Tuesday – January 5, 1999


The Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m,, with Chairman Reinke presiding.




Present: Members Brennan, Antosiak, Meyer, Reinke, Harrington, Sanghvi


Absent: Member Bauer


Also Present: Donald M. Saven – Building Official

Kelley Schuler – Planning Assistant

Alan Amolsch – Ordinance Enforcement Officer

Nancy McKernan – Recording Secretary


Chairman Reinke indicated the Zoning Board of Appeals is a Hearing Board empowered by the Novi City Charter to hear appeals seeking variances from the application of the Zoning Ordinance. It takes a vote of four (4) Members to approve a variance request and a vote of the majority of the Members present to deny a variance. We have a full Board here tonight so all cases will be heard and voted upon on that basis.




Chairman Reinke inquired are there any changes to the Agenda? Hearing none …..


Moved by Member Harrington,


Seconded by Member Meyer,




Roll Call: (Voice Vote) All yeas MOTION CARRIED




Chairman Reinke the first item on our agenda is the approval of the November 10 and December 1, 1998 Minutes. Are there any changes, corrections or additions to these minutes?


Moved by Member Harrington,


Seconded by Member Antosiak,




Roll Call: (Voice Vote) All Yeas MOTION CARRIED




Chairman Reinke indicated this is the Public Remarks Section, any comments related to a case on the agenda should be held until that case is called. If anyone wishes to address the Board on any matter or case not on the Agenda tonight, please come forward at this time. (No one wished to be heard at this time.)



Case No. 98-086 filed by Glenda’s Garden Center


Continuation or case filed by Glenda’s Garden Center requesting a variance to increase an existing concrete slab and add a temporary bin outside for the purpose of selling bagged and bulk salt. The present use of about two thirds of the subject site is for buildings and seasonal outdoor storage and display. Outdoor storage is not permitted in a NCC District. This is for property located at 40575 Grand River Avenue.


Chris Cagle was present for the case.


Chris Cagle: In the previous meeting that I attended the Board wished us to go out and do some research within the City from JCK and also the Fire Department. We did that. We do have letters, and I believe that those were put into your packet regarding the guidelines that we would have to follow for the permit to the Building Department. We are willing and able to comply with those requirements. I am here to answer any questions regarding this matter.




There was no audience participation.




Don Saven: They did follow the directions requested by the Board pursuant to this. One of the things that we wanted to make sure was that they do provide a plan which they will do with the construction of the secondary containment. The Fire Department reviewed this matter and also JCK through their environmental department. There are requirements that they do have to comply with and they did agree to comply with those particular provisions.


Chairman Reinke: We have both statements from the Fire Department and JCK in the file.


Member Harrington inquired of Don Saven: The Building Department is satisfied that the enlargement of this existing nonconforming use will not present an environmental threat to the City or the residents?


Don Saven: Based upon the information that we have received, I do not believe that this is the case.


Moved by Vice-Chairman Brennan,


Seconded by Member Meyer:




Roll Call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) MOTION CARRIED



Case No. 98-095 filed by Accent Signs/Judd Electronics


Accent Signs/Judd Electronics is requesting a variance to allow a ground sign 108" x 42" (31.5 sq. ft.) with height from grade being 5’, to be located at the intersection of Arena Drive and Novi Road. Verbiage to be "THE SPORTS CLUB OF NOVI" / "NOVI ICE ARENA".


Phil Venibles was present and duly sworn.

Phil Venibles: We have come before this Board several times in the last few months, as you may recall. This is a particularly peculiar situation where both the Novi Ice Arena and the Novi Sports Club are located deep within the confines of this complex and have absolutely no access to any drive by traffic in terms of immediate traffic going in the area. They can’t be seen from Ten Mile Road and they can’t be seen from Novi Road and they want people to get there safely as they are trying to find it. I realize that there is a traffic light there but at the same time if somebody doesn’t make that decision in a timely fashion they are concerned about the proper traffic flow in and out of there. The sign is aesthetically similar to the sign that we have at the Sports Club now; it would be approximately the same size times two, one for one tenant and one for the other. It will be made of similar materials. The placement of the sign will be centered in the traffic island north and south and at the required setback for Novi. The sign is all aluminum and similar to that sign that we did for the Sports Club.


Phil Venibles: We think that the sign is very tasteful, diminutive in size and it pretty much marks the area without to much fanfare. It just gives much cleaner direction to the two facilities that are there.




There was no audience participation.




Alan Amolsch had no comment.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: Well if there was ever a case in my mind that sold itself, this is the one. There is no signage on Novi Road. It is a complex that is deeply setback from Novi Road and I do support your petition.


Alan Amolsch: Is this sign going to be illuminated?


Phil Venibles: Yes, it is internal.


Member Sanghvi: At what distance do you expect this to be visible from? You are in the traffic island here and back inside; at what distance will this sign be visible?


Phil Venibles: The photographs that I showed you were shot at approximately 300 feet away and it is pretty adequate to give the people the kind of "stop and let’s see what’s is going on there". We tried to keep the sign small and it is rather small. I don’t always think that large signs are the answer, sometimes it is just a sign that does what it is supposed to do and I think that this one pretty adequately does it.


Member Harrington inquired of Don Saven: Is this a business center?


Don Saven: It has 4 lots total that we are going to be addressing. These are just 4 separate lots within that particular area or that subdivision.


Member Harrington: So, what does that mean?


Don Saven: It doesn’t have 4 businesses on one parcel of land.


Alan Amolsch: That is right.


Moved by Vice-Chairman Brennan:


Seconded by Member Sanghvi:




Roll Call: Yeas (5) Nays (1) Harrington MOTION CARRIED



Case No. 98-097 filed by Singh Development Co. Ltd.


Singh Development Co.. LTD is requesting a variance to allow the continued placement of two (2) construction signs, one at Grand River and Constitution and one a Potomac and Market Streets for the Main Street Village for an additional year. Refer to Case No. 97-092.


Mike Kahm was present and duly sworn.


Mike Kahm: As the Board may recall we were before you last year to request an extension of our development signs at the Grand River entry and our Main Street entry to Main Street Village, in order to allow us continued marketing of our development. At this juncture we are still not at a sustained occupancy level and we are respectfully requesting a continuing placement of that signage until August of this year which would actually have been they additional year; if you will recall we tried to make the signs dovetail together so that they both would expire at the same time. At this point we are requesting an 8 month extension to allow us to complete the occupancy of our development.




There was no audience participation.




Alan Amolsch had no comment.


Don Saven had no comment.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: I have three questions. The first one is what is the occupancy percentage right now?


Mike Kahm: Right now we are about 70 to 75%.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: As I read this request tonight it is for a third extension, or this is the third time that you are before us for these signs.


Mike Kahm: Yes, but there are 241 units there, which is a lot of units. It just takes awhile to absorb that many units. That is why we need the extension.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: If I am not mistaken, your permanent sign has been out for about a year.


Mike Kahm: The problem is and I guess that everyone faces this but Main Street Village because we are integrated into a larger planned development which also includes commercial in portions of the project sometimes we get confused and as you may recall on our site plan that all of our buildings are quite far back away from the road and we have a very long no loaded road coming in from Grand River so it is difficult to identify the fact for people who are unfamiliar with Main Street Village and Novi in general that in fact that there are residential units back there. The same is true at Main Street and unless you drive in, it does say Main Street Village but we have had some people say that there is some confusion and they just thought that it was a part of the Main complex and didn’t realize that it was residential. So these development signs are really only way for us to tell the public who are unfamiliar with the area, and actually we do get a lot of transferees in this particular project, that it is actually a residential development.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: Just a point and this is only my personal observation and that is since that permanent sign is up that entrance way especially on Grand River looks incredibly cluttered. I think that the whole entrance way has a lot of signage. This has been up there for over two years and I don’t know if I would personally consider an extension. But, that is just my view.


Member Harrington: How long has the temporary sign been up? What date was it first installed?


Mike Kahm: It was installed when we got our first building permit.


Member Harrington: Which would be when?


Alan Amolsch: That was in August of 1996.


Member Harrington: So, if we grant this variance it will be a full 3 years for this temporary sign?


Mike Kahm: But we were under construction for almost 2 years of that time.


Member Harrington: With respect to Mr. Brennan’s question is your answer the same at the 70 to 75% range as to people that you have under contract or lease or whatever? Occupancy would mean that the people are in; but are you still at the 70 to 75% level when you consider everybody that has signed up and not moved in yet?


Mike Kahm: The problem is that we have leases that are coming up and because it is such a large project that people who leased in the beginning, now their leases are coming up and expiring and then we have to re-lease so it is a never ending site.


Member Harrington: So you have some turnover.


Mike Kahm: Oh yes, we have some turnover.


Member Harrington: Then the sign might be never ending.


Mike Kahm: We would just like to get the project to a sustained level.


Member Meyer: Is the construction done?


Mike Kahm: Pretty much, we have some seasonal site "punch list" items that we will complete in the spring; but aside from those items we are done.


Chairman Reinke indicated there was a total of 15 Notices sent to adjacent property owners with no written response received.


Moved by Member Harrington,


Seconded by Vice-Chairman Brennan,




Roll Call: Yeas (4) Nays (2) Meyer, Sanghvi MOTION CARRIED



Case No. 98-098 filed by Arie Leibovitz, representing Siemans


Arie Leibovitz, representing Siemans, is requesting a variance to the noise performance standards which require a certified sound engineer’s report on proposed sound emissions for a building at 43043 Nine Mile Rd.


