| 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 of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, May 7, 2002. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: MR. CHAIRMAN: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Let's call this meeting to order, please. Madam Secretary, will you read the roll call. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan I have absent excused. Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi I have as absent excused. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We do have a quorum. The meeting is now in session. A full board consists of six members. Since there's only five members here and -- four votes are needed for an approval. Any
petitioner that wishes to put their case off for a full board has that option. You could give that some consideration and want to come back next month when we, potentially, have a full board, we'll give you that option right now. Anybody that wants to put off? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: We had some late arrivals. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a short board tonight, meaning there are five members here, not six, we need four votes, four yays for an approval. If you wish to have your case delayed for a month, you should indicate that now, otherwise we will proceed. (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll point out that there are rules of conduct. These are on the front page of tonight's minutes. MEMBER GRAY: Agenda. MR. CHAIRMAN: Please review them and adhere to them. It takes a vote of at least four members to approve a variance request, and a vote
of the majority of the members present to deny. With respect to the agenda, are there any changes, modifications? MS. MARCHIONI: No. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, at a previous meeting we had an issue that we were dealing with with regards to 2105 West Lake Drive, Mr. Kuhn. He was -- he was requested to go back and see what he could do with his property. I had the opportunity to meet with him after, and- MR. COON: (Interposing) We can delay this if you'd like. MR. SAVEN: -the next -- following morning in regards to his property. What took place was that he was not favorable of moving any of the buildings, he did not feel that it was necessary, but he did come up with an additional footage which was -- that he found by the measurements on his property. It was requested that he resubmit, but apparently that message was not conveyed that well to him. He was slated to come back before the board because it was tabled at that time. Based on the fact that there was miscommunications here, I'll request he be tabled
to the next following meeting, to June. MR. COON: That's acceptable with me. MR. SAVEN: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Talk to Sarah. Give her a call tomorrow and (inaudible). MR. SAVEN: And get your phone number and we'll be able to get in contact with you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other changes to the agenda? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, I move for approval as submitted. All those in favor say aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Minutes. We have the minutes of March and April 2002. Any changes to those minutes? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, move for submittal -- approval as submitted. All those in favor, say aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Public remarks. This is a public remarks portion of the meeting. Any
comments related to a case on the agenda should be held until that case is called; however, if anyone wishes to address the board to a matter or a case not on the agenda tonight, please come forward. Any hands? Nobody? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we will call our first case. I will -- I'll point out that we've got a heavy agenda, so let's try to keep to the facts and move along. All right? CASE NUMBER 02-011 MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll call Case 02-011, filed by Joe Nutting, 621 South Lake Drive. This is for construction up on South Lake Drive. This is a -- you're a comeback, correct? UNIDENTIFIED: Yes, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you're both still under oath, okay? UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got the floor.
Go ahead. UNIDENTIFIED: Hello again. On our second efforts, the house design, we have drastically changed the design of the house; however, still, the lot being -- not conforming with the requirements of the City as a buildable lot requires a rear end variance, and in this case the rear variance we're going for is six foot six-and-a-half, and we have maintained all the other required setbacks as opposed to the previous design, if you remember, and with that we are open to your questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Good, thank you. There were -- originally there were four approvals. We've got another four approvals, so a total of eight. Anyone in the audience wish to address the Board on this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I had a conversation with Mr. Nutting earlier based on the fact that he had done everything possible to try to reduce the amount of variances that was requested
by this Board. He will be required to go to the Construction Board of Appeals for a side entrance driveway variance based on the fact that on a side entrance garage you have to maintain twenty-five foot to a property line, which is twenty-two foot yard surface and three foot of graded area. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else, Don? MR. SAVEN: That's it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? Sarah? MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Nutting has done an excellent job. He came in before us previously requesting five variances. He got things down to one, and I think he's done an excellent job. I can support the petitioner's request. MEMBER BAUER: I have no problems. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. Can you show me where your side entrance -- is this this jog to the garage? UNIDENTIFIED: Yes, it is. MEMBER GRAY: Will you be backing out onto South Lake or will you have a turnaround in front of your house so you can pull out?
UNIDENTIFIED: I plan on having a slab continue along the side of the house so that way I can back into that way, too. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. Fifteen feet isn't going to give you a whole -- room to do like a T turnaround. UNIDENTIFIED: Right. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. Thank you for doing what we asked you to do. And, if it's in order, I'd like to make a motion- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Please. MEMBER GRAY: -to approve the variance requested based on the setback for the rear -- in Case Number 02-011, move to approve variance as requested due to lot size and configuration and practical difficulty. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and support. Any discussion? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that we qualify this also by the fact that he is going to remove the garage in the rear. UNIDENTIFIED: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So noted. Any other discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, would you please call the vote. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Good job. You've got your variance request. See the Building Department. UNIDENTIFIED: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 02-019 MR. CHAIRMAN: Case 02-019, filed by Carl Engling. This is regarding property at 1389 East Lake Drive.
Sir, you're back before us again, correct? MR. ENGLING: Yep. MR. CHAIRMAN: You're under oath as well. MR. ENGLING: I had to back out the last time last minute. MEMBER GRAY: He was never sworn. MR. CHAIRMAN: Was not. Jerry -- Mr. Bauer. You want to raise your hand and give us your name, we'll swear you in anyway. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 02-019? MR. ENGLING: I do. MR. BAUER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you state your name for the record, please. MR. ENGLING: Carl Engling. MEMBER BAUER: Please go ahead. MR. ENGLING: Okay. Well, I'm here before you -- I want to put an addition on my house, my second floor, but the reason why I'm here is because I can't just put a second floor on there. I have to put a new foundation, and if I'm
going that far I might as well knock the house down. So I'm coming before you to try to get some side setbacks and front setbacks. In front of you they have -- they show the existing proposed and an overlap of the existing and proposed, and as you can see, I'm kind of actually moving the property line in a little bit from what's existing on, let's see, the north side and actually moving a little bit in on the south side, too, and I'm removing the front porch, moving away from the street, so actually I think I'm improving the lot a little bit. That's it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Good, thank you. There were 30 notices sent out. We did have a previous approval back when this was before us previous. Anyone in the audience wish to address the Board regarding this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department wish to comment? MR. SAVEN: Only for the fact that you take a look at the existing structure, he's not
going beyond that footprint of the existing structure. He's maintaining everything within that setback as was previously approved. MR. ENGLING: And moving about six-and-a-half feet away from the front street. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? Sarah, sorry. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair, I've been aware of this house for quite a while, and I know that what Carl is proposing is going to be an improvement. Like he said, he is decreasing the encroachment to the front, which is something we love to see, and actually decreasing, not a lot, but decreasing the footprint, and I think this is a real good plan and I think it's a big use of the property. It's a 42-foot lot, and he's coming in a little bit, so I don't see any reason why we shouldn't approve this. Thank you. MEMBER FANNON: Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-011, I would move that we grant the variances as requested due to the fact that they're minimal as compared to the previous variance and will improve the property.
MEMBER GRAY: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that motion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: If not, go ahead, Sarah, call. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: See the Building Department for a building permit. MR. ENGLING: Okay. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 02-024 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next we will call Case 02-024. This is also a callback, Dinser's.
This is all three parties that were here last month? MS. BILETI-SKINNER: Actually, no. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Why don't- MS. BILETI-SKINNER: (Interposing) This is Terry Burns that owns Acme Architectural Signs. I'm Theresa Bileti-Skinner that is the manager of Acme Architectural. MR. CHAIRMAN: And that's Dinser in the middle I believe. MS. BILETI-SKINNER: And this is the Dinser that we brought along before. MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don't you all raise your hands and we'll do it again. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 02-024? THE GROUP: Yes, we do. MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. Please, go ahead. MS. BILETI-SKINNER: Okay. We have just proposed that we would like to put a sign up on Wixom Road. The last time we met we had asked permission to put it across -- east of Wixom Road
north of Ten Mile, a particular sign. There was a discrepancy because of the fact that Sarah over at the City had misunderstood what we had proposed, and so did our neighbors around us because of that. We have a sign out in Ten Mile -- Dinser's has a sign out on Ten Mile. We would like to keep that sign remaining. We want to put an additional sign up on Wixom Road, approximately a thousand feet back from Ten Mile, north of Ten Mile, and exactly 39 feet from centerline from Wixom Road. The sign just currently went in because we got a little behind because of Miss Dig. We wanted to make sure that it was a proper position and everything to put the sign, and we were able to put it in. And I'm not sure that all of you have seen it, but this is the particular sign we would like to propose to put up. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were eighteen notices sent. There were two approvals, plus we had one previously. Anyone in the audience wish to comment with respect to the Dinser case?
(No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands, Building Department? MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board members? MEMBER FANNON: Why do you need this sign? MS. BILETI-SKINNER: To be very particular, just for an example, we had five -- this gentleman had five customers on Sunday come to him and say we never even knew you were east -- I mean east of Ten Mile, and they were north of them. And we just need them to be visualized because of the fact that Wixom Road used to be Dinser's main drive, and they are so accustomed to it, that they thought they weren't around anymore. So we would like them to know that they're still here, after how many years? MR. DINSER: Thirty-two. MS. BILETI-SKINNER: Thirty-two years. And -- and it's a family-owned business, and a lot of people everywhere knows Dinser's, and I'm -- I don't know how many people
get flowers. MR. CHAIRMAN: What's the height of the sign on Dinser Boulevard? MS. BILETI-SKINNER: Presently? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. MS. BILETI-SKINNER: Presently it is eight foot in the air, and it is proposed to be seven foot. I'm not going to lie to you. There is a lot of stone out there. And I was out on the job site because of the situation. If it is approved, we will be more than happy to put it seven feet, but there is just a tremendous amount of rock, and it is eight feet in the air, and I'm not sure if the Board has seen it. Since we're at the Board of Appeals, would you approve eight feet? The only thing I'm asking is -- you tell me eight feet, seven feet, that's fine, but I will have to be out back on location to cement it in because it is a temporary sign. We have only put it in with the earth that we took it out in. MR. CHAIRMAN: We can only consider what has been posted- MS. BILETI-SKINNER: (Interposing)
Proposed. MR. CHAIRMAN: And sent out- MS. BILETI-SKINNER: (Interposing) Which is fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: -and sent out to all the neighbors and such. MS. BILETI-SKINNER: So seven feet in the air will be fine with us, but just I need to point out that because it was temporary- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) That's fine. You did what we asked you to do. Any other questions, comments of the Board? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to clarify, and Mr. Fannon did it but I'll just reiterate it for those that are watching, what was Dinser used to be Wixom Road for many, many, many years, and the City straightened Wixom Road and renamed Wixom Road and renamed Dinser, has caused some of your problem. Board members? Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Schultz, is this in any way encroaching in the right-of-way for the
new Wixom Road? MR. SCHULTZ: I don't believe the proposal is to intrude into the right-of-way. If so, obviously they would need a permit (inaudible). MEMBER GRAY: Do we know what the right-of-way is on Wixom Road, that stretch just north of Ten Mile there, because if- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) I think they're outside of the right-of-way, because I think 66 feet, if I'm not mistaken. I'm seeing the nod in the back from the City engineer, so it's -- half of it's 33; so, therefore, if they're asking for 39 they'll be outside. They cannot project out into the right-of-way. MEMBER GRAY: Do you have -- do you own that property or do you have- MS. BILETI-SKINNER: (Interposing) Dinser's owns that complete property. MEMBER GRAY: I saw the sign. It's a great sign, and- MS. BILETI-SKINNER: (Interposing) Thank you. MEMBER GRAY: I was very pleased with
seeing it. And when I went across Ten Mile somebody was putting the letters up on the sign to remind everybody that Mother's Day is Sunday. MS. BILETI-SKINNER: We can't forget them. MEMBER GRAY: So I thought it was -- it's a nice sign, it's a good directional, and because of the fact that we, as a City -- I don't want to say it's a City-imposed hardship, but I think it's good that -- you need to advertise your presence. I mean, the greenhouses do kind of give it away, but -- MS. BILETI-SKINNER: But come in about a month, you'll see a lot of forestry there. MEMBER GRAY: Yep. MS. BILETI-SKINNER: But we also want to add that we wanted to kind of -- if you do approve the sign, that we would like to put some kind of landscaping around it, again, because they do own that, they do own the property, and they would like to enhance it. But I also want to just note that that sign there is the original Dinser sign and it's just been rejuvinated, and for you guys
letting us put that up, it's turned into quite a nice thing. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions, comments, motions? MEMBER FANNON: Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-024, I would move that we approve the variance as requested due to the fact that the road has been changed and the business needs proper identification. MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?
MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Good, congratulations. See the Building Department for your permits. MS. BILETI-SKINNER: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. CASE NUMBER 02-025 MR. CHAIRMAN: 02-025. This is Carrabbas Italian Grill. If you'll give us your names and raise your right hand, Mr. Bauer will swear you in. MR. SUTSCHEK: I'm Joe Sutschek, vice president of development for Ramco-Gershenson, Incorporated. MR. WYBO (ph): Mark Wybo, a partner for Carrabbas Italian Grill. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear in Case 02-025 to tell the truth -- or affirm that you will tell the truth regarding this case? THE GROUP: We do. MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the floor. MR. SUTSCHEK: We are -- Mark and I
are aware of the lengthy agenda. We will try to go through our presentation very quickly. We know there's a long history with the shopping center, which we think there are some points which are germane to our request. But to start out with, the request tonight -- Mark, I think we need to push that over that way so they can see this end of the board. This is a request to continue the revitalization/upgrading program that we started at West Oaks One approximately five years ago. With the demolition -- we'd like to demolish the existing Pizza Hut Restaurant, which is the pink block on the existing site plan over there. We'd like to replace that restaurant with a brand-new Carrabbas Italian Grill, at virtually the same location. This would be the third phase of a multi-phase program to continuously upgrade the shopping center. If you remember, phase one started with replacement of the Kro -- grocery store with Circuit City. The second phase was the elimination of the small retail shops between
Service Merchandise and the existing Kmart building with Office Max, the Garner Shoe Warehouse and Half-Off Cards, which is still a card shop but just under a different name. This would be the third phase of that ongoing upgrading program. The replacement of Pizza Hut does a number of things, makes a number of improvements to the site. As you can see, the -- as I mentioned, the existing Pizza Hut is a very limited pizza restaurant. It will be replaced with a more full-line menu, family sit-down Italian restaurant as opposed to a limited menu pizza restaurant. The revised site plan makes a number of improvements to the overall circulation on the site. If you notice on the existing site plan, the entrance that comes into the development off of Sheraton Drive, there are parking spaces backing out into that main drive off of both sides of the drive. On the revised plan with Carrabbas, we install a landscaped eyebrow or boulevard on the south side of that driveway, thereby eliminating
one complete row of parking spaces backing out into that entry drive off of Sheraton Drive. Not only does it improve the overall circulation, but it also adds additional landscaping to the site, which isn't there at the current time. The plan that you're going to see now, this plan over here, the areas that are shaded in yellow, those areas are currently landscaped today. The areas that are green, that's new landscape over and above what's there now. That's blacktopping, which gets removed, replaced with landscaping. That represents a 47 percent increase in the amount of landscaping that is within that same defined area. And I think you'll certainly agree by looking at this rendering of the building -- this is what it's going to look like -- we certainly believe that Carrabbas Italian Family Grill brings a much more aesthetically pleasing building to the shopping center than does the existing Pizza Hut restaurant in its present form. We're pleased to be here tonight. After coming from the Planning Commission on April 3rd, we come to you with a recommendation of
approval of the site plan from the Planning Commission to the city council, subject of course to the waivers being granted by your body. Operating and maintaining a shopping center is just like maintaining any piece of real estate, including your home. If you don't constantly do periodic reinvestment you lose the value of the asset. And, obviously, that's the same with commercial real estate, including shopping centers. With changing market conditions, changing habits of shoppers, changing demographics, changing market conditions, you need to be able to constantly reinvest and upgrade your asset. I think we're all painfully aware of what could happen if you don't. Witness what happened to Montgomery Wards, to Crowley's and Kmart, of all corporations here in our hometown. That's what can happen if you don't continuously maintain your asset and reinvest them and keep up with modern technology and current market demand. This reinvestment sometimes requires that the existing footprints are outdated, they no longer work for the state of the art commercial
retailers and, unfortunately, the older a center becomes the more likely that is to happen. West Oaks One was originally built in 1981, so it's in excess of 20 years old at the present time. Often, when you get into a reinvestment program, renovation program, upgrading program, you cannot do it and meet all the regulations of the current zoning ordinances and building codes. Obviously, construction codes, zoning boards has changed as time goes on. While the major site features of a shopping center remain fixed, the buildings are virtually fixed and placed, and the overall circulation patterns are fixed. There's only so much you can do with that and maintain the integrity of the shopping center and honor the lease obligations you have with your existing tenants. Also what happens is that surrounding properties get developed. There is no longer vacant land available where you can actually expand the site to accommodate any expansions. Obviously, that's what's happened with West Oaks One. It's
completely surrounded by public rights-of-way, West Oaks Drive, Donelson Drive, Sheraton Drive, and, of course, the existing restaurants and hotel developments that's immediately to the south. The concept here is that sometimes you need to request waivers from the strict application of the zoning ordinance, waivers that, however, are in compliance with the intent, purpose and spirit of the zoning ordinance and, as such, is the reason for the request tonight. We have requested four setback waivers and a parking waiver. As I mentioned, West Oaks One was built in 1981. Even though the entire shopping center is owned by in Ramco-Gershenson, including the Pizza Hut site, the Pizza Hut site, from day one, was on a separate ground lease even though it was owned by Ramco-Gershenson. Technically, that means that the setbacks have to be measured from the ground lease limits as opposed to the perimeter of the entire shopping center. The state law dealing with subdivision regulations treats a ground lease the
same as a property sale, so you're obligated to have a separate parcel of land on a ground lease even though you still own it in common but it's a ground lease, and you're required to have a separate tax parcel and a separate property line. When the existing Pizza Hut was developed, obviously it was developed as part of the shopping center. Its access is from internal circulation roads, not from any of the surrounding public roads. There is no direct access to the Pizza Hut site from Sheraton Drive, a public right-of-way. Its access is from the internal circulation roads within the shopping center. Its parking spaces are shared in common with all the other tenants in the shopping center, as is typical with any shopping center. And I believe in the application I've submitted a copy of cost (inaudible) that guarantee that that's the way that the shopping center works. So even though the existing Pizza Hut restaurant does -- this is the wrong plan I think, Mark. No, it's not. I'm sorry, I stand corrected.
The existing Pizza Hut restaurant doesn't meet any of the 100 foot setback requirements measured from the ground lease property line, which is the black line. It does exceed the requirements if you measure it from the real property line boundaries, which is the perimeter of the shopping center, because it's part of the shopping center. It's 300 and some feet from West Oaks Drive, it's a hundred and some feet from the south boundary line. It's hundreds of feet from Donelson Drive, which is the boundary of the shopping center way over to the east. The only setback that it does not meet is the setback off of Sheraton, which currently is at 75 feet, and that's the way it was built in 1981. What we've done to minimize that is we've actually enlarged the perimeter of the ground lease limits by approximately a quarter of an acre. We've extended the limits of the ground lease to this point, and also to this point, which on this plan corresponds to here and here, so we've attempted to enlarge the site as large as we could and still comply with the restrictions we had in the existing leases with the existing tenants.
The setback to the new ground lease line from West Oaks Drive still exceeds the ordinance requirements. It meets the ordinance requirements to the south. Obviously, it far exceeds the ordinance requirements over to Donelson Drive. It still does not meet the ordinance requirement setback off of Sheraton, but it increases that setback from 75 feet to 93 feet, so we've actually added 18 feet of additional setback from Sheraton, which is really the key setback because that's the frontage street. In addition, the buffer strip which is located along Sheraton today is only sixteen feet deep at the narrowest point, which is four feet shy of minimum. The Carrabbas plan extends that at the narrowest point to twenty feet, so we've actually gotten rid of that setback nonconformancy and have made that comply with the current workings. Then the last waiver which we are asking for is a waiver of 46 parking spaces. The Carrabbas restaurant is approximately 3,000 square feet larger than the Pizza Hut building. It's about 1.4 percent more of gross leasable area than
the entire shopping center. It does require a waiver of 46 feet -- of 46 parking spaces. We have removed some of the parking spaces to increase the landscaping on the site and to improve the circulation, especially at the main entrance with this landscaped arm. Over the years, a number of professional traffic consulting agencies have studied parking requirements in conjunction with all kinds of shopping centers. We ourselves have done a number of parking counts at the center. For example, in 1987 the International Transportation Engineering Society did a parking study of shopping centers all over the country. Their conclusion of the study was that shopping centers with gross leasable area between 25,000 square feet and 400,000 square feet, a parking ratio of four per thousand is more than adequate. If you translate that to West Oaks Shopping Center, we would need a little bit less than a thousand parking spaces to meet that requirement. The revised plan, including Carrabbas, would have eleven hundred forty-six
parking spaces, considerably more than what that study would recommend. In 1989, the Barton Ashton, which used to be the City's traffic consultant, updated a traffic study that was done way back in 1965 in conjunction with Urban Land Institute. They came to the exact same conclusion, that a parking ratio of four per thousand for shopping centers between 25,000 square feet and 400,000 square feet is more than adequate. These results were published in a 1977 edition of Urban Land, which you also have in material that was submitted. And, lastly, 1980, a joint study was done by the International Conference of Shopping Centers and the Urban Land Institute. Conclusion was exactly the same, four per thousand consistently is more than adequate to satisfy the demand. We did counts ourselves in this shopping center back in 19 -- about 1995. We conducted parking counts on the entire shopping center from November 26 to December 8th, obviously peak holiday shopping season. We took counts at five o'clock at night and eight o'clock at night,
the peak time, peak season. At that time there were eleven hundred thirty-four parking spaces on the site. At no time -- at no time was the site ever parked more than forty percent of capacity. That's less than half. Peak holiday shopping season. This past July we took parking counts through the entire month, and we also took parking counts between December 15th and December 26th, again, peak holiday shopping season, and we took the counts in two pieces. We counted the spaces from basically Circuit City over, and then we took counts on the rest of the shopping center. We wanted to see what was happening in the area of the proposed new Carrabbas Restaurant. At no time -- at no time was the eastern portion of the center, the center that, for all practical purposes, serves Circuit and the Carrabbas site, was ever parked more than 67 percent of capacity. The balance of the site was never parked more than 49 percent of capacity, so it comes to an average of about 54 percent. So -- I think -- I get the hint. Thank you. So I think we have -- I think the
documentation to support all the variances we've asked for, we think they are totally consistent with the spirit and intent of the City's zoning ordinance, and that simply really maintains the existing restaurant, same location, improves the circulation but brings a upgraded restaurant to the shopping center with all the benefits that come along with it. Mark, I guess we've been told to sit down, so I think we better sit down. Thank you very, very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, now you'll get to hear what we think. Let me reiterate. Please, take a look at this. We want to get out of here before two o'clock in the morning. There were six notices sent. You do have an objection, and it's from a neighbor, Too Chez. They have a concern that this is an overbuild, they are concerned that the restaurant is too large for the piece of property. They are also concerned over parking. They are concerned that excess parking will spill over into their facility, and they're also concerned about what
will happen when a new major retailer takes over the Kmart space. So that's your neighbor's objections. Anybody in the audience wish to make comment on this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands waving, Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Basically, what Joe indicated, it's -- how they were looking at -- how they were looking at the setback requirements, which is very important. We're talking about the ground area for leasable area as to how this was looked at when the shopping plaza was originally built versus what they're looking for as a leasable area now. They did increase that leasable area to allow for more setbacks in the area. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else? MR. SAVEN: No, that's it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, questions or comments for the petitioner? MEMBER REINKE: I think the petitioner has done a very good presentation. My only question is in the increase in size -- is the
increase in size of this, in the layout, landscaping and the direction of traffic flow, I think it's a great improvement from what was there where cars could back out into traffic flow, and that was not a good situation at all. So I guess the only question I have is the size of the building, and I'll pass to other members at this point. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other members? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll just comment that I think it's a very nice change of scenery, looks like a very attractive restaurant. It's a type of restaurant that should draw well, do well. I like the idea that we're going to see some greenery around there, as that current building looks like a big old box sitting there. So essentially have my support. MEMBER BAUER: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Jerry. MEMBER BAUER: I want to commend you on a very good presentation. MR. CHAIRMAN: A little long. MEMBER BAUER: I have no problem with
your case. MEMBER FANNON: Is that in the form of a motion? MEMBER BAUER: In Case Number 02-025, I suggest that we grant the variance for the north setback, south setback, east and west as presented, and also for the number of parking spaces proposed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Second the motion? MEMBER FANNON: Support. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, reason? MEMBER BAUER: Due to the unique situation as far as the actual lot is concerned. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and support. Any discussion on that motion? Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: I'm going to support this, but I'll be -- I'll be -- I'm also concerned with the proximity to Too Chez when I was driving around there the other day, so I'll be watching not to have your clients encroaching on Too Chez. They do have a business to protect as well. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: And Too Chez is protected if there are issues, are they not?
