| 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 Monday, November 4, 2002. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll call this meeting to order. Madam Secretary, will you call the roll. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: And Member Sanghvi is absent excused. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We do have a quorum. The meeting is now in session. Ladies and gentlemen, this agenda in yellow has at the very top the rules of conduct, and I would ask that we read and abide by them. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a hearing board empowered by the city -- Novi City Charter to hear appeals for variances from the application of the Novi zoning ordinance.
It takes a vote of at least four members to approve a variance and a vote of a majority of the members present to deny. Tonight we have five members, which is considered a short board, so anyone who wishes their case to be tabled has an option. Think about that. There's five of us here. You need four votes of approval. So if you would prefer to have a full board, you have that option now. Anybody in the audience seeks to have their case held over for a month, please raise their hand. Sir, why don't you come on down and talk to us. Give us your name and which case. MR. HENRY: Donald Henry representing Tomco Fabricating. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Are you prepared to talk to us tonight, because- MR. HENRY: (Interposing) Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: -because I know you didn't show up last month. MR. HENRY: Yes, I am. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't want to lead you either way, but we gave you some direction a
couple months ago of what we wanted you to do. Do you think you're prepared to present something that's -- that's going to make- MR. HENRY: (Interposing) Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: -us happy and nodding our heads? MR. HENRY: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's up to you. I don't want to put you between a hard spot and a rock, and that's where I put you. Tell you what, we'll call your case, we'll listen to you, and in fairness if it -- well, in fairness, we'll give you some options. MR. HENRY: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay? MR. HENRY: That's fair. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if he so chooses, the next meeting will be December 3rd; is that correct? MS. MARCHIONI: Yes. MR. SAVEN: That is the date that you'd have to deal with at the time. MR. HENRY: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: But you've had a
couple months to put together some sort of a plan, and hopefully you're able to tell us what you got, and you know what we wanted- MR. HENRY: (Interposing) Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: -and gave you some direction, so- MR. HENRY: (Interposing) Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: -let's give it a run. MR. HENRY: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Anybody else? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. So we now have a full board. Any decisions on cases will be final tonight. Agenda. Any changes to the agenda? MS. MARCHIONI: Just to let you know, David and Susan, the new homeowners of lot seven on East Lake Drive, are going to be coming under public remarks. There's a letter on the table from them, if you want to take a look at that real quick. MR. CHAIRMAN: So noted. Minutes. We had the minutes of August and September. Any
comments, changes? Sarah. MEMBER GRAY: The minutes for September 10th, the only one that really -- on page 26, Member Sanghvi said may I suggest we make the cleaning up and, not renewal but removal, r-e-m-o-v-a-l, of the unsound structure, and this is in Mr. Henry's case with Tomco. That was the only glaring change I saw that needed to be made. MR. SAVEN: Which page was it? MEMBER GRAY: Page- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) Page 26. MEMBER GRAY: September 10th minutes, page 26 -- I'm sorry -- line 23. It says renewal instead of removal, and that totally changes the context. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anything else? (No response.) MEMBER GRAY: Move to approve as amended. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favor, say aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Public
remarks. This is the portion of the meeting that any members in the audience can address the Board on cases -- or any issues other than cases before us. If you have something to discuss, debate, cry, scream or yell at us, wait until we call that case. Anybody fall in that category? Come on down. This must be the Gobelarks (ph)? MR. GOBELARK: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Good. This is the time for you to speak. MR. GOBELARK: Okay. As Sarah said, we had written a letter requesting an extension of time to pull the building permits on lot seven, 1270 East Lake Drive. We purchased the land from Richard Tanielian. Variances were granted at the September 10th meeting. We purchased the lot from Richard Tanielian on September 30th, after having soil tests done on September 18th. We hired an architect on October 8th, ordered the topographical survey, what should be done in the next week or so, and we'll be designing the house over the winter to break ground in the spring. So we're asking for a
hundred and twenty day extension to pull the building permits. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. This, for the audience's sake, was a very difficult case we dealt with for many, many months, and I'm glad to see that we finally have the homeowners that are going to be dealing with the property. Personally, I have no objection. Any other members? MEMBER GRAY: Is a -- sorry. Is a 120-day extension normal, Mr. Saven, under these circumstances? MR. SAVEN: No, it's a little extenuating, but in this particular case, it is a small lot. They have to work out some type of arrangements and configuration of the home pursuant to the lot size. It does get difficult on the smaller lots to make it a little bit more esthetically pleasing, so I think it's something that possibly could work with. MR. CHAIRMAN: You live in Novi already? MR. GOBELARK: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Welcome, again, to
Novi. MEMBER BAUER: Move that the request for the hundred and twenty days be granted. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favor? (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we doubled that. MS. GOBELARKS: Thank you. MR. GOBELARK: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Anybody else in public remarks? (No response.) CASE NUMBER 02-076 MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to move on. Mr. Henry. This is case 02-076 filed by Don Henry of Tomco Fabricating. Sir, you were here a couple months ago, so you're still under oath. So tell us what you want to do. MR. HENRY: As -- they way we left our last meeting is you folks wanted me to get a price on a fence and also the removal of that
structure, which I have done and I do have in front of me. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think more to the case was some screening issues. MR. HENRY: Yeah, that being the fence. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. I don't have anything in front of me that tells me what you're planning on doing. Building Department, has- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) I haven't received anything. MS. MARCHIONI: I never got anything. MR. SAVEN: I think there were -- Mr. Chairman, I think there were several issues, as Mr. Henry had indicated that he -- he was looking at -- there was a potential buyer for the property; is that correct? MR. HENRY: That's correct, yes. MR. SAVEN: Has that issue been addressed at all? MR. HENRY: Well, actually, it's my parents' property, as you know, as I mentioned. And they have another party that's now interested
in it. A Hummer dealership has now approached them. Apparently, they're in negotiations with that now as well. MR. SAVEN: So what you're basically telling the Board tonight is that you're looking at something from a temporary standpoint; is that correct? MR. HENRY: Well, you know, I think the whole problem here is my outside storage. MR. SAVEN: That's correct, but what I'm saying is that it might be just for a temporary- MR. HENRY: (Interposing) Yeah. MR. SAVEN: -period of time? MR. HENRY: Personally, I would feel that we should be out of there within a year, and that's only speculation, but -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, let's get back in control of things here now. We had four notices sent, and we did have an objection to the outside storage. We've had some Building Department conversation here. You know, we offered to work with you
on this problem a couple months ago. You didn't show last month, you're showing up tonight with nothing new other than maybe the property's going to be sold. We're faced with a citation that says that you're not in compliance with code, and there's only two ways to go. You either give us reason to grant you some variance and relief for one reason or another, which you haven't done tonight -- you haven't given us anything, other than maybe the property's going to be sold to a third party -- or the other option is we deny your variance request and you're out of business. MR. HENRY: I had thought the way we left it was that you wanted me to get prices on removal of that one structure and prices on a fence. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we also -- sir, I have nothing in front of us. I have nothing in front of us other than what you have stated in the last four minutes. There's nothing in front of us. Do you have anything to present to us for-
MR. HENRY: (Interposing) Yeah. MR. CHAIRMAN; -as evidence? MR. HENRY: Yeah, I have blueprints. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please present the evidence. That's what you were asked to do tonight. What do you have? MEMBER GRAY: Can we suggest he use the overhead, if it's only one piece of paper? If you just have one piece of paper you may want to use the overhead so we can all see it at the same time. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry if I come across a little pissy on this. We've got to deal with the law. So what do we got here? We got a- MR. HENRY: (Interposing) This is the price for putting a fence around the whole perimeter of the property. MR. CHAIRMAN: And this would allow you then -- if you put this fence up, this would allow you to continue your business until you potentially sold it to a third party? MR. HENRY: I -- that's the way I thought the city attorney explained it to me, yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. And you're prepared to do this? MR. HENRY: It's a lot more money than I certainly planned. I certainly hate to spend that kind of money for one-year's time or -- now, the city attorney had also mentioned that if there was a fence there before, because I've been doing this storage for approximately 25 years now, that there wouldn't be a problem. There actually was a fence there, and the developer that developed Regency Park removed that fence. Some of it is still there, but he's removed most of it. Now, that was not a privacy fence. That was a chain-link fence, so I don't know if that falls in the same category or not. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me ask for some help from the Board Members. Maybe you guys have got a different twist on things here. Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Brennan, I thought our conversation was fairly explicit in a direction. Initially, in refreshing myself reading these minutes, I thought that we had
suggested that if Mr. Henry could not afford to screen the entire property he certainly should investigate, and as was said in the minutes, moving all the storage to one location and screening from view, which means privacy fence, not chain-link, the outside storage. Whether this outside storage use has been legal or illegal for all these years is, you know -- it's not allowed, so it's illegal, and the only way we, as a Board, can make it legal would be for him to provide privacy screening or fencing around the storage. And I -- and the other idea -- or the other point was the building that was deemed to be dangerous, although that did have his water supply and electrical, and he said he had boarded it up so it wasn't open to the public. That's my recollection, that we told him to investigate the cost for fencing and, yeah, find out how much it costs to fence the entire property, but move the outside storage to one location of the property. Some of the comments were he said he has 2.95 acres and he uses about half of it to one
to one-and-a-quarter acres for the storage. If it isn't screened -- I mean, it's illegal, and whether he wants to be there for another year or another ten, I think we have no choice. He has to screen the outdoor storage, and that's what I'm looking at -- or what I'm looking for. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other Board Members? MEMBER REINKE: I echo Miss Gray's comments, that I think any storage that's going to maintained there has to be screened. I think he's going to have to figure out what his minimum storage is, and it's going to have to be screened around that. It's not going to be the whole lot, which is going to cut the cost down from what his estimate is. But that's the only way I can see it happening. MR. HENRY: Out of curiosity, why didn't I have to screen it 25 years ago? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, 25 years ago I was a 25-year-old little punk. MR. HENRY: Also, when we purchased that property, that property was zoned outside storage.