Arie Leibovitz was present and duly sworn.


Arie Leibovitz: I am here in front of you as a result of an ordinance requirement by where an industrial property abuts residential it requires a noise emission test or a variance. It is a peculiar situation because it is an existing building in a totally industrial area. We are making an addition to the building and the addition is primarily for engineering and office use and there is no additional noise that will be generated beyond what is currently being done. The reason that we are in front of you is that we happen to have an out lot next to us that is about 75’ x 170’ deep that is a historical cemetery and as such it is zoned residential. There has been an article in the paper that there is a concern from the City of Novi that we will wake up the dead. So, we are basically here in front of you to get your consideration for a waiver.


Member Meyer: It is residential because it is next to a cemetery?


Arie Leibovitz: It is residential because the cemetery is zoned residential. Everything else is industrial and has been industrial for as long as the property has existed. There is a recommendation on the part of the Planning Commission that has recommended approval of the site plan to encourage the Board to grant us the variance rather than to put us through the time and the expense to get these tests.


Arie Leibovitz: Any questions I will be happy to answer.




James Korte: Good New Year. Last year I thought that we hit rock bottom with lame, but we haven’t; we are starting ’99. Administrative action in this City does some peculiar things that many of us argue. Why this was never administrative action, we will never know. I did talk with the Building Department today and asked specifically, because it is the duty of the Building Department to get in touch with anyone that resides in that small residential area. Now, we are allowed to use the media if we don’t have proper addresses; I don’t think that this is a transient area as most people when they get there stay planted for a long time. Possibly we could have done a "medium" this time to find what some of those who reside there want. I might think that some of them have been there for 125 years and did anyone stop to think that maybe they would like a little noise? It has been a long time quiet! Now, I don’t think that this little glitch in the man’s development is a life or death situation. I would just hate to see the project held in limbo any longer because it is to close to a cemetery. I would hope that it would get immediate approval and move on. Thank you.




Don Saven: Unfortunately this is a part of a special land use approval and it does have to go through the process. I would ask that Arie please describe the nature of the business to the Board.


Arie Leibovitz: Me personally, I am a developer and I represent the ownership of the property. I do own the property. I do represent Siemans as my tenant there. We are basically trying to expand the Siemans operation and where they eventually create their headquarters for their particular division that is operating there. But I have done prior developments within the City of Novi on numerous industrial properties in the community and I assure that whatever we will do we will do it in a first class manner that will be an asset to the community


Chairman Reinke indicated there was a total of 11 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was no written response received.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: Is that just a sales and service, engineering facility?


Arie Leibovitz: It is primarily engineering and design and then maybe some sales. I would also like, if it were possible, that some message be conveyed back to the City that maybe some administrative approvals and procedures in situations such as this would be appropriate only because it expedites matters and it doesn’t clutter your agenda and your time is valuable as is everybody else.


Chairman Reinke: Unfortunately it is a situation that we run into due to our ordinance requirements. It can’t really cover everything and on some of these things they get caught in a situation like this.


Moved by Vice-Chairman Brennan,


Seconded by Member Meyer,




Roll Call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) MOTION CARRIED



Case No. 98-099 filed by Lee Mamola, representing Johnson Group Services


Lee Mamola, representing Johnson Group Services. The applicant is proposing to construct a building approximately 25,000 square feet in an I-1 zoning district and is seeking a variance for the berm, for property located at the southwest corner of Grand River and Taft Roads.


Lee Mamola was present and duly sworn.


Lee Mamola: The project involves the development of 4 acres of what has been vacant industrial property at the southwest corner of Grand River and Taft. The property has trees, some low ground shrubs and there is some abandoned buildings that have been there for some time. The property has been zoned industrial for maybe 12 to 15 years. To the west of the property it is also zoned industrial although there are a couple of houses on that property now, older homes that are residential. To the north is industrial zoned property. To the east of Taft is industrial zoned property although there are some single family residences that are there today. To the south is residential zoned property which is now developed and we know it as Andes Hills.


Lee Mamola: The property has a number of constraints on it. Several in fact deal with the setback issues. When you are on a street, whether it fronts a main street or a lesser traveled side street; you must comply with a front yard setback. So being that this property is nearly square about 50% of this property is a front yard. The other portion of the property to the south would have to be built if we do it by the ordinance, would have to be a 15’ tall berm that would take up to about 100’ in depth too to give the proper slope to the property. This property is also located in a part of town that requires us to construct a detention basin. Certain properties in the City you do not have to construct detention basins per the storm water master plan. According to our engineers and the report from JCK this property does require the construction of a detention basin and that is about another 80’ in depth. The property’s high point is generally at the north and the water flows generally down hill towards the south. There is a storm water inlet where we can take our detention basin and empty the rain water that has traveled down this site.


Lee Mamola: By the time we take all of these into consideration we are left without a 58,000 square foot area to build the building and to build parking. That represents about 2/3 of our property that is eaten away in setbacks and drainage issues and screening issues and we are left with about 1/3 of the property to be able to develop.


Lee Mamola: If we were to develop that property in a similar format; that is where we are proposing an office and some industrial use and live by all of the ordinances we would have a building of only about 16,000 square feet. That footprint of the building represents about 9% of our site area with the berm, the detention area and the parking.


Lee Mamola: I would like to point out that our proposal shows a drive exit at the road. This development would not allow such an access to Taft Road because we are near the proximity of Grand River and Taft. I will get to why we did our layout a little differently, but at this point I would like to point out that there are considerable safety factors in adding a second access off of Taft Road and by further pushing the development to the north we eliminate that access; not only for traffic access with the lights at Grand River turning right and left at the single point of entry here but also life saving issues with the Fire Department access, etc.


Lee Mamola: The property could also be developed as office building in which case we would present a smaller footprint of roughly 12% of the area or the property to the building. It would be a 21,000 square foot building. In both of these cases, however, we would require a different kind of variance. In this case we are showing 81 parking spaces and we would need about 113 parking spaces and we have a considerable parking variance. In the other case we would have about 60 parking spaces and we would need about 73. We would need a parking variance in either case.


Lee Mamola: I would argue that in this particular case, and with such a parking variance not being just 1 or 2 spaces, it is a healthy percentage; the effect would be to have cars parked in aisles, etc. and not be a safe or desirable situation.


Lee Mamola: Our development places the building towards the corner and it maximizes the distance between the Grand River and Taft intersection and the 2 curb cuts in such a way that the traffic engineer now feels that they are safe. There is now enough distance between each curb cut to safely handle traffic issues between these 2 points. As a point of an example, if somebody was coming up Taft they can come into the parking facility this way rather than to have to come up to Grand River and make a left at the light only to have to make another left.


Lee Mamola: To the south of our property is Andes Hills Development. It is a development of 11 units, single family with a clustered option arrangement. It, too, in it’s development had some peculiar difficulties to address in their approvals. Their wetland area to their immediate south. It is unusual that we have a road here that is constructed as a public road. The amount of concrete, the amount of re-enforcement, the amount of sub base and all that was constructed per the City’s specifications and has been properly inspected. It is not, however, legally a public road and as this project was developed it came in under a private road arrangement and the reason for that was that it was to comply with setbacks as measured from the property line here versus if it were a public road then the property line would be considerably further south. That becomes an important issue because it is only for the fact that this is not legally a public road that we are here tonight. The ordinance requires us to build a 15’ berm in here as a buffer where there is no separation by a public road. Our point is that this day to day functions as a public road. We were also the designers of these units and I can tell you that these units were designed in a manner that the primary living space which is the living area, the master bedroom primarily have views to the south. The views of those facing north facing this area are the less normally habitable spaces; the garage, the laundry room. Most of the people living in these units would not be looking at this development; they would look at it when they go in and out of their houses and when they are driving up and down the street. But, I think frankly, when the people wrote the ordinance the concerns were neighboring residential that there would be somebody’s side yard or rear yard that would be abutting the residential development.


Lee Mamola: We are certainly sensitive and want to propose a development which is in the spirit of the ordinance, in other words we would like to provide the residents of Andes Hills with a screen so that they do not look directly into this development and we have for the past several weeks and since we have had this at the Planning Commission been working and consulting with Linda Lemke the City Plantscape Architect and this is a revised plan and sketch which shows a dense formation of pine trees and lower level evergreen shrubs which is done in a matter that is not necessarily a straight line and that would look natural and a nice view looking from the residents of the north. This would also turn the corner. We also have additional plantings right at the parking edge so that the effect is a reverse berm as the land goes down to this detention area instead of going up as a berm. The dark area here represents some existing woodlands which primarily go off site but the corner comes onto our site and it is our desire to maintain those existing woodlands.


Lee Mamola: If we did do a berm it would not go entirely across because the woodlands have priority and there would be an area where you could see through. If you look at a cross section area and this is a typical cross section of the homes in the Andes development, between the northern edge of Andes Hills Court and our property line it represents a distance of about 15’ and there is a natural rise there of about 5’. We are proposing that obviously the 5’ stay on their property and that we have dense plantings of 10’ pine trees on the top of it, to start it with a 15’ high screen as would be measured from the road, then down to the detention area and more pine trees.


Lee Mamola: Again, in summary, I think it is only because of the peculiar uniqueness that we have with the double sided frontage, the peculiar condition of Andes Hills Rd. which is there today and is functionally a public road and not a private road and they way that the units are designed and that they live and look toward the opposite end. We are doing our best to provide a buffer and we will endeavor a final design subject to the Landscape Consultants review at the final site plan.