Can they go to the Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Why not. I think we're going to try to handle the situation. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, just a note to go along with that also. I think in the parking study counts that they've supplied us with, it really shouldn't be a problem, and we hope that it doesn't -- that there's adequate parking there to cover all the businesses that are served. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion? MEMBER FANNON: I figure they can both only hope that every parking spot is full. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, you may want to also acknowledge the fact that the hours of operation may be a little different from those within the center itself for evening operations; is that correct? MR. WYBO: This is a dinner only operation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any other discussions? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, you want to
call, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. NR, SUTSCHEK: Thank you very much for your patience. MR. CHAIRMAN: See the Building Department for your permits. CASE NUMBER 02-026 MR. CHAIRMAN: Case 02-026, Jaguar of Novi. They're back. Give us your name and raise your hand. MR. STOEPKER: My name is Timothy Stoepker. MEMBER REINKE: Attorney.
MR. STOEPKER: My address is 500 Woodward Avenue, suite 4000, Detroit, Michigan 48226. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. MEMBER BAUER: You don't need to swear. MR. STOEPKER: There -- the application before you consists of two signs, one of which you previously dealt with, and basically what we're asking to do with the one sign is to relocate. What we're asking in reference to the other one is create an interior directional sign equal in size to the other directional signs that were previously approved. When we were here before, the sign that was approved that said Jaguar, I believe Jaguar of Novi, was to be located right where my finger was. After we got that approved and after the mockup was there, we realized that no one could see that sign location coming down Haggerty because of the invert of the property at this location, and because of the dome. It's the exact same size, it's not any different. And what we're asking to do is relocate it to the north elevation of the
building. I previously talked with the Building Department about putting it on this elevation here, but, you know, that's a wavy sandstone look, and we didn't feel it would be appropriate, nor was it designed for that. In fact, the sign has already been made up, and instead of being located here on an elevation which is slightly smaller than what's the rear elevation, we're relocating the sign to this elevation. The mockup that you saw out there is the same mockup you saw before. It's actually lower than what we submitted. We want it higher as in the drawings to you for that location. That's the one request. We're not asking to make it any bigger, not anymore signs, just relocate it to that location. The other side -- the other sign is a directional sign. And, again, the directional signs that we're proposing is for this location. That sign is permitted as a matter of right. What we're asking for is a four foot variance in size there. The sign that you actually saw on the
site, unfortunately, was located here. It needs -- the visual sign. It's needs to be here. In fact, by not being here, the other day, even I'm really familiar with the site, I actually drove in right past here and parked in the medical office building parking lot. And the purpose is to make sure that you know that you turn here and you don't go over here to park, that you turn in the inside. That -- the actual sign is this one right here. This says reception and service. It's item D on the sign. It is the exact same size, exact same height as the other directional signs that were approved. What amazes me is I come in here, I'm asking for a four foot variance, but the text on the sign, if you'll look, is probably only three feet, and all the signs are that way, and the background is actually white and you have the two arrows and just the text. We want to make sure that when the customers come into the site they don't go to the medical office building, that they take a right-hand turn, that they can read the sign well in advance.
And I actually drove by, because it was misplaced, and parked at the medical office building and cut across the new landscape to the back side. That's what we're asking for. And the practical difficulty is, that we established on the prior one, it's very difficult to read those directional signs at the size indicated in the ordinance, and we're just asking for the exact same consistency with other directional signs on the site. And the first variance is one that's been previously granted. We're just asking to relocate to the north elevation of the store. That's the shortest I've ever been before this body, ever. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. There were 11 notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience care to comment? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands, Building Department? MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: No?
MEMBER REINKE: Is this one that you told us that you built the -- specifically designed the building for that sign? MR. STOEPKER: This was the one where the -- it was actually -- the glass behind it was -- the sign was prebuilt for that flat area and then the glass block should be predrilled, and after -- after the mockup went on, we realized you couldn't see the sign. I mean, you could see it if you were standing right out in front, but it's completely blocked. You can't see it from Haggerty at all. And so the sign was fabricated for a flat location, in fact glass, and so was not -- even though I talked to Mr. Saven about moving it to the other sandstone area, we felt it would stick out too far and was not designed for that wavy wall, so we're actually taking it and moving it to the north elevation so you can get the Haggerty signage visibility, which was the intent of the sign to begin with. Unfortunately, you know, I was just a lawyer, not the sign designer or the location picker so -- MEMBER BAUER: It's called
competition. MR. STOEPKER: But the whole purpose of that sign was to give us exposure on Haggerty, and, obviously, it was -- that was the intent, and obviously you can't see it there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Brennan, I went around this site three or four times on Sunday, and every way I looked at it it makes much more sense to have it this way. I was sitting just kind of looking to see how people were reacting to the sign. A couple of people came in and asked me if they could look at the cars. You have a lot of people there looking at the cars on Sunday. MR. STOEPKER: It's been tremendous. MEMBER GRAY: When are you going to open? MR. STOEPKER: Well, it is -- UNIDENTIFIED: Well, it's open. We opened a few days ago. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. MR. STOEPKER: But it's not done, as you can see.
MEMBER GRAY: Yeah. I think it makes more sense to have the sign that we previously approved on the east facade on the north facade, because even though the leapers are there, you still want a little bit of a name recognition before you get right there. I was real pleased to see that we weren't coming back for another leaper. And I beat up on you pretty bad the last time. But I'd like to make -- I'd like to move to approve this if it's -- nobody else has any objections. In Case Number 02-026, I move to approve the variance requested by moving the previously approved sign to the north facade and to erect the new directional sign where proposed. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? MEMBER FANNON: Reason? MR. CHAIRMAN: Reason? MEMBER REINKE: Proper identification. MEMBER GRAY: Yeah, proper
identification and direction. MR. CHAIRMAN: So noted. Any comment? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. STOEPKER: The planning commissioners do want to know where the leaper is. MR. CHAIRMAN: See the Building Department for your permits. MR. STOEPKER: Thank you very much. CASE NUMBER 02-027 MR. CHAIRMAN: 02-027, Mr. Tanielian. This gentleman is from
1280 East Lake Drive. He's got some variance requests for new construction. Gentlemen, you both want to give us your names and right your right hand and be sworn by Mr. Bauer. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 02-027? THE GROUP: Yes. MEMBER BAUER: Would you state your name, please. MR. TANIELIAN: Richard Tanielian, 1330 Rob Lane, Milford, Michigan. MR. BROWN: Mike Brown, 13312 Daleview Court, South Lyon, Michigan. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. BROWN: Well, the reason we're here, as I'm sure most of you already know, that the property along East Lakeshore Drive -- excuse me, East Lake Drive, the property is very narrow, and if we were to follow the required setbacks that are currently posted against this property, we'd only be allowed to build a ten-foot wide home, which would, obviously, look rather unusual. What we're here to do is request that
a ten foot -- excuse me, a fifteen total setback requirement be granted to this property so that we can construct a twenty-five foot wide home. Rick was here a year-and-a-half ago requesting the same information and was granted that at that time. Obviously, we understand that there is only a six-month grace period, so that's why we're here again, to request the same information. MR. CHAIRMAN: Nothing's changed other than you ran out of your six months? MR. BROWN: Correct. Financing and such wasn't available at the time, and that's why it expired. MR. CHAIRMAN: If I'm not mistaken, the biggest issue we had was providing a driveway or access to one of the lots? MR. BROWN: Right, and there's- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Are the conditions the same as what we had six months ago? MR. BROWN: They're the same, and we're presently working to remove the undesirable garage that's on the property, and that's -- we've actually also already worked with an architect. I
don't know if you're interested, but we do have architectural plans for the house that we propose hopefully to build on this home -- or, excuse me, on this property, and we're definitely moving forward. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MEMBER BAUER: Can I ask a question? MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to get there in a second, Jerry. Twenty-nine notices sent; no objections, no approval. Anybody in the audience? Sir, come on down. If you'd give us your name and address, please. MR. ANDREWS: Robert Andrews, 1262 East Lake Drive. I -- my property is just north of the property in question, and I objected the last time that this request was asked for. I believe that the setbacks asked for are -- I do believe that they should have a setback because, of course, the lot is too small to build on the way it sits, and those variances that the City has right now are, you know -- they could not build and they should be able to build, but I do
believe that what they're asking for is a tad excessive, and I do have some concerns about -- we do live in a -- we don't have much elbow room in the area right now, and the most room we can get is always appreciated. And that's it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: If it's the Board's wish to approve this -- grant this variance, I would ask that, once again, that the petition -- based upon the garage being demolished, and also just point out that the house is twenty-five foot wide and you have five foot on each side. MR. TANIELIAN: The garage is gone. MR. SAVEN: Thank you, sir. MR. BROWN: Novi -- or East Lake Drive looks a lot better. MR. SAVEN: I'm sure it does. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? MEMBER REINKE: Well, the whole area is a problem, with the lots. If you could go out there and put a stretcher in between and add ten
foot to everybody's lot everybody would be happy and we'd have all kind of space that we needed. We can't do that. What the gentleman has proposed is what we have really tried to work with with each lot in the area of going no closer than five foot on either side so that we've got at least an average of usually ten foot spacing between the homes up there. I don't think they can build much different than that. The petitioner got rid of the garage, which is a great asset and helped the area, and I can support the petitioner's request because of the lot size. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: Well, I have a problem with this. You own both lot seven and lot eight? MR. TANIELIAN: I have sold lot eight. MEMBER GRAY: You've sold lot eight. Okay. When you -- that answers that question. When you build this house on lot seven and you have taken down this garage, do you plan to live in this house?
MR. TANIELIAN: No, I don't. MEMBER GRAY: You don't, okay. It's still a giant step in the right direction because it eliminates one of the illegal multiples in the area. Personally, I'd like to see them all gone, but that's one step at a time. I'm not real happy with the five feet, but it is a narrower lot so I would not have as much a problem. I'm just not happy with five feet. How far is the house on lot eight from the property line? MR. TANIELIAN: Three or four feet. MEMBER GRAY: Three or four feet? MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anyone recall what the fire requires between houses? If we grant this one we only have nine. Let's hold that question. MEMBER GRAY: I think you have to have fire proofing and no windows if it's three or less, so that's -- but this is new on this one. This is a hard one. MR. CHAIRMAN: This is a hard one. This is a -- I mean, even with the variances you're
looking at a house that's 25 feet wide. It's a piece of property to deal with. MR. BROWN: We have a set of plans to give you an idea of what the house -- if that's of interest to the Board. I don't know. MEMBER REINKE: It isn't going to change the footprint. The footprint is what we're dealing with. MR. BROWN: Right, I understand that. MEMBER REINKE: This is what we have to address. And looking at the house, whether it's one shape or another is not going to change the footprint. MR. BROWN: Right. MEMBER GRAY: I live in a house that's twenty feet wide on a forty foot lot, and it's not horrible. I mean, there's a lot of ways to be creative with what you're doing and add some architectural interest and do things with open space, so it's not the end of the world to have a twenty foot wide house, and I've got a forty foot lot. This is a thirty-five foot lot. We've seen them come in and we've given variances on thirty foot lots, too, but they
haven't -- I mean, I don't know that we've seen anything five and five, especially so close to another house. MR. BROWN: Well, there's -- the house two lots to the south, that same -- it's a thirty-seven foot wide lot, and that was granted. MEMBER GRAY: It's two foot wider. MR. BROWN: But it's still a five foot setback on each side. MEMBER GRAY: Well -- MEMBER FANNON: I'd like to wait until Don gets back. MEMBER GRAY: Yeah. MEMBER FANNON: Says here, 2000, that Don said I don't -- somebody asked this question, what does the fire department usually like between houses, and Don said I don't know about the fire department but the Building Department has a minimum of five foot of fire separation on each side, which this won't meet if your measurements are right. MEMBER GRAY: It will meet five on each side. MEMBER REINKE: Five on each side.