MEMBER GRAY: No, it wasn't. MR. HENRY: That's heavy industrial. MR. SAVEN: The use of the outdoor storage is one thing. What basically would allow you to do have done that in -- since time immortal is the fact if it was screened. If it was screened. It was not screened. Okay? We got to put this in perspective. This is a use variance what you're here before us tonight on. That's basically what we're dealing with right now. This Board is trying to make a decision to allow you to have your storage, but what they want to see is how much of a storage area you're going to be looking at. This is what they're trying to extract from you right now, and they need your help in trying to get that information. But right now they don't have anything before them other than the fact it's going to cost you 20-some thousand dollars to screen storage. MR. HENRY: Yeah. And just so you know, that price for 21,000 is for just that parcel, that one-and-a-quarter acres. That's not
for the whole thing. MEMBER GRAY: Well, I think to go back to the initial comments, in looking at the minutes from September, we were very explicit what we expected of you. We told you that outdoor storage, if it was conducive -- I don't know if that's the word -- but there was a contractor there that had outside storage of their vehicles, so it was, like pertinent to- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Yeah. It was associated with the business. MEMBER GRAY: Associated with the use. This is not associated with the use. You're using it to make additional money. I don't fault you for that, but if you're going to do that, if you want to make it legal, you have to screen it from view, period. And it was brought up that even back then when you bought the property. I asked you was there any representation made that you could use outside storage in this, and you said there was no explicit representation. So- MR. HENRY: (Interposing) We bought it was from a construction company, McFarland and
Hayes, and they had outside storage. MEMBER REINKE: The bottom line is, if there's going to be outside storage there it's going to be screened. That's just the bottom line. MR. HENRY: Even though I'm going to be gone in possibly- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) That's right. MR. HENRY: -a year there's -- it still has to be screened? MEMBER REINKE: That's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Or move it out. MR. HENRY: Okay. Does it have to be screened one hundred percent around all four sides or just from what the public can see? I think down Regency Drive is the main concern here. MEMBER GRAY: Screen it from view. How many sides can you see it from, Don? MR. SAVEN: I think the issue is it will be totally screened. MEMBER REINKE: I can't see it being anything else. MEMBER GRAY: No. And then what about the issue with the building, because we had
that issue, too, not just the screening but with the building? MR. SAVEN: I don't have any idea. Nothing was presented to me. MEMBER GRAY: What are you doing with the building? MR. HENRY: I've gotten estimates on that as well, to remove that. MEMBER GRAY: You want to show us those estimates and make it part of the case? MR. SAVEN: Sir, we're going to need the documentation for the file, please. MR. HENRY: Well, there's the actual price of it down here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Bottom line, doesn't sound like we're any farther along today than we were- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) No. MR. CHAIRMAN: -three months ago. And what is before us is a petition to maintain outdoor storage on his property. The petitioner has a problem with the outdoor storage, also within a auxiliary building, and -- well, he very well may have the intention in
the future of selling this property, as it is today I haven't heard anything to -- any real good reasons to justify granting the variance to maintain it as it is. MEMBER REINKE: Petitioner was given the option that he could table it until next month, but if it does get tabled to next month I want to see exact drawings, I want to see exactly -- format what's going to be done with the building and a time table on both, because if I don't see that there's no way I can support any request for a variance at all. We've been going on too long. We've given you direction. You haven't complied with what we've asked for other than to just give us an estimated cost, which is really telling us nothing. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think we're any farther along than we were- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) We're not. MR. CHAIRMAN: -in September. MEMBER BAUER: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER BAUER: When is closing for
next month? MS. MARCHIONI: November 14th. MEMBER BAUER: November 14th? He has until November 14th to put it in. MEMBER GRAY: A week from Thursday. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Henry, do you believe that you could have this information presented to the secretary by November 14th? MR. HENRY: I could, but do I have to personally be here? MR. SAVEN: For the next meeting? MR. HENRY: For the November 14th? MS. MARCHIONI: You just have to give me the paperwork by November 14th. MR. HENRY: Yeah. MS. MARCHIONI: The next meeting is December 3rd. MR. HENRY: Yeah. MR. SAVEN: What the Board is indicating right now, and I want to make it explicitly clear, is that what they're looking at is a plot plan showing us where your storage is going to be, where the fence is going to be, and the cost associated with that fence for that
location, and the time factor that you're going to need to have that fence installed. MR. HENRY: Okay. MR. SAVEN: And also a time factor involved as to when you're going to be tearing down the building. MR. HENRY: Okay. MR. SAVEN: Is that understood? MR. HENRY: Yes, sir. MR. SAVEN: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll make a motion to move this to the December meeting. MEMBER GRAY: Support. MR. CHAIRMAN: While we have a motion and a support, I'll go on record as I'm not too happy with how this thing has progressed, and I hope we see a lot more next month. Sarah, call the vote. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes.
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Mr. Chair, the city attorney is requesting that we get that information right now. Do you have a copy of it? MR. HENRY: Sure. MR. SAVEN: Your estimates, can we get a copy of it? MR. HENRY: Absolutely. MR. SAVEN: You want to bring it forward? Do you have a copy of it? MR. HENRY: Yes, I do. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We have a vote and a motion -- we have a motion and a vote and, sir, we'll see you next month. MR. HENRY: Okay, thank you. CASE NUMBER 02-083 MR. CHAIRMAN: Case 02-083, John Carroll representing Novi Party Store. We may have some new faces here, so
why don't we just swear you all in. All right? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? THE GROUP: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you state your names, please. MR. BAIN: I'm Dan Bain, attorney, on behalf of Novi Party Store. MR. CARROLL: John Carroll from Carroll Installations. MR. BUCK: Joseph Buck, employee of Novi Party Store. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Let me just summarize here. You guys did a real nice job in rebuilding a party store that had been on Grand River for a number of years, repositioned the party store so that you've got some signage issues, and that's what before us tonight. We had given you some direction that while you were petitioning to have a second sign on the eastern side of the building, you also had space reserved for a third party, and that's what
we've asked you to look at, is addressing both your needs and potentially your rented out space- MR. BAIN: (Interposing) Future tenant. MR. CHAIRMAN: -is what it comes down to. MR. BAIN: Future tenant, yes, that's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: So not to steal your thunder, but that kind of summarizes things maybe, huh? MR. BAIN: You know, that summarizes very well, and I wasn't here last time. It's my understanding you interpreted -- these gentlemen were here in September 10th and it was tabled to this month, pursuant to your suggestions that they make some changes in it. And I know that everybody thinks attorneys like to go on forever, but I'm going to be quiet and I'm going to let the sign guy speak because he knows a lot more about it than I do, and I believe they did make a change -- some changes, which you request. We have two photographs here of the
signage as we have adjusted it, and I believe the Board also asked us, you know, to place those signs on the building. They've been on there I'm thinking for about two weeks so that possibly you had an opportunity to go by there and take a look at them. I'll turn it over to Mr. Carroll, please. MR. CARROLL: He about said it all. We took your suggestion, reduced the size that we're suggesting and identified what -- square footage we want for both tenants, which I'm going to propose 65 square foot which, by code, would be allowed without the ground sign, so we've reduced it to less than half and split the difference. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. BAIN: And we do have two photographs, if you'd like me to approach with them or put them on the screen. MR. CHAIRMAN: Put them on the screen while we're talking. We had an additional notice, and there were fifteen notices sent. We had one objection, a neighbor, Mr. Crain, the guy that
cracks my back. The building has an existing sign which meets the ordinance. If he wishes to rent part of the building he needs to split the signage space, so I see no hardship. Thank you, Mr. Crain, for responding. Anybody in the audience wish to approach? Yes, sir. Want to give us your name? MR. LAMB: I sure will. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is David Gillam. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Cooper, Shifman, Gabe, Quinn & Seymour, 26200 Town Center Drive here in the City of Novi, and I'm here this evening on behalf of the Sinoui (ph) family who are the owners of Jonna's Fine Wines, which is located directly to the west of the subject property in this case. It's our position, and has been and is tonight, that we're opposed to the variance that's requested in this particular case. I think there's a letter in the file from our office regarding our comments. But just briefly, if you look at the specific language of the zoning ordinance itself,
it talks about property that has exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape or area, exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary or exceptional conditions of the property that, in so many words, give rise to peculiar exceptional practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. And it's our position here that there really is nothing exceptional or out of the ordinary about this particular piece of property. If there are any difficulties or hardships that are involved in the property as it's been developed, it's a result of the way that it has been developed, that is, the way the property faces to Grand River Avenue; in fact, that the parking is located to the east of the building rather than to the front, as is the case with many other properties along Grand River Avenue. So it's our position that there is an existing sign in front of the building along Grand River that satisfies ordinance requirements. That's more than sufficient. If the applicant would like to have signage on the east side of the building, they can have signage on the east side of the building but
