Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-24 City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 of 21 January 24, 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Henzi, Chairman Craig Pastor, Vice Chairman Toni Aloe Sam Caramagno Robert Sills. Ed Duggan Betsy McCue MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Cathryn White, Chief Assistant City Attorney Steve Banko, City Inspector Helen Mininni, Court Reporter The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Henzi then explained the Rules of Procedure to those interested parties. Each Petitioner must give their name and address and declare hardship for appeal. Appeals of the Zoning Board's decisions are made to the Wayne County Circuit Court. The Chairman advised the audience that appeals can be filed within 21 days of the date tonight’s minutes are approved. The decision of the Zoning Board shall become final within five (5) calendar days following the hearing and the applicant shall be mailed a copy of the decision. There are four decisions the Board can make: to deny, to grant, to grant as modified by the Board, or to table for further information. Each Petitioner may ask to be heard by a full seven (7) member Board. 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 2 persons present in the audience. ______________________________________________________________________ (7:05 #1/25) APPEAL CASE NO. 2011-11-50 (Tabled on November 29, 2011): Chase Bank, 1111 Polaris Parkway, Columbus, OH 43240, seeking to erect two wall signs and one ground sign resulting in excess number of wall signs and a ground sign excess in height. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF LIVONIA MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD JANUARY 24, 2012 City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 of 21 January 24, 2012 Number of Wall Signs Ground Sign Height Allowed: One Allowed: 6 ft. Proposed: Two Proposed: 12 ft. Excess: One Excess: 6 ft. The property is located on the south side of Plymouth (32201) between Cranston and Hubbard. Henzi: Is there a motion to remove from the table? Pastor: Mr. Chair, I will make a motion. Caramagno: Support. Henzi: All in favor say “aye.” Board: Aye. Henzi: This is removed. Mr. Banko, anything to add to this case? Banko: Not at this time, sir. Henzi: Any questions for Mr. Banko? Hearing none, good evening, gentlemen, come on up to the podium. Tell us your name and address, please. Elfort: Good evening, my name is Mike Ellithorpe. I’m with Bill Carr Signs out of Flint, 719 West 12th Street. With us tonight we have Dennis Bennett with Chase Bank who will be able to answer any pertinent questions that you may have in regards to the property itself. Do you want me to go ahead and state why we’re here? Henzi: Well, you were here once before so tell us what has happened since the last meeting, maybe start with that. Petitioner: Well, at the last meeting at the end we were asked to get permission from the – it’s the Plymouth Cranston, DBA or I believe – to be able to find out what they would allow. And from my understanding, it was a split vote two for two against. So, it didn’t really give a pertinent answer to what we could do. Henzi: Okay. It’s Plymouth Road Development Authority by the way. Petitioner: Okay, thank you. Henzi: Tell us if there is anything different with the proposed signage. Petitioner: No, everything would remain the same. What we did in our last meeting - we decided that we would eliminate the front building sign, wall sign and just be able to have the building sign on the parking lot side and the monument sign. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 of 21 January 24, 2012 Henzi: Okay. But you didn’t go to a PRDA meeting; did you? Petitioner: No. Henzi: You just started the process and in our packets we have some conversations between Counsel and -- Petitioner: Yeah, we never received anything from that. My understanding was that the attorney emailed them from what we understand. Henzi: Okay. Anything else you’d like to tell us about the proposal? Petitioner: No, I think we pretty well covered everything the last time. W e are eliminating the one wall sign in lieu of being able to have the monument sign and the additional sign on the parking lot side. And our biggest issue is, of course, the parking in front of that existing monument sign. You can’t see it because it is so low to the ground right now with the parking spots in there - so everything remains the same. Henzi: Thanks. Any questions for the Petitioner’s representatives? Sills: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Sills. Sills: I’m a little confused as to where we stand on this. The last time the Petitioner was before us we left it contingent upon the Plymouth Road Development Authority to make a decision on this. Now if they’re coming up stalemate, where do we stand? Henzi: That’s a good question. I don’t have – I’d have to flip through the minutes the way the motion was phrased. I don’t know that they were limited to come back only if they got approval. I thought they were just supposed to go to the PRDA which apparently they did via email because there was no meeting. Sills: But they didn’t get an approval. Henzi: No, that’s true. Petitioner: We didn’t get denied either. It was just one of those unfortunate things that they didn’t want -- Sills: That’s what the unfortunate thing is right now. W e’re at a stalemate and I don’t know whether we can make a decision on this or not. McCue: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 of 21 January 24, 2012 McCue: As I’m looking at this email, I’m seeing that there are four people here that said that they were in favor of the signage. I’m not sure where we’re getting the two and two