That's what he's proposing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Five on each side for a total of ten is -- wouldn't that be -- he's got no control over that. MEMBER REINKE: He's got no control over that. He's looking at five on each side of his- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Right. MEMBER REINKE: -which is what Don's addressing there. MR. SCHULTZ: I guess from the Board's perspective tonight, you're looking at what the zoning ordinance requirements are. When he comes in for a building permit, he's going to have to meet whatever the standards for one- and two-family homes are, whether it's ten feet. Now we have the person who can tell you what that- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Ten to fifteen for new construction. MR. SCHULTZ: But if he doesn't meet that, then there's a separate board he goes before to get that, if he needs it. And maybe Don can address that.
MEMBER FANNON: See if you can remember what this says, especially what is Bauer's question to you, that -- right in the middle of that page. That was from the case a couple years ago where -- about fire protection. MR. SAVEN: Okay. Fire -- what it's dealing with is the exterior wall construction, fire rating. The closer you get to the property line the more fire protection is needed. Under the new -- the current building code requires three foot requirement now. Used to be five feet but now it's lenient. But still, in all, depending on how many openings there are on that wall, certain hour waiting needs to be met. So more openings in the wall, more protection is necessary. MEMBER GRAY: So rather than have a house that's 25 feet wide with virtually no windows on either side- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) That probably would be what you're looking at. MEMBER GRAY: Is probably what you're looking at, so maybe what we need to see is maybe a narrower house proposed.
MR. SAVEN: Very possible. MR. BROWN: Well, I have a problem with that. The determination of how many windows go on the side of the house is not for this Board or for us to decide. It's for the homeowner to decide, and the Building Department. If we are granted the five feet on each side, then we have to take it to the next step and make sure that we do meet the requirements of the Building and fire department, so there's obviously ways to achieve fire rated wall systems. MR. SAVEN: I understand what you're saying, but what the Board's looking at is, not only from a zoning standpoint, even practicality, but also from a safety standpoint to make sure our residents are taken care of no matter who they are. Okay. They're basically saying they're looking at that as a guideline for fire protection as far as how close the building gets to the property line. MR. BROWN: I -- how is safety an issue here then? I'm confused. MR. SAVEN: It's the rating of the exterior wall. MR. BROWN: Right. But I mean, we
can -- worst case scenario you require a two hour rated wall system, I -- it can be achieved. MR. SAVEN: Okay. I understand what you're saying, but I'm telling you that the Board is looking at it from a standpoint of view what is necessary to try to achieve the best result as far as safety is concerned. MR. BROWN: Okay. MEMBER GRAY: I can't support a five foot setback on either side. I could probably go with seven-and-a-half on either side, but that's not my call. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Jerry? MEMBER BAUER: Is this going to be built for rental? MR. BROWN: No. MEMBER BAUER: You have a buyer for it. MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. MEMBER BAUER: So -- since he's buying -- MR. BROWN: And he's here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, as I recall, and
I read the minutes from the earlier time this gentleman was before us, and our biggest concern at this time was this parking on the -- or access parking to the lot eight, and that's not before us. So now we're back with an adjoining property owner and new construction, and I'm a bit compelled to agree with Sarah, that we should seek to get a little bit -- a little bit wider -- or narrower home in order to give some relief to the existing homeowner next door, given it's new construction. MEMBER GRAY: Both homeowners on either side. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other board members, comments? MEMBER REINKE: Well, it would be ideal to have something narrower. There's no mention to it. MEMBER GRAY: Make I suggest that maybe we ask the petitioner to speak to the buyer and come back to this case after another month, as we've done in the past, rather than try to come to a consensus that- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) That's on option for you guys. If you want to take a
little break and review the possibilities of narrowing this up a little and we'll take another case and then call you back after you've had a chance to discuss it. MR. BROWN: Well -- right. This is lots that were plotted back in 1940s, and we all know that. I understand that. This is the narrowest of all the lots on this section of property within Novi that's on that lake. It's thirty-five feet. There's obviously property that's been granted that's wider. At those other properties in the last few years you've granted the five foot setback as a minimum. We have the smallest lot, restricting us to the smallest envelope in width, and now you're going to retrain it even more versus where you've allowed other people with wider lots the ability to make their home wider. I think twenty-five foot width of a house is actually a very narrow home, and to make it twenty would be even less desireable. So I don't think the homeowner would be really excited about having to narrow it up an additional five feet.
MEMBER BAUER: We can vote on it now. MEMBER FANNON: I was trying to think that if this wasn't new construction and the house was already there and we go through, it's not going out of the building envelope- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) It's an addition. MEMBER FANNON: -it's going straight up, that we- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) Well, you have -- you can't -- MEMBER FANNON: I'm just going through my mind. MEMBER REINKE: Yeah, I understand your point, and I think maybe just to kind of help the whole situation, and maybe kind of help the Board evaluate it, it might be a possibility of really a constraint for both of us -- all of us to relook -- revisit this situation, table it to next month, you look at different possible solutions to get closer to what we want, and we, you know, kind of revisit the whole area and the whole situation again and try to really give it a total evaluation of the lot situation, the configuration and
everything that's there. MR. TANIELIAN: Nobody went out this time to review the property? MEMBER REINKE: Oh, we went out. MEMBER GRAY: We went out. MEMBER REINKE: We went by. But I mean, we're trying to really -- MEMBER GRAY: If there had been a house on this property that was being changed, our position would probably be different. There are smaller lots on East Lake Drive that have been built. There was a 30 foot lot on East Lake Drive that was just built recently. There are odd shaped little lots all around the lake -- on the lake with lovely little houses on them that people have gotten very creative, and this was also new construction where we had to basically say, you know, ideally setbacks are going to be 15 feet with new construction. Practically, it doesn't make sense because of the lots, and I live on one of those lots, so I know what you're up against, but this is new construction and it's the difference between night and day. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. I think
you've got a gist from just about everyone who's made comments here. You've got a couple options. You can look at refiguring this, trying to get -- trying to get some width out of that house. You can take a recommendation and talk to your potential buyer, or you can have us vote on this as it is presented tonight. Again, you need four yays. MEMBER GRAY: I would also like to suggest that you talk to the neighbors on both sides and see what's the most workable for them, too. MR. BROWN: The neighbor to the south is already in agreement to the situation. MEMBER GRAY: Well -- MR. BROWN: We have it in -- documented. MEMBER GRAY: You have other neighbors around, too, so -- MR. TANIELIAN: Can we skip a turn here, talk to our client and come back? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. MEMBER GRAY: Sure.
CASE NUMBER 02-028 MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's go ahead and call the next case, Vans Skatepark, 02-028. Sir, you want to give us your name and raise your right hand and be sworn by Mr. Bauer? MR. LEADERS (ph): John Leaders. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 02-028? MR. LEADERS: I do. MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. Please, go ahead. MR. CHAIRMAN: You got the floor, sir. MR. PRIEUR: Vans Skatepark is asking for a variance for the second sign to be located on the west side of the new Fountain Walk Square. The proposed sign is two hundred and four square feet versus the forty square feet, and the reason for the request is for lack of identification on that side of the building. That side of Vans Skatepark, the building is about three hundred feet long, and it is the only one on that side that has an entrance on the west side.
I drove along the -- Twelve Mile from the west, and until you get to the first traffic light west of the square -- of the development, all you can see is the very top of the building, given the existing landscaping. And when you get to the traffic light you're really hard-pressed to see even a sign of that size, two hundred and four square feet. The mockup is on the south elevation right now. You've had a chance to see it. And given the size of the building, it really looks quite -- for lack of a better word, I'd say puny, even that size, let alone what a forty square foot one would be, so for that reason the company would -- has requested this variance for the particular location. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were 19 notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: I have no objection, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? I'll point out that when I went and looked at it Monday,
most of it was down, the wind had ripped it off, so I couldn't get a real good perspective of what you had proposed. MR. LEADERS: It is up now again. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other comments from Board members? (Inaudible discussion is held.) MS. MARCHIONI: Great Indoors. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's the one facing Novi Road was smaller of the -- right. I forgot what sign that was. (Inaudible discussion is held.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Very similar. MEMBER FANNON: How long is this building again at that point? MR. LEADERS: I stepped it off. It's 95 steps for me, so almost 300 feet from corner to corner. MEMBER BAUER: Excuse me? Three hundred feet from where? MR. PRIEUR: From the north to the south end of the building. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's the only sign that's going to be on that wall?
MR. PRIEUR: Well, it looks like it, sir. Well, I take that back. For Vans Skatepark, yes. It is the only entrance to the building on that side of the building, even on the north roads. MR. CHAIRMAN: It was a little difficult to navigate back in there. It's a bit of a maze. MEMBER FANNON: Just seems that that square footage seems to be reasonable in relationship to this whole 300 feet, knowing that there is no other entrances- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) No other signs. MEMBER FANNON: No other signs would be coming in saying I need to get in here. MEMBER GRAY: He said on that side. What's going to happen with the south, where the mockup is? MR. LEADERS: The south has one. I don't think that was an issue, is it? MR. SAVEN: The ones that are facing internally were not governed by our ordinance. MEMBER BAUER: Just the outside ones. MR. SAVEN: Just the exterior facing
signs. MEMBER GRAY: Unless it can be seen by -- from a? MR. SAVEN Twenty-five foot -- within twenty-five foot of the edge. MEMBER GRAY: Because if the mockup over the south door that -- was there, if that sign is going to be the same, and that's clearly visible from Cabaret Drive on the south entrance. MR. SAVEN: Okay. MEMBER GRAY: So I realize that we kind of -- you know, we had a discussion about internal signs, but what he's saying is this is the only sign facing the west. MR. SAVEN: That's what we're looking at tonight. MEMBER GRAY: I realize that's what we're discussing, so if it's going to be a sign in the same place facing internal, I might not be as inclined on the west, the point I want to get to. Because there are going to be all the directional signs and there's going to be the signs in the front with the name on them, too, so -- MEMBER FANNON: If the sign on the
south is able to be seen, it wouldn't qualify for the internal. It would have to be coming- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) The qualification for the internal sign was based on a dimension which we arrived at, and I believe it was 25 feet from the exterior wall sign, so if that sign is anywhere within that area, that's going to be something we should be considering as part of the ordinance consideration. We needed to start with something. We needed a line drawn in the sand. That's basically what we chose. MEMBER FANNON: So I think the question is whether that south sign is an external sign or not. I mean, it isn't, but -- MR. SAVEN: I really can't -- I really can't answer that question, other than the fact if we're looking at a dimension, it's probably something that doesn't qualify for a sign. I'll check this with Allen, find out where we're at with this thing, and I'll probably be investigating this even more, but I think (inaudible) act on the sign as what was presented tonight.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions, comments, motions? MEMBER FANNON: I don't want to belabor this, but just so I understand, we're only looking at the west side. It has nothing to do with the south side, even though the mockup is over there, because that will be a separate issue and will either qualify or not, and if it doesn't they have to come in here and ask for it. Is that what we're doing? MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. MEMBER FANNON: So we don't have to think about the south side, it's just up there to show us kind of what this looks like? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. Is that a motion? MEMBER FANNON: That's a motion, because I think this sign is big enough on this side, so I would make a motion to approve the variance as requested due to the size of the building on that side and for identification to Vans Skatepark from the west. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion. Was
that a second, Jerry? MEMBER BAUER: Sure. MEMBER REINKE: Support. MR. CHAIRMAN: And support. Any discussion on the motion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: You have a variance. See the- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Just a point of clarity, Mr. Chairman. I want to make sure that this is addressing the west side sign- MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing) Only. MR. SAVEN: -only.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Correct. MR. SAVEN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Even though the mockup was on the south side. MR. LEADERS: It was there because the wall was already on the west side. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Let's take one more case before break. CASE NUMBER 02-029 MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll call the Curtis case, 02-029, William Richard. MR. CURTIS: Yeah. William Richard Curtis at 101 Penhill Street. MEMBER BAUER: Would you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 02-029? MR. CURTIS: I do. MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. MR. CURTIS: Okay. Well, we'll start out, two years ago when I was here because my builder didn't buy the building permit, so we had to come back again, and then I added a deck then,
which was smaller than what I got -- I'm proposing now, only because I had a set of plans and I didn't know how big the house -- where the windows were. So now I'm asking to put up a little larger deck. There's a little bit difference in the variance but not a lot. My old original porch stuck out even farther than my new proposal, and it's going to be probably made out of cedar wood with railings. That's about it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were forty-eight notices sent. We got two approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience wish to comment on this case? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. State your name and address, please. MR. KUHN: Ronald Kuhn, 2012 West Lake. Being a neighbor of his, and when he first started the project several years ago I was rather apprehensive about what he was building, although he has built a very nice place, very tasteful, and if he's going to continue this line of building it's going -- whatever it is he's going
to build will be very nice. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, this is dealing basically with open unenclosed porch, correct? MR. CURTIS: Yes. MR. SAVEN: Where the porch is going to be projecting into the front yard. He does have several front yards. The other issue I have been informed through the ordinance division that there is a certain ongoing issue about both the utility -- or the trailer that's on the property. MR. CURTIS: That will all be gone by this week. MR. SAVEN: Okay. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? MEMBER GRAY: Well, Mr. Chairman, this is -- this is a -- the house that's been built, I believe that the original house was torn down?
