the floor's open for a motion. McCue: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 of 19 February 11, 2014 Upon Motion by McCue supported by Sills it was: RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2014-01-03: OSI Restaurants, LLC, (Outback Steak House), seeking to construct a new restaurant on property resulting in deficient number of parking spaces. Number of Parking Spaces Required: 132 Proposed: 109 Deficient: 23 The property is located on the east side of Middlebelt (13010), between Schoolcraft and C and O Railroad, Lot No. 097-99-0021-005, C-2 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section 18.38,(17) "Off-Street Parking," was granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because of the location of the property and the way it sits in the out lots with Meijer, and the location and access to Middlebelt Road. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because it would be necessary to remove green space and cause additional construction costs. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because it is not in a residential area, there were no objections from neighboring properties, the size of the parking spots and it is similar to other variances granted. 4. The Board received no letters of approval and no objection letters from neighboring property owners. 5. The property is classified as "regional shopping" in the Master Plan and the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification. FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions- 1. onditions:1. That the project be built as it was presented to the Board. 2. That the parking lot comply with conditions set by the Planning Commission and City Council. 3. That the project be completed within one year. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 of 19 February 11, 2014 ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: McCue, Sills, Duggan, Caramagno, Henzi NAYS: None ABSENT: Pastor, McIntyre Henzi: The variance is granted with three conditions. You've got to construct the parking the way that you've presented with the same number of spots as on the plans. You've got to do it in accordance with the Planning Council and City--Planning Commission and City Council requirements. And it's good for twelve months. That doesn't mean it expires, it means you've got twelve months in which to complete construction. And if that was ever a problem you would just deal with the Inspection Department. Abernathy: Okay. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 of 19 February 11, 2014 APPEAL CASE NO. 2014-01-04:OSI Restaurants, LLC, (Outback Steak House), 13010 Middlebelt, Livonia, MI, seeking to erect five wall signs resulting in excess number of wall signs and wall sign area. Number of Wall Signs Wall Sign Area Allowed: One Allowed: 70 sq. ft. Proposed: Four Proposed: 197 sq. ft. (3 signs at 64 sq. ft. each; one at 5 ft.) Excess: Three Excess: 127 sq. ft. The property is located on the east side of Middlebelt (13010), between Schoolcraft and C and O Railroad, Lot No. 097-99-0021-005, C-2 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section 18.50H(a),2, "Sign Regulations in C-1, C-27 C-3 and C-4 Districts." Henzi: Mr. DeMeyer, anything to add to this case? DeMeyer: Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Henzi: Any questions for Dennis? Sills: What are we talking about, four wall signs and one monument sign? Caramagno: It says five wall signs-- Fisher: The monument sign is compliant. Sills: We're looking at--we're looking at five wall signs here on the write-up but-- DeMeyer: The write-up is wrong, there's only four. Sills: There's only four. DeMeyer: There should be four. Sills: There's only four? DeMeyer: Right. Sills: Okay. Fisher: Yeah, the chart part of the write-up is correct it's just the text is wrong. Sills: It's just a minor thing but-- Henzi: Okay, other questions for Dennis? Hearing none, good evening. Abernathy: Good evening. Just to clarify we have--I think everybody has copies of the larger elevations; I did bring extras if anybody needs one. We do have three of our larger Outback signs and then there's a very small "Take Away" sign below the awning on the left elevation so that's considered the fourth sign. And generally again because of the positioning of this lot and that large berm and landscape buffer we are a little bit restricted- -you know--that's a restricted visibility to that parcel. We also don't have direct access to the parcel; we come through the Meijer parcel so all of our customers are coming around the side and through to the back of the building. So we wanted to request some additional signage to both allow for the customers to find the building as well as to enhance the overall design of the building which was reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 of 19 February 11, 2014 City Commission (sic) through the waiver use process. And you know my understanding again is this is consistent with other commercial establishments along Middlebelt Road who have also requested additional wall signage, again presumably because of visibility issues with the grade on Middlebelt and positioning of the walls. This is a very intense commercial corridor as you're probably very familiar with and we want to make sure people can find our building. So we are respectfully requesting that additional two wall signs--typically the "Take Away" isn't considered a sign I haven't had a chance to talk to staff about that. It's often viewed as a directional or an informational and not subject to the number of codes--you know the number of signs--wall signs. I guess in your jurisdiction it is part of the--it is considered a sign. The text on it says "Take Away" so it indicates--you know--where you park for call-in orders. So that's what that additional sign on the left elevation is for. Questions for me? Henzi: Sure, I just want to make sure front--does the front elevation face Middlebelt? Abernathy: Correct, the front faces Middlebelt, the--let me get my directions right here so I don't say it wrong-- Henzi: Right-- Abernathy: --so the north--thank you--yeah, thank you--so the left elevation is