necessarily. Henzi: Yes, I have to agree. I mean, two made comments about what they liked or didn’t like and the other two really had no comments. McCue: Had no comments and I believe this occurred because we didn’t have that meeting in December. So it ended up happening that we wanted to make sure that we were helping them and getting them back here so we could work on the signage in a timely manner so that’s why I believe it was Mike that started this with Mark and we went around. And I don’t think there was anybody that was adamantly opposed. There was one in here that I think was opposed to the three signs, but we’ve eliminated that problem. Henzi: Maybe I could ask you, Mrs. McCue, as a member of that body, did everybody see pictures of what the signs are going to look like? McCue: I do not believe so. Henzi: But it was explained to them? McCue: It was explained. Henzi: Okay. To Ms. White, we could still grant the variance. We don’t have to have a -- White: That’s right and even if you didn’t have a majority of the PRDA’s approval the idea is to consult with the PRDA, but ultimately it’s your decision. Henzi: Thank you. Does that answer your question, Mr. Sills? Sills: Yes, it does. Henzi: Any other questions for the Representatives of the Petitioner? Hearing none, there is nobody in the audience. Are there any letters on this case? Caramagno: Yes, there are. An approval from LaVon Tryon [11428 Cranston]. We have an approval - two approvals from the same address. And we have an approval [11441 Hubbard] (approval letter read) from William Tindall. Henzi: Gentlemen, is there anything you would like to say in closing? Petitioner: No, sir. Thank you. Henzi: I will close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mr. Sills. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 of 21 January 24, 2012 Sills: I don’t have any problem with this petition. I agree that the signs that are up there now are insufficient and they are very difficult to see with moving traffic. I have no objection to the petition at all. My only concern was whether the Plymouth Road Commission was in favor of it or not. Other than that, I will completely approve it. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: I also was in favor of this sign, but just letting the PRDA have a chance to review it. So I think there is a uniqueness due to the location of the building so I will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: Well, I missed the meeting last time, but it seems that you have made some adjustment and according to the Board’s desires the PRDA doesn’t seem to have a huge problem with it. It looks attractive to me and I will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Yeah, they did make some concessions so I wish the PRDA had their meeting so we’d have a little clearer understanding of what they thought because these emails to me are inconclusive, but I guess I can go along with this. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: I will be in support. You guys, like he said, made the concession that we were critical of, but you got rid of the other sign and it looks great. I will be in support. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I would agree. You’ve made concessions. You have been very willing to work with us and I totally understand why you need to change what you are changing. So, I will be in support. Henzi: I, too, will support the request. I think that the compromise arrived at the last meeting is fair and reasonable and the Petitioner has demonstrated a need for new signage. As I just looked at our motion, it was to go to the PRDA and come back within three months. I think it’s fair that the PRDA members were polled instead of having the Petitioner go to a meeting. And I agree with – you heard the City Attorney say that that’s a body that we look to for guidance, but we ultimately have the decision and I thought there was good reason for sending you there because sometimes they know about new policies that are coming up and I don’t think that they have a big problem with it so I will vote for it. The floor is open for a motion. Upon Motion by Aloe, supported by Sills, it was: RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2011-11-50 (Tabled on November 29, 2011): Chase Bank, 1111 Polaris Parkway, Columbus, OH 43240, seeking to erect two City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 of 21 January 24, 2012 wall signs and one ground sign resulting in excess number of wall signs and a ground sign excess in height. Number of Wall Signs Ground Sign Height Allowed: One Allowed: 6 ft. Proposed: Two Proposed: 12 ft. Excess: One Excess: 6 ft. The property is located on the south side of Plymouth (32201) between Cranston and Hubbard be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met due to the location of the bank. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because the Petitioner needs these signs for identification to the public. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because there is no opposition and there is neighbor support. 4. The Board received (3) three letters of approval and no letters of objection. 5. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the purpose or objective of the Master Plan because this property is classified “Office” under the Master Plan, and the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification. FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions: 1. That the two signs, the monument sign and the parking lot sign, be erected according to the drawings that were submitted to the Board. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Aloe, Sills, Caramagno, Duggan, McCue, Pastor, Henzi NAYS: None ABSENT: None Henzi: The variance is granted with that one condition. Petitioner: Thank you very much, appreciate your time. Henzi: Good luck to you. Petitioner: Thank you. ________________________________________________________________ City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 of 21 January 24, 2012 (7:15 #1/429) APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-01-01: J & M Livonia, LLC, P.O. Box 251244, West Bloomfield, MI 48325, seeking to construct a building addition onto an existing multi-tenant retail center resulting in deficient parking spaces, and deficient landscape area. Number of Parking Spaces Landscape Area Required: 141 Required: 15.00% (12,284 sq. ft.) Proposed/Existing 94 Proposed: 5.20% (4,258 sq. ft.) Deficient: 47 Deficient: 9.80% (8,026 sq. ft.) The property is located on the on the north side of Plymouth (34706-34730) between Stark Road and Belden Court. Henzi: Mr. Banko, do you have anything to add to this case? Banko: No, I do not. Henzi: Any questions for the Inspection Department? Hearing none, good evening. Can you tell us your name and address, please? Petitioner: Patrick Manor. My address is 6146 Longview Circle, Grand Blanc, Michigan and I’m here on behalf of APi-Plan Design Build, LLC of which I am the CEO. Henzi: Why don’t you tell us a little bit about this renovation and request for a variance. Petitioner: Certainly. As most of you are probably aware, this has been an on-going project where we have redeveloped the center and tried to bring it into a more contemporary development. It had a lot of issues when we started the project. We worked with the City, and the City abandoned the extended right-a-way and if anybody might remember there was a real tall berm, it is 40 ft., real tall berm and it was loaded up with big trees and you couldn’t see the building. So one of the first things we did was we petitioned the City and worked with the Plymouth Road Corridor and were able to get the City to vacate that for us and we worked with them, you know, to get the project to change the façade, to improve it, and make improvements to the parking lot, and to the landscaping and the entrances to match the corridor entrances with the brick and the wrought iron. And the idea was all along to try to locate the wine store there. And at the same time we were going through the process through the State to get the license for the wine store, and it worked out that the only way we could do that is to put this addition on the building. And so that’s how this came about because there’s still some vacant space in there and what the intention was, was initially we were going to put the wine store at the other end of the end of the center but because of distances with respect to the location of other liquor stores or packaged liquor, there’s restrictions based on how many – the distance. Let’s put it that way. So, the way that it works out is the only way to do it on this site is to do it as an addition. So, that’s what motivated this. At the same time though, because we’ve redeveloped this we’ve had a lot more activity as far as occupying the space and we suspect that, you know, as the economy City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 of 21 January 24, 2012 recovers we’re going to have full occupancy. It’s just a matter of time. But what we did was, we analyzed the parking spaces that exist and the uses and we, you know, we took these pictures on actually Black Friday. The two pictures in this report that we’ve submitted – the front page and you can clearly see that’s supposedly the biggest shopping day of the year for retail and it’s not very full. So, additionally the next page shows an aerial photo from Google Earth and it’s got the date and the time and you can see that there’s hardly any cars there as well. But then additionally what we did was we presented a – we basically surveyed all of the existing tenants and asked them what at the maximum they would ever require as far as parking requirements. And we put together a parking study and that’s attached and it starts out on page three with listing the tenant and the leasable area, and you know, the tenant’s hours, hours of operation is the next chart. The parking load per hour and we attached the survey information follows that, and this surveying the actual tenants, the people that are paying the lease on the space. They want to see this. The other tenants want to see any development that is going to bring more cars to the development. And we feel strongly that, you know, anything where we can bring additional people to this center is going to benefit all the tenants. And if there was a need to put additional spaces, we could actually put them in that right-of-way that was abandoned, but there’s clearly no reason to add any hard surface parking. I’m going to, if I may, I’m going to flip that around and show you guys the site plan. So, if we ever had down the road a tenant situation, we’ve got this 40 ft. right-of-way that was abandoned. That’s where we put the piers and the wrought iron entrance, the feature items and the landscaping, but we could literally get a hold of the vacant parking in there if there was ever a need. But if you look at the parking study that we’ve done, currently there’s no need. Most communities that we work with are actually kind of reduced hard surface parking because, you know, they’re really looking at their parking ordinances and they’re really saying, do we really need all these parking spaces because so many centers are all concrete and asphalt and based on the current users we’re not even close and we’ve got way more parking than we need. So, we are asking that – by the way, we’ve already got site plan approval contingent on this to do the addition and we have, you know, had felt really good about working