| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting REGULAR MEETING -- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters ofZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, August 14, 2001. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: MR. CHAIRMAN: At this time I'll call the meeting to order. Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Present. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Present. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Present. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Present. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Here. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have -- one of our Board members is absent tonight, but our alternate is here, so we have a full Board. All cases heard this evening will be final. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a board empowered by the City charter to hear appeals seeking a variance to the application of the Novi zoning ordinance. It takes a vote of at least four members to approve a variance request and a vote of a majority of members present to deny a variance. The Board consists of six members, and we have a full Board, and any and all decisions will be final. Are there any additions or changes to the agenda? MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Chairman, I think we have a request from one of the petitioners, due to some conflicts in schedule, case number four has to be moved up so that they can make another ZBA meeting in another city. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any other corrections or changes? SARAH MARCHIONI: Number seven has been tabled to next month, and number nine no longer needs a variance. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Number nine is completely off the agena? SARAH MARCHIONI: Withdrawn, yep. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else to be added or corrected? Chairman will entertain a motion to approve the agenda as corrected.
MEMBER FANNON: So moved. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to review the rules of conduct we're going to operate under. That is, one, each person desiring to address the Board shall state his or her name and address. Individual person shall be allowed five minutes to address the Board. An extension of time may be granted at the discretion of the Chairperson. There shall be no questioning by the audience of the persons addressing the Board; however, the Board members may question that person with recognition of the Chairperson. No person shall be allowed to address the board more than once unless permission is granted by the Chairperson. One spokesperson for a group attending shall be allowed ten minutes to address the board.
Okay. Next item is approval of minutes from the July 17th meeting. Do we have any additions or corrections to those? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah. This is on, I believe, page seventy-seven, line is nine. Something is mentioned inaudible, and there I said Mr. Chairman, I am going to advocate to make a motion. That needs to be added. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. SANGHVI: And further down, same page, line fifteen, instead of check over, it should be had a good track record over a period of time. And line eighteen, they have taken longer than the previous assessment. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any other additions or corrections? MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair? MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Gray? MEMBER GRAY: If I may borrow Member Sanghvi's minutes for a moment, in the first
case on page nine, line fourteen and line ten, unidentified speaker, I think that should be denoted as the petitioner's attorney, Susan Friedlaender, F-r-i-e-d-l-a-e-n-d-e-r. I had it written on my notes at home. And, I'm sorry, I forgot them. MEMBER SANGHVI: You're right. I agree. MEMBER GRAY: The unidentified speaker in the first case was the plaintiff's -- petitioner's attorney. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other additions or corrections? Hearing none, the Chair would accept a motion to approve the minutes as amended. MEMBER SANGHVI: So moved. MEMBER GRAY: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and seconded to approve the minutes as amended. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Opposed? (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion carried. Okay. To our modified agenda, we're
going to jump to case number four. CASE NUMBER 01-062 MR. CHAIRMAN: This is case 01-062 filed by Gary Kade representing the homeowners of 24704 Venice Drive. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chairman, how about public remarks before we get into this, just as a point of order? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, would you please -- we're sidelined here. I'm assuming he has been sworn in? MEMBER SANGHVI: No, he hasn't. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please be sworn in. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth? GARY KADE: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please state your name for the record. GARY KADE: Gary Kade, Four Seasons Sunrooms representing Mr. and Mrs. Barringer, who are here with us this evening, and the address is
24704 Venice Drive. And, again, thank you for allowing me to go first. I'm number seven on the agenda in Dexter Township tonight as well. We're requesting a rear yard variance -- should I start? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. GARY KADE: Okay. We're requesting rear yard variance of 6.85 feet. And in reference to that I would like to make five points. Point number one is, a small lot of eighty-seven wide by a hundred fifteen feet deep with a front entry garage, which drives the house back into the backyard. Secondly, I think it's -- the ones of you that were out there, it's a very nicely landscaped yard. We've chosen to use a glass sunroom, a conservatory style, so there isn't really any walls, it's all glass. So it's very -- very, very low impact. Thirdly, the sunroom is actually going to be the same size. The existing deck is fourteen by sixteen, and the sunroom that we've chosen is thirteen nine by fifteen feet, so it's
actually going to fit within the existing deck. Fourth, the yard is very low. If -- again, if you were out there, it sits lower than all the surrounding homes, so everything drains to their yard which makes it virtually impossible to use it during the summer because of the mosquitoes, the deck. And, lastly, we have the support of the neighbors and the association. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to participate or have input in this case? Hearing none, Building Department? DON SAVEN: Only that the sunroom will not exceed the existing deck. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, comments or discussion? MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Chair? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: The petitioners are here? GARY KADE: Yes. MEMBER BRENNAN: Nice job. This is just exactly what we like to see when you're --
when you have a variance request and you're in a neighborhood, you've got the association approval, all your neighbors. I have no problem with this at all. MR. CHAIRMAN: One thing I forgot to notice here. Forty-five notices sent and we received sixteen approvals and no objections. Board Members, further comments or discussion? MEMBER SANGHVI: Oh, I agree entirely with what you just said. I went and saw the place, and it's very beautifully landscaped, and I think this would be a real asset to their home. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, if there'd be no further discussion, Chair would entertain a motion in the case. MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a motion. Case number 01-062, I would move that the petitioners' request be granted with the stipulation that the addition is within the confines of the deck. MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and seconded to grant the petitioners' request. Any
further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Your variance request has been approved. See the building department for necessary permits. We wish you the best of luck. GARY KADE: Thank you very much. DON SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, we have two latecomers. I do believe I recognize one of them who is on a case tonight that will not be heard. Laura, case number nine will not be
heard. I believe that they can meet the requirements of the ordinance, so they will not be before us tonight. LAURA: Okay. DON SAVEN: Okay. I didn't want you sitting there for a long period of time. LAURA: Thank you. DON SAVEN: Item number two, if I may, one of the issues that was brought up a little bit earlier was the fact that there is a public remarks section, and I do believe Sarah mentioned public remarks. Maybe you want to bring this at this time. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what we're going to do. DON SAVEN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: In jumping around, moving around, normally before our first case we would open it up to the audience for public remarks if there's anybody that wanted to make a comment to the Board that didn't pertain to a case that's before us this evening. Is there anyone that would like to make any remarks to the Board at this time?