Lee Mamola: With that I will stand prepared for any questions.




Kelly Schuler, Planning Assistant. I would like to address to you just as a matter of notification concerning the Johnson Group Services. On December 2, 1998 the Planning Commission heard this case and due to the fact that they were requesting preliminary site plan and a special land use permit approval a public hearing was necessary. Public Hearing Notices were sent out. They are required to be sent out to all parcels within 300’ of the parcel that is in question. Unfortunately the Public Hearing Notices did not reach all affected parcels within the 300’ and therefore the preliminary site plan approval and special land use approval that was granted with the contingencies for variances is not null and void. Having spoken to Dennis Watson, Eda Weddington who is the Chairperson of the Planning Commission and the applicant we will be re-publicizing to all affected parcels within the 300’ of the Johnson Group Service boundaries and holding another Public Hearing before the Planning Commission and that is now scheduled for February 3, 1999. In talking with Dennis Watson this matter does not affect the status of tonight’s decision and we can proceed forward with their request for a variance. Thank you.


Lee Mamola: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I have left out a couple of facts. The diagrams that I showed you represented a development area of 9 and 12% of building footprint to site area. Our building represents about 14%. I don’t think that it is an abnormal number for development. To give you a point of comparison we have recently completed industrial development in the City of Novi along Grand River between Haggerty and Meadowbrook; which is a project called the Tributary and there is 3 separate industrial buildings there with a very similar format to this which is predominately office with some high bay areas in the back and that area of development shows the footprints of the building at 31% of the site is floor area to site area and it is about a 4 ½ acre site. This site is about 4 acres. The difference being is that site is not bounded by any residential

zoning and it has only frontage on one side of the property. I think that when you look at normal industrial developments our 14% floor area that we are proposing relative to normal developments is that we are less than half and I don’t think that we are pushing the envelope at all with respect to overbuilding of this property. We are trying to be as sensitive as we can to these properties.


Andre Valbena, 45435 Andes Hill Ct. First I wanted to address what Mr. Mamola was saying and it is true that our backyard is mostly wetlands and because of that all of the time that we spend outside at my house is in the front. So because of that I would not like to go out in front of my house and see the project that they are proposing from my front door or the garage. There are 4 units that directly face the project which is just north of the property. Also, our street is a private street and we pay an association to have the street cleared and maintained and to have it sealed. Because it is a private street and there is an ordinance that says that there has to be a berm built I would like it to stay and I would like the berm built and not have them granted the variance.


Felix Valbena, 3690 Bircher in Bloomfield Hills. I represent the Andes Hill Association. I developed that project and I am here to speak in their behalf. Andes Hills Condominiums is immediately south of the proposed project. For the reasons that Andres has stated and also for other reasons that I would like to address, I would like to request that the variance for the berm not be approved. We are opposed to the variance. The setback and I am glad that it was addressed because we were not informed of that meeting at all and that has been corrected and I am glad it has been corrected. The other issue has to do with the detention basin and I think that the detention basin could be built where the wetlands are which is toward the west of the property that we are talking about. It is a minor portion of wetlands. If Mr. Mamola argues that the detention basin be built in the south lower part of the property, well the City required that I build the detention pond for the Andes Hills development on the highest and I think that Mr. Mamola was a part of that as he was my architect for that project and I don’t see the logic in saying that the detention basin be built close to Andes Hills Ct. because that will be detrimental to the value of the property and that would eliminate the requirement for the berm and the setback. Another issue that I would like to address is that I understood that property was to be used for low traffic, noncommercial building. When the proposed project talks about 90 or 100 parking spaces, to me that suggests that there is going to be a lot of traffic there and we are opposed to that. The other point is the distance between Grand River and the Andes Hills Ct. is not large enough to allow and I am thinking of safety an entrance to the project that is being proposed. As it is there is a problem there with visibility and short distance for people who come southwest on Grand River and make the turn on Taft Road for the people who are coming out of Andes Hills and turning right or left or whatever; there is not enough space there for this project to have an entrance on Taft Road I don’t think that it will be practical or safe. Most of all I don’t think that it would contribute to the original idea of this development of Andes Hills which is a residential project. The storm sewer and I would like to have the opportunity to address that issue more in detail because if that detention pond is going to connect with the one that is in Andes Hills it may not be sufficiently able to handle the flow of water that may come from that detention pan because in addition to that then if the 4 acres are going to collect the water in that particular spot then we will have a problem and that is a separate issue, I think, because of the storm sewer that is built in Andes Hills and it may not be sufficient to handle an additional flow of water. I was told and some of you may know the hardships that I had at the beginning of building this project when the City requested that I give the City the best piece of my property to build the sewer system which is the highest part of the property, because I did that it cost me a lot of money and a lot of problems. I was always re-affirmed by the City represented mainly by JCK, that the City would assist me in the process of developing this property and if I allowed them to build the sewer system through my best piece of property and not through the wetlands as they originally proposed. I think and I would just like to indicate here that we are thoroughly opposed of the elimination of the requirement of the berm and also of the setback for the parking and loading and so on. I don’t think that it should be allowed to build a building there where there is a lot of traffic, because that it was my understanding that it was like a warehouse or a small office building that could be allowed and not something commercial or with heavy traffic and 100 parking spaces and 3 loading docks suggest to me that there is going to be a lot of traffic and we are opposed to that. We are in favor of development of that piece of property and I am sure that there is a way that is not detrimental to us or to them. Thank you.




Don Saven: I have a couple of questions for Lee. In regards to an issue that Felix has brought up as far as the visibility and the corner clearance, we normally look at 25’ for a corner clearance as a person would leave an intersection or come up to an intersection; I have noticed that the planting that you have along there; do those plantings come that close to the intersection? Are you proposing that they come up that close? In other words, if you were leaving the Andes Hills project and coming out of the Andes Hills project onto Taft Road at that intersection there, are those landscaping features set back 25’ from the intersection? I am talking about the return landscaping with the new and revised plan.


Lee Mamola: That would be more than 25’. The sidewalk is 60’ off of the centerline of the road and we are behind the sidewalk and I believe that the radius of these curves are maybe 20 or 25 at the most and as a tangent point I feel confident about putting a scale to it and I think that we are at least 25 or closer to 30 or 35’ back. I think that Mr. Valbena brings up a valid point that the people who do exit off of Andes Hills Ct. today are hindered somewhat by the existing vegetation along the undeveloped property; because it is undeveloped. Once development occurs this will become cleaned up and you will have a clear site line and added safety for everybody.


Don Saven: In regards to you working with the City’s Landscape Architect, one of the things that was in lieu of the berm you were talking about planting pines and vegetation lower; is this a total obscuring of the building?


Lee Mamola: Yes it is. It is evergreen type of vegetation so that it there year round.


Don Saven: Second question, when did you discuss this issue with her, because we received a letter today from the Landscape Architect regarding the consultant……


Lee Mamola: Myself and the landscape architects for the project, Ludwig and Associates, were in communication with Linda Lemke. It has been several days for me and I think that Jim Ludwig talked with her and it maybe this morning or yesterday and he relayed that information to me.


Don Saven: And this is the same proposal which has been reviewed by her and approved?


Lee Mamola: Yes.


Don Saven: Mr. Chairman in your packet you will find a letter from Linda Lemke regarding that same issue.


Chairman Reinke indicated there was a total of 25 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was 10 responses all voicing objection. Copies in file.


Lee Mamola indicated I would like to address one of the concerns. The question about the 100’ setback for the parking area: the zoning ordinance does require that any industrial development when it abuts a residential district to have the parking setback 100’ from the industrial to the residential property line; that is true. The ordinance, however, and within the ordinance it prescribes certain relief that the Planning Commission can grant under certain conditions and when our application for the preliminary site plan we made an appeal to the Planning Consultant and the Planning Commission agreed with him that we met those conditions and those conditions had to do with some unique site circumstances and that we have a certain percentage of green area. The Planning Commission had the authority to reduce that setback from 100’ to 60’, we held that at either 83 or 84’. We did move a little bit to the south but we didn’t go all the way as we might have been able to and I think that it points again to the fact that we are trying our best to be a friendly development to this environment and it also points to the fact that the Planning Commission saw that this property had some unique circumstances that we have to overcome to allow this to be developed and that is why we are here tonight.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: I want you to understand or be clear that the only thing that we are talking about tonight is the variance request for the height of the berm. Your interests about drainage and setbacks and everything else that you talked about have to be addressed at the Planning Commission meeting, as we have nothing to do with that. That is the first point.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: What we are looking at is the inability to meet this 10’ berm on the southern end and your proposed berm is 4’ 6" in height and with this clever reconfiguration which essentially gets the detention pond and the berm in one area instead of spreading it out and gives you the ability to get a bigger building on the site; you can’t find anyway to get closer to the 10’ minimum?


Lee Mamola: There is a way. Let me explain the alternative and you can make your own conclusion. Our detention pond and let’s say for discussion is 80’ deep north to south, that would be 80’ wide. The ordinance requires and dictates a certain slope on that detention pond going down to the bottom for safety reasons and that whole bowl in other words becomes a certain size based upon rain calculations and storm water calculations. Now we can make the slopes steeper and we can make that 80’ become less if we work hard it may become close to 60’ and then 2 things happen. It does give us a little more room horizontally north to south to construct a berm. To construct a berm according to ordinance we would only gain another 3 or 4’ at best depending upon where things go and we would also have to provide and to construct either a 5 or 6’ tall chain link fence along the steeper incline for safety reasons and that again is another ordinance requirement. Our opinion is that through the additional screening and we are over planting the area beyond what the ordinance requires for screening and visibility, that you are going to result in an 80’ path of property that contains trees and a cared for and maintained lawn area and it becomes more aesthetically pleasing; whereas if you construct the chain link fence around a steeper pond and you gain a couple of feet in that berm we think that the perception of the development comes much closer to the residential and it is not as pleasing aesthetically developed area. There is that alternative to gain a few more feet but we think that it has some other consequences that are not entirely desirable.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: I have a question for the gentleman that lives in Andes. Do you know how many homeowners live in your development?


