| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting REGULAR MEETING -- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, March 4, 2003. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll take a gamble and start a few seconds early. We'll call this meeting to order. Sarah, can you call the roll? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We do have a quorum present, the meeting is now in session. On the front page of the agenda there's rules of conduct. If you'd please take a moment and read those over, we'd like you adhere by those. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a hearing board empowered by the Novi City Charter to hear appeals seeking variances from application of the Novi zoning ordinance. It takes a vote of four members to approve a variance. It takes a four
3 members to approve a variance and a vote of the majority to deny. We have five members tonight, so we have a full board. Keep in mind you need four yeses. Any changes to the agenda? MS. MARCHIONI: Yes. Please remove the minutes. MR. CHAIRMAN: We do not have minutes. Public remarks. MEMBER GRAY: Move to approve the agenda as amended? MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm Sorry. So moved. All those in favor, say aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Sarah. Public remarks. At this point we'll ask anybody who wishes to address the board on any case that's not on our agenda to raise their hand and come on down and talk to us. (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Prior to calling the first case, I'd like to recognize some appointments to the board, to fill out our board, and we're very thankful to the city council for
4 accomplishing that. Bob Gatt is appointed as a board member. And, Bob, we're thrilled to have you here. Not wanting to miss an opportunity to say hello. MR. GATT: Thank you, Mr. Brennan. No, I don't want to miss the opportunity. Thank you for having me, and I look forward to working with you, and I'm excited about it. Unfortunately, I'm not prepared tonight. The appointment was just made last night, so- MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing) Just a minute, Bob. You got to be sworn in first. MR. GATT: That's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: We think you'll be a real positive addition. MR. GATT: Well, thank you. I hope so. MR. CHAIRMAN: Personally, I'm very satisfied with the appointment. MR. GATT: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is Mr. Reed here, Chris Reed? Chris Reed was also appointed. He's going to be on the board as an alternate, which is as important as a position because we do have people who
5 go on vacation and people who get sick. So with Mr. Reed's appointment, we have, first time in about a year-and-a-half, a full board. All right. With that said, let's call the first case. CASE NUMBER 03-002 MR. CHAIRMAN: We will call David Cook. Come back down. This is Case 03-002. David wants to build a new house on a relatively small lot. This is a continuation from last month, so you're still under sworn testimony. And if you will, tell us what's different and what's changed. MR. COOK: All right. Well, good evening. You should have a little package that I gave. There's a picture of the old proposal, there should be a picture of the new proposal, and I included a few pictures of a house I'm modeling -- this is where I don't the idea to build the house from. And recently I've dropped off two more photos of houses that are in the neighborhood.
6 And I understand there are three arguments against what I'm doing from some of the people that are against it. One is that the lot's too small. The second argument was it would be unattractive to have the house sideways. And someone brought up an issue about vacation, which I had mentioned last time but isn't part of this request for a variance. It's not necessary. MR. CHAIRMAN: With respect to the road? MR. COOK: Hmm? MR. CHAIRMAN: With respect to the road? MR. COOK: Yeah, with Owenton Road. It's not required for me to do the house as planned. As far as the house being unattractive, I took some photographs of the similar house off of, I believe it's Pleasant Cove. They're the two side views. It's the dark brown house, looks like here. It's actually two different houses. But that's pretty much what the house I'd build would look like from the side. The windows will look different. There'd be a deck, there'd be a
7 fireplace. But that's just an example of a house that's put on the lot sideways, about the same size of the house I'm doing. And as far as the lot being too small, I also dropped off three of these, which are pictures, overhead views, provided by the City, of the area. And I counted all the houses built on 40-foot wide lots, and there's 11 out of 18 in that, what I'd call, one neighborhood. It's comprising of Owenton, Bernstadt and South Lake in between. And I believe two of them were on 40-foot lots but they've been expanded because they bought the lots next to them. So I'm kind of proposing that building on a 40-foot lot is not that unusual, although it hasn't been done recently. The newer lots are bigger. And that's pretty much all the new information I have. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. I'm sure we'll have some questions for you. This was renoticed with your revised plan. Thirty-five notices; three approvals, three