north, the rear elevation is the east, is that right? Oh yeah, this is the one that I had marked it on. The right elevation is the south and the front elevation is the west facing Middlebelt. Henzi: Right. Abernathy: So our front door faces Middlebelt. Henzi: So on the--on the "Take Away" is on the left side--the south side and there's parking over there. Do you also have reserved parking for"Take Away"? Abernathy: Correct, so the stalls in the rear--the "Take Away" must be on the north side, did I mark it wrong? "Take Away" left elevation, that's right. So the left elevation should be the north. Fisher: Yes. Abernathy: Did I say it wrong? No, that's it, I had it right there. Caramagno: You said it right. Henzi: You said it right. Abernathy: The left elevation is the north and that's where the "Take Away" sign is and if you do--you have the site plan? Henzi: Yes. Abernathy: And then if you look that's where the "Take Away" door is, it says "To Go" and then we have marked "To Go" carry out spaces and there's carry out spaces to the rear. So the person that--the staff person that's delivering to the "To Go" spaces comes out the door where that "Take Away" sign is then goes to the right to the "Take Away"--to the "To Go" spaces on the rear and then there's also "To Go" spaces in the front. Originally we had more to go spaces in the front but we decided it was safer to move them to the back because there's going to be so many people coming in and the conflict of City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 of 19 February 11, 2014 people backing out which--because those take out spaces are faster turn over so you've got people coming in and out of them. So we thought it was safer to move them around to the back but there will still be a couple of spaces on the side there. Apparently there's a pretty big need for "To Go"-"Take Away" spaces according to our managing partner of the current Livonia. They need a lot of spaces so--we typically only do four or five but he says he needs--he could use eight because they have that much demand for take-out. Henzi: And do those--are those spots all marked with a sign? Abernathy: Yeah, there is a sign, I'm not sure of the detail was included in the sign package I submitted, do you-- Henzi: That's okay. Abernathy: It's not in there? Okay. Henzi: That's okay. Maybe I overlooked it. Is it curbside or do you go in and get it? Abernathy: It's curbside. So yeah you just pull in and they have a camera inside and they--you tell them what color and kind of car you have and then they run out to you and you give them your credit card and they come back with the food. That's how it works. Henzi: I'm trying to find out the purpose for it. I mean you say it's directional and I agree with you, but I just want to make sure--that's sort of a belt and suspenders approach to let people know what side of the building to go to right? Abernathy: Right--right. Henzi: Because I suppose somebody could go in there but it's unlikely. Abernathy: It's also helpful because then customers aren't going to be trying to walk in that door. I mean you can, but you're going walk in, you're not at the hostess station, we want people to come around--we want people to come around to the front door and not to be walking in that door. And if it didn't have the sign on it, people are going to want to walk in that door so-- Henzi: Got it. Could you talk about the signs, like is that the proto type of Outback signs? Abernathy: Yeah, this-- Henzi: Are they the same size, same style? Abernathy: Right, and this is our new design for our Outback's. We've just started building these within the last year. And it's a design that's supposed to evoke the mountains of the outback. As is the--you know--along with the roof lines and the color variations of the building itself kind of match and go architecturally with the signage and it's all part of an architectural theme for the building. And this signage kind of enhances the overall design. Henzi: And then can you tell us about lighting, are the signs going to be backlit? And if so, for how long? Abernathy: So they are internally lit--let me see if I can get my signage information out, sorry. They're internally illuminated--I know I submitted all that information over to you, it's probably the only thing I don't have in this file-- City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 10 of 19 February 11, 2014 Henzi: You know I do see-- Abernathy: You have that in front of you? Okay. Henzi: --and I understand that it is going to be internally lighted I guess-- Abernathy: Yeah--yeah, thank you for confirming because I-- Henzi: --but I'm more concerned about how long the lights going to be on? Are they on a photocell? Do you leave them on 24--7? 1 would think that would be kind of rare. Abernathy: I can call the operating owner, my understanding and my recollection is they're turned off when the store is closed. So they're only turned on during the operating hours. Henzi: Okay. Any questions? Duggan: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: What are the operating hours for the weekend, is it like till two? Abernathy: Oh no--no, 11:30. Duggan: 11:30? Abernathy: Yeah--yeah, we're primarily a restaurant. Duggan: Okay, got it, all right, thank you. Abernathy: There is a bar but-- Duggan: Okay. All right, thank you. Abernathy: You know it's not--our--it's not a place where there's a bar business after the dinner hour. Duggan: Got you, okay, thank you very much. Henzi: Anything else? Is there anyone in the audience that wants to speak for or against the project? I see no one. Are there letters? Caramagno: No letters. Henzi: Anything you want to say in closing on this one? Abernathy: I just appreciate your time and your consideration. Henzi: Mr. Sills? Sills- You have an Outback at Five Mile and Middlebelt at the present time, is that lease going to run out at the end of the year or-- Abernathy: Correct, that lease expires in January. Sills- So you're going to close that facility and you're going to open this new one? Abernathy: Correct. Sills- Okay. Are the employees going to come from the Outback--from the Five Mile store to this one? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 11 of 19 February 11, 2014 Abernathy: I would--I would presume that the majority will, I mean I don't think that there's that big of distance that people would choose not to keep their job but--yeah the intent would be to bring that staff and they'll have--they'll need to hire additional staff since this store will be open for lunch. Sills- I see. Thank you. Abernathy: We generally see about a twenty percent increase in sales when we open new restaurants when we do these relocation programs. Outback just had our 25th Anniversary so there's many stores that have been in their location a long time and it kind of helps to relocate and people get interested in the restaurant again and it invigorates sales. Sills- I didn't--I didn't anticipate that you would keep both places open. Abernathy: That's correct; we would be relocating, yep. Sills- Thank you. Henzi: Okay, I'll close the public portion of the case and begin the Board's comments with Mr. Duggan. Duggan: I'll be in support. You're right there on the corner, you're going to have a lot of signs, a number of businesses coming up and down that corridor coming up in the next several months, it will fit in. You had that--you know--one number--one wall sign is "Take Away" which you can't see from the street and it's mostly for identification for drivers once they pull in and you can't see that from the street. And on top of that you have essentially one sign on each side so it's not--considering that everyone will be driving up and down and through the whole shopping area I think it absolutely makes sense the way you have it and I'll be in support. Good luck. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: I think what you have is a nice looking sign package here. It's certainly been ran through the other Boards. Does a 197 square feet look overwhelming to me on this building in this area, no it does not, it looks appropriate. The small sign does not have much bearing on me either. It's a busy area, there's a lot of competition there for eating and you need to be seen so I think it looks good. Henzi: Mr. Sills. Sills- I can't say anything more than my colleagues have said. It's a very--the signs are very decorative and they're going to do the job they're supposed to do. Thank you. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I would agree the location of the building and the fact that people are coming from all sides of the building makes sense for the signage. The "Take Away" sign I would agree with what other people said I don't--I mean to me that's a directional sign and I agree with the fact that you really do need that otherwise people are going to obviously go to the wrong door. So I'll be in support. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 12 of 19 February 11, 2014 Henzi: I too will support it. I agree with the comments of everyone else and I'll just add to me this seems like a corner lot and you should automatically get two signs anyway which means you're only one over. So in any event, the floors open for a motion. Duggan: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Upon Motion by Duggan supported by McCue it was: RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2014-01-04: OSI Restaurants, LLC, (Outback Steak House), 13010 Middlebelt, Livonia, MI, seeking to erect five wall signs resulting in excess number of wall signs and wall sign area. Number of Wall Signs Wall Sign Area Allowed: One Allowed: 70 sq. ft. Proposed: Four Proposed: 197 sq. ft. (3 signs at 64 sq. ft. each; one at 5 ft.) Excess: Three Excess: 127 sq. ft. The property is located on the east side of Middlebelt (13010), between Schoolcraft and C and O Railroad, Lot No. 097-99-0021-005, C-2 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section 18.50H(a),2, "Sign Regulations in C-1, C-27 C-3 and C-4 Districts," was granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because of the location on the corner of Middlebelt Road and by the Meijer store. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because customers would have difficulty locating the business due to the flow of traffic. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because there are no objections from neighboring properties and it is similar to other sign packages recently approved for nearby properties. 4. The Board received no letters of approval and no objection letters from neighboring property owners. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 13 of 19 February 11, 2014 5. The property is classified as "regional shopping" 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 within twelve months. 2. That the project be built as presented to the Board. 3. That it is constructed according to the conditions set by the Planning Commission and City Council. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Duggan, McCue, Sills, Caramagno, Henzi NAYS: None. ABSENT: Pastor, McIntyre Henzi: Your variance is granted with those same three conditions as the earlier case. Good luck. Abernathy: Thank you. Butler: Thank you. Abernathy: Thank you for your time, I appreciate it. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 14 of 19 February 11, 2014 APPEAL CASE NO. 2014-01-09: Darwin and Michelle Zander, 18347 Grimm, Livonia, MI 48152, seeking to erect a covered front porch resulting in deficient front yard setback. Front Yard Setback Required: 50. ft. Proposed: 44 ft. Deficient: 6 ft. The property is located on the west side of Grim (18347), between Pickford and cul-de- sac, Lot No. 046-01-0005-000, RUF Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section 5.05 "RUF District Regulations - Front Yard." Henzi: Mr. DeMeyer, do you have anything to add on this case? DeMeyer: Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Henzi: Okay, any questions for Dennis? Hearing none, good evening. Zander: Hi. Henzi: Could you tell us your name and address? Zander: Darwin Zander, 18347 Grimm, Livonia. Henzi: Mr. Zander go ahead and tell us why you want to construct a covered porch. Zander: There are some safety and some appearance concerns. We feel it's time-- actually my wife feels it time we put a new front porch on so that decides that. The current awning that is on there, my parents put up when I was twelve years old. So I think it's time. Henzi: And you've hired--have you hired a builder or are you going to do this? Zander: No, we have a builder, they're called the Cross-Cut Brothers, they're licensed for Livonia and they'll be taking out the permit. Henzi: Do you know anything about the building materials like for example are the shingles going to match the existing roof? Zander: Yes, it is listed on one of the drawings that it will match the existing structure. It will be wood shingle and aluminum covered on all the wood so the maintenance isn't any problem. Henzi: Any questions for the petitioner? Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: So your plan is not to come out any farther--what--is your plan to come out any farther than what you currently have? Zander: Yeah, we're coming out a foot or two farther than the existing porch. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 15 of 19 February 11, 2014 Caramagno: And you're going to spread--and you're going to spread the landing out to the edge of the home as well? Zander: Correct, left to right would be larger and have--you know--it will be a covered porch, it will have a roof over it. Caramagno: Okay. I don't--it's really pretty self-explanatory. Henzi: Anything else? Hearing none, I see no one in the audience. Mr. Zander is there anything you'd like to say in closing? Zander: No, I think you have all the information so thank you. Henzi: Thank you. I'll close the public portion of the case and begin the Board's comments with Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: Well, I find this to be very reasonable especially when you look and the season we've got this year with the snow, you can't help but see the need for the porch. The reasons for it I think you've explained very well here in question four in our package. You know the safety, the rain beating on your porch, it's leaking through the awning, just looking at it you can see you need a porch--a covered porch. So I'm in support. Henzi: Mr. Sills. Sills- I will also be in support. I think the additional length of the porch will enhance the building itself and it will make it look a lot nicer than what it is now--not that it is--doesn't look good now but-- Zander: Thank you. Sills- --I think it will do a lot for your house. I'll be in full support. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I too will support. It makes total sense to me and again you go back this year or even in the spring and the summer with rain, for the safety aspect alone I will totally support but it will definitely enhance the front of the house as well. So I will support. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: I too will support. I can't say it much better than anybody else has already said it, but I think it will be an upgrade. I know that whole street had different--the fronts on that whole street were all unique in their own ways and I think there's--it will add to the neighborhood and bring safety to you as well. So good luck. Zander: Thank you. Henzi: I agree, I'll support the request too. I think it's going to look great, I hope you get a lot of use out it. Zander: Thank you. Henzi: So the floors open for a motion. Duggan: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 16 of 19 February 11, 2014 Upon Motion by Duggan supported by McCue, it was: RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2014-01-09: Darwin and Michelle Zander, 18347 Grimm, Livonia, MI 48152, seeking to erect a covered front porch resulting in deficient front yard setback. Front Yard Setback Required: 50. ft. Proposed: 44 ft. Deficient: 6 ft. The property is located on the west side of Grim (18347), between Pickford and cul-de- sac, Lot No. 046-01-0005-000, RUF Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection Department under Zoning Ordinance 543, Section 5.05 "RUF District Regulations - Front Yard," was granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because the current front porch is in need of repair due to leaking issues and does not provide protection from the weather. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because the current porch does not meet safety needs. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because petitioner has approval of many surrounding neighbors. 4. The Board received no letters of approval and no objection letters from neighboring property owners. 5. The property is classified as "low density residential" in the Master Plan and the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification. FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions: 1. That the project be completed within ten months. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 17 of 19 February 11, 2014 2. That the project be built as presented to the Board. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Duggan, McCue, Sills, Caramagno, Henzi NAYS: None. ABSENT: Pastor, McIntyre Henzi: It's granted with those two conditions. You've got to build the porch like you presented it to us tonight and then you've got ten months in which to finish it. Zander: Very good. Henzi: But again, if that was ever a problem you just deal with the Inspection Department. Zander: Okay, all righty. Caramagno: Thank you. Zander: Thank you. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 18 of 19 February 11, 2014 Henzi: We need a motion to approve minutes of January 14, and you're exactly the four we need to vote for this and I'll abstain. Motion by Duggan, supported by Sills, to approve the minutes of January 14, 2014 Caramagno: Mr. Chair we've got the 28th here too. Fisher: Just take your 28th minutes home with you and read them between now and the next meeting if you will Henzi: Yeah, my sheet says only the 14th Caramagno: Very well. Duggan: I'll make a motion to adjourn. McCue: Support. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m. SAM CARAMAGNO, Secretary MATTHEW HENZI, Chairman /pcb City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 19 of 19 February 11, 2014