Felix Valbena: 10.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: You have a problem here, You have 100% objection to an existing residential site to your self. You have a brand spanking new piece of property there and you have to find a way to fix this problem as far as I am concerned.


Member Harrington: I have a couple of questions for you. First of all I love your drawings but if you do them earlier than a day before the meeting, shrink them down and have them included in the packet. I went through this stuff and it didn’t tell me anything close to what the drawings have told me. On a first time pass through my memory of what you said is and I am going to refer to renderings A, B and C. The first one was the 9% footprint coverage, the second one was the 12% and the 14% is what you really want here tonight. You made reference to the footprint, let’s talk about square footage; what is the difference in square footage between renderings A, B and C, how many square feet can you develop although you may need a parking variance with the 9%? How many square feet is involved in the structure with the 12%? How many square feet are involved with the 14%? I am really concerned whether or not this variance request is revenue driven.


Lee Mamola: It is not an economic based hardship case here.


Member Harrington: No, but it may be an economic windfall, if we grant this variance, and that is what I need to know.


Lee Mamola: The 9% footprint, I believe, covers 16,500 or thereabout square feet of building area, footprint and square footage are the same.


Member Harrington: Is this one story or two story?


Lee Mamola: These are all one story configurations. We do have a height limit where two story is not allowable. The 12% is a 100% office use, and that requires more cars because there are more people in an office than a warehouse or a shop area and I believe that is a little over 21,000 square feet and our proposal is a little less than 25,000 square feet. About half of the building is Mr. Johnson’s business, it is his game plan if you will to lease out the other half for a period of years until such time that he will grow his business to become the entire occupant of that building.


Chairman Reinke: Have you ever met with this homeowner’s association at all?


Lee Mamola: Not with the association, Mr. Valbena and I go back a number of years.


Chairman Reinke: I really think that in this Member’s way of thinking, you have to work something out with these people. As Mr. Brennan has pointed out you have 100% objection here and some kind of compromise should be worked out so that these people are satisfied and you can go ahead and make it agreeable to both. I really have a problem in supporting an ordinance where you have this kind of objection.


Lee Mamola: We will do our best to meet with them, if we can be tabled for not longer than one month.


Chairman Reinke: For two reasons, I say that and I also don’t like to get ahead of the Planning Commission. That is only this Member’s point of view.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: I support your recommendation to delay any action and if Lee is willing to come back in a month you will have had your audience with Planning by then and you will have a month to talk to the homeowners. Can Lee get your number?


Chairman Reinke inquired of Kelly Schuler: When is this scheduled for the Planning Commission?


Kelly Schuler: February 3rd.


Member Antosiak: And our Meeting is the 2nd.


Chairman Reinke: We will put you on the February 2, 1999 Agenda. You can give us an update of where you are at. If you can work something out with a compromise as to what is agreeable and you are going to take it to the Planning Commission I think that we can possibly work with it at that point in time.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: We could still grant a variance, if you can work out something with the residents.


Chairman Reinke: Something does have to be worked out with the residents.


Member Meyer: I was concerned about the number of parking spaces; is that determined by the size of the building or the use of the building?


Lee Mamola: By the use of the building.


Member Meyer: So you would have to have so many parking spaces?


Lee Mamola: Yes, we do. Two things are driving that number; the ordinance tells us that we really have to have that number and then in the market place we find that the high tech kind of tenants do require that number. There may be some possibilities where because this is an owner occupied building he has more control over the number of spaces that would normally be needed and there may be some discussion about that relative to the amount of property we can utilize for a berm too.


Member Meyer: I guess my question is, is it the number of parking spaces that is determining this desire to seek the variance regarding the berm?


Lee Mamola: If we had 20 or so less parking spaces I think that we could come much closer to the height of the berm. It is not a cost issue of piling up dirt because you move dirt around during construction, we are trying to comply with every other part of the ordinance wherever we can.


Member Meyer: So to my question, it is indeed the number of parking spaces that is determining to a great extend the seeking of this variance.


Lee Mamola: It has great implications and I wouldn’t say that we would be talking a difference of a few feet in height, but yes it certainly has some major implications.


Member Harrington: I do not favor this variance as it stands and that is in spite of the fact that I think that the Johnson Company is a fine company and a credit to the City, but you have to work with the homeowners group because they have valid concerns and it sounds like there is some room for movement by both of you guys. Come back to see us in February with a favorable report.


Lee Mamola: Are there any other comments that we can take back to work with?


Chairman Reinke: If you can cover those, I think that you have probably taken care of 90% of it.



Case No. 98-100 filed by FCA Construction Group, representing Lifetime Fitness


FCA Construction Group, representing Lifetime Fitness, is requesting a variance to allow a construction identification sign 8’ x 4’ (32 sq. ft.) with the height from grade being 7’ and located at 21825 Haggerty Road.


Malek Eljizi was present and duly sworn.


Malek Eljizi: We are required by the City to install a project sign and the sign should be located in our property which is about 1000 to 1200 feet setback from Haggerty Road. The name of the street and I believe that it is a construction road at this time will be called Summit Point Drive or High Street Drive. I think that I heard the 2 names last week. The building that is in front of ours, is Mark Churella’s Summit Point Building. If I put the sign back on our property, it is impossible for anybody to see it. We are concerned, of course, with the hazard issues of people trying to find out site for deliveries as well as the traffic at this area people keep driving up and down trying to find our site. The landmark that I have been using recently is the Olson Company which is the Summit Point project. We are requesting that we install the sign closer to Haggerty Road on Mark Churella’s property. He presently has a sign on his berm and I have spoken with Mark a couple of times regarding that issue and he has no objection if I use part of his berm; but that is not really up to him. But if I have the granted variance on it, then Mark would have no objection. Our sign, I would hope, would stay up no longer than 10 months.




There was no audience participation.




Alan Amolsch had no comment.


Don Saven had no comment.


Member Antosiak inquired of Alan Amolsch: Is there a sign out there today?


Alan Amolsch: Yes, there is; for Summit Place. The ordinance only allows one sign per parcel. This would be an off premise sign or a construction sign, which ever way you would want to look at it.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: Is Lifetime Fitness considered a separate business from Summit Place?


Alan Amolsch: Yes.


Chairman Reinke indicated there was a total of 41 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was no written response received.


Chairman Reinke: The length of time that you think that you would need this sign?


Malek Eljizi: Ten months or less.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: It seems like a reasonable request. They are in the back of this development.


Moved by Vice-Chairman Brennan,


Seconded by Member Sanghvi,




Roll Call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) MOTION CARRIED



Case No. 98-101 filed by Kalman Igol, representing Lakeview Bar & Grill


Kalman Igol, representing Lakeview Bar & Grill is proposing to construct a 6 x 8 enclosure (addition) at the south entrance and a 13’ x 27’ enclosure (addition) at the north entrance. This is an expansion of a nonconforming structure and is in need of a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.


Kalman Igol was present and duly sworn.


Kalman Igol: We bought the property and the building about 8 months ago with the approval of the Planning Commission and the City Council. We modernized the place and did a pretty good job. We tried to do the best that we can in this place. We have big ideas for the future to remodel the parking lot and to beautify. We tried to bring landscaping and light to the outdoors to beautify the whole neighborhood. Our concern now is to build vestibules on the north and south part of the building. We have just single doors and when we open up the weather condition bothers our customers. To satisfy our self and our patrons we would like to build the 2 vestibules on the south and the north side. We have existing concrete base now. We just need to put up a vestibule type. Our opinion is to make this place nicer. I have a construction guy to explain to you how we would try to do this.


Scott Rumly, I am going to do the work if he is allowed to do such. On the south side you have an existing concrete handicap ramp going into the structure and on the top landing we would just enclose over the existing structure, it is approximately 6’ x 8’ and then by enclosing that we would have a problem with the handicap ramp and the landing and we discussed it with Don and someone else in the City and I forget his name at this time; but we would end up using the north entrance as the handicap entrance it is straight out onto the slab and into the parking lot at that point and you would have to put a handicap sign on the north side with a logo on the door. But on the north side there is an existing slab out there now so depending upon the size if it is granted they would have to saw cut and remove and put in foundations and pour the slab back or else under pin the existing outline of the structure if a larger one is approved. It would be a beige color to match the existing structure. They were talking about an 18 inch knee wall or aluminum piece down below and glass all the way around with the doors and the roof system just enclosing the top.