Hearing none, we'll close that and we'll go onto the next case, which is case number 01-059 filed by Taylor Scott Architects representing Great Indoors (Starbucks). Petitioner here? (Petitioner not present.) MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We'll hold that off at this point and go onto the next case. CASE NUMBER 01-058 MR. CHAIRMAN: That is case number 01-058 filed by Planet Neon representing Salon Luna. Is the petitioner here? DAVID HANNA: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you step forward please and be sworn in by our secretary. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear that the matter -- do you -- I'm sorry. Do you swear that the testimony that you're about to give in this matter is the truth? DAVID HANNA: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please
state your name for the record. DAVID HANNA: My name is David Hanna representing Salon Luna. MR. CHAIRMAN: He's requesting a variance to erect a six foot by five foot illuminated ground sign to be located at 41300 West Ten Mile Road. We're referencing case number 1732. Would you please go ahead and present your case. DAVID HANNA: Yes, sir. It's a simple case of the business owner essentially not having a means of identifying himself to Ten Mile Road. In his case, the short strip of businesses is perpendicular to Ten Mile. He's at the end of the road, which doesn't give him any clear visibility to Ten Mile Road. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to input into this case? Hearing none, Building Department? DON SAVEN: No comment, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: There were nineteen
notices sent, and we received one approval this evening. Board Members, comments or discussion? MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: I went and saw this place. It is going to be the third ground sign in a row there. There is going to be two on the other side of this one, east of this also have signs, and you cannot -- there's no way to identify this particular business, where they are going to put it, without a sign in the front. And my question was, maybe we can bring about some kind of esthetic uniformity so to speak -- there will be three signs in a row -- if it's possible. Each one of them, the Red Cross and Meadowbrook Frame Shop, and this one, they're all going to be in a thirty, forty yard spot, and they're all three going to look very different and I think they're going to be very busy to the eye. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, further comments or discussions? MEMBER FANNON: I'm assuming you brought up the other case of 12 years ago because
there was a sign allowed at that time that's no longer there? MEMBER SANGHVI: Exactly. MEMBER FANNON: I agree that you can't find the store -- I was there tonight -- without the sign. I don't know if they should all be the same, but I didn't seem to have any problem with the sign. I notice as you came out you couldn't find the stop sign underneath the bushes and stuff like that, for whatever it's worth. I know you have nothing to do with that, but that should be trimmed up. MEMBER BRENNAN: Is there any reason it's got to be six foot wide when the logo is only taking up half of that? DAVID HANNA: Not really. I think it was just he wanted to maximize the square footage that was allowed. MEMBER BRENNAN: That's my point. When half the sign is unused, why half of that? We're always looking -- trying to drive it down rather than up. DAVID HANNA: He was working with a
designer that came up with that. MEMBER BRENNAN: Do you have any freedom in making any modifications to the Board? DAVID HANNA: Oh, sure, I would think so. MEMBER BRENNAN: For tonight? If we cut that down -- if we left the height of five and cut it down to, I don't know, five by five or five by four -- it just seems like we're granting a variance for a sign that half of it's non used- DAVID HANNA: (Interposing) Well, per -- MEMBER BRENNAN: -or not used. DAVID HANNA: If I may? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. DAVID HANNA: Part of the reason was, the way it's designed, it throws a halo against the background, which would, of course, require a certain amount of area to see that glow cast against the background. MEMBER BRENNAN: Those are just my comments. If everyone else- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Well --
MEMBER BRENNAN: -doesn't have a problem with it, I -- you need signage. MR. CHAIRMAN: Signage is needed, no question about that. MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: I agree with you. The size of it, there seems to be so much blank space there that it could be sized down somewhat. MEMBER SANGHVI: Is this also going to be an illuminated sign? MR. CHAIRMAN: I would assume it's correct; is that correct? DAVID HANNA: Yes. MEMBER BRENNAN: What's illuminated, the D slash F? DAVID HANNA: That's shorthand for double faced. That's our own notes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you live with a four foot wide sign? DAVID HANNA: I actually hadn't discussed size modifications with the customer, but I'd be glad to do that. It would, you know, of course, change the layout somewhat, but -- MEMBER BRENNAN: You said you had
some freedom. Is five foot within your reach? DAVID HANNA: I would imagine, yes. I don't think it would alter the actual configuration too much. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it's cutting the size down to where it's, I guess, somewhat a little more workable, a little more acceptable, because you got to have something there. MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, those businesses are fairly close to Ten Mile, too. MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. MEMBER BRENNAN: And that was my concern, that if you got a wide sign, you're cutting a lot of the visual. I'd say if you're getting this down to five by five you're probably a little closer to getting a lot of heads nodding up and down. MEMBER GRAY: I suggest they- MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) In fact -- yeah. Good point. The previous sign was 25 square foot. DAVID HANNA: Oh, was it? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, further
comments or discussion? MEMBER GRAY: My comment was also going to be to drop the size down, lower the height a little bit, too, but if the previous sign was twenty-five square feet, you know, five by five would probably be acceptable. MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah. It's closer to four foot tall sitting on a riser. MEMBER GRAY: But there seems to be some play in the height of this, too. I realize the artistic offset. Quite frankly, when I looked at it I thought they could get away with a four by three, but -- MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Chairman, if you want to try a motion, we'll see where the Board sits. 01-058, I move that the sign be approved, 25 square feet, for purpose of building identification. MEMBER GRAY: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and seconded to grant a variance request for a five foot by five foot sign.
Any further discussion on the motion? Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance request has been approved for a 25 foot square foot sign. See the building department for necessary permits. We wish you the best of luck. DAVID HANNA: Thank you, sir.
CASE NUMBER 01-061 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Next case, case number 01-061 filed by Joel Street of 117 Charlotte, is seeking a variance to allow existing four foot by ten foot shed to remain in front yard and closer to the side yard and the main building than ordinance allows. Sir, would you please give your name to the secretary and be sworn. JOEL STREET: My name is Joel Street, 117 Charlotte, Novi, Michigan. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth? JOEL STREET: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please present your case. JOEL STREET: I just recently bought a home in Novi. It's on an irregular lot. I have no backyard, and as everybody knows, if you're a homeowner you need certain tools to maintain the home. I need a -- some type of an area to store tools, lawnmowers, shovels, rakes, boating
equipment, stuff like that. Unfortunately, I've tried to keep -- I bought one of the smallest sheds you can buy. It's only four by ten, and one of the main requirements that the building department had was it would be at least ten feet from the house. There's only a limited area where the shed can be ten foot from the house. Where it is right now meets that requirement, but it also needs a 4.5 foot variance from the side yard. I have -- the next-door neighbor to the west of me, she doesn't mind. There's a letter enclosed that she signed stating she has no objections with the location of the shed where it is. MR. CHAIRMAN: Shed abuts up to her property, correct? JOEL STREET: Well, it's -- yeah. Right- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) It's closest -- JOEL STREET: It's closest to her property than anybody else's, yeah. MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Okay. Is
there anyone else in the audience who would like to have input into this case? Hearing none, Building Department? DON SAVEN: Mr. Street, would you please explain to the Board the concrete slab that you have at the rear of your property. JOEL STREET: The concrete slab, there was a shed there when I originally bought the home. The home -- the previous homeowner tore down the shed. And I was going to put the shed back there. When I bought this shed that's where I was going to put the existing shed, but the building department said no, don't put it there, it's got to be at least ten feet from the house, so that's why I didn't put it there. That's why it's where it's at now. So -- they said either way you either have to go for two variances or one variance, and I figured well, if I put it there then this is only one variance and I have a better chance of even getting a shed, so that was why -- that's what the slab is in the back there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything further? DON SAVEN: The other issue is that sometimes we look at accessory structures, as they
get closer to the house there's more endangerment for fire concerns, so if we can get it ten foot away from the house the better off we are. MR. CHAIRMAN: If it was on the slab in the back of the house, how close to the house would it be? JOEL STREET: It would be about two foot from the house. It would be, like, right there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board Members, comments or discussion? MEMBER FANNON: Were there notices sent, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. There were twenty-nine notices sent, we received two approvals. Miss Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Well, I'm going to take the blame, or the credit as the case may be, for even getting this here tonight. When I first saw this shed it was sitting across the front of the driveway several months ago when Mr. Street started doing the work on his house. And I realize that this is one of the -- this is another one of those
"over-developed originally platted how much can we get on the smallest lot situations" that are endemic in our area. I'm not real happy with the sighting of this being about a foot from the property line. Well, it's real hard to get behind and keep the weeds down unless you make a concerted effort. I also would presume that if he does get approval of the variance that we are going to require that it be put on a slab with rat wall instead of the blocks that it's sitting on now; is that correct, Mr. Saven? DON SAVEN: The rat wall issue would be highly in -- I believe the rat wall issue will still be in play. We do have some changes to the state construction code which is a new code which we just adopted July 31st, but I believe at this time we're looking at the rat wall. MEMBER GRAY: At the very least we're looking at a slab, an attachment. MR. SAVEN: An anchorage. MEMBER GRAY: Yes. Based on that, I'm going to make a motion -- understanding there may be further discussion -- that we grant the
variance due to the configuration of the property. MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to grant the variance request. Is there any further discussion by the Board on the motion? Hearing none, Madam Secretary, call the roll, please. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance request has been approved. See the building department for necessary permits and we wish you the best of luck.