comply with the ordinance, they should have to give up the signage along Grand River. We would ask the variance request be denied. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Anybody else in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Is it my understanding that there's not going to be any ground pole sign? MR. BAIN: No. We're still going to keep the sign out -- the ground sign out front. MR. SAVEN: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. I believe that we are at where we asked the petitioner to be tonight. Last month, as we reviewed the building as it was built, which is not before us, position the parking, the attitude of the building, which is not before us. What is before us is a petition for a second sign. This Board expressed some concern that we might have a Pandora's Box because there was some property in this building that was also
going to be sublet, and we'd prefer to see a signage plan that addressed all of their needs, and I believe that's what they have presented in this month's rendering, which suggests two signs addressing the party store needs, as well as what we would expect down the road being a sublet business. So if I paraphrased that correctly, historically, that's what's before us tonight, is whether the applicant and his request for a second sign, as well as an additional third sign I guess we could say at this point, for another business. I'll open questions to the Board Members. And as my constituents ponder their questions, I'll go on record as reiterating my comments from last month. I felt last month, and I made the point, that the new building was certainly an improvement over the existing business. It was the petitioner's desire to lay it out in the fashion that he laid it out, and I did not see the need to retain the sign that sits on Grand River. I have no problem with supporting the petitioner's request for two signs on the parcel because it will
ultimately be two different businesses, and I haven't heard anything new, and so that's still my position. Other -- MR. CARROLL: The argument there would be- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Sir, please let us finish now. MR. CARROLL: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have -- the Board Members are -- give their opinions. MEMBER BAUER: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER BAUER: We're then going to wind up with one-piece sign and no Grand River sign, correct? MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what I was hoping for. MEMBER BAUER: I like that, oh, yeah. MR. CHAIRMAN: Towards the end of this particular case last month, if you recall, or maybe it was two months ago, it was kind of sprung that the new building, being as though it was larger, there was a portion of the building that was going to be sublet, and I think it was Laverne
that said I would like to see a complete sign package, and that's what we have before us tonight, although the petitioner is still requesting to maintain the ground sign that is on Grand River. And that's where we're at. MEMBER REINKE: I would like to direct a question to Mr. Saven. Are they allowed any identification over a door? MR. SAVEN: Depends on what you're talking about, identification sign, if you're talking about, like, for emergency purposes, identifying the parcel, yes, indeed, they can have that. I want to just bring something up. In terms of the amount of businesses that are allowed -- business center district, you're normally allowed one ground pole sign that identifies the complex and then each individual store would have their sign package or whatever they would be allowed to have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Isn't three or more businesses though? MR. SAVEN: But that's four businesses. So in this particular case, you're
dealing with how many businesses? MR. CARROLL: Two. MR. SAVEN: That's kid of what he's looking at. And I do believe he wants to keep that front sign; is that correct? MR. BAIN: That's correct, because without -- frankly, without the front sign, if you're traveling eastbound on Grand River you don't know we're there because you can't see the sign unless you're looking out your back window. MR. SAVEN: That's the dilemma that's before you right now. MR. BAIN: And I believe they -- originally, if I understand it, they originally wanted to have the building facing -- basically the glass doors facing Grand River, but they were unable to do that. The Building Department didn't want them to do that way and they adjusted- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) What department? MR. BAIN: I'm sorry? MR. SAVEN: Which department? MR. BAIN: Planning. I apologize. MR. SAVEN: Thank you.
MR. BAIN: But the planning commissioner wanted them to change that, so they adjusted the site plan and whatnot so that, you know, basically the other one would be facing, otherwise it wouldn't be a problem, so -- and, given the fact that it is a long, narrow building, it does create somewhat of a hardship for them. And as the Chairman so eloquently stated, they put significant financial obligations into this building to rip down a whole ratty store, that I used to cash my checks at when I was working construction 15 years ago, and put a significant investment into this community and built a very nice store and put out a very nice ground sign in front in addition to the two signs that they're proposing at this point, and they want to, obviously, be able to give their tenants a separate identity from them in the way that the building was constructed. I might point out to the Board that at the very -- their neighbor directly, I believe to the east, at Audio Video Systems, has not only a ground sign but also a wall sign, if I may put a photograph on that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, we're -- I'm not going to accept other stores, other conditions here. We're listening to your case. MR. BAIN: Well, I understand, but I just think the Board should be aware of how many variances have been granted. MR. SAVEN: I've been on this Board for nine years. MR. BAIN: I understand that, sir. I'm just making my record. MR. CHAIRMAN: I know which store you're talking about. It's different strokes for different folks. Other Board Members? MEMBER REINKE: We really got a problem here, the way it's orientated. The second business, I guess there's some identification needed there. The thing is I look at the size of these signs and I look at,you know -- you're almost really putting the size of the sign on a wall of the building as what you're ground sign is out in front, the way it looks in the presentation, and I really don't -- I don't agree with what's being presented. I think it's
too large, too much, but I don't know what the answer is. MR. CARROLL: If we look at this photo here, here's a shot taken from the Grand River, you can see how small the signs are on the building. MEMBER REINKE: The thing is, in my mind the ground pole sign is your identification for Grand River. The only thing that you're going to see that I see as -- and that I can buy for the identification on the building as you're presenting is it to identify which business is which once you're in the parking lot. That's the only reason and only rationale I see for a sign on that building, on that side at all, unless you want to give up the ground pole -- ground sign. MR. CARROLL: Do you feel that 30 square foot is excessive? MEMBER REINKE: Do I what? MR. CARROLL: That 30 square foot is excessive for the size of the building? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. That sign -- the only reason -- the only thing I see use for that sign is to identify which business is which
once you're in that parking lot. MR. BAIN: What size would the commission -- or the Board suggest that would be viewable by potential customers so you can see it? MR. CARROLL: Those Novi Party Store letters are approximately 12-inch letters, maybe 14, but probably 12-inch letters. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: I guess my whole problem with this whole dilemma from back in September and to now is you have a pole sign out on Grand River. That is your identification for people driving by. You have the two suites in the building, which was your choice to build that way, or the property owner's choice to build that way. As Mr. Reinke has said, if -- all you need when you drive into that parking lot -- once people drive by and notice that you're party store on Grand River, once they drive into the parking lot they just need to know which is the party store and which is not. And even from the pictures, with all the stuff you have in the windows, the pricing and
stuff, you know, there will be no doubt which is the party store and which is the tenant space. So our sign ordinance -- I don't see a reason to grant a variance from what our sign ordinance allows. MR. CARROLL: We were told we were not allowed to have signs in the window. I thought last meeting- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Well, you can have a certain amount of signs in your window. MR. SAVEN: Twenty-five percent. MEMBER GRAY: No more than 25 percent of the window can be covered by signs on the inside, such as pricing or whatever. MR. CARROLL: But that's not permanent signs; that can't be neon signs or anything? MR. SAVEN: No neon signs. MEMBER GRAY: No neon signs at all. MR. SAVEN: Neon signs is just open, that's two square foot, something like that. You can check with Allen Amolsch on the sign. MR. CARROLL: So the 25 percent,
that's not -- it's permanently 25 percent? MR. SAVEN: That's 25 percent of your advertising, that retail -- whatever it is that you do for your product, whatever it is, but 25 percent coverage is the most you can have. MR. CARROLL: Okay. MEMBER GRAY: And if you can refresh my memory, what is it -- how big a sign are they allowed to have total on the building? MR. CARROLL: Without a ground sign? MR. BAIN: Without a ground sign? MEMBER GRAY: No, with a ground sign. MR. SAVEN: They're only allowed one sign. MEMBER GRAY: One sign period? MR. SAVEN: This is -- one sign. This is the reason why we're -- maybe the Board wants to look at dividing the ground sign up into two categories here and put smaller signs up on the building. MEMBER GRAY: I think my feeling is that they have the ground sign to identify the party store and the tenant, whenever the tenant comes in. Then they should need minimal signage,
if any, on the building saying who does what, because whoever the tenant is is probably going -- probably going to be of a commercial nature, cell phone, whatever, just to use an example, they're going to have their own signage in their window up to a maximum of 25 percent in putting their product up. There's not going to be a question about who's doing what, unless there's another party store that moves in, and I doubt that that's going to happen. So I don't see a need to have any signs on the building other than the very minimal, if we go that route. It's either one or the other. That's what our sign ordinance says. MR. BAIN: (Inaudible) if you were traveling eastbound in reference to whoever their tenant may be because their sign space that will be on the ground sign for whoever the tenant may be is going to be so small that a passing motorist is going to be very hard-pressed to see it. MEMBER GRAY: Well, with all due respect, if somebody's going to drive by they're going to find another party store to go to.