Jim Korte, Shawood Lake. Just a brief history of how I got involved. We became aware some 2 years ago through City Council that renovations and improvements would happen during a call for the liquor license change. No one ever argued that the license shouldn’t be changed and what was questioned at that point in time was the 60%. If you do 60% worth of work to the building then you have to start over and follow all code. Don Saven presented to Council at the next meeting or thereabouts that because no foundation work was being done and no addition was being done that they did not have to go to Planning. We dealt with (and this was in conversation) façade and the man did everything to skirt the facade ordinance so he didn’t have to go to Planning. I argued the point when the barrier free new door went in and that is the 13 x 27 area that you are being shown that obviously is a change to the footprint. How could you have a barrier free entry not on a foundation? And low and behold there is no foundation under that slab because it is not required. In conversation with Kerreen Conley the last day of last year, I asked how that 13 x 20 slab could have gone in without the Zoning Board of Appeals as it sits inches off of the road right of way. So why that never came to you and I have asked that it be dealt with, and as far as I see it is totally illegal. Now they want to put a 13 x 27 structure over what really shouldn’t be there without your approval. So we have gone and on. The only thing that we have ever asked of the project and of the owner is a paved parking lot and to bring it visually and create a viable business. Numerous of us in the area have shut the last two owners down and it was not our intention, we just looked for a viable business. We have gotten none of that. This situation and I went to Terry Morrone when I received the Notice and I said "out of your mouth, addition, Planning Department" and he said "yes, it should but it is the applicant’s right to do as they choose". With regards to the deficiencies of the whole site, if you look at some of the blue prints and I don’t think that you were given any but it shows parking to make a parking facility in the road right of way on both 13 and Novi Road which is unacceptable. When you figure that this is all being piecemealed together and nothing is being done about façade as you don’t have a picture of any elevation, you have the specifics on what the structure will be; but no overlook of what is going on. I don’t think that it is necessarily your business or your platform to deal with so many of the other ordinances. So, that is why I don’t think that any of this is right. Now let’s get into hardship, and I will talk quickly because I always run over time. The 6 x 8 addition that is proposed, I would bring to your memory 3 years ago when a canopy went up and then the canopy had to be ZBA and then the canopy became a marquee because they painted Sunset Grille on it and we were back for numerous times. That canopy or marquee after a bit of a nasty fight that was allowed to be there was to block the air passage that goes in. It is the first thing that was removed form the building. So, we remove what we needed and now we are putting something else up without dealing with any, as far as I am concerned, the property situation. The 13 x 27, as far as I am concerned, is sitting on an illegal slab inches off of the road right of way and how can that be. December 6, the occupancy permit (temporary) expired and as the last day of 98 they have not petitioned for an extension. The City has done no paper work to my knowledge to find out why as of December 6, that they are not legally operating. We haven’t been able to get rid of the pile of dirt by the telephones and that is more than 3 to 5 yards. There is no land improvement permit for the property. We have not been able to get all of the debris that has been dumped in the wetland that has come to City Council and they have asked numerous people to look into and we still can’t get that out of the wetland. All that we are asking is a viable business no has ever said, "don’t" but it is still a dump and until it gets the proper things it is going to be a dump. It is a tragedy for the owner, a tragedy for the City and a tragedy for the residents that have to look at it. Therefore, I don’t know how this can be approved. Thank you.


Carl Helwig, 22755 Indianwood, I just moved here and prior to that I was a 29 year Novi resident. I am approaching this a little differently than Jim because I have a vested interest. I own the property south of the bar on Novi Road to Wainwright for about 20 years. I own the property east of the bar to a little house and then the property east of the house to Martin for the same length of time. During that time I have had 3 different owners in that bar. None of them have been good neighbors, they all have been poor. Why you say, it is a standpoint of liability. When Helen’s Hideaway had it, I sat in on Planning Board Meetings where they proposed a masonry wall along the property line to define it. I had some dirt dumped to put a berm in, when I heard that I leveled the dirt and what happened is that they never put in the masonry lot lines or the walls and they ended up selling it to Bob Heyser. I met Bob, talked to Bob and I told him that I was going to the City because he was trespassing on my property and he didn’t want me to do that so he put a few parking blocks along the south line of their property, pretty close because he asked me to come out and identify the line. Well, somehow the parking blocks kept moving and every few weeks I would go up there and they were moving and moving. Right now those parking blocks are about 15 feet south of the property lot line. Now, I am not hard to get along with but I don’t want liability where I shouldn’t have. A few years ago I was talking with a friend of mine who owns some property in Rochester and he was telling me a story where he was being a good guy and he was letting the school buses turn around on his property and when his insurance company found out they told him to cease that because he had a liability. The same thing appears up there, if someone is parked on property that belongs to me and goes in the bar and drinks, comes out and kills somebody on Novi Road or Thirteen Mile you better believe that I am going to be a part of the law suit. They will go after me because they were on my property. On the first of June in 1998 I stopped by there and met a gentleman by the name of Boris that contended that he was the owner and I explained the situation. He said "don’t worry Carl, I am going to move the parking blocks onto our property so that we are not violating in any way shape or form", well, those blocks have never been moved back where they belong and currently as I was up there today; they have a grease dumpster about 15 feet south of their lot line. What I am wondering is why they have been allowed to operate up there, they don’t have any visible parking sites and I don’t actually think that there are enough parking sites for the amount of people who can be in that place. I parked the vehicle on the lot line and what they do on the south lot line on Novi Road, they have the cars parking at a right angle to the lot line. Well, if you park a car on the lot line the back end of that car is about 15 feet from the south end of the building right now. If they put an addition on there the delivery trucks won’t be able to get through. I have seen cases where the trucks can’t deliver because of the car situation. Myself, I believe that this matter should go to the Planning Board and that we should get a site plan. They talk a good line, but nobody does anything. The outside of that place looks like the pits. The parking lot has never been decent and yet I see other bars and restaurants here in Novi that have well defined lot lines, berms or masonry and their customers don’t abuse the neighbors. When Bob Heyser had entertainment up there, and you went up there on one of those nights they were parked up and down the street, all over my property and they were parked across the street and everywhere because they don’t have enough parking. I think that if they came in with a site plan we would find out that they don’t have the parking for the bar that they supposedly think that they have.


Sarah Gray, 133 Maudlin. First of all I am the Vice-President of the Lakes Area Homeowners Association, we officially do not have an opinion on this. However, I think that everyone of us who live in the area have the right to expect that whatever is going to happen in our area is going to be an improvement. That is the only reason that we ever come to you to ask you to grant variances. This does not belong here. This belongs at Planning , where it has belonged for the last 20 plus years. It is an existing business and yes it does have a right to exist. We have the right to make sure that it is properly taken into consideration. When the liquor license was transferred some 8 to 12 months ago, the owner and I don’t know which owner it was promised the City Council that the parking lot would be paved. That they landscape screening and berming required under current code although not a condition of the liquor license transfer would be done. Now there has been a few shrubs that have been put in and the same structure is the same structure, new siding has been put on and new signs were put on. You can’t approve this, you can’t approve this because you don’t have site plan and you don’t get into site plan issues, nor should you; that is the function of Planning and City Council. What you get into is the granting of variances and there is nothing that shows a hardship at this case because whatever he is going to put for these vapor barriers or vestibules or whatever are going to go onto structures that you are going to have to take a look at and like Mr. Korte has said they should have been here. The expansion of this needs to go to Planning for everybody’s benefit especially the City’s and especially those neighbors who live in that neighborhood. I know that you have a petition here and letters from other residents in the area and for the adjacent property owners I can say to this gentleman "shame on you for not fencing your property, that would have kept them out". But that is another issue. Please deny the variance and send it to Planning where it belongs.




Kalman Igol: I hear the complaints about the property and all. It is true. The people who owned before maybe they didn’t take care. We took over the place 6 months ago and in 6 months we changed the whole view on the place. Instead of a sleazy bar we tried to do a family restaurant. We have introduced new food. We now do dinner and lunches. The neighborhood and a lot of people around us love this place, we have increased our business by about 80%. We don’t have one bad accident in the 6 months that we have owned the place. No fights, No sleazy people. We run this place like a clean shot. Yes, we applied to the City. We have tried to beautify. We worked with an architect in a big firm to do the parking lot and to do the structure right. We were a little bit late, in the winter time you cannot put in paving. We have already made plans to go to Planning, we will put landscaping and make this place nice. My opinion is that the place will be a nice place. The matter of vestibules is what we are talking about. We must put them on. It is not in my opinion to spend the money, I can be without this. This is done for the City of Novi, for the people and our customers who come into our place. They have just one single door and when you have bad weather and open it the conditions come in. It is a matter to serve the City and the people and we need these vestibules. It is not a special addition that you must go out on a different plane. We want to put the vestibule on an established concrete basis that this place has had for 40 years. It is actually a concrete road and a base where people get in. That is where we want to put the vestibules in. It is simple and I have explained why we need it. If you would need a petition from our customers and the people around us, we can do that. We do this for the people.


Chairman Reinke indicated there was a total of 40 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was a total of 10 responses received, 1 voicing approval and 9 voicing objection.


Don Saven: It has been pointed out that I really don’t have to say to much as a lot of the issues have already been addressed. What I would like to point out is just a couple of things. Number one: this is an expansion of a nonconforming use because you are looking at a covered, enclosed area and by square footage alone this dictates that you should be going to the Planning Commission. Secondly; a little over a year ago I sat at the podium when you were going for your liquor license and one of the issues that was spelled out there was an issue regarding the paving of the parking lot. Regarding that condition of whether it is monetary or what have you this was not done. This is something to which you are in receipt of a Notice of Violation or approximately in the area of getting a Notice of Violation for your TCO requirements. That issue will be coming before you very soon or it may have already been done. I would recommend to the Board personally, myself, the same thing as the rest of the audience has indicated earlier on that this is in fact a site plan issue. We have done everything possible to try to have this go in that particular area. The other issue that has been brought to our attention was that the plans that were submitted for this extension were worked off of a preliminary and not an approved site plan which was submitted to the Planning Commission several years ago. I think that you need to do some work. I think that you need to come up with an accurate survey that indicates where the location is as you present this to the Planning Commission. I also feel that it would probably be in your best interest that you incorporate the parking lot and these expansions to the Planning Commission. If you have waited this long to do the parking lot, I would suggest that you put them altogether. That is my comment.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: I don’t understand why this did not go to Planning to begin with?