JOEL STREET: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 01-064 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Next case, case number 01-064 filed by Charles and Linda Pratt at 23051 Argyle Street. They're requesting a seven foot rear yard setback variance to allow a screened sun porch to be constructed at 23051 Argyle Street. This house is located on a corner lot. Sir, could she have your name and be sworn in, please. CHARLES PRATT: Yes. My name is Charlie Pratt. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand? Is the testimony that you're about to give in regards to this matter is the truth? CHARLES PRATT: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please present your case. CHARLES PRATT: Thank you. This is a relatively straightforward request for a seven foot variance from the thirty-five foot rear yard setback to build a screened-in porch that extends
fifteen feet from the house or seven feet into the setback. Our lot, which we -- this is a new house currently under construction that we're moving into the first of September. This lot backs to the wetlands known as Argyle Park North. And despite the fact that the house is pulled as far forward on the lot as possible, there is only forty-three feet from the rear of the house to the rear property line, leaving only eight feet to build the porch. The neighbor who is directly behind us, the one that is most impacted by the variance, is over two hundred feet away on the other side of the park. We've spoken to them and they support our request, and you probably have their response on file. In addition, we do have the homeowners' association approval as well. We believe this is a modest request, and we believe that the porch will maintain the esthetic standards of the neighborhood, and does have the support of our neighbors. We seek your approval and appreciate
your consideration. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience? Building Department? DON SAVEN: First issue, this is a corner lot. Second, you have to take a look at it. They're not located within the wetlands buffer. And, thirdly, this is .15 difference of the previous case that was here before you. MR. CHAIRMAN: There were twenty-two notices sent and we received one approval. Board Members, comments or discussion? MEMBER BRENNAN: Is that the neighbor- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) It's a Daniel J. Donahue. CHARLES PRATT: Yes. That is the neighbor directly behind us. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MEMBER FANNON: Mr. Chairman, in case 01-064, I move that we approve the variance due to the fact that this lot is on a corner, and the fact that the deck and the requested variance is backing up to Argyle Park North, and so there's no harm to
any neighbors, and so I would move that we approve it. MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and seconded to grant the variance as requested. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Your variance request has been approved. See the building department for the necessary permits. We wish you the best of luck.
CHARLES PRATT: Thank you very much. CASE NUMBER 01-066 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Next case, case number 01-066 filed by John Carroll representing Galyan's. He's requesting a sign variance to be located at 44225 Twelve Mile Road for Fountain Park. Would you please be sworn in by the secretary. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth? CHARLES SHALEEL: Yes, I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. CHARLES SHALEEL: Good evening. My name is Charlie Shaleel. I'm from North American Signs representing Mr. Carroll and, of course, Galyan's. With me this evening is Mr. John Moran. He's a representative from Galyan's. The property in question is at 44225 Twelve Mile Road. First of all, thank you for allowing
me to speak. Just a quick overview of what we're respectfully requesting. We are requesting that we be allowed to place main wall signage on the front facade of our gigantic store, if you've been by it recently. Galyan's is a sports and outdoor adventure store that originated in the midwest in 1946; however, they recently started to do locations other than in Indianapolis where they originated. They have, I think, a few in the Chicago area and now they're starting to make a presence into the Detroit and the midwest Michigan area. First of all, Galyan's is a high-dollar sports store. If you've been to one before, you understand that it's got everything from kayaking to hunting to fishing to golf shoes to racquetball. It has everything. And it only goes into markets that they know that they will survive in. Galyan's is a, like I said earlier, relatively new store concept. That's why we're asking for the identity. If I can approach the Board, I do
have drawings. MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. CHARLIE SHALEEL: In the drawings you'll see -- you'll see the concept that every one of the Galyan's -- I'd say nationwide -- but midwest-wide has incorporated -- the Galyan's sign itself is the same in every location, and that's what we're respectfully requesting here. You'll see that the building, the front lineal footage is two hundred lineal feet; therefore, just once again, redefining how big this store really is. Here's a spec sheet on the sign itself, in case you wanted to take one home, put it on the fridge. The sign in question would allow patrons traveling on the adjacent roadways the opportunity to review the sign from the road; therefore, being able to make a decision whether or not they were gonna come visit our location without actually having to leave the road. The code allows, as we all know, forty square feet for a store like this. This is a two-story building; however, there is the one main entrance in the
front, and it is surrounded on each side by other buildings. The height of the building is forty-two feet eight inches tall. The total area of the store front is 8,533.4 square feet. It's gigantic. What we are proposing is to place the single wall on the main facade, which has been -- and as you'll notice, with all the glass and with the beaming, it's been architecturally designed to have this sign encompassed into the storefront. It's not on the wall, so it doesn't have the presence of, say, a mall per se. It has the presence of a freestanding store, and that has been the plan of Galyan's all along. The proposal would be to place a two hundred six square foot sign, and the reason I have two hundred six square feet -- another drawing for you -- is this is how we measured it. And this boxes off the Galyan's and then the Haglen, which is Sports and Outdoor Adventure. The two hundred six square feet, we believe, would be the -- and that's what every other Galyan's location has. This is what we believe the store needs in order to be
identifiable. The variance -- or the signage in question would be 2.4 percent of the wall area in question, so it's -- it would match the Value City Furniture, it would match the other stores in the area, and that's what we're asking for, to be able to be identified the same way. This sign will not be detrimental to the area for the fact that it's in a very heavy commercial corridor with the Twelve Mile Road, the mall, the West Oak Shopping Center, West Oaks Two, so people know that they're in a new commercial corridor; however, Galyan's being a store of a relatively new concept, they don't have the kind of presence that Kmart or a McDonald's who can display a mere M and everybody knows what it is. So that's why we're asking for the identification, Galyan's Sports and Outdoor Adventure. I would be happy to entertain any questions you might have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I would ask the audience to participate, but there's nobody left. Building Department? DON SAVEN: No comment. Oh, yeah, I
do have a comment, I'm sorry. The square footage, 206.005 square foot. As you are well aware, our measurments, this is totally out to out, so that's why the 222 feet was advertised. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Board Members, comments or discussion? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes, I have a comment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: My first observation was it looked awfully large, and something you said towards the end got us to kind of thinking, because -- I guess you've done the calculations, and that sign size which is going to be 222 square feet represents a percentage of that wall front, similar to other signs granted. I obviously haven't been able to check your math, and I assume Building Department is not going to be able to do that as we sit, so I assume you did that homework? CHARLIE SHALEEL: Yes. MEMBER BRENNAN: It still seems overwhelming, because the building isn't done or what, but I'll listen to other parties now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, further comments or discussion? MEMBER FANNON: Was there notices? MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh. There were 19 notices sent and we received no replies. CHARLIE SHALEEL: And, Mr. Brennan, just to kind of clarify on what you said, you're absolutely right. The store, once it's finished, the color of the brick and the color of the windows with the contrast of the sign, there isn't a major contrast, and as you're driving down the road you're not going to see -- like with the big K, you're not going to see a giant red K jump off the building -- the white building with a big red K. You're going to see- MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) Big red Galyan's sign. CHARLIE SHALEEL: You're going to see the dark brown brick with the nicely subtly illuminated Galyan's sign, and it's not going to be grossly obnoxious. MEMBER BRENNAN: I don't know if you've ever been before this Board on signs before. CHARLIE SHALEEL: Yes.