MR. BAIN: I'm not talking about the party store, ma'am. I'm talking about the store that -- maybe the cell phone store- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) No. MR. BAIN: -whatever other store it may be. MEMBER GRAY: Most of those are destination places anyhow. The people know where they're going before they leave home. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's back up a second here. MR. BAIN: I would just like to make the record clear, and I understand the Chairman indicated different strokes for different folks, okay, but I want to go through the addresses of which sign variances have been granted, just a few. MR. CHAIRMAN: No, sir. I'm not going to listen to that. We're going to address this case. You've got a legal sign on Grand River. You have petitioned us for two thirty-square-foot signs on the eastern wall of the building. That's what's before us tonight. The Board has suggested that we're
not comfortable with the size of these two signs. You've declared that you need the signage to identify those two separate businesses. As I see it right now, you have an opportunity right now to look at smaller signs identifying those two business while maintaining your Grand River sign, or you have the option of us denying everything in front of us tonight, sir. I'm not going to debate this anything longer. MR. BAIN: So I suppose what you're suggesting is that we resubmit smaller signs once again and table this again for next month? MR. CHAIRMAN: No. That's to -- your option. You can either consider some smaller signs right now and make that presentation before us, or you can table it again. MR. CARROLL: Well, that's what we did, sir. We've reduced it to this. If you could give us some idea where you want us to be. MEMBER GRAY: Probably somewhere between I am and what you're proposing is where we want you to be. That's your decision to make, because we have the ability right now to say yes or
no, or we can tell you we don't want to give you a thirty square foot sign. We can tell you we can only give you a ten square foot sign. That's up to our discretion, too, so you need to tell us what you feel you need, and it's going to probably be somewhere between what I said and what you're proposing. MR. CARROLL: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Carroll, that's the sign guy? MR. CARROLL: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can you make two signs above these two locations something less than thirty square feet? MR. CARROLL: To build a channel letter type sign, to get it anything less than a 12 inch letter is difficult to build. MR. CHAIRMAN: So is that a no? MR. CARROLL: I don't have -- I don't know how it was going to lay out. I have to lay it out on a computer and figure out the scale and how it comes out square footage. MR. CHAIRMAN: You're asking us for a decision tonight or-
MR. BAIN: (Interposing) No. We're going to table -- Mr. Chairman, we're going to table it to next month. We will try to reconfigure the sign once again so it will meet the Board's approval and come back in a month with a new proposal. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may add something here, please. What they're looking at is problem with this easterly exposure, okay, and whether or not they'll be able to see the traffic coming in both sides. Maybe you ought to look at doing something with that ground sign out front, or whatever it is, change that or do something different there so that you can get your exposure and look at that as your primary target. This way you get both your traffic on each side. I don't know how the Board looks at this thing, but one way or the other you're going to have a problem. MR. BAIN: And if I might- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) And I think before you come back to the Board again is you take a look at it and maybe -- because now that
you have that focus on the ground sign out front and your people can find it by virtue of the address, which I'm sure will probably be out there also, or something along them lines, but they'll know -- your business will know where to go to, plus you wouldn't need the tremendous amount of square footage on the interior of that particular building. That might be something to take a look at, I mean, as an option. I don't know how the Board feels. MR. BAIN: And, sir, I tend -- if I may, I tend to agree with you because -- and I know there's been one objection voiced here tonight by a community member -- and hopefully it will show up and turn that back on -- but one of the things we are dealing with, and they're certainly in their right to do this, but if you can see, there's two cars parked back to back there on that adjacent property. It's their property, they can do that, but it seems to be a deliberate attempt to block our ground sign from view from the easterly -- from anybody traveling east, and that is from the person that voiced this objection. So we can kind of see
what's going on. I suppose we can try to have another proposal and raise that ground sign or do something different with that. But that's what's going on. MR. SAVEN: Five foot is the maximum height of the ground sign. MR. BAIN: I understand. But I just want the Board to be aware of what's happening. MR. CARROLL: When you recommended changes, are you considering allowing more square foot or more height? MR. SAVEN: That's something that the Board would look at. You know, you got to be reasonable in your request. That's what I'm saying to you right now. The Board's not going to play a game back and forth here. What we're asking is that you be reasonable. MR. BAIN: And we thought we were being reasonable this evening. But, in any event, I believe we'll table it for next month, we'll come back on whatever date next month will be, the meeting, and try to have a proposal which will meet the Board's approval.
MEMBER REINKE: But please follow direction and look at everything, because you didn't really look at your total package in perspective of what will make things work. MR. BAIN: Understood. MR. CARROLL: With all due respect, I thought we did reduce them by more than half, what we proposed last month, and that's what you suggested, so that's why we- MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) Oh, I -- what I suggested was to look at all options on total signage, which was not addressed. MR. CHAIRMAN: What I suggested was you take down the pole sign if you want identification for two separate businesses. I was willing to give you that. I said take down that sign on Grand River. You don't want to do that. Come back next month, pitch it again. MR. BAIN: That's all we can do. MEMBER BAUER: Can we ask for it before the cutoff date so we can see it before it gets here? MR. CHAIRMAN: That's supposed to be the case.
MR. BAIN: That shouldn't be any problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. MR. BAIN: Thank you. MR. SAVEN: We're tabling the case? MR. CHAIRMAN: We're tabling the case. MEMBER GRAY: Move to table. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MEMBER GRAY: You need a motion? MR. CHAIRMAN: No. I think we beat that horse to death. MS. SIMON: You should probably make a motion so the record's clear. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?
MEMBER REINKE: Yes. CASE NUMBER 02-090 MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's call the Heaths up. This must be- MS. HEATH: (Interposing) I'm Elizabeth Heath. I'm the co-owner of the property at 905- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Okay. This is Case Number 02-090 filed by Douglas Heath, 905 South Lake Drive. This is for a variance request for the construction of a addition in the front of the property. MS. HEATH: That's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: Want to raise your hand and be sworn? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information you are about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MS. HEATH: I do. Well, after we left the meeting here last month we went back home and got back onto the drawing board. And as you can see we changed the plans totally as opposed to
adding onto the west side of the house. Someone on the Board suggested look at your front yard, that's where your, you know, largest piece of property is. So we went ahead and did a little drawing on the front of the house, which we're hoping will be a little more acceptable. This time we only need one variance, which is a setback, as opposed to five like we had last month. We've also spoken to all the neighbors in the area, and I do have another signature paper that we -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ma'am. Just going back to last month, and this is a carryover. Previously we were looking at an addition that would encroach onto the east side property quite tightly. MEMBER GRAY: West. MR. CHAIRMAN: And we had -- west? MS. HEATH: It was the west, yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: And we had suggested that you take another look at it, and I thank you for doing that.
Are there any members in the audience that want to comment? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: No. There were 54 new notices sent, and you've got a vote of approval from one gentleman, Hartman, one man, and Bonnie Sapula, in addition to another half-dozen or so here that are also residents that have reviewed the proposed revised addition plans of 905 South Lake. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Definitely minimized the amount of variances before you tonight. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members? MEMBER REINKE: I guess it is a much better plan, better layout, and not going to the extremes of what your original proposal was to the side lot. MS. HEATH: Right. MEMBER REINKE: And I think it's a minimum intrusion and I can support petitioner's request. MR. CHAIRMAN: Me, too. Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: Well, I also can
support your request. I just wonder if you have to -- if you can't pull it back a little bit and not request the three foot variance? MS. HEATH: Well- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Finesse the footprint a little bit, not that I'm trying to tell you how to design your house. MS. HEATH: Right. Well, one of the reasons why we want that large of an area is we want to put a pool table in, and you need quite a bit of area. Plus we also want to install, like, a wet bar type thing, so that does take up a lot of space for that, and we were thinking about putting in a fireplace also. MR. CHAIRMAN: I personally believe the petitioner has worked along the lines that we've directed her and I would support her motion. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion in Case 02-090 that this Board grant the request for the three foot variance due to lot size and configuration. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a second.