MR. CURTIS: Yeah. It's the same place where the garage was- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Yeah. MR. CURTIS: -which you see now, the same offsets. MEMBER GRAY: The house itself is a major improvement, and you've done a nice job on it. Unfortunately, living on a corner you have two front yards, and- MR. CURTIS: (Interposing) I found that out. MEMBER GRAY: -if you look in the picture that the ordinance department -- or those of you who went out there, there's a survey across the street for another case we're going to be getting probably next month, and -- to the road. The road right of way on this --on West Lake Drive is 30 feet, and these stones are roughly right on the property line within -- just a little bit. Having a porch, a deck, that close to the property line, that close to the road, is a major concern. At the northeast corner of the house it's only 18.22 feet off the property line, and the variance Mr. Curtis is asking for is to be
two feet -- basically two feet off the property line at the north end of the deck, and then a straight line, so it would be wider from the road -- the distance from the road would be wider at the south end of the deck than it would at the north end. It's only going to be two feet off the property line, according to- MR. CURTIS: (Interposing) Well, not the property line. That would be the setback line that was granted. MEMBER GRAY: The setback line? MR. CURTIS: Yeah. That's what you see, where that dotted line is for the beginning of the garage. The property line would be where the rocks are and the silk fence was originally. MEMBER GRAY: No, I understand that. MR. CURTIS: Okay. MEMBER GRAY: I understand that. If you were more -- you're closer than -- maybe I wasn't reading it right then. It's going to be closer than four feet. How close is it going to be from the road? MR. CURTIS: Plus -- I think it's 13 point something on the drawing there.
MEMBER GRAY: At the north corner? MR. CURTIS: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: The northeast corner? MR. CURTIS: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: I see. I'm sorry. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's thirteen-and-a-half feet. MR. CURTIS: Originally, my old one was about ten feet off the road, you know, before we tore the house down, and the drive -- the walkway went out into the street, so that's all been removed since then. I've been waiting to- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) I had not seen this, I'm sorry, even though I went through my packet. I was out there. I talked to your wife. MR. CURTIS: Yeah. I tried to make the drawing to show a rough idea what -- originally the smaller 14 foot that I was granted, when you put any kind of a table and chairs and the door opens I didn't realize how small it was. I didn't know where the windows were, so that's why this newer porch is a little longer and a little wider, so you have a little more room.
MEMBER GRAY: I'm much more comfortable with this. I'm sorry. I honestly did not see the second sketch in here. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a tough piece of property to work with. MEMBER GRAY: Yep. MR. CHAIRMAN: It narrows down on the north end, you've got two streets you're abutting. I can certainly see the need and desire to have -- this is a relatively small deck. I think he's doing a lot with what he's got to work with. I guess I'd be a little bit more concerned if there was a lot of people in the front row throwing a fit, but his immediate neighbors seem to think it's a nice addition. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Brennan? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MEMBER REINKE: I -- also, as Miss Gray pointed out, with the tapered back that he has on that, it really kind of follows along the road edge so you don't have a point going out that much closer. I think the petitioner's tried to do everything he could to accommodate keeping it back
as far as possible but yet giving himself some room to be able to turn around. MR. CURTIS: I tapered both ends so that it would look more uniform rather than having one squared at the other side. MEMBER REINKE: Thank you. You did a nice job. Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-029 I move that petitioner's variance request be granted due to a corner lot and lot size configuration. MEMBER GRAY: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?
MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got your variance. See the Building Department. MR. CURTIS: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's take about a five minute break. We'll be back at nine o'clock sharp. (A short recess was taken.) CASE NUMBER 02-027 MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to recall the Tanielian case. For the record, it's 02-027. Were you guys able to work out something? MR. BROWN: Yes. To be quite honest, we're actually surprised at the resistance we're receiving from the Board with this particular issue. I've never used this before, but can I- MS. MARCHIONI: (Interposing) Yes. MR. BROWN: This is something -- it's the survey that I think all of you received a copy of. And Rick misspoke. The house that's to the
south that he had said was three feet off the property line you can see is actually, at its closest point, at 4.4. The homeowner to the north that just recently walked up here, who's asking for some variance on his -- less for us so that he has more room, you guys granted him a variance of five feet, which actually encroached a little bit on the wetlands. MR. ANDREWS: That's not true. It's not five feet, it's six feet. MR. BROWN: Okay. Well, at any rate, he was -- received a variance as well, and we also know that there's other projects, new construction, in Novi that have been granted a five foot variance, and we're surprised that this particular property is receiving such resistance towards it, so we would prefer to have you vote on it and be as gracious to us as you've been to the other properties in the past. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board members, any discussion or motions? Petitioner has asked us- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) I'm
going to say this, that, you know, the Board tries to work with each petition, and I'm not too pleased with the attitude that the petitioner is presenting us with. MEMBER BAUER: I agree with you. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair, in the matter of Case 02-027, I would move to deny the petitioner's request for the variances requested. MR. CHAIRMAN: Want to give us a reason as well? MEMBER GRAY: Well, because it is new construction, and although it is an originally platted and deeded lot, I don't feel that there is adequate attempt made to decrease the -- to decrease the variances at our request. Is that a legitimate reason? MR. SCHULTZ: Essentially your statement is that you believe that petitioner could explore a lesser variance- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Yes. MR. SCHULTZ: -and might be able to- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) It has not been demonstrated that this house cannot be built.
MR. SCHULTZ: With a lesser variance? MEMBER GRAY: With a lesser variance. MR. SCHULTZ: That's fine. MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. MR. SCHULTZ: You're leaving it to the petitioner, if he chooses, to come back with some- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Absolutely. MR. SCHULTZ: -lesser- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Absolutely. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion? MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion and second. Any further discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Move to deny, yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?
MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, but your appeal has been denied. MR. BROWN: Okay. We'll be in touch. CASE NUMBER 02-031 MR. CHAIRMAN: We will call 02-031. This is another case of Fountain Walk, Cinema Hollywood. Give us your names, gentlemen, and raise your right hand to be sworn. MR. SLEMER: My name is Carl Slemer. My address is P. O. Box 841, Troy, Michigan. Our -- the theater address is 44425 Twelve Mile Road. MR. GLANSE: I'm Paul Glanse from Imagine Entertainment, same address. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 02-031? THE GROUP: Yes. MR. SLEMER: We're requesting a
variance for two wall signs, one on the north and one on the south side of the theater building to be located in Fountain Walk. We're requesting it on the grounds of hardship. Although a lot of retail venues are proximity based, where people who go to one business will, in turn, go to another business. We're destination specific. If people don't know where we are, they're going to have a hard time, and will have a hard time, operating. The ordinance allows us to have a ninety-three foot -- ninety-three square foot wall -- single ninety-three foot -- square foot wall sign. We're requesting two 361.6 square feet signs, one on the north, one on the south. I've got a picture here that shows the elevation, which -- as you'll see, the banners that are up there to -- for mockups have a tan background. They are accurate as to overall size for the sign. As you can see, when the signs are on the north and south, they're rather dwarfed by the scale of the building. I'd also like to point out that our
sign on the south side is three hundred sixty -- just a little under three hundred sixty-two feet while the Great Indoors sign at the south side is over four hundred square feet. The only other thing I'd like to point out is that we're somewhere in excess of a thousand feet from Twelve Mile Road on the north side, which, to be visible at all from Twelve Mile Road, we need a fairly large sign. MR. GLANSE: I'd simply like to add that we're establishing a new brand name with this development. It will be new to the community. We're striving to develop a first class entertainment venue at this location, and we believe that the need to establish name recognition via signage is imperative to the success of the business. MR. CHAIRMAN: That it? MR. SLEMER: That's it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Good. Nineteen notices sent, no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience wish to comment? (No response.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, Building Department? MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? While everyone is gathering their thoughts, I give mine. I didn't seem to have any issue with the I-96 side sign, which seemed to look relatively proper on that large wall. The north side sign though struck me as overwhelming, although I must admit I wasn't looking at it from Twelve Mile. I was looking from the parking lot. MR. SLEMER: Yeah. One thing I will point out is the north and south -- the width and height of the north and south sides of the building are identical, and the signs are identical, and the walls they're on are identical as well, so -- just to point that out. MEMBER GRAY: I looked at it from Twelve Mile and from Donelson and Cabaret, and all the other points, and I think -- I really think that both of the signs, presuming that they're also going to be lit, so that's going to have them standing out from -- with the different contrasting color, I think the signs are too big, quite
frankly, and even though this may be a destination, when I drove over to the movies over at the Town Center, their sign is minuscule, other than the banner with the show -- different shows that are up, compared to what's being proposed in some of -- well, in this specific case. I also drove up to Fourteen and Haggerty to the theater up there, and I just -- and that's much farther off Fourteen Mile than this is off Twelve, so -- I think they're too big. I think they should be no more than 200 square foot each. I may not be saying it right. I don't -- they're -- I think they're too big. I can't see the size on there. MR. SLEMER: Well, just again, although you looked at the size of the sign, the Great Indoors sign is much larger than ours. And, in fact, one of the things that makes the sign -- the square footage of our sign a little larger is the way it's calculated for the ordinance, which is the bounding box. If you look, there's a magic wand with stars above the name and a small tag line below, which is very small. Those significantly
increase the area of the sign. The main letters are less than -- if you took just the main letters of the sign- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) That's true, but that is how we measure the signs- MR. SLEMER: (Interposing) Yes, I do understand that. MEMBER GRAY: -in all cases, so -- you know, I mean, this ten by six by thirty-four, five-and-a-quarter is three hundred fifty-six and change for each sign, and I just think it's too big. MEMBER FANNON: How long is this building on the north and south? Do you know the measurement of the building? MR. SLEMER: It's approximately 270 feet. MEMBER FANNON: So -- maybe you just sat here earlier. It was 300 feet I think, and it was a 200 square foot sign. It seems to really kind of fit right into the size. MR. SLEMER: I will -- also, off of 96, we're almost a thousand feet off of 96 as well.