MEMBER BRENNAN: And if you have, then you know what the general theme is in the city. Believe me, we've had people from General Motors and Ford that have walked in front of us and said this is the sign that we use everywhere in the country. And, by God, we've got smaller signs all over this city. So you may hear some other objections. It struck me as large. I'll leave it at that and others can have their say. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I drove by it again tonight on the way here just to be fair in the observation of it, and it's too big. I think you should have adequate signage, but I think this is over-signage. We've had other signage requests for Fountain Walk, and I think we've been really fair in looking at it. And, to me, I mean, this is just a giant sign there. And I know you need identification, you have a large building, but this, to me, is just too big. Something is going to have to be done to downsize it in some fashion. MEMBER BRENNAN: If I might, I just -- something else just struck me. As I think back
of the Value City cases, and I hate using another case as a reference, but you've done that, you've brought it up. There was some issues of Value City and those stores being in the inner part of the mall and people being in the parking lot but still being hundreds and hundreds of feet away. I don't know what your -- how far off Twelve Mile, but you're a lot closer than what Value City is, so it's not really an even- CHARLIE SHALEEL: (Interposing) Apples and oranges. MEMBER BRENNAN: And I think that's maybe why it struck me so large, because you are a lot closer to Twelve Mile, and when Twelve Mile's wider, you're going to be even closer. CHARLIE SHALEEL: But with the rate of -- and I understand what you're saying. And I've worked up Jarad's Galleria Jewelry variance before you, and so I have dealt with this and know of what you speak. But with the expansion of the roadway and the increased road speed and the increased road travel that's going to be used on that, the utilization of a sign of this size and the
proportions, that it is this very large building, and hopefully very busy commercial corridor, the sign that we're respectfully requesting, we believe, will allow the patrons to make the decision so they don't have to, say, face a treacherous turn to the right at a stoplight or they don't have to dive in or make a U-turn. They'll have the advance notification when traveling on the road to make their decision so that, hopefully, we can, of course, avoid any accidents that may occur. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, further comments or discussion? MEMBER GRAY: Well, that argument just kind of lost some support for me because if anybody's driven Twelve Mile Road, we know the traffic doesn't move quite that fast. I was struck when I looked at this case that, you know, yeah, the width is thirty feet wide of the top sign, but its only sixty inches high. Well, I'm sorry, it's five feet high. I don't know if that was some kind of a -- I don't know. I have a problem with the size of this sign. I really think that we could downsize
it to the bottom part being no more than twelve inches high and the top sign reduced proportionally. I think this is just too big. And most people in this area, if they're going to go somewhere to find a place like this, they're going to know exactly where they're going before they leave their homes. And so while the intent may also be to pull people in off the street, you're going to get that kind of traffic whether you want it or not, and I know you want it, but your name will be just as in our face with a smaller sign as it is with this one. Architecturally, I like the look of it. I just think the sign is just way too big. And, as Mr. Brennan says, we've been able to make corporations do lots of things they didn't really want to do when they came here, but if you want to be here it's going to be under our terms. So, having said that, any negotiation on size? MR. CHARIMAN: I would like to say that we're really judging this case on its own
merit, and I would rather not bring other cases into this case here because this case stands alone, and the building stands alone, the identification stands alone. But it's still too big. Board Members, comments or discussion? MEMBER BRENNAN: You've got still a couple months, two, three months before you're anywhere close to opening? What's the timetable? CHARLIE SHALEEL: It's the first week in October. MEMBER SANGHVI: First week in October. JOHN MORAN: We don't have a lot of time. CHARLIE SHALEEL: We don't have a lot of time for fabrication. MEMBER BRENNAN: You know, normally I would say well, why don't you take a break and talk about it. Maybe we can do that, and we'll take a five minute break, because there's no other cases here right now. You guys want to look? You can see
where our sentiment is. CHARLIE SHALEEL: Can we get an idea of maybe what -- even more so what you'd like to see so we can come back? MEMBER BRENNAN: Oh, I think you've got to determine that, because you're the sign builder. When we say arbitrarily four by twenty-eight, you say I can't build it. CHARLIE SHALEEL: Right. MEMBER BRENNAN: Tell us. CHARLIE SHALEEL: Okay. Then could we respect- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) What we're looking at, I think, and I'm only speaking for myself, is I'm looking at a maximum four foot high on the name and twelve inches high on the lettering on the second line. That's one person's opinion. I don't know what the other Board Members' feelings and thoughts are in that direction. MEMBER SANGHVI: How about width? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it's going to come in proportionally.
CHARLIE SHALEEL: We're not gonna -- we can't really distort the logo, so yeah, it would all be proportioned. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's got to be proportionate because they want it to have the same fit and look as what it has here. CHARLIE SHALEEL: Exactly. MEMBER SANGHVI: That sounds like a very fair assessment of the situation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you calculate out what you would need for that? CHARLIE SHALEEL: My math is great, so we can do that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don't we take a five minute break, we'll come back and we'll go on from there. CASE NUMBER 01-070 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. While we're waiting for the gentlemen to reevaluate their sign, we will jump ahead to the last case on the agenda, case number 01-070 filed by Mr. Don Saven of the City of Novi. Please swear him in.
MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear that the matter before you -- the testimony -- do you swear that the testimony you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? DON SAVEN: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Saven is requesting interpretation of section 2908, "Projections into Yards" to allow escape or rescue openings for habitable basements to be considered as an allowable projection with a maximum projection of five feet in the required side yard setback. Opening shall be limited to eight inches above ground with cover to be flush with top of opening. Mr. Saven, please. DON SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, most of you know my profession, what I do, and being part of the code administration for the State of Michigan, as well as the City of Novi, we have underwent a new code change. This is part of an international code which has a direct affect, and very many direct affects, as far as code changes that have taken
place throughout our -- throughout the world. It's been a longtime dream of just about everybody to have a universal code, and that's basically what we strived for. And one of the things that came about was, Michigan is somewhat unique because we had approximately three codes in the State of Michigan. There was the Uniform Building Code, 31 was a state Construction Code, and the other one was basically BOCA Code, and it's caused a lot of turmoil from community to community. But what stood out more so than not was an issue regarding a new code change that deals with emergency egress and rescue from a basement area. What this deals with is the requirement to have emergency -- basically, emergency escape out of the basement when there is a habitable area in the basement. So what does this mean to us? Well, basically that we have a couple issues. Number one, our homes are built so big today and so large, and there's no doubt in my mind that every basement that we have come in is habitable at one time or another.
What we're trying to do, or what we're striving to do at this time, is be prepared for the new code changes. This code change took affect July 31st of this year, which is technically in affect right now, but by going through the code we realized that there was some issues that needed to be addressed. Number one was how we would look at this as a potential for a structure. Okay. And a structure basically has attachment to the ground, is what we take a look at. And the other issue was back in 1971, '70, '71, '68, when we were building condiminiums, there were area wells which we had at that time in the basements, and they were just basically semicircles that encompassed a basement window, which was no real thought to emergency egress but it was a thought; if you had to get out, this would be a way of getting out. But they added daylight. Now we have conditions for emergency egress which is required by the Code. Then came the thought of okay, we have the large homes, we have the rear yards leading to an optional area, but sometimes you
don't have the optional area. What you do have is a side yard that you may have to deal with, and this side yard means on a minimum requirement pursuant to the zoning ordinance, you're looking at approximately ten feet, and most homes today, as you're well aware, use up every bit of that side yard setback requirement. You are at the minimum requirements. So what does this mean if we have to put a emergency egress window in and we cannot put it in the back but we need to put it on the side yard? This means that we have to project into that side yard a certain amount of feet. And in your packet you'll have -- you have a minimum requirement, and that is a three by three area. But depending on how deep that basement is going to be also reflects about how much it will project, because there is a ladder affect that needs to be installed if that basement is at a depth which requires, and a ladder affect within the area well. To be safe, in taking everything into consideration, because it's now a code, we're
looking at approximately -- we're looking at approximately five foot at the possible maximum requirement of projection. Through staff meetings with the planning department and the city engineers, there were two issues that we needed to bring up. Number one is, do we have a real planning situation here. I mean, from a standpoint of view, is there concern that we would have as far as being a structure. And the other issue was grading and drainage. We have a design and construction standard which is part of the Novi code of ordinances that says that if you construct a driveway on a side entrance drive you must maintain at least three foot for grading and drainage, to stay away from that and keep it as an undisturbed area. So you put a swell in there and you'll get a little drainage. So this is what we tried to maintain, and I did not have any negative response back from the planning consultant as well as the engineers in regard to this particular issue. This can be verified through Sarah this morning, even verifying this once again before the meeting today.