Sarah? We have- MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Interposing) We have the attorney raising her hand. MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Simon? MS. SIMON: Thank you. I just want to make sure that you're using the practical difficulty standard for this in your motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: So noted and is part of the motion. So we have a minor adjustment to the motion. So noted. Sarah, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: 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: Ma'am, you have your variance.
MS. HEATH: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: See the Building Department. CASE NUMBER 02-087 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Let's get Mozart Homes Limited Liability Corporation for Brookhaven. This is regarding a ground sign on property at 42400 Ten Mile Road. Sir, you want to give us your name and be sworn? MR. FELLOWS: Certainly. My name is Mike Fellows. I'm with Mozart Homes. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Board Members. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please, to be sworn in. MR. FELLOWS: Certainly. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. FELLOWS: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. FELLOWS: I think I should start
by trying to clarify something. Through our little bit of nonunderstanding of the entire sign ordinance, we may have caused a little confusion. We apologize for that. I think that the variance we are actually asking for is what I would call a timing variance, not really a size variance. What we'd like to do is put up the sign that you have a drawing of, which is a five foot by five foot sign, which identifies a subdivision -- a second condominium under development is what we would like to do. There is a sign out on the property now, which I think is a conforming temporary sign, advertising the residential sale of vacant unplatted property, which is what that property is at the moment. It is not part of a plat yet. Obviously, we have applied for a second condominium approval -- site plan approval but we don't have it yet. That sign is four feet by four feet, which is the size allowed by that section, if I understand this correctly now. The particular property is a seven
acre parcel, which is fairly narrow, somewhat wooded, and is on -- if you've been by there, I'm sure you know -- the north side of Ten Mile, just east of the railroad tracks between Novi Road and Meadowbrook. Because it is narrow but more so because of two things, I think, visibility problems. The property is on the side of a hill, which if you're traveling westbound on Ten Mile you don't really get to see the sign until you're pretty much on top of it. And the other issue is that there -- the property has been with one family for I think a hundred years, and as such there is no right of way other than the 33 foot user right of way, which is always adjacent to properties like that, and the trees that are growing on the property grow very close to Ten Mile Road. And it's really more so the trees than that hill which makes the visibility a little difficult. That is one difficulty we see with advertising this property. The other one is not really a hardship created by the property as much as it is the fact that the sign ordinance, as it's written,
which permits construction identification signs or a sign like we're asking for, the subdivision identification sign, does not permit those signs until a first building permit for the project is issued. If a small builder such as us does not or cannot build a model on the site, the first building permit that would be issued would obviously be the first home sale, but we can't get a first home sale, as we would like to so we can compete with everybody else, if we can't have a sign out front advertising that home sale, so it's kind of a little catch-22 for us. The sign that we are proposing is -- and the sign that is out there we thought would serve as a decent example or mockup of the sign because it would be almost the same. That sign is four feet by four feet. The one we'd like is five feet by five feet, which is, obviously, twenty-five square feet, and less than half of the sixty-four square feet permitted for the type of sign we want to put up. I hope that that clears it up a little bit.
Sarah, I should apologize to you because we didn't make it clear in our application what that was. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anybody in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: It's -- basically, what Michael had indicated is the fact that this is unplatted property. This is not a construction site as it exists now but it is homes that are going to be for sale on this site, so it's like a real estate sign that you're basically looking at. That's the difference in square footage. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members? I should say we had seventy-one notices sent. We had one approval, one objection. The approval said nothing, the objection said too large, try something more like four by three or four by four. I'll make one comment. I've lived in the city now for twenty-five years, and I saw that sign, the one that's up, the day that it went up because that's property that's been sitting there
for a long, long time, and you knew sooner or later somebody was going to do something with it. So I was able to see your sign, the existing one that's there. I saw it immediately. But that's just one casual observer. MEMBER GRONACHAN: I have a clarification, please, Mr. Chairman. The sign that's up there is allowed now? MR. SAVEN: No. MEMBER GRONACHAN: At all? MR. SAVEN: No. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. So that sign would be coming down and we're going to be approving the one that we have the drawing for? MR. SAVEN: You're going to be looking for the size. What you're looking for is the size of that sign; is that correct? MR. FELLOWS: Well, not so much the size. Again, I think, in my reading of the ordinance, that it's a timing variance. The size of it -- the kind of sign we're asking for is that subdivision identification sign, which is permitted at first building permit. MR. SAVEN: Let's not talk timing
aspect, platted property versus construction site versus -- what you're looking at as far as real estate plans. We're talking square footage. That's basically what we're dealing with. MR. CHAIRMAN: And what he's looking for is a real estate sign. MR. SAVEN: That's the -- real estate sign versus so on and so on. MEMBER GRONACHAN: So the sign that's there, not this -- that's what we have in front of us, the sign that's up- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) The sign that's there is the one he wants, that's correct. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. MR. FELLOWS: The sign that is -- the picture says Brookhaven, Novi schools, from the 300s with a phone number on it, that's the sign we'd like to have there. MEMBER REINKE: That's sixteen square foot. MR. FELLOWS: The one we'd like to have would be twenty five. MEMBER REINKE: The one you have up there now is sixteen square feet.
MR. FELLOWS: Yes, sir. MEMBER GRONACHAN: So that one would be coming down and this will increase by -- all right. MEMBER REINKE: The only other question I have here is what is the time frame we're looking at? MR. FELLOWS: For the development? MEMBER REINKE: For what you need this sign. MR. FELLOWS: We would like to have that sign there starting now until -- it's probably a one-year thing. Well, actually, it would be a lot less, now that I think of it, because, hopefully, you know, we wouldn't have a model. Hopefully I'd sell a house sometime in the spring and be able to get the first building permit and then I could go get a different -- a permitted sign, a sixty-four foot construction identification sign. So maybe it's more realistically a four- to six-month thing timing. And, really, I don't know if this helps me, but just so you have an accurate picture, we would probably leave that sign there and just
apply for the construction identification sign. Instead of making it sixty-four square feet, just make it that sign, but it already happens to be there as a temporary sign should you reconsider my request favorably. MR. CHAIRMAN: I hope there's a lot straighter minds on the Board tonight than mine is right now, because I'm confused as all getup. MEMBER REINKE: Well, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Saven, the reason it's before us because, really, technically, it's a second sign? MR. SAVEN: No, this is not a second sign. He's got a four by four up there right now; is that correct, Mike? MR. FELLOWS: That's correct. MR. SAVEN: He wants a five by five saying the same thing as that four by four sign that's there now says. Once he gets approval for his project and he gets his first building permit, then he will be allowed to have a sixty-four square foot sign advertising that project. Okay? MR. FELLOWS: But just likely we would just leave that one there. And, Don, I should clar -- listening
to you, the sign that's out there now advertises the land that's there. It's land available for sixteen wooded sites or something like that. It doesn't have the exact same wording on it of the sign I'm asking for. MEMBER REINKE: I have no problem supporting a twenty-five square foot sign for six months. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. I saw a lot of nodding there. Laverne, why don't you take- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-087, I move that petitioner's variance request for a twenty-five square foot temporary sign for identification of residential building sales be approved for a period of six months. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have an overwhelming support. Sarah -- and we have -- Stephanie wants to make a point. MS. SIMON: I'm sorry to interrupt you again, but if you could state the practical
standard difficulty. I think the Board went through some good reasons as to what those practical difficulties were, if you could just include those in your motions. MEMBER REINKE: I have no problem with that? MR. CHAIRMAN: Are they not part of the record? MS. SIMON: They're part of the record (inaudible) clear in the motion as to why the practical difficulty exists. MEMBER REINKE: So added. MR. CHAIRMAN: Duly noted. Sarah, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Can you give examples of practical difficulty? MEMBER SAVEN: He said duly noted. MS. MARCHIONI: Okay. Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?
MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MR. FELLOWS: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. See the Building Department. MEMBER BAUER: Good luck. CASE NUMBER 02-093 MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll call Arnold Randy Schmitt representing Bamboo Club, 44375 Twelve Mile. This is Fountain Walk, Case 02-093, requesting two illuminated wall signs. Sir, you want to give us your name and raise your hand and be sworn? MR. SCHAEFER: Sure. Tim Schaefer. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. SCHAEFER: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. SCHAEFER: Well, I need to amend our request. What we have in front of you is wrong. Instead of what was a 54 foot, I think you
have in front of you, square foot, we're -- we are requesting a forty-six-and-a-half square foot sign. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. SCHAEFER: The mockup, I believe, represents that, that's on the building now. MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don't you tell us why you need two signs and why you need them where you need them and why you need them as big as you need them. MR. SCHAEFER: Right. I got a little story to tell you about tonight going over to look at this site. I drove all through the place, could not find it, did not find it, would not find it. But I did go into Van's and almost spent a hundred and thirty dollars on a skateboard for my son. But to -- we need this second sign to adequately identify the store in the center. The center's extremely hard to find anything. It's just -- it's laid out hard for pedestrians to just find out where they're going inside of here, that I found out. That's what I have.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members? I'll just start by saying I wandered around that damn place trying to find these two mockups, and I found two little squares taped to the wall about six feet off the floor, and I thought this certainly isn't what this guy wants. So the renderings that were there, whether you did them or somebody else did them, didn't serve us any real representation of- MR. SCHAEFER: (Interposing) Were they up on the walls, up high? MR. CHAIRMAN: I went Saturday. I went Saturday and there were two little thirty by thirty inch squares that were at eye level. MR. SCHAEFER: Oh, no. That must be a construction sign. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I'm sorry. MR. SCHAEFER: You didn't find it either, huh? MR. CHAIRMAN: No.
MR. SCHAEFER: Did you go to Van's? MR. CHAIRMAN: I didn't buy a skateboard but I probably spent 40 bucks in gas driving around the dang place. MR. SCHAEFER: The signage on the outside of this is very -- on this center is very lacking, extremely. You don't know where any businesses are. MR. CHAIRMAN: What was the requested square foot again? MR. SCHAEFER: 46.5 square. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Other Board Members, because I can't speak to what they have presented because it wasn't there on Saturday, so I'll take your lead? MR. SCHAEFER: We put it up on Friday, the mockup, so it is there. It was there. I do have pictures of it actually up on the wall. MR. CHAIRMAN: Jerry? MR. SAVEN: Can you put it on the overhead? MR. SCHAEFER: Sure. MEMBER BAUER: This is changing the whole thing. Are we going to have to readvertise?
MR. SAVEN: It's less than- MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Interposing) It's smaller. MR. SCHAEFER: I couldn't even find the colors. MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's facing the expressway next to Buffalo Wings. MEMBER GRAY: Because here's Buffalo Wings over here and- MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Interposing) And here's a good example. Look at that color scheme. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, you got comments? MEMBER GRAY: Well, I didn't have a problem with it. I didn't have a problem with the size. I mean, I understand that you want to identify your building there, or your location there, and so I really don't have a problem with it. Is this the only sign you're going to have? There's not going to be one on the other court? MR. SCHAEFER: Over the doorway
there's a small sign that's already permitted, and I believe -- has that been approved? I believe it's been approved. MEMBER GRAY: So this is your only entrance facing 96 Expressway? MR. SCHAEFER: I couldn't tell you. I couldn't find the place, I'm sorry, and I don't have a plot plan of the property. MEMBER GRAY: Is this the only entrance to this restaurant, Don, do you know? MR. SAVEN: I thought it was on a corner. MEMBER GRAY: Well, it is on a corner, but I didn't see any other doors when I was wandering around there on Sunday. MR. SCHAEFER: I believe they only have one door, the big- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Okay. MR. SCHAEFER: -on the corner there. MEMBER GRAY: Yeah. Because it's set back. The -- to the west of it is Buffalo Wings, and this is set back in, and I didn't really have a problem with it. And, don't forget, there's going to
be all those little destination signs around directing people where to go to. MR. SCHAEFER: Okay. They weren't out tonight, and I'm not familiar with the center. MEMBER GRAY: I don't think they're up yet. I don't -- because of occupancy. MR. SCHAEFER: Yeah. MEMBER GRAY: If a motion's in order, unless there is any other discussion- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Yes. MEMBER GRAY: I'll move to approve the variance request for this sign, the smaller sign at forty-six-and-a-half square feet, which is a variance of six-and-a-half square feet, correct, based on the fact that I think this restaurant needs to be able to identify itself so people can see it, and if that's practical difficulty, so be it. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We have- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) This is a second sign? MEMBER GRAY: This is a second sign?
MR. SCHAEFER: This is the second sign. MEMBER GRAY: That's incorporated into my motion then, this is a second sign. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We have a motion and a second. Sarah, will you? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, sir. You've got your variance. See the Building Department. MR. CHAIRMAN: You know what, maybe let's take three, four minutes for a quick break. We'll be right back and we'll get through these. (A short recess was taken.)
CASE NUMBER 02-094 MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll call the meeting back to order and we will call Case 02-094 filed by Beverly White representing Westmarket Square. This is the development at the northwest corner of Grand River and Beck Road. Ma'am, you want to raise your hand and be sworn? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MS. WHITE: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MS. WHITE: Beverly White from Juxtapose Sign Studio, and I'm here on behalf of Bradley Rosenberg who has been here a couple other times to get an extension on a variance for the temporary construction sign, or real estate, I'm not exactly sure how it's referred to, but you've very nicely and cordially granted us a couple of extensions, and we're here for another. Construction is still going on and we need to market the retail space that's still available. It's not a building yet but it's still
property within Westmarket Square. I do have a drawing. If you need to see it I can put it on the board or -- basically, it's a simple request to extend the variance that we have already for as long as you see fit to grant us. MR. CHAIRMAN: If you have evidence to present, you better present it. MS. WHITE: Okay. That corner that you see there in the lower right, that is where the sign is. Right here is where the sign is located right now. It's an eight foot by eight foot, sixty-four square foot sign. And if granted an extension -- if you had a chance to look at it, it's kind of wearing over time, and if the extension is granted we are going to straighten the sign and make it look nicer and refresh it so to speak. But here are some -- this is still property here that is not built or contracted yet, this is also open property, this over here is open property, and we also have some future retail space here that's still open and needs to be marketed.
So all those available spots are still in need of construction and marketing. If that sign were removed it basically stops all the phone calls. I mean, people will think that's completely full and won't be interested, because there are no signs on the property right now to advertise those spaces. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anybody in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: May I ask, with respect to the entire complex what percentage is built and leased? MS. WHITE: All the orange areas that you see are built and leased. MR. CHAIRMAN: What percentage of the complex- MS. WHITE: (Interposing) What percentage, that's a very good question. I would say- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) If you have to shoot from the hip, shoot from the hip.
MS. WHITE: Okay. I would say two-thirds. MR. CHAIRMAN: That answers my question. I mean, I look at this, personally, no different than the residential development when we're looking at the number of houses that had been sold and the number of vacant lots. It's a very similar situation. We have had meetings in the past with other signage and we've asked the land owner here to -- I remember distinctly that attorney -- I forget which one it is. I forget his name. We -- I personally asked him to go back to the property owner and come back with a full signage package, which hasn't happened, but that withstanding, this is a request for a previously approved sign for -- MEMBER GRAY: You're thinking of Joe Garin? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, yes, yes. I did ask Joe- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) You asked specifically -- MR. CHAIRMAN: -to go back and get a
full sign package. MEMBER GRAY: Yep. MR. CHAIRMAN: So I'll just leave those comments. Any other Board Members? MEMBER REINKE: I have one comment. Where were you six months ago? MS. WHITE: Well, actually, are you saying that because the -- it went farther past the extension than it's supposed to? MEMBER GRAY: Um-hmm. MS. WHITE: Oh, I have an answer for that actually, and it's something that you resolved within yourselves here at the last -- Sarah, help me. It was the last- MS. MARCHIONI: (Interposing) At the October meeting it was brought up. MS. WHITE: It was brought up because the verbiage had said -- I have it here, give me two seconds. You granted it for six months or until leased, and nobody really caught that, so it was pretty open-ended, and it was -- we thought that was pretty cool, but it turns out that- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) Our
definition -- MS. WHITE: -what you really meant -- MEMBER REINKE: I can tell you definition right now, is six months or if it's leased earlier than that. MS. WHITE: Of course. MEMBER REINKE: The maximum is six months. MS. WHITE: Whichever comes first, sure, but it actually didn't say that though, so I think that maybe is why it went past its time, and that was clarified at the October meeting, and of course the sign needs to come down unless we get the variance -- I mean the extension. MEMBER REINKE: I would support a variance request for a year or until leased, whichever is shorter, but this will be the last one. MEMBER GRAY: Any notices, Mr. Chair? MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. Three notices sent; zero/zero. MEMBER GRAY: Thanks.