with the City here in trying to resurface this center. If anybody remembers what it looks like now and what it looked like before, it had the brown metal façade on it and it was dated to say the least. And between that and – it was inundated with overgrown trees and you don’t even see it that was probably why it failed to operate the way it was. I guess that’s the big picture. Does anybody have any specific questions? I’d love to try and answer anything. Henzi: I will start off with a couple about parking. Was this property deficient in the number of spaces before your application for a variance? Petitioner: Currently it’s not deficient based on the amount of square footage of the building, but – and I’m not sure when this was originally developed, but it’s clear to me that if you look at, especially if you look, you know, page two of my little report, here it appears to me that this was designed to have an addition at some time when it was originally developed. And I’m sure parking ordinances may have changed over the years. I’m going to guess that this was probably in the early seventies that that initial building was developed and I believe it may even have been in phases. I believe that the first phase was that the part of the building that projects out was one phase. I City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 of 21 January 24, 2012 believe that would have been the first phase and then the second phase was the wing to the right and then ultimately I believe what they had in mind when they developed this site was to have this – because if you look at the site, it’s laid out that there’s no other reason to have that there other than to put a building in it. But currently it doesn’t meet with your current parking standards based on square footage. Henzi: The parking spots - are they 10 ft. double striped? Petitioner: They are not double striped, but they are 10 ft. Henzi: Okay. Petitioner: But we certainly could do that and one of the other things I just wanted to share with everybody is, and I didn’t know Mark wouldn’t be here, but Mark will tell you that we have been extremely accommodating on anything and that’s really what we’re all about when we do – and I’ve worked with Mark before on other developments in the City years ago and we come to you guys and say, “let’s figure out a way to get this done.” We want what’s good for the community, we want what’s good for the development, we want what’s good for everybody. And we want to comply with – so if double striping – if anything that, if you guys have anything that you think that would make this more palatable, we would certainly be open to it. Henzi: The only other question I had was could you talk about the landscape requirement because it’s the second variance that you’re requesting. Petitioner: And so the landscape requirement is based on the amount of landscape area and again it’s relative to how much hard surface and how much – because now the fact that we’re losing that area that’s considered landscape for building, it sets us off. So, I guess it’s that simple. Now one of the other things that – when we got site plan approval, at City Council they brought up that they wanted us to add some more landscaping and that’s included. We included that in so we’re going to enhance the landscaping to any extent and we would be willing to add landscape islands as well throughout the parking lot which most communities like, but again then we’re kind of, we’re actually kind of going backwards with respect to the parking. But we feel that there’s plenty of parking to do that where we could add some landscape elements inside the parking lot. Most communities prefer to see a parking lot broken up by some landscape elements. Henzi: Well, I hadn’t thought about that and so my question to you then is, you know, have you ever drafted what that would look like? Do you have any estimate how many spaces that you would lose? Petitioner: Yes. We haven’t done it. I have done it in my head. Henzi: Okay. Petitioner: But I’m glad you asked that question. So, there are some light poles in the middle of the parking lot that really shouldn’t be in the middle of the parking lot. And so City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 10 of 21 January 24, 2012 the logical thing to me is to create landscape surrounds around those light poles because people hit them and then they become maintenance issues. So, we have plenty of space based on the needs, based on this report to – we’d lose I think it’s, I’m sorry it’s more than three spaces. I think it was four spaces that we would lose if we did that and we haven’t laid it out but that was based on just some preliminary measuring and observation. And we may have to tweak the striping, but we’re going to re-stripe it anyway. Banko: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Banko. Banko: If you look at the pictures that were taken on November 25th, the parking lot was already double striped. Petitioner: Oh, I’m sorry it is. I was looking at the, you know what, I haven’t been there myself since this was striped, double striped but I was – thank you. It is double striped. I was looking at the Google. Thank you. Banko: The 2009 picture. Petitioner: Yes. I thought we would have brought it up to standards. Henzi: Yeah, well that’s just another thing that a lot of Petitioners will say is a point in their favor for asking for deficient parking spaces because they’re bigger spots. Petitioner: Which they are. Henzi: So, you’re compromising the number of spots for quality, so to speak, of spots. Petitioner: Sure. You can get the extended cab four-wheel drive truck in there. Henzi: Right. Petitioner: There’s one in the picture by the way. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Let’s go back to the landscaping a little bit more. You said if you needed more spots you could take the landscaping of the right-of-way that was given to you. Petitioner: Yes. Pastor: Is that landscaping right now included in this calculation? Petitioner: It is – it is not. Pastor: It is not. Why? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 11 of 21 January 24, 2012 Petitioner: And I’ll tell you why because our legal description goes only 5 ft. into that so it’s not – you’re right and that’s actually a great thing to be aware of is that all this landscaping that we did is it’s on an abandoned piece of property that the City has said, yeah, well if we needed to get extra parking – my first thought was what if we got blessed and we got a great restaurant tenant in here and we needed more space. Well, they’ve abandoned that. You can park on abandoned – just like you can on an abandoned drive and we’ve done that before in the communities. So, I’m glad you mentioned that because it didn’t occur to me that that’s not in the calculations. The calculations are based on the property lines. The property lines do not include that 40 ft. additional. So, it’s a 40 ft x 400 ft. Pastor: And you said you’re going to enhance that area with landscaping? Petitioner: We are, yes, and additionally because we had done it originally when we got the approval to do the façade renovations. When we went back to get the site plan approval for this addition that was one of the things that they asked for and we’re certainly open to that. We just don’t want to obscure the building. We’re going to have the stuff that you guys like to see - the dwarf trees, you know, the pretty things not the things that grow and – because there were a lot of big Evergreen trees that were there before. Pastor: Do you have a landscape plan that you propose? Petitioner: We submitted a landscape plan and what was agreed at the site plan approval, at the final site plan approval, was that we would work with the Planning Department to enhance that plan. So whatever they came up with we were going agree to. That was one of the conditions of the site plan approval. Pastor: I understand. You keep saying their plans, but that tells me I’m going to plant Kentucky Bluegrass instead of Rye, I don’t know -- Petitioner: They wanted us to add specific types of plants of shrubs and of trees. Pastor: Okay. Petitioner: And they have them sized up the caliber of the trees and everything else and they gave us a criteria. We haven’t created the actual document yet as far as the landscape plan, let’s get the approvals first. As soon as we get the approvals we’ll get that tweaked and everybody, you know whatever they want to see. We want it to look good, too, believe me. Pastor: Steve, could that 40 ft. be included as part of their landscaping as this calculation? Banko: I’d have to go out and measure this 40 -- Pastor: It’s large out there. I’ve been by it. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 12 of 21 January 24, 2012 Banko -- because I have been out to the site on various occasions and -- Pastor: Even if it’s 20 ft. Banko: I don’t think its 40 ft. Is there 40 ft. from where the sidewalk is inward? Petitioner: Well, I believe I have the dimensions somewhere. We have a full set of plans. I know its 40 ft. and the reason -- Pastor: If it’s 30 ft. it doesn’t matter of the exact number. Can that be used as part of his part of his landscape calculations? Banko: Well, actually that’s being used as part of where the landscape is now. Petitioner: But it’s not -- Pastor: But it’s not calculated. Petitioner: That wasn’t part of the percentage to make it because it’s not part of the property. Pastor: Right, so I’m trying to find out here. Can that be used as part of their calculation? Banko: That’s more of a legal question. Petitioner: That probably is a legal question. One of the things I want to point out is, the way it was – originally I believe what they did with that 40 ft. was they were trying to create a service-drive connection back in the eighties. And I understand the value of a service-drive connection, but it never manifested itself or they never acquired the rest of the property. So when we went back to the corridor authority, they’re like, yeah, you can have it back. We don’t have to maintain it now. But one of the big issues was what we have us there was a 4 ft. crown on the berm and so in 20 ft. it rose 4 ft. so it was pretty aggressive. When you’re sitting in a car and driving by it was basically an obstruction to the visual of the property. McCue: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: Didn’t you or did you not have plans that you had brought to PRDA? Petitioner: We did. McCue: Okay, because we had changed the signage I believe is really what had instigated that original meeting; am I correct? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 13 of 21 January 24, 2012 Petitioner: Well, no. What we did -- McCue: Because we were lowering it, I believe; am I correct? Petitioner: Here’s what happened. We didn’t want – what we came up with a compromise on the sign because the sign was left at the elevation that it was well because we lowered the elevation we lowered the grade. McCue: Right. Petitioner: And so we enhanced that structure to comply and they allowed us to do that and that’s a good point. McCue: And then I remember there was a discussion on landscaping and I don’t remember where we left off. Petitioner: We met all those requirements. McCue: All right. So all of the ones -- Petitioner: We didn’t ask for much back then and when it got all done because we were - if you remember we were adding, we kind of were giving in to the, and we offered to do it, don’t get me wrong. Everybody else thinks the