Again, it kind of seems like my hands are tied somewhat because this is a code item that's dealing with health, safety and welfare, and certainly it's an issue that we need to address, and what I'm asking the Board to do today is to think of this as they would for allowable projection with a maximum requirement of projection into a side yard of five feet for emergency egress and rescue windows. So that's where I'm at. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like input into this case? MEMBER BRENNAN: I do believe our city attorney would like to- DON SAVEN: (Interposing) Have comment also, because we had some general discussion. MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got the floor. MR. DOVRE: Thank you. When I talked with Don this morning about this issue, of course I looked at the section of the ordinance that was referenced, and it talks about projections, and I'm sure you've looked at it, and it indicates that you
can affect a certain amount of certain things, architectural features, and there are other listed items that are within the scope of that section. Window wells, which is really what we're talking about here, of course, are not listed there, and I just wanted to point out there's an alternate way that the building zoning administrator might get interpretation that would serve his purposes. Start with the proposition that what we're talking about, an encroachment or projection into otherwise required yard, whether it's front, side or rear. And yards are defined in the ordinance as open spaces unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground up. An open space definition says it's an area of land that's primarily undeveloped. If the Board felt comfortable with interpreting these emergency escape rescue opening window wells as something that wasn't considered to be an occupancy or an obstruction within the definition of yards, an interpretation to that affect would provide, I think, the level of comfort Mr. Saven is looking for pending dealing with this
by way of an ordinance amendment. As he noted, the state construction code uniform statewide just took affect within the last couple weeks, and he is not the first official that I -- we deal with that, you know, is trying to address this issue as well. And, in fact, before you go about amending the zoning ordinance, you want to make sure you see the exact language of the state construction code itself. And I think that's being distributed as we speak. So I had some alternate language, if the Board was interested in interpreting this, by way of finding that these window wells with the restrictions no more than five feet into the yard, no more than eight inches above grade with the cover flush with the top of the opening as not being the kind of occupancy or obstruction that would be considered to be a violation of the side, front or rear yard setbacks. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. DOVRE: You can try that language if you wish. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board Members,
comments or discussion? MEMBER BRENNAN: Comment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. DON SAVEN: Sir? MEMBER BRENNAN: I think we should take the recommendation of our city council -- pardon me, our city attorney and incorporate his suggested language. That would be my suggestion. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a question of Mr. Saven. Is this code then going to be that any home with a basement has to have this? DON SAVEN: Any new construction after July 31st would require to have this particular emergency egress. Now, those homes which are built prior to, what we're considering at this particular time is going before the Construction Board of Appeals to come up with an equivalency factor that would -- dealing with those homes prior to, because they didn't have this option to be able to build this window. So the -- that alternative would probably lie with the fire suppression of the total basement area; in other words, supress the basement
area as an equivalency in lieu of the window being installed. But in most instances we will definitely maintain the issue regarding the window. In habitability today, if you take a look at it, if you have light, ventilation, heat, ceiling height, you're dealing with all those issues that are there for habitability. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a sideline question, I guess for my own general information, if a person had a walkout basement would that apply? DON SAVEN: No, because they don't even have the suppres- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Because there is an egress there. DON SAVEN: Yeah, except that if there is a bedroom that is not accessible to the walkout area or the doorwall area, then that bedroom would have to meet requirement of emergency egress. MR. CHAIRMAN: I was just looking for a basic guideline that you were looking to operate from.
DON SAVEN: Yes, sir. MEMBER SANGHVI: One question. Did I understand you said this is the maximum, five yards or -- DON SAVEN: I would say maximum five into a side yard setback. MEMBER SANGHVI: Or would you rather meet the minimum five yard? DON SAVEN: No. Maximum. MEMBER GRAY: Five foot? DON SAVEN: Five foot maximum at an intrusion into the side yard setback. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. DON SAVEN: In fact, if they go farther than that, then it's coming up with the Bilco door type of arrangement, and there's steps going up, and then that means by the time we get to the top of the stairs, they're at the side yard. They're actually at the property line, and this, I don't believe, we want to have. MR. CHAIRMAN: This would only be utilized if it couldn't be -- first thought I'm looking at putting in a rear yard? DON SAVEN: Pardon?
MR. CHAIRMAN: This would be utilized only if it could not be accomodated in the rear yard location? DON SAVEN: That's correct. It would not -- technically, it would not happen every circumstance, but there is a possibility that it would happen. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board Members, further comments or discussion? MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion, if you like. MEMBER SANGHVI: I just thought maybe we can ask the city attorney to give us a guideline of the -- of this kind of thing encompassing everything and then make a motion maybe at the next meeting. MEMBER BRENNAN: I think Mr. Saven is concerned that this Uniform Building Code has already been adapted. DON SAVEN: It has. MEMBER BRENNAN: It's adopted. MR. DOVRE: Mr. Chair? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. DOVRE: I can provide you with
the verbage this evening if you wish. MEMBER SANGHVI: That would be great. MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don't you go ahead with your motion, and you have already reviewed this, correct, or you want to save this or do you want to review this at this point and have it incorporated right in this motion? MR. DOVRE: I can read the language into the record. I apologize. It's only handwritten and not typed, but I'm prepared to- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Why don't you go ahead and do that at this point and, frankly, if you agree with that just make a motion to incorporate it in the- MR. DOVRE: (Interposing) And one thing I didn't know earlier is one of the reasons we're suggesting this as an approach is that it voids the, in affect, granting variances without an actual case before you. We're not granting any variances for future cases. We're just putting interpretation on the record for the moment until the ordinance is amended. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Why don't you read that as you have it-
MR. DOVRE: (Interposing) Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: -as stated at this point. MR. DOVRE: It would be that the Zoning Board of Appeals provides the following interpretation in case number 01-070, request filed by Don Saven, City of Novi, an emergency escape and rescue opening window well for a basement with habitable space that is required by applicable construction codes is not an occupancy or obstruction in a minimum yard open space provided it does not extend more than five feet into the required yard, does not extend more than eight inches above grade, and the cover is flush with the top of the opening. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you. Mr. Chair, I would make a motion with respect to case 01-070 that the ZBA's -- that the ZBA would adopt the interpretation of the -- read into the proceedings tonight as our interpretation. MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the interpretation of the
ordinance request for intrusion into a side yard for a emergency egress from any habitable basement. Is there any further discussion on the motion? MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair? MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Gray? MEMBER GRAY: I would only ask from the standpoint of my profession, if we adopt this ordinance and -- I'm coming from the standpoint of an insurance agent. If we adopt this provision, which I agree with, do we have, as a City, any liability if somebody falls into one of these and somebody sues us? MR. DOVRE: No. MEMBER GRAY: Because it's our requirement. MR. DOVRE: The requirement stems from the state construction code. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. MR. DOVRE: And the language I gave you would only apply if one of these wells is required by the applicable construction code. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. MR. DOVRE: So we are not -- the
City is not requiring these to be built, and all it is doing is, in the interim, pending a zoning ordinance amendment, it is providing staff with some level of comfort in how they apply the ordinance. I don't see where the interpretation, if the motion before you is approved, could give rise to a cause of action against the City. MEMBER GRAY: That was my only concern. Thank you. MR. DOVRE: I mean, somebody might file it but it only costs a hundred dollars. MEMBER GRAY: Understood. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, further comments or discussion? MEMBER SANGHVI: No, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes.
SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Your variance request has been approved. If you need a permit talk to- DON SAVEN: (Interposing) See the building department. Mr. Chairman, I just happened to notice that Mr. (inaudible) is in the audience. They were here for a previously scheduled case. It will not be heard tonight because they were able to come up with a resolve to your problem. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 01-066 (Continued) MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. At this time I would like to recall case 01-066. And let's see where we're at. CHARLIE SHALEEL: After further negotiation, we'd like to respectfully amend our
application to show that the Galyan's letters themselves be reduced to forty-eight inches, which lowers the square footage of the Galyan's word itself to a hundred and six square feet; however, we would respectfully request that we be allowed to maintain the eighteen inch letter, that is, the white letter on the black background, for the fact that if you get any smaller you're going to totally lose it and it's gonna all blend together and it will just look like one white splotch. So that's where we stand. MEMBER BRENNAN: Ready for a motion? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. MEMBER BRENNAN: I make a motion with respect to case number 01-066 that the petitioner's request for this sign be accepted as amended as part of the record. MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. MR. DOVRE: Mr. Chair, it's not clear to me, and maybe I'm not a good listener, what, in affect, how much of a variance we are granting. The applicant indicated that the top part of the sign would now be a hundred and six
square feet, if I understood the- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) What he's actually doing, he's reducing the top part by a foot. MR. DOVRE: I understand that, but I also understood that if it came down in height it was going to come in in width. CHARLIE SHALEEL: Proportionally it would shrink to twenty-six feet five inches, which would, in turn, give you the one hundred six square feet. MR. DOVRE: And can you tell the Board what the dimensions of the lower portion of the sign, 18 inches by what? CHARLIE SHALEEL: Eighteen inches by -- and it's in your other drawing -- thirty-six feet, a quarter-inch. MR. DOVRE: So that would not change? CHARLIE SHALEEL: No. MR. DOVRE: At least now you have in the record what the proposal is. MEMBER BRENNAN: What was that lower portion on square footage, do you recall?