MEMBER BAUER: Did I hear you say you're going to refurbish that sign? MS. WHITE: Yes, we are. It's crooked. MEMBER BAUER: Stay the same? MS. WHITE: Graphics will -- we have no advantage in changing anything on the sign. We're not asking for that. It's going to be identical. It's just going to look a lot nicer than, you know -- it's falling apart a little bit right now. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other Board Members? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Reinke, if that was a motion, I'll- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) I'll make it into one. Mr. Chairman, Case 02-094, I move that petitioner's variance request for a temporary marketing sign be granted for a period of one year or until leased, whichever is shorter, and the practical difficulty is to improve marketing. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion and a second. Sarah, please.
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ma'am- MS. WHITE: (Interposing) Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: -you have another year. MS. WHITE: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Unless you lease it out. MS. WHITE: Hopefully. MR. CHAIRMAN: You're not kidding. CASE NUMBER 02-095 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. How about the Ryans, they here? Come on down.
This is a case filed by Neal Ryan requesting a six foot rear yard setback, construction of an attached garage. This is at 24360 Willow Lane. Raise your hand and be sworn. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the that information you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. RYAN: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Tell us what you want to do and why you want to do it. MR. RYAN: Well, we've recently bought a property -- or a home here in Novi and we want to put on a two-car garage. One of the -- the drawing was submitted and it was suggested to us that we move the garage forward on our property six feet. The biggest problem that we have with that is that eliminates the one and only window we have on that side of the house, takes away any daylight, ventilation, whatever, but that also happens to be the laundry room in the home. Another problem we have is part of
the association rules are that there's no parking on the street at night. In the event that -- well, for example, this past weekend we had our children up and, you know, they drive in, we don't have that much of an area to accommodate the association. So we're asking for the six foot variance in order that we have a little longer driveway and also to allow us to have the natural light and ventilation in our laundry room. Some of the material I submitted, I did go to all my neighbors, except one that I never could find at home, and they've all signed on the plan that they approve of it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you -- do you have that with you? MS. MARCHIONI: It's in the file. MR. RYAN: It's -- I submitted it. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. Keep going. MR. RYAN: I'm going to have to look at notes now. I'm not much of a speaker. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll tell you what, you know what, if we've got questions we'll ask
them. MR. RYAN: Okay. Well, one of the things I guess I should mention, I don't think that it's going to have an adverse affect on the neighborhood. If anything, I think it's going to be an improvement. I submitted some pictures. There's basically three different plans that people have used in the three different subdivisions in the association, and unfortunately quite a few of the homes in our area have followed the one plan, and we're trying -- or, hopefully, if we're allowed the variance, we'll be able to make the house a little bit unique, the whole neighborhood won't look -- it's a home out of the '50s. It will break up the subdivision look if you will. I think it would be a good improvement. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You're all set. Anybody in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: We had thirty-three notices. We had two approvals through the normal format, but we had another dozen or so, and we do have Willowbrook Community Association approval.
Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Well, this is basically a corner lot scenario, plus it's a very unusual lot configuration, which puts these people in a very difficult situation. I think they tried to do the very best they could as far as the location. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members? MEMBER REINKE: I don't think there's any garage can be built in Willowbrook without a variance. I think you've done a good job, you know, it's minimal. It's to the rear yard. I can support petitioner's request. There's not much else you can do. MR. RYAN: Can I ask one other thing? I'm not sure if this is the time or not, but is it possible to get a five-day waiver so that- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) If you get a nod from us. MEMBER BAUER: If they can do it. MR. RYAN: Okay. I didn't know where to go with that. MR. CHAIRMAN: If I were you, I would
ask that question about that time. Let Mr. Reinke make a motion here. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-095, I move that the petitioner's variance request be approved. The practical difficulty is lot shape, size and configuration. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and overwhelming support. Sarah, will you please call the vote. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: 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've got your variance. See the Building Department. And would we grant the -- can we handle this five-day-
MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) I am hopeful that we can. MR. CHAIRMAN: See the Building Department. MR. RYAN: Okay. Thank you very much. CASE NUMBER 02-096 MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's call up the Haynes, Kelly and Mike, on 112 Maudlin. They'd like a ten foot yard -- front yard setback for the construction of a covered porch. As I read this, this is an existing porch that they want to enclose. Case Number 02-096, Kelly and Mike. You want to raise your hand and be sworn? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. & MRS. HAYNES: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don't you give us
a quick little summary of what you want to do and why you want to do it. MS. HAYNES: Okay. We received the building permit for the addition in July and we started it in August. We're not aware that there was a variance needed, but -- so we apologize for that. We've since talked to our neighbors and no one seems to have any objections. And we just -- we want a roof on the porch, not to enclose it completely, just the roof part. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's pretty simple. We'll run with that. Anybody in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: The Building Department did not catch that covered porch. It's our fault. And it's an existing building. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members? Sarah. MEMBER GRAY: Well, the Haynes are neighbors of mine. And contrary to popular belief, not everybody on Maudlin is redoing their houses,
although it seems like it. What they're proposing is lovely. The porch has been there for years. They just wanted to put a roof over it. It looks very nice, and I know a lot of the neighbors support it. I think you have a petition. MR. CHAIRMAN: What I do have is seventy-two notices; one approval. And if there was a petition I haven't found it yet. MS. HAYNES: Actually, I have one. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ma'am, I tell you what, if you had people that were ready to rip your house down and burn you at the stake, they'd be here tonight, but what we do have is all the people who weren't going to burn you at the stake are listed here. You have the support of the majority of your neighbors. So if Sarah's ready to make a motion -- MEMBER GRAY: Well, if I must. Move to approve in the matter of Case Number 02-096, the petition by Mr. and Mrs. Haynes, to put a roof over their existing front porch with a ten foot setback variance due to the fact that it was existing for
many, many years. Practical difficulty noted? MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We have a motion and second. Sarah, please, unless there's discussion. MS. MARCHIONI: Is there a second? MR. CHAIRMAN: Jerry was the second. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Haynes, you have a variance and see the Building Department. MS. HAYNES: Do we ask for the five-day waiver now? MS. MARCHIONI: I talked to Andy, and call him tomorrow morning between 8:00 and 9:00.
MS. HAYNES: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Looks like there's been previous discussion. CASE NUMBER 02-097 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Come on down. We're going to call Case 02-097 filed by Greg Eitelman. MR. EITELMAN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: And give me the pronunciation of this business. MR. EITELMAN: It's called Roche Bobois. MR. CHAIRMAN: Roche Bobois. MR. EITELMAN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. This is regarding an existing business, or at least part of a business. That was Hagopian? MR. EITELMAN: Correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: And you're requesting three sign variances. You want to raise your hands and be sworn, please. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or
affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. EITELMAN & MR. HAGOPIAN: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. EITELMAN: The -- first, let me just say, my name is Greg Eitelman, and I'm a resident of Novi. My partner is Edgar Hagopian, and we formed a separate company to take on the Roche Bobois franchise, which in an internationally known, recognized furniture brand, and probably the radius of our customer base is at least 50 miles, so we would be potentially bringing in customers from Windsor, and then probably on the other side as far as Grand Rapids. With that said, the existing Hagopian building on Twelve Mile Road has some very unusual topographic conditions in that it is a two-level building originally designed as one entity, one store, and our company has taken the lower level of the store, and the upper level will be the existing Hagopian World of Rugs. And we have -- we now have a new address. The original address for the whole
building was 43223 Twelve Mile Road, and our address now is 43221 Twelve Mile Road. We have a shared entrance off of Twelve Mile Road. At that point the parking lot wraps around three sides of the building, and so our potential customer would come in off of Twelve Mile Road and be directed down to the lower level, which would be our entrance, which actually faces Ring Road. So we have a very unusual condition in terms of trying to identify our building. There's sort of a diconomy (ph) happening here. You have a Twelve Mile Road address with an entrance off of Twelve Mile Road but we also have a main entrance on Ring Road which faces the mall. So what we're requesting is that the existing Hagopian sign, which is over the main entrance, be merely replaced with our Roche Bobois sign, in the same amount square footage that's already there, and that we have some sign presence along Twelve Mile Road in that our customers who are not familiar with the Novi area have some signage presence along Twelve Mile Road so they can
identify where they might -- where the store might be, since that is our address. So -- and then we're also saying that there's an existing monument sign at Ring Road, and what we're requesting for that, which -- and that sign is merely to identify the entrance, because -- I don't know if you've been to that site, but it's -- it's like a very unusual site. You have to -- you really kind of have to follow the signs. It's a case where the sign really does have some meaning. The monument sign, it's really a directional sign to go up and into the parking lot for Hagopian. So we're requesting the existing monument sign having a different level put on it that says Roche Bobois, which is still within limits of the -- I think it's four feet height for your monument sign. That's basically it and that's what our request is. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Anybody in the audience have anything to say with respect to this case? (No response.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department left. That's okay. We had eight notices sent; one approval from Sears. I'd like to get it square in my head on these three signs. The first one is a brand-new sign on Twelve Mile. MR. EITELMAN: Correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: That little sign that you showed. And what was the size? That was 50 square foot? MR. EITELMAN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. The second sign is the existing Hagopian sign. You want to replace that same sign with Roche Bobois? MR. HAGOPIAN: The one facing the mall. MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. And the third sign is an existing ground sign that say Hagopian. MR. EITELMAN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Will also retain Hagopian?