corridor got it done by the City. McCue: Right, where you had to add the brick and the -- Petitioner: Right and enhance that which is expensive, you know, so we said we’ll do this and then we’ll do this and everybody’s great, great. And then when we came back we asked for more so we’re happy to give more. McCue: I just don’t necessarily remember there was – and I could be wrong but that there was a big discussion about that extra space in there. I don’t know if there was or not. Petitioner: When you say big discussion -- McCue: Just as far as additional landscaping like what we were talking about as matching trees things like that. That’s always an issue for the PRDA. Petitioner: Right, right because they were very specific as to what they wanted and then like I said when we came back for the site plan approval for this phase of the project, everybody complimented us on what we did so far and said but we’d like you to do a little more. And, you know, enhance landscaping area a little bit more. And, you know, we’re fully prepared to do that. We want it to look good. It’s just, you know, you’ve got to have dollars for dollars -- McCue: No, I understand. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 14 of 21 January 24, 2012 Petitioner: And this is a paying job, you know, so this brings dollars to the development. And they got their approval contingent upon this approval. Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: It’s illegal. It cannot be used as part of the landscape calculation. White: My understanding is that it cannot. They usually have to go within the confines of the borders of the property, the boundaries of the property. Petitioner: That’s – otherwise we probably wouldn’t have to get the variance for that portion. White: Right. Petitioner: That was my understanding as well. Pastor: Okay, thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? Aloe: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: To the Petitioner, does the owner have a signed lease with this? Is there a signed lease in place for this? Petitioner: There is a signed lease, yes, a letter of intent, excuse me. They needed that actually to get the approvals for the space. Aloe: So when they’re adding on, they’re still going to have this vacant store front between the addition and KSI? Petitioner: I’m not sure. Aloe: There is a vacant space next to KSI right now. Petitioner: Oh, the vacancy in the strip there? Aloe: Yes. Petitioner: Yes. Aloe: So, if the addition and then the tenant going to occupy that vacant space and the addition, or the vacant space is still going to be there vacant? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 15 of 21 January 24, 2012 Petitioner: So, current – and let’s just make sure everyone understands. I understand that you’re asking this 20 ft. here it says proposed tenant space and they’re not going to occupy that space at this time, but they have the first right of refusal for that space. Aloe: So the vacant space that’s currently vacant will stay vacant. Then there will be the addition -- Petitioner: No, the addition will be – in other words we’re going to build it, but they’re not committing to that additional space at this point in time. So, we’re going to build it. It will look like the rest of the center and it will all tie in, but they’re not committing to it until they test the market and make sure – they sell upscale wines and it’s a little bit of a nicer place than most liquor establishments. Aloe: Okay, but my point is that space is vacant; right? And you’re adding on so all these calculations that you did for these parking spots, don’t allow for someone going into that vacant space and now another tenant is there and now there’s – Petitioner: No, they’re based on the square footage not on the tenants. The calculations are based on the square footage of the building. Aloe: This is, I mean, you only list the tenants. Petitioner: Oh, I’m sorry. Okay, the parking study, I’m sorry. Aloe: My point is, is it going to become – there will be even more parking deficiency should that vacant space get leased? Petitioner: No, that’s a good question. So, that’s what we’re trying to clearly show here in this study is that basically we’ve got adequate parking for all these spaces, but you’re right we did not address that space. You’re right. I just realized that we did not address that space. Banko: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Banko. Banko: All the calculations are worked out for the entire square footage of that entire property which will also include the addition that’s going to be put on that’s where the deficiency is created. Aloe: So, your -- Banko: So even though all places aren’t vacant at the present time that’s already - those calculations are already worked into the deficient parking. Aloe: So the one that you’re giving us that shows 47 is based on the square footage there? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 16 of 21 January 24, 2012 Banko: On the entire square footage even the vacant spaces at this time. Aloe: Okay, thank you. Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: If you did have to add parking to the front of that 40 ft. area, approximately how many spaces do you think you can get out of there? Petitioner: I’ll tell you real quick here, 24 easily. Pastor: I think I counted them as 26. Okay. So, if you found it necessary you’d only be 21 spaces off or so. Petitioner: That’s correct. Pastor: Okay. Thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? I just want to clear up something. During the conversation you had with Mrs. Aloe, the reason for the addition is because there’s an entity that is going to have a SDM license because there’s a party store to the east on Plymouth Road probably west end whatever the major number is? Pastor: The number is, yes. Henzi: 1,000 ft. whatever, you’ve got to go west. Petitioner: Yes. Henzi: And so the proposed tenant, you can’t build out existing vacancy. You’ve got to build on to the west. Petitioner: Yes. Henzi: Okay. Petitioner: That’s exactly the situation. Henzi: Any other questions? Hearing none, there’s no one in the audience -- Pastor: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Henzi: Oh, Mr. Pastor. Pastor: What would be the trigger for you to add those extra parking spaces? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 17 of 21 January 24, 2012 Petitioner: Simply if there was any – the trigger would probably be a tenant, a new tenant situation that would warrant it. In other words, a substantial restaurant, sit-down restaurant so-to-speak. In other words, because then we would be, it would be crazy to not have adequate parking and they wouldn’t know, especially national tenant or any sophisticated restaurant tenant would not sign a lease without getting the additional space. Pastor: But if your lessees complained or for some reason doesn’t think they have enough parking, would that be a trigger? Pastor: It certainly would and what we would do is, you know, work with the City because that will open a couple cans of worms with respect to drainage and other things. So we’re willing to do whatever it takes to make the center successful if that’s what we need to do. So, if the tenants aren’t happy, we’re not going to allow them to not be happy. I’ve seen several stores that have a tremendous amount of parking so if we had something like that or something, you know, whatever it would be and we have a development in the city of Burton, Michigan where Bryden’s (Ph) corporate store came in and said, we’re going to go in but you need to add some more spaces because we figure out a way – we’re going to have to add more spaces and the City was very accommodating. It’s simply based on the – we’re not going to create a situation where there’s a deficiency. Pastor: One last question. Are you repaving this whole parking lot? Petitioner: We are not. That is not part of the program. We are, you know, making repairs to it. Pastor: Okay. Thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? Hearing none, there’s no one in the audience. Any letters on this case? Caramagno: No. Henzi: Mr. Mannor, is there anything you would like to say in closing? Petitioner: I think I’ve covered pretty much everything. Henzi: You know, I did think of one more. Has the tenant been approved for the liquor license? Petitioner: Yes, they have. It’s pending this approval. Henzi: Okay. So, this is the last step? Petitioner: This is. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 18 of 21 January 24, 2012 Henzi: Okay. All right. I’ll close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s discussion with Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: Well, I have to say there has been a major improvement to that center. I’ve watched it for many years and I’m happy to see that you have a tenant, or a tenant with an intent. I also have to say it’s kind of disturbing to see two vacant buildings next door and here we’re adding on a brand new building that doesn’t really thrill me to pieces, but having said all that as far as the deficiency in the parking I can pretty much agree with the Petitioner probably for the types of businesses that are there this deficiency will have no effect and I think the Petitioner does have options if it does become a problem with them because he described a restaurant, sit-down restaurant coming in there so I will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: Well, I have got to agree that the improvements are wonderful. As far as the parking goes your report, your parking report, shows that you can get by with what you’ve got and you probably wouldn’t have shown us a report that didn’t say that. But -- Petitioner: Well, I tried to get the other tenants to come -- Caramagno: It seems to be true. Petitioner: -- but they, you know, and back it up. Caramagno: I’ve been in that parking lot before it seems to be true. There’s adequate parking all the time. I have never been in there or seen a problem that existed in the many times that I’ve driven by. As far as your future tenants, it’s very clear that you either supply parking for them or they don’t sign a lease or they leave. I think that would take care of itself. Your landscaping with the extra green you have in front, it appears that it’s not deficient in landscape when you look at it. So, I’d be in support of what you’ve got to present here tonight without the reducing four more spaces for island around your lighting so as is for me. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Yes, I do appreciate you doing what you have done in this center. My office is located right around the corner from there, but I don’t understand why we can’t include that extra square footage of greenery in there. If it’s been abandoned, I think we should be able to especially if the tenant is enhancing it and adding to it. So, I will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: My big concern, it looks great, my big concern was the, you know, if you’ve got more tenants the parking situation, but you seem to have a back-up plan if it really comes to that. And if you don’t have parking as Mr. Caramagno said, it will tend to take City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 19 of 21 January 24, 2012 care of itself. I think the upgrades look great, the plans look great and I will be in support. Petitioner: Thank you. By the way, that wasn’t my phone just so everybody knows. I checked it twice. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I agree, you know, the extra buildings along – the number of empty buildings along the Plymouth Road Corridor is always a concern to me, but I don’t think there’s much you can do when the State doesn’t allow for you to be any closer than what they’re telling you. So, I get that. The strip looks great. Petitioner: Thank you. McCue: It works very well with the City as far as any improvements on the corridor so I think you’ve done a great job on that. I don’t believe there’s going to be any major issues on your parking. You’ve got a back-up plan and quite honestly most of these businesses in here currently are kind of a come and go type business anyways. The biggest issue would be a large restaurant like you had said. With all of that being said, I would support. Petitioner: Thank you. Henzi: Mr. Sills. Sills: I think you’ve done a nice job. My only concern is the emptiness of a couple of spaces and God knows Livonia’s got enough empty spaces now and here’s a couple more and hopefully you can fill them. I certainly appreciate what you’ve done to that center, but my concern is still the emptiness of the buildings. Petitioner: I just want to add one thing. One thing we’ve experienced with other developments is when we get somebody that draws a fair amount of traffic it makes it much easier to fill in spaces and with this tenancy in place we can be a little more flexible with what we need to get for those spaces and a little more competitive in the market. So, we expect to get it full. We expect to see this full before any of the surrounding properties and quite frankly, I’d like to keep on going to the next building if we could make the right deal and the next one and just keep on going. So, you know, there’s a ton of vacancies and inventory in the market, but if we make it a little bit nicer than everything else, we’re more likely – it’s a dynamite location. It is a dynamite location. Sills: I can appreciate your optimism. The economy doesn’t show me that. Petitioner: Yeah, I understand. Henzi: I agree with comments by the Board members. It might be unfair that the Petitioner can’t use the greenery in the front to be calculated into the landscape area; City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 20 of 21 January 24, 2012 however, I think that that’s a valid reason or demonstration of a hardship. I don’t think that the Petitioner should be penalized for that. I wouldn’t mind allowing for a greater deficiency to allow for the landscaping but I’ll see if there’s a consensus for that. One thing that sometimes we do is make variances like this temporary for a period of 3 or 5 years to see if there’s additional parking needs in the future. That’s a possibility although I do have to say, I mean, I’ve been driving by and driving through this center for a long time and I’ve never seen a cluster of cars that would make me think, oh, I’m going to go to the next center it’s too crowded. I mean, never, and the Petitioner’s representative does make a valid point that it was so uninviting before that you really had to know what you were going there for. Petitioner: It was destination for sure. Henzi: It was a destination. You would never go to one and then decide I’m going to go to another spot maybe that will change now. I will look to the Board for a motion. Upon Motion by Caramagno, supported by Pastor, it was: RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-01-01: J & M Livonia, LLC, P.O. Box 251244, West Bloomfield, MI 48325, seeking to construct a building addition onto an existing multi-tenant retail center resulting in deficient parking spaces, and deficient landscape area. Number of Parking Spaces Landscape Area Required: 141 Required: 15.00% (12,284 sq. ft.) Proposed/Existing 94 Proposed: 5.20% (4,258 sq. ft.) Deficient: 47 Deficient: 9.80% (8,026 sq. ft.) The property is located on the north side of Plymouth (34706-34730) between Stark Road and Belden Court, be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because the property has overstated parking to what their true needs are according to the parking survey that was presented. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because it would not allow the addition and improvement to be maximized on the property at the west end and allow a tenant to sign a letter of intent to occupy square footage. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because this property has been not sightly or top-of-the- line for a long time. There have been major improvements and no appearance of parking problems as well as landscape problems due to the greenbelt in the front. 4. The Board received no letters of approval and no letters of objection from neighboring property owners. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 21 of 21 January 24, 2012 5. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the purpose or objective of the Master Plan because this property is classified “General Commercial” under the Master Plan, and the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification. FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions: 1. That the project be completed as presented to the Council and City of Livonia. This process has also gone through three Boards, PRDA, Planning Commission and Livonia City Council before coming to the ZBA. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Caramagno, Pastor, Aloe, Duggan, McCue, Sills, Henzi. NAYS: None ABSENT: None Henzi: The variance is granted with that one condition that it’s according to the approval previously given by City Council. Petitioner: Thank you very much. Henzi: Good luck. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. __________________________ SAM CARAMAGNO, Secretary ___________________________ MATTHEW HENZI, President /hdm