8 objections. Objections -- I don't know if you talked to these people, but there was the Links, Michael and Leanne; it was the -- Martini, Corey Martini; and James Benedict. As I read through some of these, the general statements were you should build according to code, and that's just not doable here unless you build ten by ten, so that's why you're before us tonight. All right. Anybody in the audience care to comment on this? Come on down, sir. MR. WOZNIAK: Well, I was just -- my name is Stefan Wozniak. I live on Owenton. I'm the only resident on Owenton. I didn't get a chance to write the letter. I work for a company that sends me on the road quite a bit, so I just wanted to find out exactly what was going on, you know, about this. What I'd like to know is what is this going to do for the access for Owenton. If he actually -- he wants to build the house on 21 feet onto the Owenton access, is that my assumption? I just found this out a couple days ago when I got the letter, so I just drove up to find out
9 exactly what was going -- I should be briefed on what -- exactly what we're up against. MR. CHAIRMAN: David, maybe take a couple seconds and show him your plot plan and have that discussion with him. MR. WOZNIAK: Mr. Benedict was the one that was -- was one of the -- I've been trying to find Mr. Benedict for quite a while. MR. CHAIRMAN: He lives in Allen Park, so looks like he's- MR. WOZNIAK: (Interposing) The City, evidently, has his property up for taxes? MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know, sir. MR. WOZNIAK: I've been trying to find that, too. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have an objection to his plan. (A discussion was held between Mr. Cook and Mr. Woznkiak off the record.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Does that clear up things for you? MR. WOZNIAK: Well, like I said, I've had -- Sarah knows. I've had a lot of problem with
10 discussion of Owenton so, like I said. When it came up I wanted to make sure -- I'm not happy about that. MR. CHAIRMAN: The whole road issue is not before us. MR. WOZNIAK: Well, I understand that. MR. CHAIRMAN: What's before us- MR. WOZNIAK: (Interposing) But they're building on a road. MR. CHAIRMAN: -is he's got a piece of property and he's trying to put a house on it. MR. WOZNIAK: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: They're trying to minimize the variances. He was here last month with a list this long and he's here this month with a list this long. MR. WOZNIAK: Okay. Now, can I write- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) I'll leave it open for you to ask other questions later if you'd like. MR. WOZNIAK: Please. MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll give you that benefit, so maybe with some of our discussion it will lead -- if you have other questions, raise your hand and I'll bring it back to you.
11 Anybody else in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Building department? MR. MORRONE: I have no comment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Why don't you -- yeah. You're going to have to -- if you're going to talk you're going to have to go back a little bit. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair, might I suggest that maybe we postpone this case and hear the next one and maybe they can go out in the atrium and talk about it and come back in? MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a bad idea. MEMBER GRAY: So that Mr. Wozniak has an adequate -- would that be okay with both of you fellows? MR. CHAIRMAN: That's probably a very good idea. We'll call the next case. When you're back, come on in, right down in the front, and when we're finished with the case that we're into we'll bring you right back in. MR. COOK: Sure. MEMBER GRAY: Maybe you can explain to Mr. Wozniak exactly what you're proposing and what
12 you did last month, and that will be better for both of you. CASE NUMBER 03-004 MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to call 03-004. This is Rob Perrin representing Modern Skate & Surf. This is a continuation of another sign for Modern Skate & Surf at Fountain Walk. Continuation -- you're still under -- it's a new guy. MR. PERRIN: I'm a new guy, sorry. MR. CHAIRMAN: Raise your hand and be sworn. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you 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? MR. PERRIN: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you state your name, please. MR. PERRIN: My name is Rob Perrin. My address is 12265 East S. Avenue. That's in Scotts, Michigan 49034.
13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Rob, last month the other party that was here was either not aware or had not made any provisions to put a mockup up, which is part of our sign variance. And I'm assuming that you put the mockup up? MR. PERRIN: I did not. I know that it has been put up. I explained to him it was important to this group that the mockup was to be installed. Because of the inclement weather, he to unable to get that in at the time it was necessary for you all to look at it. I believe now it's been up 30 days, is what's explained to me. In his letter he says it's slightly -- off-kilter were his words. The other one was going to be, I believe, a couple foot off-kilter. The landlord was, I guess, concerned. They didn't want to put additional holes in the wall. I don't know if you had an opportunity to go out there and look at that. I don't know if that makes a difference. I mean, I don't want to mislead you, you know, by two foot one way or the other.
