Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-06-05 City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 of 62 June 5, 2012 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, June 5, 2012. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matthew Henzi, Chairman Craig Pastor, Vice President Sam Caramagno, Secretary Toni Audia Aloe Edward E. Duggan, Jr. Elizabeth H. McCue MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Sills OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Fisher, Assistant City Attorney Steve Banko, City Inspector Helen Mininni, Court Reporter The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Henzi then explained the Rules of Procedure to those interested parties. Each petitioner must give their name and address and declare hardship for appeal. Appeals of the Zoning Board's decisions are made to the Wayne County Circuit Court. The Chairman advised the audience that appeals can be filed within 21 days of the date tonight’s minutes are approved. The decision of the Zoning Board shall become final within five (5) calendar days following the hearing and the applicant shall be mailed a copy of the decision. There are four decisions the Board can make: to deny, to grant, to grant as modified by the Board, or to table for further information. Each petitioner may ask to be heard by a full seven (7) member Board. Six (6) members were present this evening. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard by a full Board and no one wished to do so. The Secretary then read the Agenda and Legal Notice to each appeal, and each petitioner indicated their presence. Appeals came up for hearing after due legal notice was given to all interested parties within 300 feet, petitioners and City Departments. There were 6 persons present in the audience. (7:03 #1/224) APPEAL CASE NO. 2011-11-49 (Tabled on November 15, 2011): Amani Al-Zawawi, 10165 Laurel, Livonia, MI 48150, seeking to maintain a 6-ft. tall privacy fence ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF LIVONIA MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING HELD JUNE 5, 2012 City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 of 62 June 5, 2012 located adjacent to an existing fence, erected in the side yard and erected without obtaining a permit, all of which are not allowed. The property is located on the west side of Laurel (10165) between Pinetree and Plymouth. Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Move to take this off the table. Caramagno: Support. Henzi: Any discussion? Hearing none, please call the roll. (All in favor.) Henzi: This is removed from the table. Mr. Banko, anything to add to this case? Banko: Yes, I do. As I was requested back when this case was tabled, the Board wanted me to meet with Mr. Al-Zawawi and his wife out on the property and talk to him about the fence, which we did meet and we spoke about it. What I learned from that discussion is, is that Mrs. Al-Zawawi is deathly afraid of dogs and that’s why she wants really the cyclone fences to remain as a security measure. Mr. Al-Zawawi stated that he would turn the fence, if he turned the fence around and put the good side the other way that it would basically be dead on or flush with the cyclone fences that are now at the location. There’s a knock on the adjacent south side of the property. There are also two privacy fences over there, which also have cyclone fences up. One maybe not conforming I do not know that it is or that it is not. The other I don’t believe that it is, but they both also have dogs and the Al-Zawawi’s do not want obviously to turn in their neighbors because they enjoy the security of that cyclone fence down because their privacy fences are raised and it would allow the animals to be able to be in access into their yard. But that’s basically how the meeting occurred. I attempted to have the Al- Zawawi’s remove the cyclone fences, but they’re adamant regarding the cyclones remaining there to keep dogs out of the yard and that’s where it stands. Henzi: Okay. Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Steve, are you telling me that they’re saying that a dog with only the privacy fence will climb or get through the privacy fence? Banko: Well, the privacy fences are a bit elevated off the ground where a dog, I guess, could dig under the fence and get into their yard. Where the cyclone fences are City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 of 62 June 5, 2012 basically down into the soil because they have been there for a period of time and obviously, it would take a lot more for the dog to get under the cyclone fence. Pastor: Yeah, but if he’s turning it around, he can put it right back on the ground. If he’s going to take them apart and turn them around, they can be right on the ground. Banko: I can’t answer that question. Pastor: Thank you, Steve. Henzi: Any other questions? Aloe: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: I just want to be really clear with what you said and here’s this picture. Okay? So, there’s cyclone all the way around -- Henzi: Can you speak up a little? I’m getting some feedback from the audience that they can’t hear you, Toni. Aloe: Okay. Where is their double fence? I know this right here has double fencing, right? Banko: This is double fencing along the south side of the property. Aloe: Right. Banko: He erected the privacy fence here and on this side there’s two – there’s a Pinetree address and also a Laurel address. Aloe: Right. Banko: There’s like a stockade fence here and there’s like a vinyl fence back here that has been there for a period of time. Aloe: This entire part over here, this is all cyclone with a privacy? Banko: Yes, and so are these. Aloe: Okay, but the privacy on these isn’t the Al-Zawawi’s, it’s their neighbor’s privacy fences? Banko: No, they erected their privacy fence already up along here and here. Aloe: And this one? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 of 62 June 5, 2012 Banko: Those were previously erected. We don’t know when. Aloe: Okay, but they did erect privacy here and here right up against the -- Banko: Next to the -- Aloe: -- cyclone. Banko: Yes. Aloe: Okay, thank you. Henzi: Okay, any other questions? Hearing none, will the Petitioner please come forward? Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid Al-Zawawi) Do we need to call her she’s sitting with the kids? Do we need to call her? Henzi: If she wants to say something. If not, go ahead. Please tell us your names and address. Malah Fazal: Malah Fazal, 10165 Laurel Street. I’m the son of the Petitioner. Baher-Elsaid Al-Zawawi: Baher-Elsaid, husband of the Petitioner and my name is spelled Baher-Elsaid. Henzi: We heard Mr. Banko give us an update is there anything that you would like to update us with respect to the fence? Malah Fazal: Well, basically to stress the point made by Mr. Banko and to somewhat answer your question, sir. The issue with the dogs is my mother has a fear of dogs and we have two toddlers, my two brothers are at the toddler stage. Every now and then they wander next to the fence because they are playing around, so naturally the dog will approach and start barking. And so at the moment we erected the fence all of our neighbors had dogs throughout every single side. So, when the children would get close to the fence, you know, the dog would come close they would start barking. Now, if it was just my mother outside she has a fear of dogs. She’s worried that she might not be able to get my brothers in time or that the dog might jump the fence. We don’t know if the dogs are there just to, you know, they’re barking to protect the territory or if they just want to play with kids, but she’s worried nonetheless because she will not be able to do anything either way. She has a very terrible fear of them. The idea of taking down the chain-link fence to erect a new fence in theory that works, but for that to happen the dogs must be confined in their houses or on leashes for long periods of time while the work is done. Now, that is very unreasonable to ask of our neighbors because, you know, a dog cannot be confined in one position or place for a long time. It’s not healthy for them, plus it’s very troublesome. So, that’s why the fence was erected to make sure that there won’t be any need to take down the chain-link fence and at the same time keep the dogs sort of at bay. The other reason we built the fence City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 of 62 June 5, 2012 was because we’re a shy and timid family. We like our privacy and the way that our house was built and the neighbor’s house was built is that the neighbor’s house their front door faces half of our backyard. This would be the inter-neighbor on Laurel Street. So, it is kind of awkward for us, and probably the neighbor because the neighbor would, you know, would have to been seen every time he goes in and out of his house and it’s probably awkward and inconvenient for them. So, that’s the second reason why the fence was built. At the time we did not know that the fence was in violation and that it would be a problem for anyone. I personally asked a lot of the neighbors if they had any problem with it and one of them even signed a paper saying that it was all right and if you’d like to pass that around, and a lot of other neighbors signed it as well in approval. Now through process of elimination, I sort of figured which neighbor might not have agreed with the fence and that neighbor is only on the corner. They do not share a side with the fence at all, so I tried to contact the neighbor twice both times, they did not respond, they did not wish to respond. I could tell that he was in the house, but he just didn’t want to bother to speak to me. Now, had he approached us while we were building the fence and said, okay, I don’t want the fence to be built, we could have come to some sort of agreement as to how to approach the issue. But we only were notified about three months after the whole entire deal was done and the actual worker left on vacation as was probably noted in the previous case. We’ve already put a lot of money into building the fence and I find that it would be very sad that we would have to tear it down not because a lot of people would be concerned against it, but because one person who’s not even sharing a side with us does not like it and everyone else doesn’t mind. What is more surprising is the fact that if we were to tear down both fences and erect one in place, we would need the approval of three neighbors that share a fence with us and not that neighbor at all. So, if we were to tear down that fence and try to get a permit to erect one fence one single fence instead, we would only need the approval of the neighbor to the right, to the left, and to the back of us. We would not need to consult the neighbor on the corner. So, why is it any different in this case? But that is up for you guys to decide. Lastly, the issue of tearing down the old fence is that the chain-link fence as you know is – if we tear down one side, there is a chance that it will affect someone down the road. The fence might become loose at a certain area or something might break and even if it could be ruled as not our responsibility, it’s not right for us to ruin someone else’s property. That’s why we did not want to mess with the chain-link fence since it would probably affect someone down the way. Now I am asking you if you could please put yourselves in our shoes, a family with four children, two of which are in toddler stage and a mother with a fear of dogs. And I ask that you please consider this not just with logic but also with heart. Could you please waive the case and allow us to keep the fence? We are willing to work with whatever you guys come to a decision to. Thank you very much. Henzi: Were the double fences that exist in your neighborhood up when you bought the home in 2007? Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) Yes. Petitioner: (Mahal) Yes. Henzi: Do you have any idea when they were erected? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 of 62 June 5, 2012 Petitioner: (Mahal) We have no idea. We just moved in a couple years ago. Henzi: In conversations with the neighbors, has anybody said something along the lines of, we’ve had cyclones abutting privacy fences here for one year, or decades, or somewhere in between? Petitioner: (Mahal) From what we gathered, its been there for quite a while. Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) I want to say something, also. First of all, I want to thank everybody including – especially Mr. Steve Banko for his presentation and for his time that he made available to come over and help with us and to proceed to answer your questions and the point that I wanted to add, we took a wander on Laurel Avenue to take a sample of who had double fences. We came out with a count that we have 46 in our section, Laurel Street, 30 homes in this neighborhood has double fences. So if that’s the case, we’re not an exception, we’re not singled out, and I don’t think that if it doesn’t look like a violation for us at least, or at least a violation that’s tolerable somehow. And our will to work with the Zoning Board as much as we can to find a solution that’s least costly for us because our budget as others is hurting and on the same time we need to find a resolution and get rid of this problem that has been nagging for a while. The neighbors have never mentioned anything about the double fences, but none of them mind it. We took their oral permission before we erected the fences and all of them agreed orally. And some of them said, if you want a written agreement, and they did write a petition that we can keep the double fence. And I think the petition is over there still on the table. All of them signed, all of our adjacent neighbors signed, eight of our neighbors within 300-ft. have signed the petition that we can keep like others with double fences. Petitioner: (Mahal) I want to add one more thing. As he has said, there is a large number, so just as an educated guess, it’s probably been about a decade since half of these were erected. I doubt that all of a sudden people just started picking up and building the fences, so it would have to be a long period of time. Henzi: Thank you. Any questions for the Petitioners? Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: How much of this double fence have you put up? I know one side looks fairly new I’m going to say it’s the north side. I don’t remember. I couldn’t see quite into the backyard, the other side. Petitioner: (Mahal) Were you the one that came by just about – yeah. Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) You are welcome to come over and look around, no problem for you. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 of 62 June 5, 2012 Pastor: I have driven by several times just so you know. My office is right around the corner from there. Petitioner: (Mahal) I’m not sure how to answer your question. Pastor: Either feet or percentage, I don’t care how. Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) I think Mr. Banko has precisely noted – Pastor: Mr. Banko? Banko: It runs across the west side of the properly, which is the far rear. It runs across the rear property line. Pastor: My question is how much did they put up? Banko: They didn’t put that up across the rear and on the north side of the property. Pastor: On the north side so, on the west side you put nothing up? Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) Nothing. Banko: That is correct. Pastor: So, you are asking us to approve a double fence, at least a portion of the double fence that you put up against ordinance; is that what you’re asking? Petitioner: (Mahal) If you could waive the case, yes. Pastor: Why can’t you -- Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) Can I just say a thing before – I’m sorry to interrupt you. We’re asking to work out a deal that doesn’t hurt our budget by removing this fence and removing the old fence, which is a big damage to the liability of removing the old fences huge. It’s a fence that has been built like I believe more than a century because most of those homes were built during the Second World War 1940’s, and I think that’s when this fence came up and it’s deep inside the soil. Removing it would definitely affect one of the neighbors on Laurel and we cannot afford this high liability of affecting neighbors. So, we’re asking to have a kind of a deal or a kind of a motion that would help us keep our fence, keep our privacy, protect our kids from the dogs, and the same thing comply as much as we can with the regulations that exist. Pastor: I see it as you’re asking for a motion to ignore our ordinances and that’s – the reason I say that is because you put it up without a permit. You put the majority of it up without a permit. You’re unwilling to take down, as I hear right now, now that may change I understand that. They’re willing to take down the chain-link fence. Our ordinance does not allow fence-on-fence, so help me help you. How do we get through this? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 of 62 June 5, 2012 Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) Okay. I’ll help you. My understanding of the law it’s supposed to serve the community. If I find 30 out of 46 of the homes doing the same thing, I think even the law or the court that you’re trying to enforce us to oblige us to remove the fence according to – at least must have some kind of modifications. If that’s a timid law that cannot be changed, that’s something else, but if the majority of the houses find in themselves trying to find a kind to build double fences answering about a small sample or a small portion of the City of Livonia, I bet you that the Building Department has bigger view of what’s happening over there. We need to find a solution that can make us live like human beings. I don’t want my kids to grow up fearing the dogs of the neighbors. I don’t want to be afraid if one of my kids jump in the backyard, that one of the dogs might jump and I’ve seen one of the dogs trying to jump in the far back end at one of my kids when he was one year old. It’s a scene I will never forget in my life, so we’re trying to help you, but on the same time if this law has some kind of protection that you must keep one law, one fence, we didn’t approach the property line at that point so we didn’t harm anybody. We have the approval of the neighbors although we don’t have the permit, the written permit we’re ready to file a permit, but a permit that at least complies with what we have, not a permit that costs us thousands of dollars and puts on a huge liability that we cannot afford in the future. Pastor: I don’t know what liability you would have if your neighbors are willing. I don’t care if you have a privacy fence. I’m speaking for myself, but I’m pretty sure that most of the Board probably wouldn’t care much about that, it’s the fence-on-fence that’s the problem in my opinion. Petitioner: (Mahal) I’d like to present a question for you. We’re probably not the first ones to have this issue. What would you present as a solution? Pastor: 90 percent of the time, if not more, we ask them that one fence goes. Petitioner: (Mahal) Okay. Now, at the same time, I’m going to present another question to you. It’s a chain-link fence that’s connected not just post-to-post, it’s connected probably property-to-property. Now, if we try to take that down, someone is going to be affected. Pastor: How’s that? Petitioner: (Mahal) Okay. I’m going to take down my end of the chain, right? Pastor: Uh-huh. Petitioner: Now, this tension just got released. The tension is going to keep going. Pastor: It goes from pole-to-pole. Your tension stops at every pole. Petitioner: (Mahal) Not necessarily. Pastor: Yes, it does. Yes, it does. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 of 62 June 5, 2012 Petitioner: (Mahal) I’ve built some before. Pastor: I’m a builder. Petitioner: (Mahal) Okay. Well, you probably know that not everyone builds it correctly. Pastor: Right. Petitioner: (Mahal) And if someone build it incorrectly along the way it stands right and if it breaks later on they might say, well, it was fixed before and you guys just something and it ruined my fence you’re probably the cause before it. At the same time, possibly something might break just from removing it unless you know -- Pastor: I’m not here to argue with you. You’re the ones that are asking us to help, but I’m not – in my opinion I’m not willing to help someone that’s not willing to help themselves. You’ll hear it from our side. You guys caused the problem. You’re unwilling to bend from the problem and you’re saying well, we need you guys to correct this. It’s not up to us to correct 100 percent. It’s up to you to help. Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) Okay. I have a question for you considering you being a builder. Have you constructed any of those fences built during the Second World War? Pastor: I deal with fences a lot. That’s neither here nor there. My experiences are neither – we’re talking about your house and your property not my experiences. You can talk about your experiences, but -- Petitioner: (Mahal) It’s only the one, so it’s not much. Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) Okay. So, the fence, which was built – I didn’t even see somebody come a check it. At least somebody come and check the chain-link fence and tell us if it could be properly removed without being affected. Pastor: That’s up to you and/or your fence contractor. Petitioner: (Mahal) Okay. Pastor: It’s not up to us to construct your fence. Petitioner: (Mahal) I understand that. Now, can I ask you a personal question? In your experience, would you say that it’s possible to remove the chain-link fence -- Pastor: Absolutely. Petitioner: (Mahal) -- without affecting anybody? Pastor: Absolutely. Petitioner: (Mahal) And find a way to keep the dogs at bay? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 10 of 62 June 5, 2012 Pastor: Yes. Petitioner: (Mahal) Okay. So, how would I do that? Pastor: How would you do that? Petitioner: (Mahal) Yes. How would I be able – Pastor: As long as your fence is already up -- Petitioner: (Mahal) Okay. Pastor: -- all you have to do is pull the fence up from over top of it. Petitioner: (Mahal) Okay. Pastor: Take down the chain pull them up because those are probably concrete in the ground. There’s going to be a piece of concrete about that size. Take a come-along or something and they will pop out of the ground. Petitioner: (Mahal) Okay. Pastor: You have to fill in the holes. Petitioner: (Mahal) Okay. Now, the other question is this might affect the property line. Is there a way for me to move the other fence or make it – Pastor: You’re asking me things that – we’re talking about your fence we’re not talking about -- Petitioner: (Mahal) I’m asking you for a solution that’s all there is to it. Would you suggest a way that I could probably keep the property line because -- Pastor: I don’t know where your property line is. Nope. Usually it’s the fence line, but if someone put a fence up without a survey or something, it could be off. Petitioner: (Mahal) Okay. Thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? Aloe: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: To the Petitioner, if the reason that the Board does not allow, or the City does not allow, two fences together like that because you cannot maintain that area between the two fences what would be your solution then? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 11 of 62 June 5, 2012 Petitioner: (Mahal) To maintain it out of greenery like weed? Aloe: Well, what happens is when you have the two fences parallel with each other like that you get growth in between them, so I want you to tell us if you’re allowed to keep those fences, how would you maintain that area and that vegetation that’s going to grow between those two fences? Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) Can I answer that? First of all, as Mr. Banko has precisely said the words that we have tried to reach upon that we’re not going to leave any space between the fences. We are going to make them one fence basically as one fence. Aloe: So, you’re going to remove the one fence and put them together? Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid): We will flip it and put it next to the chain-link fence. Banko: From looking at the fence if you take and flip the fence and put the good side toward the neighbor, it would basically be flush with that cyclone fence and there really isn’t any room for anything to grow in between. Aloe: So, what are they going to do they’re going to remove the panel? Banko: They would remove the panels and turn the panels the other way where the good side is facing the neighbor and that would basically put the fence flush with the cyclone as close as you can be to the property line. Aloe: All right. Okay. Henzi: So, it’s just like bringing the cyclone inside their yard instead of outside. Banko: You’re pretty close your privacy fence would be flush on. Once you flip it because of the way it sits now with the 2x4’s and everything going across, if you put that on the backside of the 4x4, you’re basically going to be flush with that cyclone fence. Aloe: Okay. Thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? Is there anyone that wants to speak for or against this project? If so, come on up to the table. Go ahead. Hall: My name is John Hall, 10218 Wayne Road, Livonia. I’m probably the bad guy in this whole deal because I’m the one that looks at this fence. I’ve lived here 22 years in Livonia. I spent 40 years in the building trade as a sheet-metal worker and I’m very well versed in the way cyclone and privacy fences are put up. This fence on the outside looks like it was almost built like a corral. None of the members have any rhyme or reason to where they are supposed to be. I don’t even know whether the architectural posts are in the ground. On the west side this fence is anchored with clips to my neighbor’s fence, which is a cyclone fence. I understand they have a problem about dogs. I have a dog. I have a Huskie. My neighbor’s got a dog it’s a Beagle. My other neighbors have dogs and they’re all fenced. I haven’t seen a dog run loose in Livonia City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 12 of 62 June 5, 2012 where I live in 20 years, but for someone to say they don’t want to take down the cyclone fence because someone is afraid of dogs I understand that, but let’s play by the rules. I have to play by them. You have to play by them. If you’re going to put up a fence, get a permit, put the posts in the ground, call for an inspection continue on with your fence as the ordinance calls for. I come here once before to this ordinance, the variance. My neighbor on Pinetree wanted to have Soave build a house on a non- conforming lot. I come here I opposed that. They gave him the approval. Now, my garage is 6-ft. from their house and the guy let his house go into foreclosure. So, I’m totally opposed to leaving it the way it is. If you want to put the architectural members on the inside like its supposed to be, I don’t have a problem. They’ve got a tree right where they put this fence that they left there. If you’re going to put up a fence, you’re afraid of dogs, cut the tree down so there’s no way, shape or form anything can get through there. So, it’s up to the Zoning Board of Appeals to do what they have to do. And I live to the west my lot is 324-ft. deep, 80-ft wide that’s why I moved there. I’ve got a nice garden and Livonia, as far as I’m concerned, has handled everything that they should within reason with the exception of some things and let’s play by the rules. I mean, that’s all I want. If someone come to me - I had a contractor put in a hot water tank. He got a permit. He didn’t tell the inspector to come out and inspect it. They called me and said hey, we have to inspect your hot water tank. I said come on out, you know, I’m not afraid of inspections. That’s what we pay the inspectors to do for 40 years in the heating and cooling business. So, I really have bad feelings with this fence because I look at it everyday. Henzi: Let me ask you this. If they put the privacy fence on the outside and built it correctly so that you never saw the cyclone, would you still have a problem with it? Hall: I wouldn’t have a problem if they put the members on the inside, the architectural members. Henzi: It’s got to look right. You’ve got to do it the right way. Hall: Absolutely. Henzi: You want it to look good. I’m just asking are you specifically saying, I don’t like fence-on-fence or I just want them to put up something that looks good if you allow it. Hall: I know you can’t build fence-on-fence, but to build a fence with all the architectural members that you anchor the privacy fence to – I don’t know who put it up, don’t really care. But you’ve got 4x4’s. 4’6 on this side, 4’3 on this side, so you know, and I’m sure the Inspection Department seen that. Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: When you’re talking about architectural members, are you talking about the support pieces, the 4x4’s that hold the fence up, or what are you talking about? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 13 of 62 June 5, 2012 Hall: The posts. Pastor: The posts. Hall: And the architectural members going across that they anchor it to. Pastor: The 2x4’s that -- Hall: No, it’s not 2x4’s it’s 4x4’s. Petitioner: (Mahal) The one that goes into the ground. Hall: Yeah. Pastor: So, to Mr. Henzi’s question this – I think you took me a little off guard here about putting the privacy fence on the outside. Are you talking about putting it on the outside of the chain link? Henzi: Well, I was just trying to get a flavor for whether you’re saying I don’t like fence- on-fence, or if your complaint really was I don’t want to look at a cyclone, or I don’t want to look at a fence that doesn’t look good. Hall: I don’t want to look at a fence that isn’t installed property. Henzi: If you were looking at a privacy fence and couldn’t see the cyclone fence, would you still have a problem as long as it looked good? Hall: That’s up to Livonia’s Inspection Department. I know you can’t put fence-on- fence. Henzi: Yes. Pastor: Thank you. Petitioner: (Mahal) I have a question. Henzi: Not yet. Petitioner: (Mahal) Not yet. Okay. Henzi: Anybody else who wants to speak for or against the project? I’m sorry were there any other questions for Mr. Hall? Aloe: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Which house is your house, sir? Are you directly back? Hall: Mine is the third house from Pinetree. Aloe: Okay. So, you’re 10218? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 14 of 62 June 5, 2012 Hall: That’s correct. Aloe: Okay. So, you’re this house? Okay, 10218 Wayne Road; right? Hall: Pardon? Aloe: 10218 Wayne Road? Hall: That’s correct. Aloe: Okay. So, he’s over here. Hall: It’s kind of tough. I’ve got two houses across the street going into foreclosure, one’s been in foreclosure for two years. The one behind me went into foreclosure. The one these gentlemen bought that was in foreclosure. I mean, I feel like I’m in the Titanic. Henzi: I have one more question for you, Mr. Hall. There’s been talk about the fact that many, I don’t know if many is the right word, but that there are other houses that have double fences in this neighborhood; do you know whether that’s true? Hall: Not to my knowledge. Henzi: Got it. Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) The house next to him is. Henzi: You’ll get a chance to respond. Hall: Is that on Pinetree? Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) It’s on Wayne. Henzi: Okay. Thanks for your answer. Any other questions for Mr. Hall? Okay. I’m sorry, go ahead, Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: To Mr. Banko, you go over there, do you see a lot of this double fencing? Banko: The only double fences that I detailed in this situation were the fences on the south side of them. You have to understand that there are a number of fences that are out there where you have a fence-on-fence that a lot of these fences were put up before the fence ordinance went into existence. Regarding a fence-on-fence and I know that for a period of time if you could come in and show I believe – I’m making an assumption so I’m not going to say it. Hall: This is zoned rural urban farmland to this day. I’ve got a neighbor down the street with chickens on Wayne Road, but they’re grandfathered in. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 15 of 62 June 5, 2012 Henzi: Yes. McCue: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: Mr. Banko, do you notice, other than what we are talking here is double fencing or turning it which way, do you know the structural issues other than that holding them together with clips. Did you notice any of that? Banko: I did not. I was on the inside side of the fence. I attempted to look over. I did on the north side of the property and that’s where the suggestion came up. Obviously, one of the things that is required by the ordinance is to put the good side of the fence toward your neighbor and that is why I suggested that. I suggested to take the cyclone down, but as I stated, they are adamant about the dogs and that would make a partial compliance by flipping the fence and turning the correct side outward, which would put it flush with the cyclone. Of course, the 4x4’s would no longer be exposed and obviously they would pull a permit and there would be inspections done on the fence. Henzi: Okay. Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Mr. Fisher, how long has this fence ordinance been on the books; do you know? Fisher: I believe it was 1993. Pastor: Oh, I would have thought it was a little older than that. Thank you. Henzi: Anything else? Okay. Any other speakers? Take it away. Gentlemen, can you let the speaker have the floor? Petitioner: (Mahal) Just a personal question. How come you never consulted us while -- Henzi: Gentlemen, can you let the speaker have the floor? Martin: Christopher Martin, 12275 Inkster Road, Livonia 48150. I attend a number of these as I had when this came up the first time and just a few comments. Many people are really unaware, I believe it was ’94 on that fence ordinance, but many people just look and see the fences that are currently in their area and just assume that they can do the same thing. It looks like it would match what is surrounding them whether it be fence-on-fence. I’ve heard a number of occasions where this reasoning that you’re not going to be able to maintain the property of four inches or whatever between the cyclone and a privacy. I hear that and I think that’s why they make weed killer that’s City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 16 of 62 June 5, 2012 good for one year, vegetation killer. It kills everything for a year. That’s why it was invented. So, maintaining something, you know, can be done quite easily. I think you can buy a gallon of it for nineteen dollars and some odd cents. As far as the comment that the gentleman made on Mr. Soave building, Soave can build anywhere in the City. He has enough connections to enable that to happen. As far as their fear of the dogs, I understand that. There are certain individuals that have more fear than others. Basically, you know, what comes into play also is a discrimination thing here also that needs to be considered. There are other individuals in the area that have the same thing and, you know, are you really singling a certain ethnic group out? Keep that in mind and that’s pretty much it. Henzi: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else what to speak for or against the project? Seeing no one can you read the letters? Caramagno: We have an approval from Cindy Cezat [10270 Laurel Street] (letter was read). Henzi: Okay. Gentlemen, you have the opportunity to make a closing statement. What would you like to say? Petitioner: (Mahal) Well, sir, had you again talked to us beforehand you would have -- Henzi: You have to talk to the Chair if you want to raise a point, but you can’t talk back and forth. Petitioner: (Mahal) Okay, forgive me. I’m ignorant. Again, had the neighbor consulted us beforehand we would have been more than happy to have the nice side on the outside. Actually we were looking for people to tell us the structure didn’t look right that would have helped us. It would have told us, okay, this fence needs to be fixed in a certain way, please do so. Now, he mentioned about the area with the tree we’re actually saving up to cut that tree down. That tree is dead. It must be cut anyway so we specifically told the builder make sure we are able to cut down that tree because it needs to be cut down. And so after we cut it down, we were thinking of, you know, just completing the fence in that area. But again, I mean, we didn’t know that it was a violation of any ordinance. We just looked at our surrounding neighbors and saw that they had it up. We assumed that it was okay that was our fault and we would be happy to comply with anything you guys come up with. If the other bother is to just have the nice side on the outside, we are more than happy to do that. Thank you. Henzi: Okay. Thank you. Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) Can I add something? Henzi: Go ahead. Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) First of all, welcome, nice to meet you. Hall: Nice to meet you. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 17 of 62 June 5, 2012 Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) No hard feelings. Hall: Oh, no. Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) I like your opinion and I respect it. I want you to live as much as you can and as happy as you can. I have no problem at all even if you filed the complaint against us. Hall: Oh, no. Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) And I am so happy to meet you in person. Hall: Oh, we’ve met before. Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) Oh, we met before? Hall: When you cut your trees down. You were in the other lady’s yard. Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) The guys dropped it over. Yeah. Hall: Because I watch after her. Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) Oh, okay. Henzi: Gentlemen. Hall: My neighbors. Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid): Okay. Henzi: Gentlemen. You can’t go back and forth. There is somebody recording the meeting so we will never be able to tell whose talking. Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) But to make a closing, I just hate to say something against you but, I’ve seen dog in my front yard and it happened not once it happened like three or four times and I have to call my neighbor. And if you want me, I can call the neighbor right now to present the case. It’s Jeff next to us and I have to call him and he was in Ohio and I have to ask him to clear the way for me to go into my garage because his dogs were in my front yard and I could not come outside of my car. I could not open the gate. I could not go inside my backyard. This neighbor that I am speaking about he has not only a privacy fence, but he has also – what do they call them the wire thing -- Petitioner: (Mahal) The electric fence. Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) The electric fence to prevent the dogs from barking against the kids. They were nice enough to prevent – to build up this wire fence to protect our kids from their dogs. And the only thing that I am looking forward is to try to make kind of a solution that we can afford and it can be easily made and we’re ready to cooperate City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 18 of 62 June 5, 2012 with anybody including our neighbor in any kind that he wants. And please if you have any complaint, I’ll give you my phone number right now. You’re more than welcome to call me and tell me what’s the problem and we will work on it and I think that’s what I told you the first time and I repeat it again. And there is no problem in trying to solve as much as we can, but we set up what’s appropriate for us and what’s appropriate for us is a resolution that won’t hurt our budget as much - and won’t damage any other persons. Henzi: Thank you. Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) Thank you. Henzi: I will close the public portion -- Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Go ahead, Mr. Pastor. Pastor: I’ve got one question. Did you guys build this fence or did you have a builder because I heard you say both. Petitioner: (Mahal) No, a guy came in and he build it and he -- Petitioner: (Baher-Elsaid) No, we never said we built it. We had a builder. Petitioner: (Mahal) I never said that I personally built it. Pastor: I thought I heard that. Petitioner: (Mahal) Forgive me. Pastor: Thank you. Henzi: Okay. I will close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mrs. McCue. McCue: I understand the concerns that everyone has, but I think what we really have to come down to the fact is it goes against the ordinance. Number one, there wasn’t a permit pulled which is concerning to me. Secondly, it goes against the double fencing ordinance that we have. And what I’ve heard in the last two times is that if somebody would have told us this or somebody would have told us that I hate to say it, but that’s a lot of the reason why we do permits in the City is so people are educated about some of the guidelines and the rules. So, it’s -- up to the neighbor to necessarily tell you which way the sides need to be. All the way around, I’m just not comfortable with the process that this whole thing took to get this fence up. We went ahead and we put this up without any guidance or suggestions from anybody so, right now I’m tending to say that I will not support the variance. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 19 of 62 June 5, 2012 Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: My thought process is similar to Mrs. McCue. I know you said you have 30 homes in the area that have double fencing. If you’d like to report that, we can go over that. We can take a look at that. You have the tree you say you are cutting down that’s dead and you are getting ready to cut it down. The issue, and I used to have a similar feeling like Mr. Martin, that there was only a few inches and it wasn’t a big deal, but as we have gone on I have seen what actually happens when you have double fencing and it really does make a difference. Now, if you guys want to do the double fencing if you’re that concerned about the dogs, which I totally believe you guys want to do on the inside I thought that was a clever idea. I am more inclined to support the ordinance and say you can’t have a double fence especially on the outside, but if you guys want to do the cyclone on the inside, you know, I think they’d be open to that because that’s a clever idea. But as for the cyclone on the outside as it’s presented at the moment I will not support. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: I agree. Double fencing in all respects is a bad situation. I don’t think I would have any problem supporting a privacy fence. If you went there, took out the chain link put up a privacy fence good side out, I think your neighbors would be happy. I know as a Board member I would be happy, but I will not support a double fence. I just don’t see – and I understand dog fears because I’ve known a lot of people that have severe, as your wife, dog fears. I’ve seen people walk around blocks when they saw a dog half way in the middle of the block. So I understand that, but I just cannot support a double fence. So, that’s all I have to say. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: I’ve heard every comment that I would make and I feel the same way. No support. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: Well, I want to say first of all you’re not the first people that have come here and not pulled a permit. This happens it isn’t just about fences and I don’t think that you’re people that just ignore the law or have no respect for it. I do believe that you truly saw that in your neighborhood and that is a very old neighborhood. I think that neighborhood dates back to when Livonia was a village, as one of the first neighborhoods in Livonia, so you very well might see that before the fence ordinance. I, too, though cannot support it because we never have. I think you have good reasons to want that cyclone fence. I understand the fears of your wife, but I as one Board member don’t want to approve that. It’s not been approved and I can’t support it. Henzi: Despite the fact that I almost overwhelming don’t like double fences, I actually would give it to you if you had the privacy fence on the outside for a couple reasons. First and foremost is one exists next door. Your neighbor has one. Second of all, the Petitioners have gone through so much effort and I’m convinced after having listened to City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 20 of 62 June 5, 2012 you a couple of times that there is a deep-seated fear about dogs that I now understand. And I think that if you put the privacy fence on the outside, the next homeowner might come by purchase the house and hate it and take the cyclone down or they might keep it. But I think when you hire somebody you’re entitled to rely on the fence builder to do the right thing, to pull the permit, to give you the right advice. I’m not going to come down so hard on you for being in this position so, the only way that I would allow it is for a privacy fence on the outside because I take into consideration your desires, I also have to look at Mr. Hall. I mean, he’s the one who’s looking at it. He shouldn’t have to look at a fence that is against the ordinance and looks terrible, so that’s my opinion. But it sounds like there isn’t a consensus so, at least in terms of granting. There is a consensus for denying. Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Go ahead. Pastor: If we deny this, can he still come before us for a privacy fence or does this eliminate the option for him to have a privacy fence because this is kind of one in the same; is it not? Henzi: I don’t know. Mr. Fisher? Fisher: If what you’re asking is about the – if they eliminated the existing fence but still needed a variance, could they come back? I’d say, yes, they could come back. We’d eliminate that part of the public notice. Generally speaking, we tell people you can’t come back if you’re asking for the same thing or you’re asking for more than they asked for the first time, but if you ask for less, we say okay. Pastor: Should I take a poll? Henzi: Sure. Pastor: Is anybody opposed to another tabling motion for 30 days and let them get one more little bite of the apple to come up with another plan? Caramagno: I’m opposed to it. Pastor: Okay. Caramagno: I haven’t seen nothing in the last two. That’s me speaking. Henzi: If there’s a denying resolution, I suppose their only option if they want a privacy fence, they’ve got to take it down. Pastor: Right. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 21 of 62 June 5, 2012 Henzi: Which they could do. So I don’t know, Mr. Fisher, if that’s what the Board wanted we just to do a straight up denial and then it’s up to the Petitioners what they want to do or would they have to? Fisher: No that would be fine. Henzi: They wouldn’t have to come back. Pastor: They’d have to take it down. Henzi: Yes, if they took the cyclone down and put the privacy fence up. Pastor: They’d have to take the privacy down we don’t have a quorum for a privacy. Henzi: No, but if they had approval from all three neighbors, I mean it doesn’t interfere into the side yard I didn’t think. Fisher: Yeah, I’m not sure what the question is, but -- Henzi: If they take the chain link down, erect the privacy only so that there’s no double fence, they wouldn’t even need to come back, would they? Fisher: Only if they, I mean, this makes a reference to the side yard. I thought I heard or saw someone say that the side yard fence is expendable. Henzi: Yeah, it does. Whatever you want to do. Pastor: I was just asking because if we get consensus, we get consensus. Henzi: We got one no, so what do you think? It’s either table or denying. Duggan: I’d rather get this resolved today. Pastor: We’re not going to get it resolved. Duggan: I’d rather table unless they don’t get approval from the neighbors then – I’d rather not table but the only other option is opposing it. Henzi: All I’d suggest maybe if you do a tabling make sure you put a date on it. Pastor: 30 days. Henzi: Yes. Mrs. Aloe, any comments? Aloe: I’d table it. Upon Motion by Pastor, supported by Aloe, it was: City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 22 of 62 June 5, 2012 RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2011-11-49: Amani Al-Zawawi, 10165 Laurel, Livonia, MI 48150, seeking to maintain a 6-ft. tall privacy fence located adjacent to an existing fence, erected in the side yard and erected without obtaining a permit, all of which are not allowed. The property is located on the west side of Laurel (10165) between Pinetree and Plymouth, be tabled to all the Petitioner to talk with neighbors and the Building Department to come up with a new plan that would help them and help the ZBA to approve the new plan for a 30-day period, or until the next available meeting date thereafter. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Pastor, Aloe, Duggan, McCue, Henzi NAYS: Caramagno ABSENT: Sills Henzi: This has been tabled. You have to come back within 30 days or the next available meeting. Pastor: Or they can take it down. Henzi: Yes, or take it down. Petitioner: (Mahal) So, I heard you propose that if we put the privacy fence on the outside, is that just a suggestion or -- Henzi: That was just my opinion. Petitioner: (Mahal) Your opinion. Henzi: But I don’t know that, that was going to fly with all the other members. Petitioner: (Mahal) Well, what do you guys think? Henzi: That’s for next time. Thanks. Aloe: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: I know this is done and over maybe the Legal Department, do they have a right to take that cyclone fence down? Is that even allowed or can they? Fisher: When you say, do they have a right, you mean -- Aloe: Is it their fence? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 23 of 62 June 5, 2012 Fisher: Well, these would be the City. We don’t have a problem with them taking it down that I know of. It is possible that a neighbor will claim ownership of the fence and tell him he can’t, but that person is not here to ask. Aloe: Would that make a difference? We’ve had that before where the neighbor wouldn’t allow it. Fisher: Well, then it comes down to, you know, where’s the survey and who actually owns it and all the rest of that. Aloe: That could be unattainable. Who owns it, a survey, yeah? Fisher: Certainly, if you have two neighbors at odds over whether to take down the fence between, that’s the flip side of the problem you have when they’re at odds of where to put it up in the first place. Aloe: Right. McCue: Mr. Chair, just a follow up to that and then we can move on, but isn’t it the same situation present itself even if it came to them putting the fence on the outside of the cyclone? Pastor: It should be even more so. McCue: Right? Henzi: Yeah, it could be. Fisher: Yes. Pastor: It could be worse because now you’ve got your 4x4’s plus your 2 inches or 3 inches. McCue: Now, you’ve got somebody else’s fence on the other side -- Pastor: Right. Fisher: So, yes, either way you’re going to need some degree of neighbor cooperation. Caramagno: Did the neighbor ever say that they don’t want the cyclone fence down? I don’t think I’ve ever heard that. They never talked to them and said, can we take this down? Fisher: Yes, because they don’t want to. Henzi: They don’t want to. Fisher: They’re never going to ask that question. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 24 of 62 June 5, 2012 Caramagno: They need to do something for themselves pretty soon or – that’s my opinion. Henzi: Okay. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 25 of 62 June 5, 2012 (7:58 #1/1866) APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-06-23: LOP I Holding Company, LLC, 34975 W. Twelve Mile, Farmington Hills, MI 48331, seeking to erect a wall sign on a multi-tenant office building, resulting in excess number of wall signs and wall sign area. Number of Wall Signs Wall Sign Area Allowed: One Allowed: 100 sq. ft Proposed: Two Proposed: 259 sq. ft. Existing: One Existing: 160 sq. ft. Excess: One Excess: 159 sq. ft. The property is located on the west side of Laurel Park Drive (17177) between University Drive and Six Mile. Henzi: Is there anybody here on this case? Mr. Banko, anything to add to this case? Banko: I have nothing to add. Henzi: Any questions for inspection? Hearing none, will the Petitioner please come forward? Petitioner: Thank you. My name is Stan Finsilver. I’m a partner in Laurel Park I, as well as Laurel Park Three. My address is 34975 W. Twelve Mile, Farmington Hills, Michigan. Henzi: Mr. Finsilver, you’ve got two cases, if you want to treat them as one I don’t care; however, you want to proceed. Petitioner: That’s fine. We are here to ask for a variance for a sign. Basically, the reason we are asking for a variance is because the addresses are considered signage because they are large. If I took the addresses down, I would not be here. But everybody seems to like the addresses, so I took it upon myself to ask for a variance. The same size sign, same one sign, same sign I could have if I didn’t have the addresses on the building. There’s no other municipality in 35 years that considers the addresses signage, but I think it’s because they’re so large. That’s it. One thing, for the Laurel Park III, I would ask to have the five-day notice period waived if you approve because we would like to put the sign up tomorrow. Henzi: That’s the Pet Supplies Plus? Petitioner: Correct. They have a Board meeting next week. They took it upon themselves to take the risk of building the signage. I also told them I would take the numbers down and they can pull their permit, but obviously we would prefer not to do that. Henzi: That’s an identical case just different building; right? Same rationale. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 26 of 62 June 5, 2012 Petitioner: Same rationale. We don’t have a tenant for Laurel Park I, but everybody that’s going to take a floor is going to ask about signage and it takes about 90 days to get through it and everybody agreed including your Planning Department to do this one time to make it easier for everybody. It’s the same thing. Henzi: I guess the only question I have is there is some unknown because you proposed what it would look like WXYZ Holding Company and obviously if you don’t know what tenant it’s going to be, you can’t tell us exactly what it’s going to look like. At a minimum are you willing limit, you know, the size, the shape, et cetera of that sign WXYZ Holding Company? Petitioner: Yeah, we’re asking for – we’re allowed to have 100-sq. ft. We’re asking for a 100-sq. ft. sign. I don’t know – GM could come in there and want something that’s 5x5 as opposed to 33x3, but your ordinance only allows for a 100-sq. ft. I can’t ask for anything more than that because I don’t really know who it’s going to be. Henzi: Got it. Petitioner: And there’s a limit to really how you can put a sign on that building. It either has to be the script like you saw with Pet Supplies Plus, which is 100-sq. ft. or theoretically, you could do what like Rock had on the other building, which was 100-sq. ft. but it was a square and it was on the shield of the air conditioning. So, there is really only two real options. It’s either going to be something like that or the script. Henzi: And would that help you market the property? Petitioner: Of course. Henzi: And I suppose, you know, if you signed a new tenant coming in, they’d say hey, we what want Pet Supplies Plus has or something close to it. Petitioner: Probably the only difference they’d want something close to it, but Pet Supplies Plus sign is going to be on the west side of the building, so it faces the expressway. The other building that we own, which is 77, that side of the building isn’t exposed so it would probably be on the south side of the building. Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: I assume you are doing this for exposure to the expressway that’s why you need such large letters? Petitioner: Yes, well, know this to that where Pet Supplies Plus is that building is five stories and we’re allowed to have 200-sq. ft. but it would not look symmetrical on the building, you know, it has that stripe. So basically what I said is, you can have as much as you can use. I want a gap at the top below the stripe and a gap at the bottom so it’s City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 27 of 62 June 5, 2012 centered and runs this way. So, do I use a 30 inch letter, a 33 inch letter, a 36 inch letter and it wound up being a 33 inch letter symmetrically goes across and gives you 100-sq. ft. Pastor: Well, this exposure for the expressway so people know where your tenant is? Petitioner: Exactly. Pastor: Does the Pet Supplies are they going to occupy the whole building, part of the building? Petitioner: They are occupying 32,000 sq. ft. of the 200,000 sq. ft. Pastor: So, a floor, half a floor? Petitioner: About 2/3’s of a floor. Pastor: 2/3’s, so what happens when I come in there and I say, I’m going to occupy a floor and I want a sign? What are you going to do? Petitioner: You can’t have one. We get one sign and we already have it. Maybe I could show you the other building? That’s it. Pastor: Well, I’m just asking because, you know, someone is going to say that. Someone is going to ask. Petitioner: It’s not going to be something I offer because I know I won’t get it. Pastor: Okay. Petitioner: We’re not, you know, we understand – I may be coming in for something other than that but not on the building. Just want to let you know Pastor: I’m good with that. Thank you very much. Henzi: Anything else? Duggan: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: So is this mostly office workers, or are these – are they customers? Petitioner: No, no, this is office. This is office. Duggan: Office, right. Is Pet Supplies Plus requesting signs on that or do you want it for – I mean I know you said you liked it for drawing attention, but they’re requesting it? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 28 of 62 June 5, 2012 Petitioner: No, this was Pet Supplies Plus. I told them when we did our lease, I said, yes, you can have 100-sq. ft. I may have to take the address off, but I’m going to go to the City see what their pleasure is, everybody likes the letters, the numbers. They look good they’re not obnoxious so I’m here. Duggan: Okay, great. Thank you for clarifying that. Petitioner: Sure. Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: I don’t know if it’s Mr. Banko or Mr. Fisher, buildings such as this with exposure to the expressway why do we have so little signage on these? Once again, he’s got a five-story building if I get a tenant that takes one floor, maybe they get one corner of each side of the building or something they should be able to – I’m just asking. Fisher: Well traditionally, office-zoned buildings in the City of Livonia have had relatively subtle signage and for a long time we had that rule about it had to actually had to be the name of the building. It couldn’t even be an individual tenant so, this reflects, I think, the tradition of the City and in fact some degree of liberalization of that tradition to even to have gotten to where we are today. There appears to have been a thought that you would cheapen these nice office areas if you had, you know, if they looked like a NASCAR car with all the tenant signs over the place. Pastor: Thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? Aloe: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: I just need some clarity. The Pets Supplies Plus they’re going in Laurel Office Park Number II? Petitioner: 3, well, 3, we don’t own 2. Aloe: Okay. Petitioner: We have one, which is 77 and we have three unless there’s a typo here. Aloe: It’s in other packet. All right, but right now we’re talking about 17177? Petitioner: 9-7 Aloe: Well, the first case was 1-7. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 29 of 62 June 5, 2012 Petitioner: I’m sorry, right. I thought we were talking about them both. Yes. Aloe: Okay. So, on that one you do not have a tenant. Petitioner: We do not have a tenant. Aloe: Okay. You just want the ability to put up the signage. Petitioner: Right. Aloe: And your answer was even though it’s multi-tenant whatever that tenant is that’s going to be the one sign and any other tenants are going to have to live with that? Petitioner: Right. Aloe: Okay. Thank you. Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: So you’re telling us so I’m very clear, that if we allow you the 100-sq. ft. you’re not going to give 50-sq. ft. to one tenant and maybe 50 to another tenant? It’s going to be one tenant up on there with 100-sq. ft. or 70 however they choose to use that 100- sq. ft? Petitioner: If I had - understand that you want to be able to market your property and you really don’t want it to look like a sign; okay? But let’s just say for argument sake that I rented that space to GM, and I’m going to use them as an example, and they took 100-sq. ft. and they put Buick, but no longer Pontiac and Oldsmobile, Chevrolet, and GMC -- Pastor: Do they have to put them all -- Petitioner: Right. In that 100-sq. ft. they would have – I can commit to you that the signage outside to outside will be 100-sq. ft. If a company came along like, and I’ll use Pet Supplies Plus as an example, and had two businesses and they wanted to divide that; okay? And they stayed within the 100-sq. ft. they would have that opportunity. They could say Pet Supplies, they could say Pets Plus they have the 100-sq. ft. That still has to comply with your sign ordinance. Remember, I’m still complying with your sign ordinance. Okay? I can’t have exposed neon I can’t do all those other kinds of things. Pastor: My question was though if Pet Supplies and, as Mr. Fisher would nicely saying, NASCAR, can they both put their - within the 100-sq. ft. you know they could be drastically different signage, are you going to allow them or are you just going to say first come first serve they get the 100-sq. ft? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 30 of 62 June 5, 2012 Petitioner: Yeah, I’m not going to have a 50-ft. here and a 50-ft. here. Pastor: Okay. Petitioner: First of all, it wouldn’t be visible. I mean, they’re getting too small. You’re up five stories. Pastor: That’s why I’m asking. Thank you very much. Petitioner: No problem. Henzi: Anything else? Aloe: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: To Mike Fisher. It says existing 160-sq. ft. is that the numbers that are taking up 160-sq. ft? Fisher: Well, I didn’t pull out my rule myself, but yes, I think was based on the numbers that are there. Aloe: So if allowed is 100, it’s already over 60? Fisher: I don’t know -- Banko: Wasn’t there already a variance granted on this? Fisher: Is that what it is? I don’t see one. Henzi: Yes. Fisher: Is there a past one? Aloe: So, that’s why they have 160 and that’s for the numbers and he’s asking for another 100 and that’s what takes it to 259 or 260; right? Fisher: I guess that’s right. Aloe: Okay. So, we’re adding to an existing variance; right? Fisher: Well, I’m troubled because I’m not seeing where it says that. Aloe: Does the Petitioner know? Petitioner: I don’t. To be honest with you we never measured the -- City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 31 of 62 June 5, 2012 Aloe: You don’t know if you already have a variance at 160? Petitioner: I don’t know. Aloe: Okay. Thank you. Henzi: It appears that they do because one building is bigger than the other one. When I read the minutes, it looks like they came – the then Petitioner said that they owned the entire complex and that this building was special because it was bigger and needed a bigger address. Petitioner: Well, 3 is twice the size. One is 180,000-ft. and 3 is about 214, I think. And that’s 5 story where 1 is 4 story. Henzi: Right, and it was granted and there was discussion about the fact that they’re not putting signs up that states who the tenants are just the numbers and Petitioner was saying, hey, we need bigger numbers because bigger building. Aloe: So, that’s why it’s part of the reason why it’s already over? Henzi: Correct. Aloe: Okay. Thank you. Petitioner: That was prior to our ownership. Henzi: Yes, that’s goes back a while. Anything else? Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: Do you have any future intention of taking those addresses off those buildings? Petitioner: We don’t own 2, so we don’t really – if we took the letters off of 1 and 3 – we can’t really argue with the way it looks. They’re not lit up, they’re just, you know, they’re sort of bland and – so, no. To answer your question, no, we don’t have any intentions. Caramagno: So, you’re planning on leaving the address up and so we won’t have XYZ Company and the ABC Company to choose to take the address down? Petitioner: No, no, if I took the address down, I’d still only be allowed to have one. Caramagno: You have a variance for two though. Petitioner: I think that variance was granted for those numbers if I’m not mistaken. So if I take those numbers down, I loose that variance. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 32 of 62 June 5, 2012 Caramagno: Are these signs lit? Petitioner: The numbers? No. Caramagno: Is the company sign going to be lit? Petitioner: Yes. Caramagno: 24 hours or all through dark? Petitioner: They will probably be on an eye, photocell, or they leave them on, but you wouldn’t know they were on during the day then. Caramagno: Okay. Petitioner: A lot of times it’s cheaper just to leave them on because of the start and the stop, but with the new LED I’m not sure that’s the case any longer. Caramagno: Thank you. Petitioner: You’re welcome. Henzi: Anything else? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against the project? I see no one. Can you read the letters? Caramagno: Letter from Ashley Capital, Ashley Laurel Park II, LLC [2575 S. Haggerty] (letter was read). Henzi: Mr. Finsilver, any response? Petitioner: He doesn’t own that sign. Henzi: Anything else you want to say in closing? Petitioner: No, I appreciate having the opportunity. I think going through Planning Department and City Council and coming here I understand the need to require signage approvals in a lot of instances, but I think going along the way people were sort of wondering it’s a big building and there’s no signage why is the address – I just put that out there because some of the folks were wondering why are we figuring the address as signage? I mean they should have at least one sign on the building. That’s all I’ll say. That came from a few different people so it might be something you want to consider, but no, we’re here going by the rule of the law and asking for the variance. Henzi: Thank you. I will close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mr. Duggan. Duggan: I will be in support. I think you need a sign. I think whoever your potential tenant will be and you don’t know who it is, but we’re going to give you a sign. It is a City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 33 of 62 June 5, 2012 little disconcerting, but at the same time you had to go through City Council and all that anyways. So, I will be in support I think you need it absolutely so, I will be in support. Petitioner: Thank you. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: I will also be in support as long as the ABC sign be restricted to one user instead of multiple users as they claim that they’re going to have. And I don’t care if he takes down the addresses and uses that square footage if he wanted to come back to us, too, because although the addresses are very useful for fire and police, I don’t know why as he said, I don’t know why we’re considering them signage. So, I will be in full support. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: I will be in support as well. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: Can I just ask one question? Why did you take down the numbers of the 87? Petitioner: It’s called competition. Aloe: Yeah, but what this person stated and I can tell you as a person that tries to go over there and find different things that really does add to the confusion, but why don’t they have the numbers on their building on building two? Why don’t they have -- Petitioner: They do. Aloe: They have them? Petitioner: All three buildings have pretty much the same configuration of numbers. Aloe: I didn’t go that far over so I didn’t see it, but -- Petitioner: All three buildings are symmetrical when it comes to that. They all pretty much look the same. Aloe: Well, I will be in support. I think what you are asking for is reasonable. I just had to ask you that question about the sign. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I, too, will be in support Again for those of us that end up over there, those address signs are a must and I don’t think you’re asking anything unreasonable whatsoever, so I will support. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 34 of 62 June 5, 2012 Petitioner: Thank you. I would just ask the Building Department is prepared to give us a permit tomorrow if you waive the five-day -- Henzi: Yeah, we’ll cover that. I, too, will support the petition. I think that it’s reasonable. Rock Financial had a fairly large sign that was exposed to 275. It’s gone. I think that it’s fair. In general, I think that some buildings go by the addresses and some go by, we work in the Pet Supplies Plus Building. Whatever way this developer wants to do it I really don’t care and I also was given comfort that the sign for which we don’t have a tenant is going to look good. I like Mr. Pastor’s idea and I think that our approving the resolution has got to waive the five-day permit so that he can get that sign up. So, the floor is open for a motion. Upon Motion by Duggan, supported by Pastor, it was: RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-06-23: LOP I Holding Company, LLC, 34975 W. Twelve Mile, Farmington Hills, MI 48331, seeking to erect a wall sign on a multi-tenant office building, resulting in excess number of wall signs and wall sign area. Number of Wall Signs Wall Sign Area Allowed: One Allowed: 100 sq. ft Proposed: Two Proposed: 259 sq. ft. Existing: One Existing: 160 sq. ft. Excess: One Excess: 159 sq. ft. The property is located on the west side of Laurel Park Drive (17177) between University Drive and Six Mile, be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met due to the original way the building was built using address numbers that have become their only signage. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because the lack of signage involving the specific tenants would be inconvenient for the office area. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because both buildings in the office park will have similar layouts. 4. The Board received one (1) letter of conditional 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. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 35 of 62 June 5, 2012 FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions: 1. That there will be signage for only one tenant. 2. That there be no variable electronic message signs. Caramagno: Let me just so to do this justice there were other letters from the other case that I did not get to. Henzi: Okay. Caramagno: Let me just read these. Concetta Natoci [17923 University Park Drive] approval (letter was read). Dorothy Sundberg [17921 University Park] objection (letter was read). Loyal Sundberg [17921 University Park] objection (letter was read). Karen Schraupnagle [17973 University Park Drive] objection (letter was read). Dawn LaBenne [18135 University Park Drive] objection (letter was read). Donna Dalimonte [18025 University Park Drive] objection (letter was read). Eloise Ellman [17907 University Park Drive] objection (letter was read). Henzi: To be fair, Mr. Finsilver, you have the opportunity to respond to any of those letters if you’d like. Petitioner: I think most of those people are on the north side of the property and the sign won’t affect them whatsoever, but I understand their concerns and thank you. Fisher: Mr. Chair, may I add you’re going to have two resolutions for these two cases that will be substantially identical but not quite because as we’ve said, they’re different owners for these two properties. Also, I think it’s only the case number 24 that needs the five days waived because we’re not going to waive five days because so they can put up XYZ Company or whatever. Petitioner: Right, it’s just the Laurel Park III. Fisher: Just want it to be clear partly for Helen’s sake. Henzi: Right, okay. Any other discussion? Pastor: Yes, on the in the approval I think the owner mentioned LED. I’m worried about LED changeable, you know, movie theaters and 100-sq. ft. that’s what he mentioned LED sign possibly. Henzi: Oh, moveable text, you mean? Pastor: Yes, so I want to exclude that. As long as it’s signage and not a Laurel Park – Henzi: Yes. Petitioner: When I was referring to LED, that’s the actual lighting instead of using neon they’re using LED. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 36 of 62 June 5, 2012 Pastor: I understand that, but next time someone may think something different. Petitioner: I don’t think that that sign is allowed in your ordinance. I still have to go for the sign so I ‘m not sure – Pastor: I just want to be clear on that. Fisher: So, you want that as a condition no moveable text or changeable text or something? Pastor: Right. Henzi: Okay, any other discussion? Hearing none, please call the roll. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Duggan, Pastor, Aloe, Caramagno, McCue, Henzi NAYS: None ABSENT: Sills Upon Motion by Duggan, supported by Pastor, it was: RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-06-24: LOP III Holding Company, LLC, 34975 W. Twelve Mile, Farmington Hills, MI 48331, seeking to erect a wall sign on a multi-tenant office building, resulting in excess number of wall signs and wall sign area. Number of Wall Signs Wall Sign Area Allowed: One Allowed: 200 sq. ft. Proposed: Three Proposed: 419 sq. ft. Existing: Two Existing: 320 sq. ft. Excess: Two Excess: 219 sq. ft. The property is located on the west side of Laurel Park Drive (17197) between University Drive and Six Mile, be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met due to the original way the building was built the address numbers that have become their only signage. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because the lack of signage involving the specific tenants would be inconvenient office area. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because both buildings in the office park will have similar layouts. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 37 of 62 June 5, 2012 4. The Board received (1) one letters of approval and six (6) 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 there will be signage for only one tenant. 2. That there be no variable electronic message signs. 3. That the five-day waiting period be waived. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Duggan, Pastor, Aloe, Caramagno, McCue, Henzi NAYS: None ABSENT: Sills Henzi: They’re both granted, so you can just call up the Building Department and get your permit tomorrow. Petitioner: Thank you very much and I invite you all to come into those buildings. We’ve renovated the lobbies, as has the fellow in two and they look very different, all with permits. Thanks. Henzi: Thanks for allowing us to do two cases in 30 minutes. We’re back on schedule. Petitioner: Thank you for allowing me to allow you. Pastor: Have a pleasant evening. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 38 of 62 June 5, 2012 (8:26 #1/2818) APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-06-25: Nicole Sprader, 19754 Fry, Northville, MI 48167, seeking to construct a covered porch to the side of an nonconforming dwelling, resulting in deficient corner side street setback. Nonconformity is based on the existing side street setback of 10’2” where 25 feet is required. Side Street Setback Required: 25 ft. 0 in. Proposed: 5ft. 2 in. Deficient: 19 ft. 10 in. The property is located on the east side of Lathers (18840) between Clarita and Seven Mile. Henzi: Mr. Banko, anything to add on this case? Banko: No, sir, I have nothing to add. Henzi: Any questions for Mr. Banko? Hearing none, will the Petitioner please come forward? Good evening. Petitioner: (John Sprader) Good evening. Henzi: Can you tell us your names and addresses, please? Petitioner: My name is Nicole Sprader. Address 19745 Fry, Northville, Michigan 48167. Sprader: I’m Nicole’s dad, John Sprader, same address. Henzi: Okay, why don’t you tell us about the project? Petitioner: Absolutely. So, first I want to start off by saying I’m just excited to be a first- time homeowner. I purchased the home and so we are doing some work on it to make it really great. So, one of the things that we want to do with where the existing front entrance of the home is, is directly into the living room, which severely limits the use of a large portion of that room. Another point of it is that the driveway where it stands now is 180-ft. from where the existing front door is there is no sidewalk in that part. So, that would mean either walking across the grass the entire distance or walking in the street that entire distance. Most homes surrounding mine do have doors that face Clarita. There are actually neighboring structures also that do have smaller setbacks than the one that I am asking for. There is one home that has a setback of 16-ft, one with 15, and one with only 9, so I wanted to point that out also. Also, the home to the east of mine does have a Clarita address and her door does face Clarita, which would then make that part of the block match. And just also with this addition it would significantly City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 39 of 62 June 5, 2012 improve the look of the home itself and which would improve the look of the neighborhood. Henzi: Have you contracted with a builder? Sprader: (John) I’m her dad. She has pulled the permits and we’re kind of doing it together. Petitioner: We’re building it together. Henzi: Okay. So, we’ve got some renderings in here. Sprader: (John) I’ve done all the drawings and all the information that’s there we have worked on together. Henzi: All right. Can you tell us about the building materials? Just for example; you’re going to match the shingles to existing, that sort of thing. Sprader: (John) Yes, and I think that’s on one of the elevations. We’re going to have all new shingles actually. We have actually got the roof permit. We were going to do that first, but then when we met with John in the Building Department, he actually talked us into doing that addition on that front corner to make that go all the way across so we’re only waiting on doing the shingles until that portion is completed. We had to back up because we did a couple of modifications per the Building Department here. Recommendations that were good recommendations and I’m thankful to him for doing that because I was on the verge of doing it, wasn’t going to do it, but now we’re happy that he actually induced us to do that. Henzi: Okay. Any other questions? Aloe: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: To Mr. Fisher. They’re changing the front entrance to the Clarita side? So, won’t their address change, too? Fisher: Well, bear the way the – at least the Zoning Ordinance allocates addresses is the short street side gives you your address. So, that’s why it’s on Lathers and I would expect it to stay that way. Aloe: I thought it was the way your house faces. Sprader: A lot of the houses there have three doors and nobody uses their front doors on those corner lots because it’s inconvenient, everybody kind of goes into the side door. So, even though some side doors are used as a front door they still look like the side door. We just want this to look more like the front door because it’s far more appealing. We think the design is – what it enables to happen is, you’re going into a City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 40 of 62 June 5, 2012 foyer space and from there you’re able to go to the kitchen, to the hallway, to the living room. So, it’s much more convenient. It’s more of a modern-day plan as opposed to those existing houses that are there where you walk into the front living room and the way it was there’s not a coat closet or anything there. It’s very awkward. When you think of it, when you go into a rich person’s house in Northville where I live, nobody out there would move into this house just based on the existing floor plan. And that might be one of the reasons why three of the four houses on the corner have been vacant for several years. We just found this one that she was able to purchase for a very inexpensive price, but maybe when hers gets fixed the others will be more appealing for somebody to actually buy those homes as well, I think. I think it’s a nice looking and it’s been fun so far and I’m glad she did it. Fisher: By way of further answer, the Engineering Department actually allocates addresses. I guess theoretically you could ask for your address to be changed to the other street. If you look at the house next door, it’s obviously 28110 Clarita and there doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason to that. So if they wanted to have it changed, I guess they could, but it’s not something that happens automatically certainly. Aloe: Well, I know on new construction on a corner whichever it faces that’s the way the address is going to be. Banko: The addresses are based on – the shorter distance is what’s going to get the address whatever the shorter distance is on. As on this case, on Lathers that has the address not the depth or the longer distance. Aloe: Not the facing distance. Fisher: Right. Banko: It doesn’t matter where the front door is. Sprader: You know what we found out from one of the neighbors and it might be the same with the mail delivery, but the garbage delivery if you don’t have houses facing the side street and they’re all on the longer street, you just make one run down those streets and you don’t have to turn if there’s no address. So, that lady that has the Clarita address really should have the Gilman address. Fisher: Yes, there’s no question because Gilman is also the short side of the lot so by everything that we’ve talked about that should be a Gilman address. Banko: There are anomalies out there. Sprader: We’ve noticed just driving around that neighborhood. Another one I’d like to mention just because it’s funny after going through the first hour of this meeting. There are on her property there are four fences together. It is amazing. We will rectify it. Actually we want to make it like a Better Homes and Garden house, so we are going to basically rectify everything there that we can. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 41 of 62 June 5, 2012 Aloe: Are those trees yours in the front there? Sprader: We think they are, but you know what we’re not sure of, when we got the notice it had said about the non-conformity and if you look at the site plan, if this was a conforming lot and you looked at the site plan, her house would only be able to be 10-ft. wide based on the way that this is written where it says “in deficient corner side street setback non-conformity is based on the existing side street setback of 10’2 where 25-ft. is required.” So if you went from the line 10’2 to the 25-ft, that means it is only 15-ft. to the other lot line. So, we’re not sure what it means by non-conformity. Does anybody see what I’m talking about? Fisher: Right. Well, the ordinance is basically designed so that you theoretically can’t have a 40-ft. lot on a corner like this. It’s not, as you say, it’s mathematically anomalous you have a 10-ft. wide house as a result. Sprader: Okay. Then I was reading it right? Fisher: Yes. Sprader: It just seemed weird when I was trying to make sense of it. Thank you. Henzi: Anything else? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against the project? I see no one. Are there letters? Caramagno: Yes, [18720 Lathers] Nghia Duc La, says I approve. Diane Cote [18796 Lathers] (letter was read) (approval). Henzi: Is there anything you would like to say in closing? Sprader: I didn’t have any other questions but we did find out it was some kind of an architect, I mean agricultural area will there ever be sidewalks in the area or is that on some plan or how do you find out what the future holds in regard to sidewalks; not that I care or not, I just wondered what is the ultimate plan? Is it to leave it grass for forever or to put sidewalks in eventually or not? I don’t care I like the grass I just wondered for the sake of wondering if anybody has ever thought of that? Fisher: I do not think there is such a thing as a plan for something like that. They don’t plan to go through old neighborhoods and install sidewalks. Sprader: Okay. Henzi: I’d say that’s pretty common for rural urban farm though in the City. There is one question that I forgot to ask and that is do you plan to ever enclose the front porch? Is that going to be open it’s just going to be a covered front porch; right? Sprader: Yes, with a railing Henzi: Right, you’re not going to box it in? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 42 of 62 June 5, 2012 Sprader: No. Henzi: Got it, okay. Anything else you want to say in closing? Sprader: No, just thanks. Petitioner: Thank you. Sprader: We attended the last meeting and it was actually fun, too, so it’s a good experience for both of us. Henzi: Thanks. You can rehab those other two houses next. Sprader: You know, it’s been a family project – Petitioner: Don’t say that he might do it. Henzi: Okay. I will close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Yes, I will be in favor of this as long as you say you will never enclose the front porch and put heaters out there and whatnot. I think it’s a great – I really appreciate you coming into the City and doing this although I’d really like a rich man from Northville to do the other three projects. So, any time he wants to – I’m sure we can get some bankers to back you up or something. It looks great, it really does. It looks like you’re doing a real nice job, so I will be in full support. Sprader: Thank you. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: You already have the setback problem to start with. I think what you propose here is really going to improve that area. I’d like to see it finished. Sprader: Thanks. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: I also will be in support. Good project. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I agree. It looks beautiful. It is always exciting to see a house in that area going in the right direction. I will support. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan: I, too, will support. It looks great. Good luck. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 43 of 62 June 5, 2012 Sprader: Thank you. Henzi: I, too, will support. I think it is a great addition to the neighborhood. So, the floor is open for a motion. Upon Motion by Aloe, supported by Caramagno, it was: RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-06-25: Nicole Sprader, 19754 Fry, Northville, MI 48167, seeking to construct a covered porch to the side of an nonconforming dwelling, resulting in deficient corner side street setback. Nonconformity is based on the existing side street setback of 10’2” where 25 feet is required. Side Street Setback Required: 25 ft. 0 in. Proposed: 5ft. 2 in. Deficient: 19 ft. 10 in. The property is located on the east side of Lathers (18840) between Clarita and Seven Mile, be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because this an existing home that already has an existing nonconformity. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because the Petitioner has purchased this home and is making huge renovations to the property to bring it up to modern-day existence. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on the neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because there is neighbor support. 4. The Board received two (2) letters of approval and no letters of objection from neighboring property owners. 5. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the purpose or objective of the Master Plan because this property is classified “Low-Density Residential” under the Master Plan, and the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification. FURTHER, this variance is granted with the following conditions. 1. That the porch be constructed according to the drawings that were presented to the Board. 2. That the porch will not be enclosed. 3. That the variance is good for one (1) year. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 44 of 62 June 5, 2012 ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Aloe, Caramagno, Duggan, McCue, Pastor, Henzi NAYS: None ABSENT: Sills Henzi: The variance is granted with those three conditions. You have to build it according to the plans that you submitted. You can’t enclose the porch. It is good for one year that doesn’t mean it expires in one year it means you’ve got one year within which to complete the project. Thank you very much. Sprader: Thank you. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 45 of 62 June 5, 2012 (8:40 #1/3280) APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-06-29: Gershman Properties, LLC, 12300 Wilshire Blvd., #310, Los Angeles, CA 90024, seeking to construct a retail home improvement building, resulting in deficient number of parking spaces. Number of Parking Spaces Required: 634 Proposed: 436 Deficient: 198 The property is located on the east side of Middlebelt (12701) between Industrial and the CSX Railroad. Henzi: Mr. Banko, anything to add to this case? Bano: I have nothing to add, sir. Fisher: Mr. Chair, if I may, this property has very recently been rezoned to C-2 and Mr. Taormina advises that it is going to be changing its Master Plan status to General Commercial, from Industrial to General Commercial it is going to be part of the next batch of Master Plan changes. Aloe: General Commercial? Fisher: Yes. It’s currently Industrial it will be changed to General Commercial. Henzi: Does that have any bearing on the deficiency? Fisher: No, you know in your last condition or your last finding you talk about the Master Plan that’s where that comes into play. Henzi: All right. Will the Petitioner please come forward? Good evening. Petitioner: Good evening. My name is Charles Sharp. I am a representative for Menards Incorporated. We’re located at 5101 Menard Drive in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Henzi: Is it Mr. Sharp? Petitioner: Yes. Henzi: Okay. Go ahead and we’re going to do the parking space case. Tell us why Menards needs the excess. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 46 of 62 June 5, 2012 Petitioner: The difficulty that the parking variance, excuse me, ordinance places on us is that a Menards store is approximately 160,000-sq. ft. and the ratio of parking to square footage is sort of expanded beyond, I think, a reasonable number of spaces for what our use is. In this case with a Menards store we have wide aisles to accommodate the large and bulky items that we sell and in general we don’t find that our parking lot has, you know, maybe a hundred cars in it at a busy time and so our request here is based on a long history of experience. We’ve done this over 270 times and have a very good idea of what our parking needs are at this point. I do have a list here of similar stores that we have opened recently. It shows the amount of parking we have for those stores, if I may pass that around? Henzi: Sure. How many employees do you have on a typical shift? Petitioner: On a shift there will probably be close to 80 employees at a time. We employ approximately 175 usually. It will range between 150 and 200 depending. Henzi: Can you tell us, did you analyze your peak hours like whether that’s on a Saturday afternoons or whatever it is? What your maximum parking needs are? Petitioner: Yeah, our spring-time sales typically Saturday mornings are our busiest time with the Garden Center being open and the general need being, you know, people can come in on a Saturday morning. Numbers would be maybe in the two hundreds for vehicle usage. We’re well parked at 400 spaces. We’re very well parked at that point. Henzi: The list that you just passed out it looks like there’s not much difference I mean all of these stores are in the ballpark pretty close. Petitioner: That’s true. Henzi: How is that is that just that you have a prototype store now that you’re putting in different areas of the country? Petitioner: Yeah, yeah. We just know what our needs are at this point and try to stick to it as close as possible. Henzi: Okay. Any questions for the Petitioner? Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: How many stores did you say you had, 270? Petitioner: We are opening I believe our, yeah, our 270 something this year. Caramagno: Now these 19 stores here are at what end of that 270? Are these your bigger stores or what? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 47 of 62 June 5, 2012 Petitioner: About 10 years ago we started making what’s called our Prototype 5. They’re all approximately 160,000-sq. ft. They have a 3 to 5 acre outside yard enclosed within a fence and then they have an attached garden center overhang. They’re all basically the same size and we have gone back to our P-3, P-2 stores and tried to convert them. We’ve added on to them to make conform with our new prototype signs. Caramagno: And these are in line with what you are building over here? Petitioner: These are all stores we’ve opened in recent - in the last few years. Yes, absolutely. Caramagno: The stores that you are opening the population in that area is that also consistent with what you’re seeing here in this Livonia/Westland area? Petitioner: Yeah, absolutely. What we shoot for is more of a regional presence. We don’t want to put a store every 9 miles or, you know, what our competitors tend to do. So, our experience is that, you know, we know that a five-mile ring in this area might be more dense than others, but with our intent to have stores regionally around the Detroit area we’ll be servicing a comparable population. Caramagno: Okay. Thank you. Henzi: So, as I look at some of these cities that I’m familiar with they may be less populated, but you’ve got folks traveling greater distances to get to the store. Petitioner: That’s correct. My experience here talking with local people that have known about the, you know, our proposal what we’ve been trying to do they may drive down to Toledo to our Toledo store even to get to a Menards. So, we know that for people to drive more than an hour is not uncommon. Henzi: And then you may have touched on this already, but the store that Livonia is going to get, I mean, that’s the latest version of your prototype; right? Petitioner: Correct. Henzi: Okay. Any other questions? Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Do you have a larger store? I mean, you say you’re typically 160, but do you have a larger store, a smaller store? Petitioner: What I say typically, I’m referring to the fact that there were earlier versions that were somewhat smaller. Pastor: Okay. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 48 of 62 June 5, 2012 Petitioner: But this is the largest and we have grown the size of our store over the years which I think further exacerbates this parking issue where in some places we’re looking at 13, 14 hundred spaces being required which is, you know, I can’t even comment. Pastor: So, this is basically the largest store as of today that you’re building? Petitioner: It’s 162,400-sq. ft. and that’s what we build – every store we’re building we’re trying to get 17 of them approved this year and they will all be 162,000-sq. ft. Pastor: Okay. Thank you. Henzi: Anything else? I see no one in the audience. Are there letters on this case? Caramagno: I don’t see any. Henzi: Mr. Sharp, anything you’d like to say in closing on the parking spot variance case? Petitioner: No. Henzi: Okay. I will close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: This property has been vacant. It’s good to see a store coming in. You show us as we see sometimes with larger properties you bring in your analysis of parking and we know you can make these numbers say anything you want to say, but I have got to believe that when you have this type of investment in the community, to come up big time short of parking places isn’t in your best interest. So, if you folks think this works for you, it must because bad parking and waiting in line will turn people off and that’s a bad business plan. So, I will be in support of your needs here. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: I also agree. I will be in support. I accept what the Petitioner has presented to us as far as parking needs. So, I will be in support. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I agree. I think that your knowledge and your expertise to some degree we have to rely on that and I think as some of these properties grow to continue to meet the specific parking requirements could get a little bit out of hand, so I will support. Henzi: Mr. Duggan. Duggan. I, too, will support. I mean after 270 stores and I think you guys know what you’re doing, so I absolutely will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 49 of 62 June 5, 2012 Pastor: I also will be in support as Sam said, if you guys got this wrong, you’re paying the consequences and we would really, Livonia would really like to see this succeed. That property has been an eyesore for quite some time. Henzi: I, too, will support the request. I am very anxious for the store to open and just on a personal note I thought that your list of recently opened stores is very helpful in terms of trying to analyze whether this is the appropriate amount of parking because you’ve got such a – I mean, we’re talking about 5 or 6 states from different areas of those states so that convinces me that you – and also the fact that they’re all very, very close. You’ve got one prototype that you’re building so it seems to me like you’ve nailed down your parking needs, so I think that this is appropriate. So, the floor is open for a motion. Upon Motion by Caramagno, supported by Pastor, it was: RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-06-29: Gershman Properties, LLC, 12300 Wilshire Blvd., #310, Los Angeles, CA 90024, seeking to construct a retail home improvement building, resulting in deficient number of parking spaces. Number of Parking Spaces Required: 634 Proposed: 436 Deficient: 198 The property is located on the east side of Middlebelt (12701) between Industrial and the CSX Railroad, be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because this large store is coming into property that is in need of development because it has been rundown in recent years and not meeting the needs of Livonia. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because it would prevent them from the opportunity to open this large store on the corner of Middlebelt and Schoolcraft. The Petitioner has demonstrated to the Board that parking needs sought will satisfy their business requirements and they have experience in doing so. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because there are other properties within the area that have less parking than is required based upon their actual needs. 4. The Board received no letters of approval/objection from neighboring property owners. 5. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the purpose or objective of the Master Plan because this property is currently classified “Industrial Use” but will be changed to “General Commercial” under the Master Plan, and the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 50 of 62 June 5, 2012 FURTHER, this variance is granted with the following conditions 1. That the project will be constructed as it was presented to the Board. 2. That the project will be constructed so as to have no fewer than 436 parking spots. 3. That the project will comply with all conditions imposed by City Council at its May 23, 2012 meeting. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Caramagno, Pastor, Aloe, Duggan, McCue, Henzi NAYS: None ABSENT: Sills Henzi: The variance is granted with those three conditions. You have to configure the spaces as presented, you have to abide by the Council requirements, and you have to have a minimum of 436 of spots. Do you want me to read it one more time? Petitioner: Please. Henzi: You have to configure the spots as presented tonight. You have to abide by the Planning Commission and Council requirements and then you have to have the minimum 436 spots. Petitioner: Thank you. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 51 of 62 June 5, 2012 (8:54 #1/3878) APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-06-30: Gershman Properties, LLC, 12300 Wilshire Blvd., #310, Los Angeles, CA 90024, seeking to erect multiple wall signs and a ground sign, resulting in excess number of wall signs, excess wall sign area and ground sign, which is excess in height, width and area. Number of Walls Signs Wall Sign Area Ground Sign Height Allowed: 1 Allowed: 480 sq. ft. Allowed: 6 ft. Proposed: 15 Proposed: 622 sq. ft. Proposed: 20 ft. Excess: 14 Excess: 142 sq. ft Excess: 14 ft. Ground Sign Width Ground Sign Area Allowed: 10 ft. Allowed: 30 sq. ft. Proposed: 31 ft. Proposed: 200 sq. ft. Excess: 21 ft. Excess: 170 sq. ft. The property is located on the east side of Middlebelt (12701) between Industrial and the CSX Railroad. Henzi: Mr. Banko, anything to add on this case? Banko: No, sir. Henzi: Any questions for Mr. Banko? Hearing none, good evening. Mr. Sharp, go ahead and tell us about the sign package. Petitioner: Well, I think monument sign is the biggest concern here because its what really represents our store on Middlebelt. We’re setback a little over 800-ft. from Middlebelt and as you all know, Middlebelt slopes downward as you travel south and so in particular for northbound traffic, they’re not going to be able to see our store probably until they’ve passed it. And so the monument sign there is pretty important and valuable for this development. Additionally, we do plan to have some out lot users. We estimate between four and six total in that area out front between our parking and Middlebelt and we’d like to allow them to have some signage when they do develop their own property there. And so because really the dimensions of the parcel that we are buying – we’re purchasing about 46 acres of which about half are really retail developable land. It sort of forced us to push our store back to appropriately develop it. As for the wall signage, it’s a big store and having some small signs that, you know, break up the monotony of the wall and give an idea of what products are inside. Menard’s is new to this area. We don’t have a real distinct southeast Michigan presence and so giving people an idea of what’s inside and encouraging them to come in and check us out is very important to us. Henzi: Questions to the Petitioner? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 52 of 62 June 5, 2012 Aloe: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: Can you expand on out-lot users for us? Petitioner: Well, there’s an undeveloped parcel between our parking and Middlebelt Road that we will market for – to sell to users such as a gas station or convenience store. We have some fast food restaurants that buy out lots from us sometimes at our other developments, vehicle repair. Aloe: Do they actually buy or do they lease space? Petitioner: We only sell. Aloe: You sell the space? Petitioner: Yes. Aloe: So that Quik-Oil Lube is that going or is that staying? Petitioner: You might be thinking of the Walmart property to the north and this is the Vantage Logistics, which is just at the light basically. Aloe: Isn’t there an existing oil change or something? Banko: That’s up at Schoolcraft. Aloe: At Schoolcraft. Banko: This property is south of Industrial. Aloe: Okay, all right. Right, okay, got it. So, gas, fast foods, what were the other ones? Petitioner: Restaurants, in general. We have a Belle Tire in front of our Davidson store, those types of establishments. We don’t cater to the liquor stores or things like that. We don’t want those in front of our Menards stores. Aloe: But if he sells this property to these other entities, wouldn’t they come in here for their own sign packages? Why would he include that? Fisher: Well, I guess it would depend on the configuration he had sold it in. There’s only a limited amount of this that really fronts directly on to Middlebelt, really that 248.7 ft. stretch there that includes this sign. So, the rest of this close to 600-ft. of front anyway not really road frontage would be - I don’t think that would necessarily be desirable as a place to put your sign, but besides that the Menards, I assume, you have some sort of covenant with the people that you sell to about what they can do and what City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 53 of 62 June 5, 2012 signs they can put up with, and I assume you’re going to restrict them to this ground sign; is that correct? Petitioner: The monument sign is proposed next to the – one of the access points to the property and we’d be in competition if they wanted to put up a sign of their own near Middlebelt Road. It just makes more sense to have it in one location all the signage together at that access point and we would require them to limit their signage to that. Aloe: Well, Mike, again would that prohibit them from coming in here and asking for a sign variance? Fisher: Well, I think what Mr. Sharp is saying is they might not be prohibited by the Ordinance, but they would be prohibited by their real estate covenant. Aloe: And that’s what you would do so they wouldn’t have the ability to seek their own signage. So, whatever you get this is what they get? Petitioner: Correct. Aloe: Okay. Thank you. Henzi: Anything else? Perhaps just to make a record I think that I know why you want the signs on the outside for plumbing, I mean, is that more directional so that I don’t park by garden center if I’m really only going in there to get some plumbing fittings? Petitioner: Yes. Pastor: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: Do all your stores have the electrical appliance, garden, and plumbing? I’m thinking like Ionia doesn’t have all those signs, but I can’t quite remember. Petitioner: There have been a limited number of instances where we have not been allowed to put up those signs and so we may have half of them or one or two, but 99 percent of our stores do have those directional signs. Pastor: Every one of them because I don’t remember seeing that many on your stores. I remember seeing some of them, but I don’t remember seeing appliance. Petitioner: It’s not fully representative. I do have some photographs of a store in, I think it’s our Holland, Ohio – if you’d like? Pastor: I was just -- Henzi: Sure, pass them around. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 54 of 62 June 5, 2012 Petitioner: If you’d like to see how it looks in real life and not just on a plan. Pastor: I’m just trying to remember some of your other store locations because these signs can’t direct you where you’re parking because you have three accesses in there. You have the garden center you got your ends so that really doesn’t direct you. Petitioner: To a specific entrance, no, but as you would enter the store you would have a better idea of which direction to go. Pastor: So, this store is a little different than some of your other stores because I know normally your lumber is on the right at least in some of the stores I’ve been in. Your order desk and stuff like that are on the right towards the front. Petitioner: We do have to change the lay out on the interior. In some circumstances we have to flip the store, you know, move things garden center can be on the right, but traditionally it’s on the left side I believe. Pastor: So if I really had heartburn with so many signs up there, which ones would you eliminate? Petitioner: None of them. Pastor: That wasn’t my question though. Petitioner: No, I know. Pastor: Exactly. Petitioner: I haven’t been asked that question before. Pastor: Well, I’m known to be a little unusual with some of my questions. Petitioner: I guess my request would be that you told me you had heartache with a number of signs and I could discuss that with my boss if you really wanted to restrict us. Pastor: Fair enough. Thank you. Henzi: All right. Any other questions? Petitioner: I guess I would also reiterate that we’re 800-ft. back from Middlebelt Road and that a sign of this size is not really going to be noticeable from the road. Pastor: Good point. Why you need I? Petitioner: Because it’s our prototype design. I know that’s a tough argument, but for aesthetic purposes from the road the visibility corridor it’s not going to have an impact on what people are seeing. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 55 of 62 June 5, 2012 Pastor: I agree, but once you put three or four restaurants in front of your store, I’m not going to be able to see those signs, so why do you need them? Petitioner: Why can’t we have them? Pastor: Because our ordinance doesn’t allow them and I’m not trying to be hard on you I’m just -- Petitioner: I understand. It’s our prototype and it’s my job to get -- Pastor: So, we never break from prototype because I’m thinking that’s not true. I’m sure we’ve broken some prototype before. Petitioner: We’d really prefer not to. Pastor: Thank you. Henzi: You were talking about the directional like cabinets and paint? Pastor: Yeah, exactly, I mean, like I said I don’t remember seeing appliance on their stores before, but they may be, cabinets, I don’t remember seeing no signs either. I know because it’s such a large project and such a large building you need more signs than we normally allow, but I mean you’re asking for 14 times more. You’re not really that much over in excess, I mean you are 20 percent over, so I don’t have a whole lot of heartache with the monument sign. I think you need a monument sign although it could be a little bit smaller, but that’s my taste. But I am kind of - the amount of signs seems to be my heartache. McCue: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: Don’t a majority of our larger retailers in the City, they may not have as many, I’m going to give you that, but what would you say – when I think of some of the other retailers, we’ve got how many signs on the front? Most of them have at least two or three plus their main sign: am I correct? Fisher: Yes, I think that’s probably correct. And the other -- McCue: The directional piece of it makes sense to me. Like I said, when you’re starting to look at a whole block of store, you at least start at one end to the other. Fisher: Well, and the other thing is the definition of sign in our ordinance actually includes being visible from public property like a sidewalk or a street and these signs would just barely qualify as being visible from Middlebelt or probably any public street so that hopefully would give you some comfort. McCue: So, again, it would be like the Menards would be visible? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 56 of 62 June 5, 2012 Fisher: Right, obviously. McCue: And then the monument sign, obviously. Fisher: Sure. The other signs would be pretty marginal. McCue: Okay. Henzi: Any other questions? Caramagno: Mr. Chair, I’ve got one. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: Not even related to signs. The pictures that you have here. Petitioner: Yes. Caramagno: What do you put around the outskirts of the property? I see a 14-ft. fence here. Petitioner: That’s correct. Caramagno: Did you put that up in all your buildings? Petitioner: Yes. Caramagno: Is that right? Wow. Pastor: Mr. Fisher, is that something they have to come back to us for? That’s not around the whole store that’s just around the lumber supply and gardens; right? Fisher: Oh, I see, like they already have at Home Depot and that sort of thing? Pastor: Yeah. Fisher: I don’t think those came – I can’t remember them coming here for the other stores that have similar. Henzi: No, they didn’t. Fisher: Off the top of my head I don’t remember the rationale for that, but we’ve never done that before. We never required that before. Pastor: Because a member of the audience earlier tonight, Mike, might really have enjoyed having a 14-ft. fence on his property. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 57 of 62 June 5, 2012 Fisher: Yes, well, he’s obviously got a different situation. I’d have to go back and look. I remember the discussions that went into not having that, not requiring Home Depot to do that, but I don’t remember the gist of the discussion. Pastor: But this is a much larger area than Home Depot has, substantially larger because they encompass all the lumber sales because all the lumber sales are outside or all their lumber storage is outside; am I correct? Lumber and most of your gardening stuff is outside? Petitioner: Correct. Pastor: But I guess that’s for a different conversation or a different time. Henzi: And this is different, too, because I think Home Depot has just got the black wrought iron, don’t they? Mr. Sharp, let’s ask this, I mean, these were photos of the Holland, Ohio store which appears to be the prototype. It looks identical to what you proposed. Is the proposed fencing going to be identical? Petitioner: Yes. Henzi: This is just curious is Menards a family name? I mean, did this start out as a family-owned hardware store? Petitioner: Actually in the fifties Mr. Menard was building pole barns to put himself through college and it just expanded from there. Henzi: Good to know. Mike, if we went ahead and approved and then you found later that the fencing would require another variance, I mean, they’d still have to come back; right? Fisher: Right. Henzi: If not, they don’t. Fisher: Correct. Obviously, this has been extensively reviewed by the Planning and Inspection Departments and they have not identified the need for a variance for this purpose. I’m just trying to see whether the Council proceedings addressed it at all and it looks like all they said was, we approve these site plans and so forth. They certainly did not refer any question of this type to us. Henzi: There’s nothing in the ordinance that would make you consider this not a fence like its, you know, theft prevention or anything like that, is it? I mean this is - because I just can’t remember this coming up. I certainly remember talking about it at Home Depot or maybe even the Walmart, which is -- Pastor: I don’t remember the Walmart case. Henzi: Seven Mile. It seems like -- City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 58 of 62 June 5, 2012 McCue: The one on Plymouth has a fence, too, I don’t think it has a wood fence, but for the garden center. Henzi: It seems like I vaguely remember talk about them having it, and there wasn’t much more discussion. It’s just that’s what all these stores are like and they need it for theft prevention. Fisher: Certainly with reference to the individual you mentioned previously his property although zoned commercial is under the requirement to comply with residential standards, so that’s why he would never be able to take advantage of something like this though he is certainly inclined -- Pastor: He can’t take advantage of fence-on-fence either, but we know differently. Fisher: But there isn’t any. As I look at the fence ordinance there aren’t requirements that are specific to commercial properties and there are certainly things that are generally prohibited throughout the City, but as far as I know, none of those have been detected in this plan. McCue: This goes beyond fence, you know, it’s part of the structure. Henzi: Yeah, I agree. Yes, that was kind of my point that that’s more like an extension of the structure as opposed to -- McCue: It houses the merchandise. Henzi: Yeah. Pastor: Based on more square footage. It needs more parking. Henzi: Or bigger signs. Pastor: Yeah, bigger signs McCue: It’s an extension of the building. Fisher: Right. McCue: I mean, they’ve got some of the wrought iron. Fisher: Oh, yeah, I see. McCue: But that’s what Walmart and Home Depot have too. Fisher: Right. Henzi: Mr. Banko, do you have any recollection of one of these types of cases? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 59 of 62 June 5, 2012 Banko: I’m just thinking the outside storage at Home Depot and the wrought iron that they have up on the south side of the building. I don’t want to make an assumption here but I believe that it goes up quite a ways. Henzi: Yeah. Banko: I could say 15-ft. or it may be more than that. I’d have to go back out and look at it. Henzi: Okay. Any other questions for the Petitioner? Hearing none, there’s nobody in the audience. Are there letters on this case? Caramagno: No letters. Henzi: Mr. Sharp, anything you’d like to say in closing? Petitioner: No. Henzi: Okay. Thanks, I’ll close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: This is like the last case. It’s been pretty much put through the ringer with the Council and the Planning Commission. These signs are, as Mike mentioned, may be more directional and can’t be read from the road and that may not appear that way today, but as buildings become put up on the front these become more important as you pull into the property where you can’t see maybe from Middlebelt Road any longer. So, I will be in support. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: I’ll also will be in support. I think the fact that this is 800-ft. from Middlebelt Road and a building of this size absolutely has to have direction or you’d be so frustrated trying to use this store that it would be detrimental even. So, I will be in support. Henzi: Mrs. McCue. McCue: I agree. I think it looks nice. It’s obviously the prototype and it goes back to what we said before and it’s been done once or twice. It looks beautiful. I will support. Henzi: Duggan. Duggan: I will support. I’m a little hesitant since you’ve got this Meijer across the street, the Walmart down the street, and the Target down the street. So, you’re asking for a lot of signs, but I think you guys are in a little different location off of Middlebelt. You guys don’t have the bigger presence around town or at least I’ve never been to Menards around here. I think the plans look great and I will be in support. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 60 of 62 June 5, 2012 Pastor: Yeah, I will be in support. I know I gave you a little bit of heartache about the number of signs, but as Mr. Duggan said, I really don’t want all the other big boxes coming in and saying well, you gave them 14 more signs than they should have. We want them now. So, I will be in support. It is 800-ft. off the road, so I don’t have that much heartache. Henzi: I, too, will support the variance. To me those directional signs are more for somebody to figure out which parking strand to hit as opposed to anything else. It’s something that you’re not necessarily going to notice until you are fairly close. It certainly isn’t going to attract anything from Middlebelt Road or anything. So, the floor is open for a motion. Upon Motion by McCue, supported by Duggan, it was: RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2012-06-30: Gershman Properties, LLC, 12300 Wilshire Blvd., #310, Los Angeles, CA 90024, seeking to erect multiple wall signs and a ground sign, resulting in excess number of wall signs, excess wall sign area and ground sign, which is excess in height, width and area. Number of Walls Signs Wall Sign Area Ground Sign Height Allowed: 1 Allowed: 480 sq. ft. Allowed: 6 ft. Proposed: 15 Proposed: 622 sq. ft. Proposed: 20 ft. Excess: 14 Excess: 142 sq. ft Excess: 14 ft. Ground Sign Width Ground Sign Area Allowed: 10 ft. Allowed: 30 sq. ft. Proposed: 31 ft. Proposed: 200 sq. ft. Excess: 21 ft. Excess: 170 sq. ft. The property is located on the east side of Middlebelt (12701) between Industrial and the CSX Railroad, be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because of the distance from the road and to assist in the viewing of the building and the size of the building. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because there would be lack of direction for patrons. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because there other larger companies do have variances and signs. 4. The Board received no letters of approval/objection from neighboring property owners. 5. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the purpose or objective of the Master Plan because this property is currently classified “Industrial” but City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 61 of 62 June 5, 2012 will change to “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 construction be in compliance with the plans submitted to the Board. 2. That the out lots be limited to the ground sign approved by the Board. 3. That construction be in accordance with the plans that were submitted and approved before the City of Livonia Planning Commission and City Council of May 23, 2012. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: McCue, Duggan, Aloe, Caramagno, Pastor, Henzi NAYS: None ABSENT: Sills Henzi: And just so I understand, when you’re talking about the out buildings, are you saying that if a fast food restaurant comes in they’re going to have to request their own signage? McCue: Basically, what I am saying is what he had indicated when they sell it, it would be part of the contract with them. This would be the signage that they are allowed. Henzi: Yeah, okay. McCue: So, they’re not receiving another sign I guess basically. Fisher: Yes, another ground sign. Pastor: You’re talking about road signage not building signage. Fisher: Right. McCue: Road signs not building signs. Henzi: Limited to the monument. McCue: Yes. Henzi: Okay. I got it. Anything else? Henzi: The variance is granted with those three conditions. Good luck. Thanks. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 62 of 62 June 5, 2012 Motion by Pastor, seconded by Aloe, to approve the minutes of 3/20/10, 4/3/10, 4/17/10 ZBA meetings, Robert Sills abstained from 3/20/12; Aloe abstained from 4/3/12; Pastor abstained from 4/17/12. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. _____________________________ SAM CARAMAGNO, Secretary ______________________________ MATTHEW HENZI, Chairman /hm