Don Saven: Basically it is the individual’s right to come before this Board once we deny the application.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: There seems to be a whole litany of issues to be resolved with this property before we could even start considering an appeal for enlarging a nonconforming use. I was just adding them all up as we went down.


Vice-Chairman Brennan inquired of Mr. Igol: Are you the owner?


Kalman Igol: Yes, I am part owner.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: Is Boris the other owner?


Kalman Igol: Yes.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: This request that you have is strictly a vestibule and it is not for additional capacity?


Kalman Igol: No.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: You are aware of the debris in the wetlands?


Kalman Igol: No, I am not.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: The debris in the wetlands, the dirt pile, the paved lot, illegal slab and the location and does it have a ratwall or whatever is involved, the right of way, and the whole issue about the occupancy and whether you are even legal at this time, the property lines, landscaping, screening; I think that there are a whole lot of other things that you need to take care of before we start to look at this.


Kalman Igol: Let me explain. Some of this has nothing to do with the business. The property line and the cement have nothing to do with us the City of Novi did the construction on old Novi Road and they used this man’s property and they moved the cinder blocks; we did not have anything to do with this. I personally went up to the City and said "how they did it and why they did it I don’t know" it was not my wrong doing. It has nothing to do with our place. I don’t think that this has a concern to the vestibule or the business.


Member Meyer: How close are you to the road right now? In other words how close is the building to the road right now.


Kalman Igol: It is hard to explain, It is not a City road, it is for the City of Novi property, what we actually on the north side we have "0" and on the south side we have about 12’ exactly.


Member Meyer: If I understand correctly the issue, this evening before us, is that you want to add an enclosure so that when customers come in they do not feel the cold air coming through the one door that you do have; so it would actually be a buffer for the wind – am I correct?


Kalman Igol: Yes.


Member Meyer: If you were to add this enclosure on to this building tonight, would you be out into the street because of the enclosure?


Kalman Igol: I don’t understand the question.


Member Meyer: What I am trying to say is that it seems that the enclosure big enough right now that it is going to be on the street.


Kalman Igol: I don’t have an enclosure now.


Member Meyer: I am just trying to say to you that I have heard the list of all of the other items here but you came here tonight for an enclosure and my point is that it would seem to me that based on the information that we were given that even with the addition of the enclosure completely putting aside the fact that it is adding to a nonconforming structure as it is, that you would already be out on the street or almost, that is how close this building is to the street.


Kalman Igol: No, Sir.


Scott Rumly: No, he is still within the property line.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: We don’t know that, there is no information in this packet. There is no site plan information, there are no property lines, there is nothing here.


Scott Rumly: There is an old site plan that he had from before.


Chairman Reinke: There is no definition on the information that we were given as to where the lot line is, how far the entrance is back from the lot line, or any of that information at all. I don’t really think that we have enough information here to work with and I think that we are circumventing the whole program as to the way that the City is set up to operate and go through the Planning Commission and get everything done and taken care of the way that it should be done. I have no objection to working with you but I think that we have the back part of the horse before we give him some oats.


Scott Rumly: Can I show you what we have worked with and what he gave me?


Chairman Reinke: The thing is from what we had to look at and to evaluate it really has not answered any questions.


(plan shown to the Board)


Chairman Reinke: This would just be letting the thing manifest and go further out of conformity with not addressing all of the issues that would have to be addressed. I think that it needs to go to the Planning Commission, they can address the vestibules and they can address the whole thing. If there is something that you need from us you can come back and we can look at the whole thing and do everything the right way.


Member Meyer: I would like to thank you for the opportunity though to pursue what I thought was the main issue here tonight and the only reason that I endeavor to do that and fully aware of my respect for my colleagues is that I felt that it was necessary for you to understand that we believe that it should be at the Planning Commission and if indeed this is the issue you want to make sure that you look at this very precisely, the site plan, to make sure that you are not asking for something that won’t fit anyway. That is all that I am trying to say.


Member Harrington: My thought is this. If you guys were going to pick one night out of the year and ask for a variance to keep the cold air out, you have picked a "beaut". However, we have a legal test that we have to apply here and that legal test is that if we grant this variance we have to make sure that we are not increasing the burden on the property and increasing the burden on the adjacent homeowners and the like. I can’t make an intelligent decision until I receive full information, probably through the vehicle of a full investigation by Planning. I don’t have enough information to vote. I don’t think that the Board has enough information to vote. I think that all of these problems have to be considered as a whole rather than to piece meal off whether you should or shouldn’t have a canopy. You have done a wonderful job. Traffic is up 80% out there. You have a loyal customer base. Surely they will hang with you until the spring, when it warms up. They will bear with you or they will stay inside and stay warm with the cheer that you provide. But, for us to vote on this tonight, I think is the wrong direction to go.


Moved by Member Harrington,


Seconded by Member Sanghvi,




Discussion on motion:


Member Meyer: I am going to vote against this motion, simply because I don’t believe that we should be voting on the motion in the first place. I think that this should just simply go to the Planning Commission. This gentleman unfortunately came to the wrong Board to make his case.


Roll Call: Yeas (4) Nays (2) Meyer, Antosiak MOTION CARRIED



Case No. 98-012A & B filed by George McCollum, representing Novi Drug


George McCollum, representing Novi Drug is requesting A) a 12’ x 2’ (24 sq. ft.) wall sign on the west side of the building to read "NOVI DRUG"; B) an entrance sign 12’ x 2’ (24 sq. ft.) on the front of the building to read ‘NOVI DRUG"; for property located at 24100 Meadowbrook Rd. This property has an existing business ground pole sign.


Gary Meyer and George McCollum were present and duly sworn.


Gary Meyer: Tonight Mr. McCollum on behalf of Novi Drug Store is asking for a variance for 2 signs. One would be a wall sign on the west side of the building and the other one would be an entrance sign that would sit a top and over the entrance to the drug store. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that involve the property here and that Novi Dug Store sits directly behind National City Bank. Novi Drug Store is located on Meadowbrook Road just a little bit south of Ten Mile and the bank sits right on that corner.


Gary Meyer: It is very difficult for the viewing public to notice the business and therefore go into the business. There is an office complex that is attached to the east side of Novi Drug Store and it has it’s own separate entrance way and there are approximately 10 tenants there that have their own businesses. There is a pole sign outside on Meadowbrook Road. It is a small pole sign and it does say "Tobin Professional Center". Mr. McCollum erected that sign for the benefit of the tenants so that they could advertise their business and when he got a permit to erect that sign he was told that the existing wall sign that he had on the building had to be taken down.


Gary Meyer: We feel that theses variances, if granted, would not have any detrimental affect on any of the health, safety, or welfare of the general community or it would not affect the aesthetic or involve any traffic problems because the property sits right back there by itself and the signs would enable people passing by on Meadowbrook and perhaps even if they were coming down Ten Mile and looked behind the bank and the property located to the east of the bank you might be able to see that there is a drug store there and therefore they would be able to go Mr. McCollum’s business. We think that there is reasonable evidence here that shows that these variances should be granted.


Gary Meyer: We do have pictures here that show Mr. McCollum’s building and where the sign on the west wall was and you can see where it was taken down. I don’t know if everybody has had the chance to view the building itself, but we also have a picture of the pole sign and the business is located on it but it is only about 4" x 3’ long and it is pretty hard to tell that the business is there unless you are stopped right there at the traffic light at Ten Mile and Meadowbrook. That sign doesn’t do justice for Novi Drug Store in advertising.


Gary Meyer: Mr. McCollum is here if you would like to ask him any questions. He has been an established business man in the community for many years.


Gary Meyer: Mr. McCollum has also presented me with some pictures of other businesses in Novi that have been granted variances to allow a couple of different signs.


Gary Meyer: We are also asking for an entrance sign that would be directly over the entrance so that it would distinguish it from the office complex. A number of times people do not know which is the store and which is the office complex and sometimes they go into the drug store thinking that is where an office is located. The small sign above the entrance way which basically would look directly into the back side of the bank so it wouldn’t have any detrimental effect on any property owners, all it would enable them to know is where the drug store is located.




There was no audience participation.




Alan Amolsch had no comment.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: Well I go to George’s drug store and he does have a unique situation. Although the bank is in front of him it is the parking lot that is in front of him so he actually has very good visibility if he had a sign from Ten Mile. You could almost look at his store as sitting on a corner because he does have visual site line from both Ten Mile and from Meadowbrook. I think and again this is just my point of view, I think his request has some merit for both sides because I would look at this as a store that has 2 fronts. I think the signs are relatively small, I don’t think that they present a big problem in my view.


Chairman Reinke indicated there was a total of 51 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was one written response received voicing objection. Copy in file.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: Would your name come off the pole or ground sign?


George McCollum: Yes.


Member Harrington: I have had the actual unique experience of looking for the Novi Drug the other day, prior to realizing that this was on the docket. As I squirreled through the Tobin Center I didn’t see Novi Drug because I was driving and I thought they had moved out. I didn’t even know that they were there. I think that they do need a sign. I certainly draw a distinction between additional signs for marketing purposes and we made the right call on Starbuck’s and I think that it was a marketing decision and not an ID situation. I think that this is a definite identification hardship.