14 MR. CHAIRMAN: So its positioning isn't exactly where it's- MR. PERRIN: (Interposing) Right. I believe positioning is off a couple feet, is the way I understand it. MR. CHAIRMAN: We're more concerned about the size. MR. PERRIN: I -- that's what I kind of figured, but I just want to be straight with you, because you were meticulous that you wanted to see something on the wall there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, let's see what the -- we didn't have any renoticing, Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: No. Nothing changed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody in the audience care to comment on this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building department? MR. MORRONE: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? MEMBER BAUER: It's too big. MR. CHAIRMAN: I had -- obviously they're the same -- first impression. The other thing though that struck me is that we've got two
15 businesses that are very similar in what they're offering in terms of services. They're both on the same wall of this -- I would like to see this sign be in align with that sign. And with that said, I did ask Sarah to give me the dimensions of the sign that was approved at Van's, and -- not so much in terms of square footage but the size of the letters is what I wanted to see. I thought it made sense to have it. And I don't see that. Do you know offhand -- you probably have to pull it. I wish I had that exactly with me. You know what I'm getting at? Have you visited the site? MR. PERRIN: No, I'm sorry, I have not. I expected George to be here this evening, and I guess he was unable to make it. MR. CHAIRMAN: There's a similar business right next door, and they had a sign that was approved six, eight months ago. MR. PERRIN: Through a variance, as I understand. MR. CHAIRMAN: Through a variance. And
16 what I -- it's my impression -- we'll get other board members to talk, but it's my thought that this sign on your building should be similar, if not identical, with respect to size, the letters. MEMBER BAUER: All it's for -- I mean, there's a parking lot and one street going down, and there's -- I mean, it's too big for the distance of the road. It's going to be able to be seen. MR. CHAIRMAN: Laverne? MR. PERRIN: May I address that? MEMBER BAUER: Ask the chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, go ahead. MR. PERRIN: You were saying that the -- that that sign is advertising for the parking lot and then advertising for the road; is that correct? We're trying -- the way I understand it, Modern Skate wants to pull people off of the road, right? MEMBER BAUER: Yeah. But it's just not that far off the road. MR. PERRIN: I understand. I'm just trying to pull something here. Because of me and my trade, I'm privy
17 to know how large something can be read from a distance, and that's why we come up with this specific size here. We didn't just -- arbitrarily just grab a number. He wanted- MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing) I realize that. MR. CHAIRMAN: You haven't seen the mockup of the -- I mean, that's why we ask for a mockup. When you drive out there, that thing is hideous. It's huge. MR. PERRIN: He -- yes, sir. He was trying to get -- he asked me what people could see from that road. You know, I respect that, you know. We know there's probably going to be some compromise here and George isn't going to get everything that he wants. With -- that's the reason we come up with that size. He said well, you know, how large would the letter have to be for someone to see driving down that road at 45 miles an hour. MEMBER BAUER: Can't go down 45. MR. PERRIN: Well, that's -- you know, I'm only doing what I'm told to do. He asked me if
18 someone's going 45 miles an hour and they're looking across, how large would that letter have to be from that distance. That's why we come up with that number. I was just trying to, you know, let you know where we're going with it. MR. CHAIRMAN: If I'm not mistaken, there is two lines of script. It says Modern Skate & Surf, and it said something- MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Interposing) Modern was on top and then Skate & Surf. MR. CHAIRMAN: Skate & Surf down there. MR. PERRIN: May I approach with this? MR. CHAIRMAN: What -- hold on a second. What we have approved for Van's, right next door, was the top script, this case would be Modern, of two foot three inch tall letters, and the bottom line, which in this case would be Skate & Surf, one foot. And that's -- MEMBER GRAY: What's the width of it? MR. CHAIRMAN: The overall width was -- it's punched out here. Twenty-five feet looks like. Scale wise I think it would be -- MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, I think
19 that as Mr. Bauer and you have indicated, it really should fall in line with the sign that's there for Van's, because it's too large for that situation, that location. MR. CHAIRMAN: I agree. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chair, I really had a problem with the word Modern. I mean, it really did jump out at you, and it wasn't necessary -- it really isn't necessary, coming from that side street, to see anything because there's -- I mean, there's only, basically, one entrance into that part of the building, and it overshadows the building next to it, Van's Skating. And it's just the -- the actual wording -- how big are the letters for Modern? MR. PERRIN: May I approach with this? MEMBER GRONACHAN: I've got that picture. MR. PERRIN: Okay. Then the letters- MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Interposing) So they're 48 inches? MR. PERRIN: No, they're 28 inches, where it says Modern. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mine says 48 inches.