MR. EITELMAN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: And have Roche Bobois. Thanks. That answers my questions. Board Members? MR. REINKE: So really, building wise, there's going to be one additional sign. One sign is going to be replaced. MR. EITELMAN: That's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: One use sign and one replaced sign. MR. REINKE: Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: And one modified sign. MEMBER REINKE: Well, that's a -- I have no problem with the ground pole, I have no problem with the replacement sign. Like I say, the ground pole sign -- because it's not even going up in height, now would be four feet, if I'm reading this correctly. I have no problem with the replacement sign. The only one I have to really look at is the additional sign. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, when I was trying to drive through Twelve Mile and
getting the identification to that building, it is really difficult to identify. I don't know that I'm in agreement with the size necessarily, but in lieu of the petitioner's explanation of coming in off of Twelve Mile and coming back down -- and right now you can't come in off Twelve Mile because of that construction -- at least I couldn't. MR. CHAIRMAN: You have to go down to McDonald's. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yeah. You have to go all the way down and then come back up. And if you do it that way, you really can't identify -- it was very difficult for me to identify through all of that. So I can support that additional sign, but I'm in question of the size and look to my other Board Members for guidance. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll make a comment, because I drove around that dang thing probably three times looking for all these other signs. Maybe I didn't understand what the petitioner was presenting. But I don't have any problem with the ground sign. I don't have any problem with
changing the large Hagopian sign on the Ring Road sign. Given this is essentially a new business, I think that there is some merit for signage on the Twelve Mile Road sign side, and I thought that the rendering that they put up -- I'm kind of shocked that that was 50 square foot. I thought it was quite a modest sign. That was my impression. We often have lulls like this when we're deep in concentration. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Deep in thought. MR. CHAIRMAN: Deep in thought. MEMBER BAUER: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Jerry, thank you. MEMBER BAUER: The monument sign on Ring Road is no problem, and replacing the one on the southeast elevation. The new one on the north side I think could be a lot more smaller, because you're right up against that on Twelve Mile Road. You can't see it either way. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Let's do this. Let's start knocking this down. Let's -- we seem
to have a lot of support for the ground sign. Let's take these in reverse order. Sign C, do we have a motion? MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair, in the matter of the road sign, directional sign, I will move that we approve the addition of the name Roche Bobois to the existing monument sign for business identification sign and directional off of Ring Road. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and support. Any discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Now, let's take sign A, which is the existing Hagopian sign which faces the Ring Road. Do we have a motion with respect to that sign? MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-097, sign rendering A, which is to replace the existing sign on Ring Road side, I move for support for business identification. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and support. Any discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Now we're dealing with the sign that's fifty square foot. What was that, six by eight? MR. EITELMAN: Yeah, approximately six by eight. MR. CHAIRMAN: We mentioned early on, right at the beginning of the meeting, that we have a short board. There's only five members here. You have to have four. I think you get a sense that there's a little sentiment between a couple people that would maybe like to see this sign on Twelve Mile be a little smaller. Is that something you want to address tonight and clean things out? MR. EITELMAN: To answer your question, yes, but can I add another bullet to my little speech here? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, like I said, you need four votes, and if my math is correct, you're a couple short right now, so maybe you want to cut to the chase and tell us what you might be able to live with on the Twelve Mile side. MR. EITELMAN: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't want to twist your arm or anything.
MR. EITELMAN: I understand where the Board is coming from, and I am sensitive to that. Living here in this community I can understand totally where you're coming from, and I can, you know -- I mean, I think that the sign -- I must have been at a great hardship to put up that temporary sign which just about blew me off the side of the building putting that thing up. That sign can be reduced in size. And I think -- it is an illuminated sign, and- MR. CHAIRMAN: Does that help your case? MR. EITELMAN: Yeah. I mean, I think that really all we're trying to do is have some business presence along Twelve Mile Road. We're not trying to say this is our main entrance here, but we need to be distinguished from the Hagopian side of the building. That's really what we're trying to do. MR. CHAIRMAN: You're on that end of the building? MR. EITELMAN: Right. So we can't be seen as, like, you know, that's the Hagopian building, where is Roche Bobois.
So really we can -- I think that we could very much reduce the size of that sign and, you know -- how much, I don't know. I mean to proportion- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) You're not sign guy, right? MR. EITELMAN: I can be. I'm a designer and architect. I mean, I can probably proportion that down. The logo has that proportion. That's how we came up with those dimensions, but if, you know, reduced twenty percent or twenty-five percent or something like that- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) What was that, forty-two, six by seven foot? MR. HAGOPIAN: It's very significant. MR. EITELMAN: Right now it's at- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) It's at 50. MR. EITELMAN: It's at 50? Forty. MEMBER REINKE: Reduce it down to, like, five by seven, which would be thirty-five square feet. MR. EITELMAN: So instead of eight by
seven. Approximately, it's proportion. So right now we're at fifty square feet. If it were reduced, say, to forty square feet, which would take it more into the boundary of the brick dimensions that are already there on the building. MR. CHAIRMAN: If we go back historically, this was a tough building. MR. EITELMAN: It's a really tough building. MR. CHAIRMAN: We had a lot of discussion with the Hagopian signage and the topography of this, so I think that we owe this petitioner a little room to move here, and if there's- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion -- MR. CHAIRMAN: -a shared sentiment. Thank you. MEMBER GRAY: I'll make a motion in Case 02-097 that sign B, which is the additional sign facing Twelve Mile, the variance be granted for building identification -- tenant identification purpose with the understanding that
it's to be no larger than forty square feet. I'd like to see it a little bit smaller if you can proportion it, but absolutely no larger than forty square feet. MR. EITELMAN: If you say no larger than 40 square feet, it more than likely will be smaller than that because of the proportion of the logo, yes. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Laverne, does that help? MEMBER REINKE: Yeah. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got your variances. MR. EITELMAN: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you, Board Members, for working with the petitioner. That is our last case. Other matters. I have just two real quick ones, and one may have been answered already. The ability of a business to put signage in their windows, inside the windows, as far as name of the business, it's only restricted by square footage? MR. SAVEN: It's restricted by square footage of twenty-five percent. Now, there's one -- couple of the things that came about the sign ordinance. Somebody took that out of context at one time and wanted to put neon. If you recall before where Mesquite Bar and Grill was, the place upstairs, they put some neon up there. And, of course, the only thing that was allowed as far as neon signs were secured are those which said open or closed, something to that affect. There's a lot of issues that are
involved in this stuff. Normally, you've got the retail establishments or the grocery stores or whatever, they put in all these signs in the windows, double coupons or whatever it is, and cost of certain items or specials, or whatever, but they're only allowed to have twenty-five percent. MR. CHAIRMAN: I only -- I wanted just to point out the Gorman's Store, which has got the signage along Twelve Mile that's inside the building. The other sign that I took notice of is the Twelve Oaks Landscaping on Twelve Mile, whether you want to have somebody look at that. They've added a big chunk to the existing sign, added verbiage, and I don't know if that goes beyond their- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) I'll send Allen out to take a look at that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other additional comments? Sarah? MEMBER GRAY: The Imagine Theater open -- now open sign hanging on -- facing the expressway, are those permitted? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Plastic ones.
MEMBER GRAY: There's two banner-type MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) No. We will be notifying them. MEMBER GRAY: And what happened with the furniture building and the bank building on the southeast corner of Grand River and Novi where the designer carpet and furniture -- MR. SAVEN: I'm not sure- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) They had two signs. MR. SAVEN: -but I think that was mentioned by Mr. Reinke, and we will have Mr. Amolsch check it out. I do believe that he probably has that somewhere. I'm sure he was intuned to us, but I will find out for you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else? MEMBER GRONACHAN: One other thing. To remind everybody, that we're still looking for volunteers for our Board. If anybody wants to sign up, please, by all means, see Sarah and come join us every month and have as much fun as we do. MR. SAVEN: I'd like to thank Stephanie for coming in at the last minute here. We really appreciate it.
MEMBER GRONACHAN: You did a great job. MEMBER BAUER: Very good. MS. SIMON: Thank you for having me. MR. CHAIRMAN: This meeting is closed. (The meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m.) Date approved: December 3, 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 110 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript to the best of my abilities.
________________________________ Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786 11-12-02 Date
|