Member Antosiak inquired of Alan Amolsch: One of the drawings attached to the request show the sign facing north shows the sign actually on the roof?


Gary Meyer: Yes, it would be on the roof, which would be right above the entrance to the building.


Alan Amolsch: That would also require a variance.


Chairman Reinke inquired of Alan Amolsch: If he takes his sign off of the ground pole sign that is out there, does that affect his sign requirements at all?


Alan Amolsch: No, this is a situation where the parcel chose to go with a ground sign/business sign. which identifies all of the tenants in the building. Therefore, no other wall signs are allowed on the building.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: Is there any way of getting that Novi Drug sign on the north either shrunk or getting it on the building facing so it is not on the roof? We are hearing tonight that we have a new problem with a sign on the roof.


Gary Meyer: Mr. McCollum has indicated that we could put it on the front of the building, but then there might be a height restriction problem.


Alan Amolsch: The code requires that a wall sign be fixed to a building wall and not attached to a roof.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: Are you aware of any height issue, if he puts it above the door?


Alan Amolsch: No.


Member Harrington: It might not fit above the door. It might have to go to the side.


Gary Meyer: Maybe above one of the windows.


Chairman Reinke inquired of Alan Amolsch: Would that be a problem?


Alan Amolsch: No.


Don Saven: How far would that project out from the wall?


George McCollum: Ten feet from the ground maybe.


Don Saven: If it is 10’ from the ground level, I don’t have a problem with that.


Alan Amolsch: As long as it is affixed to the building wall and not the roof, that is what the ordinance would require.


Don Saven: It must be on the building wall and not the roof.


Moved by Vice-Chairman Brennan,


Seconded by Member Sanghvi,




Discussion on motion:


Alan Amolsch: Are you going to require them to remove the sign from the ground sign?


Vice-Chairman Brennan: Yes, he must remove the name from the ground sign.


Roll Call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) MOTION CARRIED



Case No. 98-103 filed by Singh Development Co., Ltd.


Singh Development Co., Ltd., is requesting a variance to Section 4.02 A.6 of the Subdivision Ordinance which requires a maximum depth to width ratio of 3 to 1 for the size and shape of lot. The applicant is requesting to extend the front yard setback on lot 110 to 181.97 feet and lot 111 to 182.18 feet. This would create a lot width to depth ratio of about 1:8 and requires a Zoning Board of Appeals variance.


Mike Kahm was present and duly sworn.


Mike Kahm: On December 7, 1998 we received approval of our tentative preliminary plat for Willowbrook Farm Subdivision Number 2 and 3 from the City Council. One of the things that we had proposed through the process of reviews by the various consultants and in this particular case which precipitated our request for the variance this evening with Linda Lemke, the woodland consultant, has to do with lots 110 and 111. Those lots are located at the end of Bloomfield Court.


Mike Kahm: I would like to give you a little bit of a sense of history about the approvals and recommendations. (charts shown to the Board) This was the configuration of that same cul de sac as we originally submitted in our first plan. This particular cul de sac configuration required no variances from the City whatsoever, it met all of the requirements of your ordinances as far as the configuration and the configuration of the lots. However, this particular area is located in a regulated woodland. So what Ms. Lemke suggested that we do was to pull the cul de sac bulb back up and away from the heavy woodlands in this area and provide for extended lots which required the front setback in these 2 cases to be increased. The minimum front setback for these to lots to be increased from the 30’ which is provided for in Section 2400 of the Zoning Ordinance up to 181.97’ for lot 110 and 182.18’ for lot 111. This lot configuration also required us to receive a variance for the depth ratio of the lots because the normal width to depth requirements are 1 to 3 in the City subdivision ordinance and that variance was granted by the City Council at the December 7th Meeting because your subdivision ordinance does allow for City Council to grant variances for requirements that are provided for in that particular ordinance.


Mike Kahm: So this evening we are requesting your approval of the increase of the minimum front setbacks for lot 110 and 111 from 30’ to the 181.97 and 182.18’; in the interest of saving 20 regulated trees as recommended by Linda Lemke.


Mike Kahm: George Norberg is here from Sieber Keast and Associates the engineering design firm, if you have any questions about the design.




There was no audience participation.




Chairman Reinke indicated there was a total of 52 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was no written response received.


Don Saven: George, what is the width of the new proposed front setback? What is the width of that lot?


George Norberg: That is 80 feet.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: I seem to be missing something, why are we even looking at a case where a developer has more than what is required in a setback; I would think that this would be something that Planning would applaud and say "Good Job". Why is this?


Don Saven: It is because of the ordinance it is a 3 to 1 ratio.


Member Antosiak: The ordinance defines lot width at the setback line. So you have to move the setback line to get to the point where you have a lot width that meets the ordinance because the lot width at the street will be far below what the ordinance requires.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: It seems like a win, win for everyone unless I have missed something here.


Member Antosiak: I, too, favor a variance after reading the rather tortured discussion of City Council on this issue; but I do have a comment for the petitioner. Frequently when we get requests for variances on new construction and they are setback variance requests they come on lots that are unusually sized or shaped. I just want you to understand and to not misconstrue my vote in favor of this variance if someone should make that motion as a vote that would also approve a variance for a house to be constructed that would also require a variance. In looking at the odd shape of the lots even behind the new proposed setback it may difficult to build within an acceptable footprint.


Mike Kahm: Just to give you a sense of comfort, what we did when we laid this out was to show the footprint of the homes that we are currently building in our first phase and they did comfortably fit within those setbacks.


Moved by Vice-Chairman Brennan,


Seconded by Member Antosiak,




Roll Call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) MOTION CARRIED



Case No. 98-104 filed by Parlovecchio Building & Development, representing Marty Feldman Chevrolet


Parlovecchio Building and Development, representing Marty Feldman Chevrolet, is wishing to construct a 1,566 sq. ft. addition to the existing showroom at the Marty Feldman Chevrolet dealership and is seeking a variance of the 4’ green space which is required immediately adjacent to the building on all four (4) sides, for property located at 42355 Grand River Avenue.


Mauro Bianchini was present and duly sworn.


Mauro Bianchini: What we are proposing here and actually there are 2 additions that we are proposing on this property that are to be constructed underneath the roof line of the existing building. Basically what we are doing is stretching out the east and the west side of the building to go out to the large overhang that is there right now. Currently the large overhang is there to display automobiles on the outside of the dealership. Recently and he did some renovations on the inside where he went to modular furniture which kinds of limits his automobile space on the inside. He can only comfortably get one car in there without really cramping the area and what he would like to do is to basically take 2 outdoor display area and make them indoor display areas. So we are only elongating that one east and west side of the building. In going through the process through your Planning Department and dealing with Linda Lemke this building is approximately and I am guessing around 25 or 26 years old and was built in the 70’s at some point. It doesn’t conform to landscape requirements that are in place today and at that time I am assuming that it did. In working with her we agreed to upgrade the existing landscape islands that are currently on the 3 corners of the existing showroom and there was a kind of a dead area that was created by elongating this addition that we agreed to peel back some additional concrete and create an additional bed back there and upgrade those areas and to provide some plantings in those areas. In trying to achieve this 4’ greenbelt it would require a major reconfiguration of parking and driveways, etc. If you look at the existing dealership they currently have outdoor automobile display areas, walkway, then they have a parking area, a drive area and another parking area and I don’t believe that there would be enough room to create this 4’ greenbelt without sacrificing one of those amenities. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.




There was no audience participation.




Don Saven: If you refer to page L1 on your plan you will see that is where the alternate plan is to provide the greenbelt in those corners in lieu of being adjacent to the building.


Mauro Bianchini: There was a revised plan submitted with regards to Linda’s comments. We had submitted a landscape plan and Linda had some comments and we resubmitted that.


Member Harrington inquired of Don Saven: Is it your sense that the spirit of the ordinance is being met?


Don Saven: I believe so, there is not to much room that this gentleman has to work with because of what is existing on the building as presented on the site plan that is there.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: There was a number of conditions from both consultants as the attachment reads here.


Don Saven: Basically in that letter Linda Lemke, the Landscape Architect indicates that she would recommend a positive variance from the ZBA with additional annuals, perennials, and this is what you are providing, is that correct?


Mauro Bianchini: That is correct.


Moved by Member Harrington,


Seconded by Member Sanghvi,




Roll call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) MOTION CARRIED



Case No. 98-105 filed by Huhta Contracting, representing Mr. Blocki


Huhta Contracting, representing Mr. Blocki, is requesting a front yard setback variance of 12’6" and a rear yard setback variance of 20’ to allow for the construction of additions at 1725 Paramount Avenue.


Kevin Huhta was present and duly sworn.


Kevin Huhta: Obviously our request here is for a front yard setback of 12’6" and a rear yard setback of 20’ and I would just like to note that both of those setback variances that we are requesting are the existing dimensions of the front right corner of the garage to the existing lot line and the distance from the rear line of the home to the rear property line. Mr. Blocki’s home would be described as a legal nonconforming structure. The existing home does not meet the setback requirements. According to the local requirements anytime a structure is altered or added on to it must comply with the established setbacks. As a licensed builder I have always recommended customers to seek other options. There are none. This is where his hardship comes into place. In order for Mr. Blocki to make any improvements to his home and comply with the setback requirements that are established here, the home would have to be narrowed to a 14’ structure and because we are attaching the home to the garage that is where the front setback then comes into play and in order for this entire structure as it exists to comply with both front and rear setback requirements the structure would have to be narrowed to 1’6" and obviously that is not possible and it wouldn’t be a viable structure. My client is not asking to move any closer to his property line that he already is in the existing home and garage and he does not represent any problems to his neighbors by asking to make these improvements. All those that responded to the Notices that were sent out demonstrated their support for this project.