The -- I think it's 900 some feet to the -- I'm estimating that we're 900 some feet I think to the edge of the property and detention pond, and then the road right-of-way is significantly larger as well. The Vans area should be -- the Vans building should be somewhere in the vicinity of 400 feet off of Cabaret Drive, which is the road to the west of that, if that makes any difference. MEMBER GRAY: Most people, when they're going somewhere these days -- I know I certainly do this quite often, but most people, when they want specific directions to go somewhere usually get on the Internet and find out exactly where they're going. There are a lot of people who don't do that I realize, but for destination -- plus the fact that there will be people calling to get directions, the other signs in the area, the directional signs in the area, I think that's -- as Mr. Fannon said, I think a 200 square foot sign on each facade is pretty fair. MEMBER REINKE: I'm trying to look at it from -- excuse me, Mr. Brennan. I'm trying to look at it from all angles, and I really -- if
you're planning on reading it at seventy miles an hour going down the expressway, yeah, it's a good job, but a guy going seventy miles down the expressway isn't looking for your show in the first place. I think that -- and Brian and Miss Gray had mentioned that two hundred square feet is adequate, especially with it being lit and everything, it's going to show up and going to show up very well. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anything? Brian. MEMBER FANNON: I was just wondering if you can go back to the drawing board and try to come up with something a little smaller. How important is it to say "The Magic of Movies and More"? How much does that create in the measurement, do you know? MR. SLEMER: For us, we thought it was important since Imagine is a name that no one recognizes at this point as a movie theater, and without that, people driving down 96 would see Imagine and they wouldn't know if that's a soft
goods store or a, you know, a bowling alley, so for us we thought it was important for them to understand. MEMBER FANNON: They could sort of imagine what it is. MR. SLEMER: Yeah, correct. MEMBER FANNON: It's a little joke. I'm trying to bring a little humor here because I know you guys are all upset. MR. CHAIRMAN: It looks like there's about -- to have your wand and your stars, that's about a seventy square foot penalty just for that, if I take this measurement as being close, thirty-five feet long by approximately two foot high. So that's of your own design, seventy feet of it. MEMBER GRAY: I could see more keeping the stars and the wand than The Magic of Movies and More, but I think some -- something's got to give on here. MR. SLEMER: Would it be looked at more favorably if we reduced the size of the sign on the north side, so at least from 96 it would be visible from 96, down to a 200 foot sign on the
north side? At least there the people would already be driving in the center and be able to see it, but from 96 we'd like to have people be able to see that it's a movie theater. MEMBER BAUER: You know, may I make an observation? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MEMBER BAUER: When we go to -- my wife and I, or anyone that I know of, when we want to go see a movie, we look it up in the paper and see where it is, then we go there. Signs don't make any difference, just to know where it is, that's the show I want to go to to see that particular movie. So I think they're -- they're too large. I think 200 on both sides would be enough. MR. CHAIRMAN: Lavern, you had a comment? MEMBER REINKE: When are you planning on opening? MR. SLEMER: I'm sorry, pardon? MEMBER REINKE: When are you planning on opening? MR. SLEMER: Hopefully August.
MEMBER REINKE: How much lead time do you have to have to order your sign? MR. GLANSE: Like now. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you can read where the Board is going here. Again, as you've heard with other cases, you've got a couple options here. You can look at revisiting this, trying to shrink it down -- because I don't think there was lot of sentiment, certainly not four votes for what you've proposed. There's a lot of sentiment to get it reduced to something closer to two hundred, and if there's a -- if you'd like to take a look at that -- MR. GLANSE: With all due respect, I'll follow on Carl's comment. It might be looked upon more favorably if we could preserve the size of the sign facing 96 and go down to a hundred and fifty square feet on the north facing wall. And we think it's critically important that we achieve recognition in the trade area in order for the business to prosper. We think that we have an important responsibility as an anchor tenant of this development to assist in that process.
MR. SLEMER: Just -- again, we're -- this is just to tell you how we feel how important the sign on 96 is for us to be visible. And, again, we tried to reduce it some from what the Great Indoors size was, just their 406 or 407 square feet in recognition. In fact, we didn't think all of that was necessary, but to be visible we thought we needed a fairly large sign on the 96 side. MR. CHAIRMAN: Isn't the Great Indoors a substantially larger building though? MR. SLEMER: Actually, the length of the building -- the square footage of the building is significantly larger, the -- because it's two stories, but the width of the building is approximately the same, or a little less. I think it's 250 feet, 252 feet wide. MR. CHAIRMAN: But as far as its place in the landscape, it's twice the size of what your property is, because it's two stories, correct? MR. SAVEN: Just the basic. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what I'm
talking about. MR. SAVEN: Two stories. MEMBER GRAY: What they're proposing, if they want two signs at three sixty-one each, that's a total of seven hundred and twenty-two square feet of signage, versus what we're saying we'd like to see, around four hundred. Now they say if they do the three hundred and sixty-one square foot sign on the south facing the expressway and a hundred and fifty square foot on the north, that's down to five hundred eleven, so we're ahead two hundred eleven square feet; however, I think it's more important to have the bigger sign on the north than it is the south because the freeway traffic is not going to be looking at the sign, be that as it may. MEMBER REINKE: I understand, and I think the figure -- and I think you're right in line, but my thoughts are, 400 square feet -- I just throw this out because I guess we're playing kind of a -- trying to find a mutual ground here between this and everything. A thought I have that I'm just throwing out for your consideration, since you seem
to feel that the 96 sign size is more important than Twelve Mile -- am I correct? MR. SLEMER: Yes. MEMBER REINKE: Thought I have in looking in lines of what we're looking at would be a two hundred forty square foot sign on the 96 side, a hundred and sixty square foot on the Twelve Mile side, be a total of four hundred square feet between the two signs. MR. SLEMER: At this point I would say that's much better than no signs, and I would like that very much. I am just slightly concerned that, again, we may not have a sign very visible from 96. It -- is there a way to adjust that even more in the other direction and go, say, to three hundred on the south side and a hundred on the north? At least we'd get enough sign so it would be visible from 96. MR. CHAIRMAN: Why do you think that the -- 96 is going to be more important than Twelve Mile? MR. GLANSE: Because your major traffic count is on-
MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) But they can only get to your store when they're heading east. MEMBER GRAY: Unless they get off of- MR. SLEMER: (Interposing) Yeah, but they're -- MEMBER GRAY: And they're at- MR. SLEMER: (Interposing) You have to understand- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) No. Follow my train of thought here. They can only -- they can only access your store by exiting eastbound because currently there is no exit -- well, yes, there is. They could get off at Beck. MR. SLEMER: One of the things that a lot of people do is they see a location or a store and decide they're going to go there. Not -- without having visibility, the traffic counts and the people that will go by on 96, just knowing that we're there will make a huge difference for us. I can relate an experience we had with our facility in Birch Run. We opened very, very poorly initially, and we were trying to figure out what the problem was, and Paul here went to
shopping centers in the community surrounding the theater, gave out coupons for free popcorn and pop to try and get people to come into the facility, and the first question he would ask is, do you know -- have you been to the new theater; oh, we heard about it, you know, is it opening soon. They didn't even know we were there or open. We opened without our sign there. The sign is visible from I-75, but without people knowing that we're there, it's very easy for people to just not pay any attention to it. When you look for a movie do you look for new theaters when you look through the- MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing) No. I look for the picture. MR. SLEMER: You look for the picture, okay. MR. GLANSE: The criticality of the sign facing I-96 is rooted in consumer psychology. If you see something, you see it consistently, it then -- you're then able to recall it when you're looking in the movie guide to discern where you're going to the show. And with the substantial traffic along 96, we think it's -- it's critically
important to the success of the business that we have adequate identification, signage, so the folks, in fact, will think about Imagine when they're thinking about going to the show. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Bauer wanted you to get somewhere closer to 400 square feet. You've got to 400 square feet with a mix of 300 and 100. That's what's on the table. MR. SLEMER: We had the privilege of -- hearing earlier about working with the Board, and we've proposed, I think, 720, and you've proposed 400, and we thought that 500 compromise was a very fine way to demonstrate our desire to work with you. MR. CHAIRMAN: However, what's permitted is a hundred and eighty, so if you want -- let's start at a hundred and eighty and see where we've come. MEMBER GRAY: I didn't say I was happy with that. MR. SLEMER: I don't want to argue with you on that point, but I will tell you that not even a hundred and eighty is permitted, so -- ninety-one is permitted, so -- I will point that
out. MR. GLANSE: And we very much appreciate your consideration. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board members, movement by the petitioner to get closer to what we're looking for, this strong sentiment on their case that they need the additional square footage on the 96 side. Lavern? MEMBER REINKE: Well -- okay. You're saying 300 and 100? MR. SLEMER: 300/100. MEMBER REINKE: That's 400 square feet for me. I don't like the big sign, but if they're going to stick it someplace, stick it on the expressway. I don't have to look at it from Twelve Mile. MEMBER GRAY: Is that a motion? MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case Number 02-031, I move that the variance be granted for a 300 square foot sign on the south elevation and a 100 square foot sign on the north elevation for business identification. MEMBER GRAY: Second.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MR. SLEMER: Thank you very much. MR. GLANSE: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you've got a revised variance. See the Building Department for your permits. MR. SLEMER: Thank you very much. MEMBER REINKE: Have a nice evening.
CASE NUMBER 02-032 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case is 02-032 filed by Emanuel Malles the second, with respect to property at 135 North Haven. MR. MALLES: Correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to raise your hand and be sworn? MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, or affirm, on Case Number 02-032? MR. MALLES: Yes, I do. MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. Please go ahead. MR. MALLES: I'm requesting a variance on the north side, which is 13 feet. Do I just keep going? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. We know what the variance requests are. MR. MALLES: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just tell us a little bit about the property, why you need this. MR. MALLES: I've got more stuff going in around me that's worth a whole lot more than mine. I have to update so to speak,
especially now that they're tearing the northwest side of the North Haven Woods, and what's the other one, Summersville or something like -- Summer something. UNIDENTIFIED: Summerling. MR. MALLES: Summerling. 4 and $500,000 houses going in there, I figure I better upgrade. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Well, we've got some questions we'll ask you. There were thirty-seven notices sent, and, sir, you have three letters came back that were very -- approval. MR. MALLES: I have one. MR. CHAIRMAN: You have another one there? MR. MALLES: Yeah. Would you like it? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. You have Charlotte Asam (ph), Michelle Wood, and another one here, Gary Gratsville. MR. MALLES: Gratsaw (ph). MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. It's my -- do we have any -- anybody in the audience have any
input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Chairman of the Board, you'll note that the addition -- there's two proposed additions that are looked at as far as the building is concerned. You're looking at basically staying within the parameters of the building. You're not increasing, going any farther into that nonconformance. He was staying in line with that, and- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) Well, it's just -- MR. SAVEN: And the other issue is that he is within six foot of the existing garage which was there, which requires ten foot setback. That's what he's here for. I worked with Mr. Emanuel in terms of this particular project, and I think he understands very well what the concerns are. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? MEMBER REINKE: Okay. The addition -- the ten by sixteen addition on the home is basically just squaring the house off.
MR. MALLES: Correct. MEMBER REINKE: It's really not going further in any direction as far as an encroachment. MR. MALLES: You're correct. MEMBER REINKE: The new ten by thirty addition, the only problem is he's going six foot into the garage. There's not a problem in any other respect as far as that. I don't have a problem with what the petitioner is asking to do. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? MEMBER BAUER: Not a problem. MEMBER REINKE: If none, Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-032, I move the that petitioner's variance request be granted due to building configurations. MEMBER FANNON: Support. MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion and supporting. Any discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes.
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, you've got your variances. See the Building Department and put all those nice additions on your house. MR. MALLES: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 02-033 MR. CHAIRMAN: CVS? MR. HARTT: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Case Number 02-033. You want to raise your hand to be sworn? MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth in Case 02-033? MR. HARTT: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MR. HARTT: Hi. My name is Zachrey Hartt, and I'm here -- my company is One Superior Group.