20 MR. PERRIN: I'm sorry, 48. I'm sorry. I read that wrong. I'm sorry. And then Skate & Surf is 28 inches. I apologize. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just as a recommendation, Cindy's got some thoughts here. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Based on the figures that we -- and and we don't normally do this, and I want to state this, because a lot of people come up and say according to. But keep in mind we're looking at the same face of the building, and that's why we're looking at the other size in the sign to compare the two so you're in conjunction with each other for appearances. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? MR. PERRIN: Yes, ma'am. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. My -- our suggestion would be to go with 27 feet on the word Modern and 12 feet on the word -- on the words Skate & Surf. I think that the length is okay, if the other board members agree with that. If they have any suggestions -- any other suggestions. But I think that it's actually almost in half of what -- what's up there, because it's just way too big. MR. PERRIN: So you want to --
21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Twenty-seven inches. I'm sorry, twenty-seven inches, I'm sorry. MEMBER REINKE: You scared me there. MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm looking at feet and saying -- okay. It's 27. So I'll -- just to clarify the record, it's 27 inches for the word Modern. MR. CHAIRMAN: The letters? MEMBER GRONACHAN: The letters, for the word Modern, and 12 inches for the letters in the words Skate & Surf. And your length would stand as 22.5 feet. MR. PERRIN: May I address that? MEMBER GROANCHAN: Sure. MR. PERRIN: In going with what you said, then what we'll do is be -- actually we'll be -- we were going to elongate then that font so then it won't -- the artwork then would be different than what you all see there. We're actually going to squish the letter down so it will appear to be elongated. So then we won't be using the same fonts anymore? You just can't let the letters be shorter and still have -- run out the linear length the same. It doesn't work like that.
22 MR. CHAIRMAN: Whatever that length works out to be is what it works out to be. I don't know that we have that math in front of us. MR. PERRIN: As long as -- right. I didn't mean to be aloof. I just -- she had mentioned -- you had mentioned that we could still have that linear length still being the same, and then George is going to ask me- MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Interposing) It's going to change, obviously, with the change of the letters, but at least that length. MR. PERRIN: Okay. MEMBER GRONACHAN: And I correct that, I'm sorry. MR. PERRIN: I wasn't trying to pin you. I just want to make sure I understood it, and I apologize. MEMBER GRONACHAN: That's all right. MR. CHAIRMAN: What Cindy's recommendation would do would make it smaller, certainly not anywhere near what is zoned -- not zoned, what is required -- but make it a little bit more in line with what the sign is on the adjoining building, if you're comfortable with that.
23 MR. PERRIN: Sure. We don't know what the square footage of the sign is? MR. CHAIRMAN: You're the sign guy. Can you figure that out? To cut this down to 27 inches and 12 inches, do you know what that is? MR. PERRIN: Oh, I could figure it out, you know, if that's what you want to give us a variance for, then we'll resubmit it back as far as what you all had just- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Board members, are we comfortable with just identifying the size of the letters? Do we need a square footage? MEMBER REINKE: I'd like to see a square footage there. I'm -- you say letters. Somebody else comes there and he says, you know, I've used 36 letters in the alphabet and they're all going to be 27 inches. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can you work that out quickly of what this would represent? MR. PERRIN: I can -- I mean, give me an adjournment like you did our first group here and I can try to call the office and have them work it up
24 for me. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. MR. PERRIN: I mean, I'm not trying to elongate this. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think everyone feels like we need to have a -- tie it down to square footage. Yes, Tom. MR. SCHULTZ: I guess the concept that it's the minimum length that fits with the size of the letter that the board is willing to allow can leave that to, perhaps, Allen or Don. Administratively you give them direction, but you're mostly worried about the height of the letter, which then really kind of governs the- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) That's the building department. If they come back to you with a variance that this limits the size of the letters, can we, as part of our motion, say that it's- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) Well, couldn't we say that part of our -- we're specifying these height of the letters and that the applicant is to supply the square footage to the building
25 department as part of the condition of the variance request? MR. SCHULTZ: The idea being that it be the minimum length- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) Right. MR. SCHULTZ: -in square footage that's still appropriate? MEMBER REINKE: But he will supply that information to the building department that will be added to the variance as part of a condition of the variance. MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm comfortable with that. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is that a motion? MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you comfortable with that? Have -- you've heard what we have- MR. PERRIN: (Interposing) You're working with us. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case 03-004, I move that the petitioner's request be granted for a size of sign to be, for the word
26 Modern, 27 inches in height, and proportional width; the Skate and Surf would be 12 inches high and proportional width; and that the applicant would supply the square footage of that sign to the building department as a final part of the variance request. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, 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. You've got a variance to a slight variance. MR. PERRIN: Thank you.
27 MR. CHAIRMAN: 02-111, Waltonwood -- I'm sorry. Come on up. CASE 03-002 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, did you get things worked out? MR. WOZNIAK: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay is good. MR. COOK: Well, I think his main concern was the vacation that I brought up that I shouldn't have brought up because it brought more discussion, so that's not a part of this at all. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's go back to board member discussion. Sir, you can have a seat. MR. WOZNIAK: I'm all set? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, you're all set. Members? Maybe I'll just make a quick comment. We asked last month for our city attorney to tell us whether this is a buildable lot, and I believe that we have a letter that says, in essence, this is a buildable lot. So this gentleman does have the right to approach this board for variances to build a house.