CHARLIE SHALEEL: I knew you were going to ask me that. MEMBER BRENNAN: You might as well total it up so we got it as part of the motion. You have a hundred and six on top? MR. CHAIRMAN: Seven feet. You're taking- MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) He knows what this is. CHARLIE SHALEEL: The bottom Sports and Outdoor Adventure, 54 square feet. MEMBER SANGHVI: You're going to modify it a quarter-inch all the way around. MEMBER BRENNAN: Looks like a hundred and sixty square feet total; is that right? CHARLIE SHALEEL: Right. MEMBER FANNON: Is that how we figured this out? I thought we made it a block. DON SAVEN: If you're looking at what they're presenting, it's a hundred and sixty square feet, according to their calculations. MEMBER FANNON: According to their calculations. CHARLIE SHALEEL: So the hundred and
six square feet, we calculated the one box and then the box that, of course, is separate at the bottom. MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, let's do it another way. Let me amend my motion and -- what's the new length? I heard you state that, 25- CHARLIE SHALEEL: (Interposing) The new -- the length of the Galyan's box itself? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. CHARLIE SHALEEL: It would be twenty-six feet five inches. MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Chairman, I'll amend my motion and define the exact size of the -- these boxes. Do it like that? MR. CHAIRMAN: No. MEMBER BRENNAN: You want the overall -- MR. CHAIRMAN: If we try to figure it different than the ordinance looks at it, Frank, we're on two different wave lengths. We don't know yet. Because if we look at it this way, you have five foot, you have six inches, you have eighteen inches. The way it's presented is seventeen total in height; is it correct, Mr. Saven? DON SAVEN: No, sir. The bottom box
is blocked letters, 18 inches for the letters, 24 inches -- I believe 24 inches, including the box, if I'm not mistaken. Is that correct, sir? MEMBER SANGHVI: It becomes 72 feet. CHARLIE SHALEEL: If you do it in a full box, like I believe way you folks are talking about, it would be a hundred and ninety-eight square feet. MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you. MEMBER FANNON: Where are we right now? MEMBER BRENNAN: We went from 222 to 198. MEMBER SANGHVI: That's -- MEMBER BRENNAN: Are we square on that now? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. MEMBER FANNON: Didn't make it much smaller, did it? I'm not saying it's not right. I'm just saying because they lowered it two feet by thirty feet, that's sixty feet. So how can they go from two twenty-two to one ninety-eight when two twenty-two minus sixty has got to be somewhere, I
don't know- CHARLIE SHALEEL: (Interposing) Because the width would stay the same. MEMBER SANGHVI: According to my calculation- MEMBER FANNON: (Interposing) The width? CHARLIE SHALEEL: Yeah. Right. MEMBER SANGHVI: According to my calculation, if you add the both together, it will be a hundred and six plus seventy-two. That would be one seventy-eight, not ninety-eight. JOHN MORAN: But we're not -- but we're still dealing with a singular box, a singular rectangular- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) Isn't that talking about the box only? MR. CHAIRMAN: Singular, rectangular or two? DON SAVEN: What you're looking at is a single rectangle box. This is top to bottom, out to out, okay, so that's basically how the City of Novi has been doing this for many years. Unfortunately, we don't give
consideration to the two- CHARLIE SHALEEL: (Interposing) Right. DON SAVEN: -but we know that you are diminishing it, the size. MEMBER FANNON: So we're at one ninety-eight? MR. CHAIRMAN: Somewhere around that. I -- you know, maybe going to twelve inches is too much, but leaving the bottom at eighteen and dropping the other one, I think it needs to go down proportionally, and I could live with fifteen inches, but the eighteen inches really isn't dropping much. CHARLIE SHALEEL: The reason that -- and, sir, I understand what you're saying. The reason that we're respectfully requesting that we be allowed to maintain the 18 inch is because when you have a letter that doesn't have the thickness that the, say, the G in Galyan's has, when you have a white letter with a black background, like we're talking about- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Let me ask you a question. What's the name of your store?
Is it Galyan's or is it Sports Outdoor Adventure? CHARLIE SHALEEL: Sir, if I told you what Galyan's was, unless you had been to one, would you know what it was? That's why with Sports and Outdoor Adventure they have to be synonymous, because, otherwise, people will never visit us because they'll never know what we are. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I can't buy that combination, because to me the top one is the store's name. And, of course, it won't take long before it's known in the area that it's a sports and outfitting store. And I -- you know, I just can't buy that analogy behind it. MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I made a motion real quick because I saw some movement on their part to try to get closer to where we were pushing them, and I think I made the motion based on their modifying the design to a four foot height. That's going to give us a square footage of something,
whatever that works out to be. I think I had a second to my motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have no problem with that. I'm just expressing my opinion. Is there a second -- was there a second to that motion? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, I seconded. MEMBER FANNON: Mr. Chairman, I would support it if we put in the length, so we have the proportion as it's presented tonight, so it's as presented tonight, except that the top sign will be four foot by 26.5, so that we all know exactly what happened here tonight. Bottom is staying the same and the top will go four foot high and 26-and-a-half foot wide. That's -- I would be able to vote if I knew that that was the exact measurement. MEMBER BRENNAN: It is now. It's part of the record. MEMBER FANNON: Oh, it is. Okay. I guess I won't have trouble voting yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, further comments or discussion on the motion? Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would
you call the roll, please. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance request has been approved. See the building department for necessary permits. We wish you the best of luck. CHARLIE SHALEEL: Thank you for your help. MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you very much.
CASE NUMBER 01-068 MR. CHAIRMAN: What -- case number eight. MICHAEL KAHM: Can you guys still hear it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Please step forward. We've had a kind of a hodgepodge jumping in different directions this evening. Would you please be sworn in by our secretary. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear that the testimony that you're about to give in this matter is the truth? MICHAEL KAHM: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please state your name for the record, please. MICHAEL KAHM: Michael Kahm, Sing Developing Company. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is requesting a sign variance to allow two twenty-four square foot entranceway signs to be located on either side of the main boulevard. Go forward.
MICHAEL KAHM: I'm appearing before you this evening regarding our Churchill Crossing subdivision, which is actually right across the street from City Hall here on the north side of Ten Mile Road. We have a unique situation here relative to our intersection, and that's the reason we're appearing before you this evening requesting this variance. It's been fairly common practice in the city of Novi, most developers, including ourselves, to place our entry signs, when we have boulevards, in the boulevard themselves -- itself, and place that sign perpendicular to the roadway, thoroughfare, in front of the subdivision. In this particular case, we were forced to change the configuration of our boulevard -- we're here on the north. This is the Orchard Ridge subdivision to the south -- because there was an interest on the part of the City, and also the Road Commission, to place a traffic signal at the intersection of our two boulevards, which has been approved by the Oakland County Road Commission.
We had to configure our boulevard as well as reconfigure the Orchard Ridge boulevard to allow for left turn movement so there would be no conflict. The way the boulevards would -- if they stayed at the standard boulevard width, the left turn traffic coming out of the two subdivisions would conflict with each other; therefore, we were forced to narrow the boulevards at the nose of each boulevard down in order for those two left turns to align with each other. By that I mean a car coming out of our subdivision and a car coming out of Orchard Ridge now, the way it's configured, won't conflict with each other. Unfortunately, what that has done is narrowed the boulevard down to a dimension which makes it dimensionally impossible for us to place a sign in the boulevard. There's only eight foot distance between the back of the curb, and it's not possible to get a sign in there and also have some sort of lighting in order to light the sign without the lighting being right out at the end of the curb. So, in light of the constrictions we
were forced to face with the design of the boulevards, we were asking the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider two forty-five degree signs on either side of the boulevard which would be located here and here so the traffic going eastbound or westbound could see the name of the subdivision. The way the entry would look is somewhat similar to this. The signs would be on brick monuments. The entry is proposed to look very similar to our Beckingham subdivision out on Nine Mile and Beck, if you want to get a character of the entry. So we're respectfully requesting consideration for two forty-five degree signs on either side of the boulevard due to the dimensional constraints forced upon us because of the boulevard design. That's it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Nobody in the audience. Building Department? DON SAVEN: Makes sense to me. That's about all I can say. MR. CHAIRMAN: There were ninety-nine notices sent out. We received three objections.