Kevin Huhta: On behalf of Mr. Blocki I am requesting that you, the Members of the Zoning Board, to grant the variances that are requested for 1725 Paramount Drive.




There was no audience participation.




Don Saven: If you refer to the site plan you will see that there was an existing garage and it is detached and once they fill in that area it now takes on the same configuration as a principal building and therefore that setback requirement becomes a little bit intensified. Normally for what he is doing at the point of where his addition is going on it is approximately 25 foot to the property line but because you have to consider the garage that is now existing it makes it to the 17 foot requirement.


Chairman Reinke indicated there was a total of 60 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was a total of 2 written responses received both voicing approval. Copies in file.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: It certainly seems like a reasonable way to make some additions to that house.


Chairman Reinke: It is noted on the drawing here that the shed will be removed.


Kevin Huhta: That is correct.


Chairman Reinke: Really the basic outline of the structure is not going further in any direction towards the existing lot lines and I think that you have done a nice arrangement in laying it out that way.


Member Meyer: This will in no way shape or form hinder traffic or the safety of people in the area?


Kevin Huhta: No, absolutely not.


Moved by Member Antosiak,


Seconded by Vice-Chairman Brennan,




Roll Call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) MOTION CARRIED


Kevin Huhta: I have one additional request, if I may, there is a 5 day waiting period from variance time to when the permits are granted and Gerry McCallum has been kind enough to go through and review the prints for us; would it be possible to waive the 5 day?


Don Saven: That should be no problem, if you have talked to Gerry. I am sure that he has done this just in preparing you for this case.




Voice Vote: All yeas.



Case No. 98-106 filed by Lynn Wells


Lynn Wells is requesting a rear yard setback variance of 20’11" and a lot coverage variance of 7% to allow for the construction of an addition at the rear of the home at 44555 Midway Drive.


Lynn Wells was present and duly sworn.


Lynn Wells: We are asking for this variance because we would like to add a family room, bedroom and handicapped lavatory on the back of our house and the way it is constructed at present I only have 4’ of building space and it makes it difficult. My hardship is that my family room and everything would be 4’ wide. I would like to see about increasing that to take it out to 24’ and to add the bedroom and the handicapped lavatory.


Lynn Wells: One of the issues that I would bring to your attention is that I live on a commons area that is a protected woodlands and it is about 180’ wide behind my lot line. If my house was back in the subdivision where I backed up to others with 2 normal back yards; I wouldn’t even make this request. But under the condition that we have adequate drainage, and light and air flow and you won’t have any intense living situations I don’t think that we are going to have any public detriment that comes from this.




There was no audience participation.




Chairman Reinke indicated there was a total of 14 Notices sent to adjacent property owners. There was 2 written responses received, both voicing approval. Copies in file.


Don Saven: You have indicated that your are intending to put a handicapped bathroom, is there a purpose that the living needs to be that large? Do you have an individual in the home that is handicapped?


Lynn Wells: My grandmother who is 94 is coming to live with us. While she is not handicapped in the sense of unable to get around other than with her cane or walker I need to have a ground floor bedroom in the house that I can set up in a handicapped method. She is not legally defined as handicapped.


Don Saven: So the extension of the 24’8" is dealing with her bedroom to be placed in that particular area?


Lynn Wells: Yes, but it is also additional living area for the family.


Member Antosiak: Have you spoken with your homeowners association?


Lynn Wells: Yes, in fact their approval should be in your package. The homeowners association, I had reviewed it with the President and he had signed off on the plans and it should look like that. It should be attached to your plot plan.


Chairman Reinke: It is here in the main file.


Member Antosiak: Normally I would probably vote against this variance because I believe that they are overbuilding the lot. But given the particular location of the lot, the need for the addition, the approval from nearby landowners and the homeowners association they have calmed my fears.


Chairman Reinke: That is my exact feeling. When I first looked at it and saw 11’ to the lot line it looked grossly overbuilt, but since you have as much open space behind you in not having another property line or another residence it is OK.


Lynn Wells: I would agree with that, because as I have said if there had been another house behind us I wouldn’t have requested this variance.


Member Sanghvi: I just want to commend you for inviting your grandmother into the house and building a place for her. You don’t hear this very often these days.


Lynn Wells: She is a fine lady.


Moved by Member Antosiak,


Seconded by Vice-Chairman Brennan,




Roll Call: Yeas (6) Nays (0) MOTION CARRIED





Member Harrington: In the interim period of time from last month through tonight’s date, I inputted into the document that you have in front of you, which references the Rules of Procedure adopted by the ZBA, changes that were approved by the Board at the last Meeting. In addition Dr. Sanghvi contacted me within the last couple of days and pointed out that there is at least an ambiguity regarding filling of vacancies in offices or for officers in Section 4 of the Rules; and he believed and I concurred with him that while it is the job of City Council to fill vacancies it is the job of this Board to fill vacant officer positions. So, I have added additional language or propose the addition of additional language relative that ZBA may conduct an election to fill the vacant officer position from any Member of the ZBA either prior to or subsequent to the appointment of a new ZBA Member by City Council. The point being is that we shouldn’t function without officers for to long and if it takes several months to find a capable replacement the Board should fill the officer position. But the actual appointment of the Member, of course, resides within the City Council discretion.


Member Harrington: I have added in per our discussion last month, the Ordinance portion dealing with re-hearings relative to 20 days and that is Section 9.2.


Member Harrington: When I returned to the office this afternoon I received a fax from Mr. Watson, the City Attorney, with his comments relative to specific suggestions that he has and all of which I concur with and recommend to the Board; with the exception of the Robert’s Rules of Order. I have added in language in Section 5.5, and by the way I haven’t read Robert’s Rules of Order since high school and I am not sure if any other Board Member has either although I wouldn’t presume anything in that regard. "The Meeting shall be conducted in accord with Roberts’ Rules except where modified by these rules of procedure or except where the Board determines that modified rules will affect the intent of the ordinance and the efficient administration of ZBA Meetings"; which I believe makes sense and is workable. I think that we proceed along modified Robert’s Rules in any event.


Member Harrington: Those are the changes that are in this latest draft. I would submit this latest draft to the Board for consideration and adoption tonight. But in any event I am resigning from the typing aspect of this project, my fingers cannot put up with the pain. So any additional recommendations, changes, additions or deletions will be through the paid services of the City of Novi.


Chairman Reinke: Everybody has had a copy of this for review and Mr. Harrington very eloquently reviewed the changes and the updates so I think that we have basically covered everything. Are there any Members who have questions or comments on the document as presented?


Member Antosiak: My only concern was with the Robert’s Rules of Order requirement and I fear that no one has to become an expert in parliamentary procedure or that we have to designate one and we are also a quasi-judicial board as opposed to other boards of the City that are more fact finding and balancing of issues whereas we are a quasi-judicial board that are forced to decide an issue and we can’t put ourselves into a position of having to negotiate as frequently happens with other boards. I would just be a little concerned that it does not impede the way that we operate. In some boards I have noticed, for example, that it is not beyond a member to call the question before discussion is complete. I would hope here that we would always provide our members with the opportunity of a full discussion.


Vice-Chairman Brennan: To reiterate a comment that we had from the Mayor; she is looking forward to seeing this, so the final draft can go right to City Clerk who will distribute it.


Moved by Member Harrington,


Seconded by Member Meyer,




Discussion on Motion


Member Meyer: I would just like to take a moment to thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Harrington and Mr. Antosiak for the work that you did on this. I think it is not only going to be helpful to us but for our successors.


Don Saven: It is way overdue.


Voice Vote: All Yeas MOTION CARRIED



Member Meyer: One other item that was put on the table here tonight was that City Council would like to meet with us and I would only ask that whatever date you pick that it might not be on first or third Thursday, since I have another commitment on those days and I would like to be at that Meeting.


Member Antosiak: Then it would look like March 8 or 11.


Member Harrington: That is OK with me.


Member Sanghvi: Those dates are fine.


Chairman Reinke: Then why don’t we put down the 2 choices. The first choice to be March 8th and the second choice March 11th. Copy to be given to the City Clerk.


Don Saven: Based upon our concerns that we had regarding some of the ordinances that come before us and what we can do to try to eliminate some of the overload of the repetitive variances that come before us, we have looked at the issue regarding off premise signs by virtue of them being placed in the right of ways where we are looking at making this a part of the ordinance or approval process based upon something that would be accepted but once there was a letter of agreement signed by City Council and what have you that this would be an accepted location, not that it is in the right of way anymore and coming before us for the off premise type of situation. The second issue is one that you brought to my attention regarding construction trailers over periods of time, whether they come before us repeatedly when they are doing the same project. Based upon the fact that I have the ability to look at them from a standpoint of view at the beginning of the project this would be continuously monitored during the duration of the project as needed. There would be discretion on behalf of myself that if there became an issue of whether there is a safety problem or there was an issue regarding other concerns that we would have the trailer removed and handle it through my department as we would through the temporary use permit. The issue regarding sales trailers normally would go through this, but if it gets over 2 years then it will come back before the ZBA. Those 2 issues are now being drafted and worked on at the present time.





The Meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m.










___________________________ _________________________________________

Date Approved Nancy C. McKernan

Recording Secretary