About ten months ago we -- I submitted -- I came to the Planning Department here at the City to submit the drawings you have in front of you for this front entrance, to renovate it for better traffic control and security. The Planning Department directed me to take my plans to JCK, because -- well, I have not done any work through the City of Novi, so they gave me the number for JCK, which I called and JCK directed me back to the Planning Department and referred -- and told me that they weren't doing work at that time for the City for payment problems with the City of Novi. So I took this information back to the Planning Department and they reviewed my plan and they directed me to Haim Schlick in right-of-way, said it was a right-of-way issue because I wasn't doing any existing work to the actual facility. So I submitted my plans Haim Schlick, paid for the right-of-way permit, and three, four weeks went by and I got approval on everything -- or on my plans and my right-of-way permit. After approval, I had an additional
condition I had to meet, which pointed out the east curb, that I needed a ten foot minimum radius for the curbing, which if I had to keep a ten foot minimum radius, you could see by the railroad tracks -- next to the railroad track is a retaining wall. I couldn't go into that area because it's a railroad area. So at this point I went to Nancy McLain, and she was the point person on my project, any concerns or any questions, and I pointed it out to Nancy, and she had told me at that time I could do my best to make it as big as I can. And I'm only looking at about a two or three foot curb. I asked her the question, I asked Haim Schlick the question, about is there any other curbing I have to do because I've been directed out of Planning to right-of-way, and I was told this was it. So my project's basically almost done. The only thing I need to do now is put my footings in for my building, for this guard house that was existing already. I've got electrical -- three
electrical trench inspections done and approved by the City. We're ready for final hookup to the guard shack. I've got -- I had an approval from Ken Elphinstone in Building to go ahead and pour my footings, and at this point, when Ken -- I think it's -- it's Kevin or Ken Roby. He was doing the final inspection of my plan, and at this point he found out that I didn't have a site plan approved by Planning. So I wrote a letter to Don telling him basically -- this is the short version, too, of what happened -- to Don on what happened throughout the whole process, and they told me I had to come in front of the Zoning Board in order to get approval for this variance. Same thing. Fire didn't look at it. Nobody looked at it, and it was all approved. Building approved it, forestry, water and sewer. We had the water department out there. And, basically, I'm asking you now for a variance on this guard house, that was an existing guard house prior to me asking for this project to get approved, and we're just moving it about ten feet further off the east setback. And
-- my plans originally called for twenty-five foot setback off the right-of-way line. Prior to this problem with the electrical, we were doing a final installation of the conduit throughout the -- through the parking lot. I came into Nancy McLain and asked her if I could move the guard house four foot -- four to seven foot closer to the right-of-way line, which Nancy, at that time, approved that also. This was a verbal approval. Then everything happened with the electrical. Before I got my -- and one last thing. We met last week with the Planning Department, Nancy, myself, Don -- Dave I think, and Planning had said that I shouldn't even have gotten an electrical permit unless I had a site plan approved by Beth Brock Well, obviously, everybody missed my whole project. And prior to me coming in to do this project on CVS's behalf, I came in and asked every question, what I could do to do the proper permitting. If I needed to come in front of the Zoning Board ten months ago, I would have done
that, what I'm doing today, to figure out if this would be granted or not. Mike Evans from the fire department approved this design better than moving -- having the entrance for the trucks right on the fence line, because right now the semis, when they pull in -- if you're familiar with the street, the semis have a tough time pulling into the parking lot as it is right now. They're running into the fences that they have, and the barrier posts that have been installed. It would be even a worse scenario if they had to pull in with the tight curve that they are with the railroad track because they would probably be hanging over the retaining wall because it's just a -- it's just a tough -- it's just a tight turn. So I'm here and -- asking for the variance on the guard house to be set back. MR. CHAIRMAN: We did have 50 notices sent. There was an approval and there was an objection, and I'll hold that objection for a minute or so. Anyone in the audience that has input on this case?
(No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, this man has been through the mill, and I'm serious about this. He has done everything -- he has done everything he possibly could. He took every direction from everybody that he possibly could, and this case basically fell through the cracks, and I'm really embarrassed that he has appeared before us today. I will indicate to you that he has made many attempts to try to rectify what he was supposed to take care of. And the issue of the setback was never an issue. Basically, on his particular project, he was dealing with issues which were dealing with right-of-way concerns. Part of the right-of-way issues are signoffs from various departments. We recognize that this is now a problem because people can assume certain things in this particular -- on this particular job, but in this case the gentleman has even asked questions to try to take care of his problem.
And, again, this is dealing with an accessory structure, and -- I don't know what else to say other than I'm embarrassed. MR. CHAIRMAN: The one letter that we do have that was an objection -- without saying anything about this letter, I have to ask the question, is there any history of building citations at this- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) I will indicate -- building citations with this use? No. MR. CHAIRMAN: CVS. MR. SAVEN: With CVS, yes, but that's being handled. This is a separate entity than what's going on right now. MR. CHAIRMAN: Because the neighbor is making issue about hours of operation. MR. SAVEN: That is an issue that's being handled right now, and it's not part of what you're supposed to be -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board members, discussion? MEMBER GRAY: Does Nancy have comments, since she's here? MS. MCLAIN: I'm here basically to
answer any questions you may have. MEMBER FANNON: Mr. Chairman, I have no problems with this. Seems to me like this is going to improve the traffic flow, will be safer, it's an accessory building, like Don was saying, guard house, so I would propose to make a motion, unless anybody objects, to Case Number 02-033, to move approval of the variance as requested in order to improve the traffic flow and the safety of those that are using this entrance. MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion and second. Any discussion? MEMBER REINKE: Just one brief comment. It's unfortunate the gentleman tried to do everything he was supposed to do and ended up in a circle going around getting -- hopefully things are rectified in the future. I'll support the motion. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Sarah, you want to call the vote? MR. SAVEN: Can you hang on one second, please. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry.
MR. SAVEN: May I confer with Tom for just a second? (A brief discussion was held off the record.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything new to add, Don? MR. SAVEN: Yes. I just conferred with legal counsel here regarding the process. Even though he's approved today, he still, administratively, must go back to the Planning Department, administrative department, and seek the approvals through them once -- unless they get (inaudible). You need to make that a condition of the approval. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you follow what needs to be done? MR. HARTT: I've got nothing -- to that. MS. MCLAIN: We can't do it until they do it. MR. HARTT: We met last week and it was upon this, and I don't know -- MR. SCHULTZ: It doesn't affect your motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you understand what he's saying? It doesn't affect your motion. We've got a motion, a second. Any further discussion, if not, Sarah, call. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MEMBER FANNON: Can I just add, Mr. Chairman? Do you know what you need to do now, is it clear? MR. HARTT: Possibly. MEMBER REINKE: See Nancy. She'll take care of it. MEMBER GRAY: Is there anything we have to do to hasten this? MR. SAVEN: Thank you.
MR. HARTT: Thank you, Don. CASE NUMBER 02-034 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. 02-034, Mark Karinen, 49550 Nine Mile. He's got a couple of variances for adding a attached garage I believe, right? MR. KARINEN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to raise your hand and be sworn by Mr. Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 02-034? MR. KARINEN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MR. KARINEN: I filed for a variance for, I guess, 4.3 feet of setback, and I guess my case would be, architecturally, it would be asthetically pleasing to the eye. The hardship would be that I have a retaining wall that would have to move back five feet. That was, actually, the natural lay of the land. And as far as the second variance, on storage footage, my existing garage right now is
ten steps down from my living room, three steps up from my basement. I was considering that a part of my basement. I don't know if my thinking is wrong or I just don't understand what storage area is. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, the zoning law allows for a thousand square feet in an RA zoning, and I guess you have proposed this garage a little bit bigger than that. MR. KARINEN: Well, I think they're counting my existing garage as a storage area, which would -- is that correct? MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know. We'll have to ask Mr. Saven. MR. SAVEN: If you're converting your existing garage, then that's not an issue, but we have to take a look at the sum total of all accessory structures on your property. You have aluminum shed, and you have -- in the back, and you have one on the side of your property. It encompasses all of the accessory structures. MR. KARINEN: The sheds will be moved -- yeah, removed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Moved or removed?
MR. KARINEN: Removed. MEMBER REINKE: What are the sizes of the sheds? MR. KARINEN: One's ten by ten and one's eight by eight. MEMBER REINKE: That makes about 128, so we really don't have to deal with the square footage. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just the setback. MR. SAVEN: Just dealing with the setback requirement now. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's get back on our schedule here. Does that pretty much present your case? MR. KARINEN: Yeah. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were seven notices, one objection, Mr. Williams. Is that a neighbor, C. Williams? MR. KARINEN: I'm not sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: 49750? MR. KARINEN: Must be. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody in the audience wish to make a comment? (No response.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Back to Building Department. We've addressed, clarified? MR. SAVEN: Clarified a thousand square foot. It's not required. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does it look like now the second variance request is not needed if he's- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) The second variance request is not needed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Because you are removing these two sheds, you are now within the allowable square footage with the plan as you've presented, so all we have now in front of us is the 4.3 foot setback. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER REINKE: Unless there is further discussion, I think the motion and answer is pretty much what I'm proposing. In Case 02-034 I move that the petitioner's variance request for a 4.3 foot setback variance be granted and conditioned that the two accessory sheds be removed. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion and support.
Any discussion on the motion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: If not, you clear with what's going on here? MR. KARINEN: Yep. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yep. MR. CHAIRMAN: See the Building Department for your permits. MR. KARINEN: Thank you for your time. CASE NUMBER 02-035 MR. CHAIRMAN: 02-035, Mr. Mamola representing Collex Collision.
Lee, I'm sure that you are well familiar with the rules of the Board and you're going to summarize this in five minutes or less. MR. MAMOLA: Mr. Chairman, the Board has my letter of -- sorry. MR. BAUER: Would you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding 02-035? MR. MAMOLA: Yes, I do. With me tonight is Mr. John Gagliano from Collex Collision. If the Board has my letter of April 17th in their packet, I believe in that letter I summarized the basic facts of this matter, and as you -- as well as the hardship. This was before the Board back in 1993 with another applicant, Protech Collision, and the nature of the hardships are still the same today. But I'd like to highlight -- and I won't go into details or repeat anything in the letter, but what I would like to highlight for the Board is the geometry of the development. The existing development is basically north and south
-- I'm sorry, perpendicular to Novi Road. The applicant currently, in the light shade or medium shade area, has about 6,000 square feet or so of existing facility. All their overhead doors face inwards. They are proposing a 6,000 square foot addition in the darker color where the overhead doors would face the rear yard. The south wall would be all face brick matching the brick of the existing building, with a few window demonstrations in that area. This is cause for two reasons. One good reason, in that Collex Collision business is doing quite well. We have a happy and satisfied customer base in Novi; and, two, there is a condition previously granted that Collex would still wish to -- they understand they have to abide by that, they are not allowed to have outdoor storage, cars that are banged up and under repair cannot sit outside overnight. They might be outside from time to time as they are in transit of course, sit out there maybe for a brief period of time during normal business hours, but that -- if this addition were to be granted, those cars would
be sitting in the rear yard totally obscured from view from Novi Road, whereas now they're in basically the side yard, some of them -- even though this business is about 400 feet off of Novi Road as it is. Another fact that relates to this case is that if this variance is not granted, extension of a use variance, it won't be much longer that Collex would be forced to move out of the city of Novi. There are no other locations available in the city of Novi for businesses such as this without some other variance. The Board may remember that about two years ago, it was Auto Metrix came in and sought a variance, got a variance to renovate a building at Grand River and Meadowbrook. They have since decided not to pursue any development at that location, for various reasons, so there is no other viable location for this use. There is one other similar type use, one other business with this type of use in the city, I believe that's (inaudible) Collision at Haggerty and Grand River neighborhood, and this is the other one.