First one says one sign is enough. People will know there's a new sub going in. Second one is -- just had an objection. Third objection is, to the best of my knowledge no other subdivisions have two signs and I see no reason that this one should. Comments from three people. Board Members, comments or discussion? Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: One thing that really jumped out -- you're going to have to do some explaining. You got some explaining to do there. Why you can't put a sign in eight feet -- in an eight foot -- I didn't follow that at all, especially when I -- let me just finish out. If I'm not mistaken, Orchard Ridge got their sign in that boulevard. That sign, to the best of my recollection, is maybe five or six inches wide. This way -- I don't know how big it is, but it's about five or six inches wide, and that's sufficient lighting on either side of it. You've got eight feet to work with. MICHAEL KAHM: Their sign is a wood
sign. And I will admit that part of our hardship is because we want to do a very nice masonry entry monument which we place the sign on, which is fairly common on newer subs in the city. And with the dimension of the sign -- a masonry monument and then having to set the spotlights back far enough so they shine up to light the sign, the spotlights would end up literally at the back of the curb which is going to end up -- we're inviting constant damage to the -- and this goes from experience, trust me -- to those spotlights. So our interest is to avoid ongoing maintenance problems, not only for us but for future homeowners association once they inherit the subdivision from us. So, you're right, we could, but we couldn't do a design consistent with what we'd like to do for the image of the subdivision. MEMBER BRENNAN: Putting the sign on the boulevard wouldn't stop you from putting your monumental walls and the like on either side, would it? MICHAEL KAHM: No, it would not. MEMBER BRENNAN: So it's purely
cosmetic? MICHAEL KAHM: To some extent, but it -- most boulevards in the city are 12 to 15 feet, where if that was the case, if this was a standard boulevard, we wouldn't have any trouble. Because of the narrowing, we can't do that. So -- but you're right. We could do a fairly nondescript- MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) This is the last comment. You've been in front of the ZBA many, many times, and we know that our basis for a variance is granted on hardship. MICHAEL KAHM: Yes. And -- but, respectfully, I'd also note there's other subs in the city that have been granted this type of variance versus- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Well, let's stop at that point because you're looking at this case. Mr. Saven? DON SAVEN: I do have a question. Based upon the width of that island, how far back are you going to have to set that sign for visualness?
MICHAEL KAHM: Well, it's set -- the eight foot dimension is at ten foot back of the driveway, which is your ordinance requirement for a sign. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, further comments or discussion? MEMBER FANNON: Well, I lived in Orchard Ridge and now I live in a subdivision that has the signs on both sides of the main entrance, Chase Farms, at both Eight and Nine Mile Road. I personally prefer the two signs. You can find the sub, you're coming down Ten Mile Road at fifty, sixty miles an hour, even in front of the police station where you're not supposed to. It just seems that you can see the subdivision signs -- I don't know why we're -- only requires a double faced sign in an island. I don't agree with it. I think a safety issue is you should have them on both sides on a forty-five degree angle so people coming both ways, you just have plenty of time to stop and get into the sub. That's just my own personal feelings and I would support this. I think it would look a lot nicer if it's like at Orchard Ridge. They'll probably be
coming in here soon, too, by the way, when they find out their drive is narrowing. Do you know that? MICHAEL KAHM: Yeah. Well, at least the board does. MEMBER FANNON: Whether they want to pay for it. So your development will pay for it, I don't know. MICHAEL KAHM: We are paying for it. MEMBER FANNON: So I -- I mean, I have no problem with this. I think this will look really good, and I don't know if the city council should really take a look at why we don't allow subdivisions to have signs on both sides of the boulevards, because it looks pretty sharp in every city that you go into. That's my only personal feelings. That's how I feel. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, further comments or discussion? Who's going to go first? MEMBER FANNON: Well, let's see if that speech meant anything. In case number 01-068, I would grant we -- I would move that we grant the variance as requested due to the fact that it's a
highly traveled and a high speed road and that the situation of having a light at the corner -- or at this intersection will narrow the -- the boulevard, and so, therefore, these two signs on either side of the road just seem to make more sense as far as visibility to the subdivision. MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and seconded to grant the petitioner the variance as requested. Is there any further discussion by the Board? Hearing none, Madam Secretary, will you call the roll, please. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: No. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: No. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?
MEMBER REINKE: No. MEMBER BRENNAN: We haven't had this in a coon's age. MR. CHAIRMAN: We haven't done anything. We haven't approved it, we haven't denied it. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: May I add something here? In my day-to-day routine -- and I do travel a lot and I do go into various subdivisions. I understand both sides. I understand what Mr. Brennan's comments were, as well as Mr. Fannon. But for appearance sake, and for the fact that, probably not just today but for years to come, this is a sign -- these signs are going to be there for many, many years, and it's only going to add. It's not going to take away from the subdivision. We don't know the future of Ten Mile, we don't know if it's going to be widened or not, and these signs will not be a problem in the future.
With this boulevard, when you're running -- when you're looking into subdivisions, and I have to find them all the time, it's very difficult when you're driving down a main thoroughfare and you're looking for a sign on a street. Okay? And if I have a problem, and I do it all the time, I can just imagine what people coming in and out that are not familiar with the area -- and I think that this takes away from them. I know we made comments earlier about not comparing it, and this isn't really a comparison, of what was done before, but when you're coming down Ten Mile -- I'm sorry. When you're coming down Beck Road and looking at that subdivision, it's just -- it just gives a better -- you know what you're looking at right off the bat. You're not looking for a sign. Your peripheral vision, if you will, can scan while you're driving, and I just -- I think it cuts back on the hazards. MR. CHAIRMAN: What -- is there any way in that that can be sized down a little bit? MICHAEL KAHM: The signs themselves? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah.
MICHAEL KAHM: From 24 square feet- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Right. MICHAEL KAHM: -to something less? Sure, if you want to make a suggestion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm just saying is it -- if it was something a little bit smaller it doesn't stand out and look -- MICHAEL KAHM: Do you mind if I show you what the signs are going to look like? MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I have the same rendering here. I'm just wondering if that could be brought down to maybe something in the range of 20 square feet. I know it has to work proportionally for the size. MICHAEL KAHM: Yeah. That's the only thing. The proportions have to stay the same, so -- and I'm not a sign designer. But if that's an accommodation you'd like us to make, I think we can do that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Because then I -- it would give us -- what you're trying to do, yet it doesn't make it kind of stand out as much as what it looks like there. MICHAEL KAHM: Our only concern,
obviously, is the rebuilding for the various dimensions. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think something at 20 square feet would be legible, don't you believe? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes, I do. MICHAEL KAHM: We can do that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, further comments or discussion? MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair? MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Gray? MEMBER GRAY: My objection to having the two signs is when there is a stoplight at this intersection, that there's going to be -- most people give directions. It's the first stoplight beyond Novi Road, it's the whatever. I don't think that there really would be a problem or should be a problem in putting the sign of the subdivision in the island. I realize that the island has been tapered, I can see that, but I -- Orchard Ridge across the street has a single sign now. Most of the subdivisions in the city do have single signs. I don't see the hardship of having a single sign in the boulevard.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Only reason I brought the size-wise up was just as a -- to throw something out there, let's discuss- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: -and go from that point there. MEMBER GRAY: Understood. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other comments or discussion? MEMBER FANNON: I can go on the record. I support the sign ordinance of the City of Novi, but I don't agree with this one. I think the city council should take a look at this and allow subdivisions to have a forty-five degree sign on both sides of the boulevards wherever they want for sign identification, and for safety. You go down where I live on Nine Mile, you come down Eight Mile Road between Meadowbrook and Novi Road, getting into Chase Farms, if they didn't have those signs the way they were, there would be accidents every day. This is a highly traveled, when the light's green, 45, 50 mile-an-hour road, and you need to have a little bit of time.
That's why I'm going on record saying that I believe the city council should look at this. I do not agree with it. I think it looks much nicer, by the way, too, instead of when you see it on the board when you go down and see subdivisions like this in other cities, and I believe our own -- there's got to be reasons this Board or the City has made other changes in the past. MICHAEL KAHM: If you don't mind me adding, it has nothing to do with my appeal, just to follow up on that, because we deal with other cities. Rochester Hills and Canton, just an example, do not allow signs in boulevards and require the design that we're proprosing tonight. It's not an option. It's a requirement. So just food for thought if you are going to approach the council in the -- or other municipalities that have those requirements. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: However, we have to deal with what is before this Board. MICHAEL KAHM: Yes, I understand this.
MEMBER BRENNAN: I don't know if the whole council should be (inaudible) or what looks pretty. What is before us is a petition for two signs, and the petitioner has said that it's essentially cosmetic. Now, lately -- later in the case hearing we start talking about safety, and that all starts falling into the -- some categories, but we're dealing with a petition for two signs, and it's a cosmetic request. That's why I- MICHAEL KAHM: (Interposing) If you don't mind, I don't think it's totally cosmetic. I mean, you're right, that we could fit a sign in there, but the sign that would be durable -- in fact, Orchard Ridge, as a matter of fact, has approached us about replacing their sign because the wood is rotting, so they have a durability problem that we've been discussing with them about their sign because it is wood, so- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Let's stick with ours and not get into Orchard Ridge. MICHAEL KAHM: Well, I'm just trying to say it's more than just a cosmetic issue. MR. CHAIRMAN: But, I mean, if they
put two wood signs on either side, they'd deteriorate, they'd do the same thing, so it doesn't really hold a lot of merit in that respect. Board members, where we going? MEMBER BRENNAN: Where were the no votes? Any change there? MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm going to throw something up. I would move that the variance request be granted in case number 01-068 for two twenty-four square -- twenty square foot signs for subdivision identification. MEMBER FANNON: Support. MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and seconded to grant a variance request for two twenty square foot signs. Further discussion on the motion? Madam Secretary, call the roll, please. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?
MEMBER BRENNAN: No. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: No. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: You have two twenty square foot signs. MICHAEL KAHM: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Okay. We have -- okay. Case one, Great American Indoors (Starbucks). Have we received any correspondence or direction from them? SARAH MARCHIONI: I talked to the applicant about a week-and-a-half ago, and he said that somebody was going to be here with the new material. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. What -- I would like to have them notified that next week -- or next month we will act on that case. SARAH MARCHIONI: I will. MR. CHAIRMAN: Number two we're done with, three we're done with, four we took care of,
five we took care of, six we took care of, seven is tabled. SARAH MARCHIONI: September. MR. CHAIRMAN: Eight we took care of, nine was withdrawn. MEMBER BRENNAN: And ten is no show. CASE NUMBER 01-071 MR. CHAIRMAN: Ten is Hagopian, and eleven we took care of. What do we do with -- they want that for September 8th? SARAH MARCHIONI: Applicant came in needing this variance right now, so -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I mean, you know -- when's our September meeting? SARAH MARCHIONI: I believe it's September 14th. DON SAVEN: 11th. SARAH MARCHIONI: It's the 11th. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Saven? DON SAVEN: If I may make a comment on this particular case. Normally when I go through a temporary use permit, I generally deal
with these specific temporary use approval process, and that's pursuant to that section 3004 requirement. It had been pointed out in the past, and I know that we've had a problem in the past regarding this issue, especially when it deals with the Town Center, and at -- the Town Center and the Regional Center areas are areas which were not spelled out in the ordinance, but if you could take a look at the ordinance, you could see it was an OSC, B-1, B-2, B-3, I-1, I-2 District. These are the areas we take a look at for functions. And as you are well aware, before the Board, even in the Town Center area, we had them come before the Board to do a whole year's worth of functions that remained outdoors. I could not do the full year but I could do it on a temporary one time within a certain specific time. In this particular case, this was a one time also, but because it was in the RC, I didn't feel I could handle that particular issue itself. But it is a tent sale, and I don't feel that this would be too much of a problem, that
they were going to share their tent space with the Hotel Baronette, which gave them more of an area, as long as they had the approval of the Hotel Baronette. I would have gave it consideration at that time if it was before us. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. But I have a problem. If this is important to them they should be here. DON SAVEN: That's fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: If they're not here, to me, it's not important. So, you know -- and if they want to run it the 8th through 23rd we have to act on it now. With nobody here I see no other thing but to deny it. MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Chairman? This Board has denied variances when the applicant did not show up or did not give any notice to the Building Department. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, further comments or discussions? MEMBER SANGHVI: I agree wholeheartedly. DON SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, nothing
personal. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir? MR. DOVRE: If I may, Mr. Saven, your inability to approve this administratively because it's not in a zoning district that's listed in the ordinance? DON SAVEN: That is correct, sir. MR. DOVRE: And is it also because of the length of time that's requested? DON SAVEN: No, sir. It would be because of the zoning district itself. MR. DOVRE: Other than that, this is something that would not have come here? DON SAVEN: That's correct. MR. DOVRE: When did the application come in, do you know? DON SAVEN: I believe it would be- SARAH MARCHIONI: (Interposing) About a week-and-a-half ago. MEMBER BRENNAN: August 6th. MR. DOVRE: And the applicant was notified that it would be heard tonight? SARAH MARCHIONI: Yep. MEMBER GRAY: I believe we were told
that it was a emergency-type situation, that they needed this, like, ASAP and that's why it was on this agenda. MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't see how we can even discuss this case when they're talking about beginning on September 4th and we won't even have our September meeting by then. MR. CHAIRMAN: I thought it was September 8th, but same difference. MR. DOVRE: As I have only been here with you this one time, and I'm not even sure if this issue's come up in terms of a variance from the zoning restrictions for temporary uses, has this come before you before in any other case? MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, yeah. MR. DOVRE: Has it ever been approved in any other case? MR. CHAIRMAN: No, not in this situation where we have no one shows up. There have been cases that have been approved, there have been cases that have been denied, but there's never been a case approved where the applicant didn't show up.
And, to me, if it's important as what they're presenting, I'd sure have somebody here. MR. DOVRE: Those are the only questions I had. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, further comments or discussion? MEMBER SANGHVI: I think because of the applicant's non presence tonight it should be tabled. MR. CHAIRMAN: Why table it? He wants it to start the 8th of September. MEMBER SANGHVI: That's true. SARAH MARCHIONI: I believe (inaudible) in the erecting they need a couple days and the actual sale wasn't going to start until -- MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm just going off the dates on the sheet here. MEMBER BRENNAN: The actual sale is Saturday the 8th through Sunday the 23rd. SARAH MARCHIONI: (Inaudible) They want to put the tent up on the 4th. MEMBER BRENNAN: They should have been here. MR. DOVRE: If the Board is
considering denial versus tabling, we recommend tabling and prefer not to get into the reasons why. They're alluded to in the letter that you received as part of the application. I don't see any jeopardy or harm of the City's position by simply tabling it so the applicant can be present. MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Given the City attorney's recommendation, I think we should take his advice on case 01-071 that we table this case. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded to table case 01-071. I'll go along with the majority, whatever you want to do on this, but I still feel that if it's important, they can't be here and need it for the time frame they're talking about -- I'm ready to act on it, and not favorably. Board Members, further comments or discussion? MEMBER SANGHVI: No, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please.
SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: No. SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. The case is tabled to our next meeting. Other matters. One thing I have, the upcoming conference in October. Sarah, do you have a list of names for that yet, or any application for that? SARAH MARCHIONI: I can run upstairs and grab it for you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just that the ones that are requesting to go, just make sure you had all the names. SARAH MARCHIONI: No, nobody's
contacted me. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. I'm assuming everybody's aware of this conference. SARAH MARCHIONI: It's October 24th through the 27th up on Mackinac Island. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the -- I don't know what the official name is. I'm combining the two of them now, but it's a very good training conference, and I highly recommend anybody that can go to go to it. I've been to a quite a few of them, but -- Mr. Sanghvi went last year I know, and that's -- there's a lot of good information and a lot of interfacing with other communities and what they're doing and what they're running into. Anyway, I will plan on going. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I would be interested. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: I would love to be able to go, but I'm a single parent with a teenage daughter who's a senior in high school, and- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Takes priority. MEMBER GRAY: And I have to be a mom.
I'm sorry. Maybe next year. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: If you get to a point of when you have to send it in, touch base with Mr. Bauer. And I don't know about Mr Fannon, if you would -- MEMBER FANNON: I don't know yet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Keep Sarah posted. MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm a firm no. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other matters to come before the Board this meeting? MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to give a very high commendation to our stenographer who, I think, has done -- did a wonderful job with the minutes last month, and I'm presuming will do so again this month. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. Other issues and matters? Hearing none, I think it's time to adjourn the meeting. (The meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m.) - - -
Approved: September 18, 2001 __________________________
C E R T I F I C A T E I, Cheryl L. James, do hereby certify that I have recorded stenographically the proceedings had and testimony taken in the above-entitled matter at the time and place hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify that the foregoing transcript, consisting of one hundred three (103) Typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript to the best of my abilities.
________________________________ Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786 ____________ Date
|