With that, I guess we'll stand for any questions, and Mr. Gagliano's here to answer any questions. I'm sorry, there is one other thing. There have been from time to time periodic, very sporadic, notices or concerns expressed in some -- one form or another from ordinance enforcement people that there was outside storage here. I think it was ultimately proven that the cases that were in question -- the cars that were in question were not really pertaining to Collex, they were pertaining to another tenant in this building. But, in any event, again, the geometry of this particular proposed arrangement is such that if given that short period of time cars must be outside the business, they will be in the rear yard. The geometry of the proposed addition would go to hide that. And, finally, we -- this is an appeal or request amending our initial use variance back in 1993, and should you feel so to accept this request, we have to go to the Planning Commission and abide by all the site plan regulations and landscaping, screening, lighting, et cetera,
et cetera. So this is just the first step in that. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: There were 12 notices sent, no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: This is a difficult issue, it really is. I think he's done a fantastic job explaining what's happening. Again, this is an extension of that use, which we looked at earlier on. Certainly, our ordinance division has a lot of concerns, and notices have been issued based on the outdoor storage in that particular area, but what I was -- believe he was attempting to do was take the outdoor storage and utilize it in the building itself; is that correct? MR. MAMOLA: That's correct. There is no longer any room to maneuver or do anything in the existing approximate 6,000 square feet. There are work bays, there are paint booths, there are some special rooms to store the paint and so on. The addition would house some
additional work bays, but there is also additional area to bring cars that need to be brought in from time to time, pretty banged up, that will stay under roof until they're fixed and so on. MR. SAVEN: The issue, Lee, is the outside storage, and I want to make sure the Board does know about this before any action is taken on this thing. Is it going to have outdoor storage? MR. GAGLIANO: John Gagliano from Collex Collision, Novi Road. We don't store vehicles. You know, the only time that they're really sitting on the premises is if they're in transit, or if a customer drops it off prior to our opening hours or -- but other than that, we don't -- you know, we don't store vehicles or intentionally park cars to, you know -- so at night our intent would be to bring everything in, you know, as much as we can and fill the building up. MR. SAVEN: If it is the Board's desire to grant this variance, I would add to the fact that it has to comply with all the ordinances of the City and approval from the Planning Department.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? MEMBER REINKE: How large of an outdoor storage area are you proposing? MR. MAMOLA: Well, there is no- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) The whole area behind the building is what you're talking about? MR. MAMOLA: There is no outdoor storage area. There is a parking area, there is maneuvering, obviously, and there needs to be some maneuvering right in front of the overhead doors, which face the rear yard. MEMBER REINKE: Okay. MR. MAMOLA: So there may be some time from time to time that a truck may -- a carrier may place a car down. That car may be outdoors for a relatively short period of time, but during the course of that business day it's brought inside, then whatever they do -- it's not taken back outside until it's repaired or finished, repaired. MR. GAGLIANO: But I think to your point though is that there is an extension to the parking lot directly behind it. Apparently, that
sight was a dump at one point, and that property is basically not being used at all, so what we're proposing is to actually grade that out and convert it to a parking lot so that there's additional parking that would actually be way behind the building, or even during the day to screen off any kind of, you know, offensive looking vehicles or anything like that, because we do get, obviously, you know -- that's our business, and we do get some cars that don't look very good, you know, when they initially come in. MR. MAMOLA: Right now what happens is the overhead doors face the side yard, which is, obviously, very wide and visually open to Novi Road, Road, even though it's 400 feet back. That activity goes away from the side yard and goes to the rear yard now with this addition. MEMBER BAUER: Weren't you really wanting to make sure that nothing is parked outside at night? MEMBER REINKE: Well, the thing is, if there's going to be -- we keep talking about going back to outdoor storage, and if there is going to be that, I want to know, you know, just
exactly what we're looking at, and in the terms that you're defining it, it might be on a temporary basis, overnight, or maybe possibly on a weekend, something gets dropped off or something of that nature. MR. GAGLIANO: That's correct. MEMBER REINKE: But, you know, that is where I'm looking for, something defined. I wanted to know what the area and what grounds you were talking about, and you defined that for me. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The addition does actually make the use of the business better in that it gets all of that -- all the loading docks -- not loading docks, but -- MEMBER REINKE: Well, gets all the doors really away from traffic flow and visibility. And like you say, they're going to be parked by a door or dropped off by a door- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) They're going to be moving in and out all day. MEMBER REINKE: So it's not visible or something that you got Y or X sitting in a line, go in there, going through a carwash. You know, I
think you've done a nice job in putting it together in that fashion. MR. CHAIRMAN: If there's sentiment on the Board, make sure that the condition and the approval based on Don's recommendation that they need to follow all ordinances. UNIDENTIFIED: I can support. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any further discussion or a motion? MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-035, I move that the petitioner's variance request for additional 6,000 square foot to the building be granted due to business expansion and that they comply with all ordinance and requirements, including previously mandated or not permitted outdoor storage. Anything else I need to add? MR. SAVEN: Planning Commission approval. MEMBER REINKE: And seek Planning Commission approval. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I just would like the petitioners to be aware that this is not the only variance that may be required for this particular project because they still have to go through the planning process, but I'm sure -- I'm sure- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Do you see any additional variances, you're going to have to be back? MR. MAMOLA: I hope not. If we do, it will -- count on it being- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) How are you with your setbacks on the right-hand side? MR. GAGLIANO: There's plenty of setback on the east side of the property. And, again, to the back side of the building there's, I think, eight or nine acres. MR. SAVEN: Just a use approval that we're granting, extension of use. Still have to comply with all the ordinances and approval from the Planning Department. MR. GAGLIANO: And, personally, I've enjoyed being here tonight, so if we have to come back again, we don't --
MR. CHAIRMAN: You're having fun, that's what's important. Okay. We got a motion and a second. Sarah, you want to call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MR. GAGLIANO: Thank you very much. MR. MAMOLA: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 02-036 MR. CHAIRMAN: John Kozlowski, come on down. Mr. Kozlowski lives at 45144 Nine Mile, and he's got some additions he wants to put onto the property. MR. KOZLOWSKI: Well, eventual additions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon? MR. KOZLOWSKI: Eventual additions. Right now we're just concerned with the garage. MR. CHAIRMAN: You want to raise your right hand and be sworn? MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 02-036? MR. KOZLOWSKI: Yes, I do. MEMBER BAUER: Go ahead. MR. KOZLOWSKI: I'd like to thank you first and foremost for fitting me in this month. What I wanted to clarify though is that we're asking for a variance on paper here of 1,032 square feet, but I'm demolishing 679 square feet of existing building and replacing it with 672 square feet of building. So I'm actually reducing the building footprint on the property by seven square feet. And then I think pretty much everything else I covered in the plans that I submitted to you. If there's any questions -- MR. CHAIRMAN: There were 49 notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience that wants to
add? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: This gentleman has done a fantastic job, and -- I mean, he took into account every concern. Basically, like he said, he's taken down two old buildings that's right by -- one is probably going to penetrate that wall pretty soon, and he's trying to stay in line with what he has existing right now, and I think he's doing a great job. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? MEMBER FANNON: (Inaudible), so I'll make that motion, if nobody doesn't mind, to approve the variance as requested in Case 02-036 with the condition that the two buildings that have been submitted here will be demolished- MR. KOZLOWSKI: (Interposing) Yes, sir. MEMBER FANNON: -as part of the motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on the
motion -- or a second- MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing) Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Now discussion. Sarah, do you have a problem? MEMBER GRAY: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: You want to call the roll? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got your variance. MR. KOZLOWSKI: Thank you very much. MEMBER BAUER: Good luck. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other business? MR. SAVEN: You have an issue on other matters.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Conferences and workshops. MR. SAVEN: I am the bearer of bad news. MR. CHAIRMAN: The budgets have all been slashed. MR. SAVEN: You got that right. It even affects -- it even -- as far as it affects the council and other boards and commissions, unless it's mandated by law, reducing conferences and workshops, mostly close to $8,000, so it is -- I don't want you guys to feel like you're being slighted or picked on. These are issues that are -- that have to be taken care of. That's basically what -- if there's something that's free and available at the time, we'll try to get you notified that there's something going on and you can have the ability to attend those. I just wish things were a little bit better. Conferences are always good, they're always productive, you always learn new things, but, unfortunately, in this particular case we need to do something and be a little more responsible. MEMBER BAUER: I heard council and I
-- I understand. MR. SAVEN: I just want you to be aware of that. MR. CHAIRMAN: There is another piece of news, and I'll start with thanking Mr. Fannon for his time. His business is -- he had to resign, and he was good enough to come tonight because we were -- the Board was a little short. I'll ask anyone who is still watching at home, if you're interested in ZBA, go down to the City Hall and get an application and you will get an audience in front of council. We'd like to have fresh blood on the Board. Any other new business? MR. SAVEN: Other than the fact that I will probably be presenting a case on behalf of the City at the next meeting, and it has to deal with at least two properties on Grand River. This has to deal- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Demolition. MR. SAVEN: Yes, very much the same. Be kind. That's basically where we're at. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anything else?
MEMBER REINKE: Just one thing. I think -- I must say that I take my hat off to Don Saven on the type of work he's done for us and for the City. MEMBER BAUER: Amen. MR. SAVEN: But it seems every once in a while we run into problems where -- people coming into Building, Planning Department, got a merry-go-round that they can't seem to get off. It would be nice -- and I know -- I think we're trying to work towards this. Nobody likes to see people get into that. If we had, somehow, a center point- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) We have -- we do have it available now. It's becoming better and better each day. It's just going to take a matter of time. We have new people onboard, and it takes some time to learn the ordinances, and it takes time -- I can't tell you the transition and the change of personnel that we just went through in the City. It -- yes, it is critical, and yes, we got to do something about it. It's just that when you're dealing with something as small as the
CVS issue was -- and assumptions can be made. We are changing that. I mean, after this particular issue, I can see where things could have steered wrong, but it's after the fact. It doesn't do us any good. Yes, I'm embarrassed on behalf of my department, and I'm embarrassed on behalf of the City, and we should have caught it. We should have been able to do something a little bit better, but it's not going to happen again. MEMBER GRAY: It's a learning experience. MR. SAVEN: It's definitely a learning experience, and we will venture to do better. And everybody that's now part of the plan review center that we have is now aware of these little things that we're doing. And we're catching things ahead of time and taking much more of a proactive role in dealing with a lot of problem areas, and this is very much a plus, very much a plus. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. SAVEN: And I like the idea of
having them readily accessible, that I can hike around there and ask the questions, and if there's somebody that comes with an issue that's dealing with a commercial or a problem area, that we have the ability to address it right now. That happens to be a very positive feature. MEMBER REINKE: Thank you. MS. MARCHIONI: One more thing. Will everyone be here next month? (Inaudible) vice chair. Do you want to do election for that next month? MR. CHAIRMAN: I missed that. MS. MARCHIONI: Do you want to do the election for vice chair since Mr. Fannon is leaving? MEMBER REINKE: I think we should, you know, make every attempt to have a full Board before- MS. MARCHIONI: (Interposing) Do it next month? MEMBER BAUER: Make one request also? Our gal right over here has an ultimate wish to become permanent, and I think if she does we should have a -- the City council has to-
MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) Very good point, Jerry. MEMBER GRAY: I would be very interested in applying for permanency as opposed to alternate. MEMBER REINKE: May I make a suggestion, Sarah, that you might want to maybe attend a council meeting- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Sure. MEMBER REINKE: -and make a presentation to that point. MR. SAVEN: Would she need to do that? MEMBER REINKE: No. I'm just saying- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) I think a supporting letter from the members of the Board would be great. I'll write a letter. MEMBER GRAY: Thank you very much. MEMBER REINKE: I think you have the unanimous support of the Board for- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Thank you very much. MEMBER REINKE: -for the permanent
position. MR. CHAIRMAN: So we need to fill an alternate. MEMBER GRAY: Thank you very much. MEMBER BRENNAN: All right. I'll write a letter tomorrow. Any other topics? MS. MARCHIONI: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Meeting is adjourned. (The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m.) Date approved: July 9, 2002 __________________________ Sarah Marchioni Recording Secretary - - -
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 149 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript to the best of my abilities.
________________________________ Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786 ____________ Date
|