28 That's the first thing that should be on the record, so -- I only say that because some of the letters we have in here suggest that you can't build a house on this lot. We've got legal opinion that says otherwise. So let's discuss the gentleman's plans. I assume everyone's had a chance to look at his revised -- MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Cook, have you considered any other type of structure on this property other than a premanufactured or a manufactured home? MR. COOK: No. MEMBER GRAY: Have you considered building stick built? MR. COOK: No. MEMBER GRAY: One of the issues raised last month by Miss Martini's parents, or her mother, was the proximity of your structure and the affect on her well, which is in her backyard. Now, I realize we have no jurisdiction over that, that is a County dictated proximity. MR. COOK: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: Have you checked into
29 that- MR. COOK: (Interposing) Yes, I did. MEMBER GRAY: -to find out what that- MR. COOK: (Interposing) The only rule on this is they have to be at least 50 feet away from a main sewer line, and that would be the sewer line in the street. House sewer lines are not affected. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. MR. COOK: That's the only rule they could tell me. They said other than that there's no other guidelines, so that's Oakland County. MEMBER GRAY: There's no guideline about you putting a well within ten feet of her well? MR. COOK: No. Her well is eight feet off the property line, approximate. I measured with a tape measure through the fence. MEMBER GRAY: Yes. And that house has been there for quite a few years, too. That's why I'm bringing this issue up. Is where you're going to put your well 50 feet off the sewer line that runs down Bernstadt? MR. COOK: Oh, yeah. I plan on putting it in the back corner, up over here. MEMBER GRAY: So that's going to be
30 about- MR. COOK: (Interposing) Fifteen, twenty feet -- MEMBER GRAY: -twenty feet of her well? MR. COOK: -- of her well. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. Are you aware of anything, Mr. Morrone, that dictates closeness or proximity of wells one to another? MR. MORRONE: No, I'm not. MR. COOK: I mean, that could be changed. I mean, I put that in the corner of the yard because that could be out of the way where- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Well, at some point water's going to be brought down that road- MR. COOK: (Interposing) Right. MEMBER GRAY: -but it's not there now. Are you aware if there's a sewer line that runs through Owenton? MR. COOK: I think there's -- I did look into hooking up the sewer to -- I'll have to hook up off Bernstadt. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. So you're not- MR. COOK: (Interposing) I don't
31 believe there's -- I don't believe there's one running down Owenton. I would be hooking up off of a manhole cover on Bernstadt. In fact, there's one in front of the property. MEMBER GRAY: You may want to double-check to see if there is a sewer line that runs through Owenton. MEMBER COOK: Oh, actually, as a matter of fact, now that we're discussing it, I've forgot the gentleman's name, the other gentleman that's here, his sewer lines runs up off of South Lake Drive going down Owenton. There is no line going down Owenton. MEMBER GRAY: It doesn't extend- MR. WOZNIAK: (Interposing) That is correct. He's correct. MR. COOK: Yes. His comes off of South Lake Drive. MEMBER GRAY: Well, so does Bernstadt's, but I just wondered if- MR. COOK: (Interposing) Right. It doesn't run- MR. WOZNIAK: (Interposing) The sewer line stops right in front of my house.
32 MR. CHAIRMAN: I wanted to get that out of the way. Let's get into what you're asking for. When you were before us last month you asked for five variances. You're still asking for five variances, to a lesser degree. MR. COOK: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: I think this is a better plan, but I'm not happy with five variances, especially with new construction. The bulk of the lots in the area are 30 to 40 feet wide around the lake, the entire lake -- it's the old cottage area -- so the only reason people would have more area is if they had purchased more than one lot, but the bulk of the houses were built in the teens, '20s, '30s, '40s and so on. It's all pre-existing construction to the City incorporating in 1969. So what you're left with is you're left with these little spots every now and then around where they are because they can be built as originally deeded and platted, as our attorney has informed us this is, that might be the best you can. And that's why I asked if you considered anything other than a manufactured home to
33 bring in and put on that site. MR. COOK: Well, the floor plan for the house is 900 square feet, which is, by today's standards, really small. And then there's a two-car garage attached to it. I could detach the garage but that wouldn't save me any -- my footprint is about as small as reason -- I'd say reasonable for my uses. MEMBER GRAY: I understand that. But then the next question is, if you're proposing a 900 square foot house and our code requires a minimum 1,000 square feet, is that not another variance that should have been noticed? MR. COOK: Well, the entire house would be more than 9 -- a thousand square feet. The footprint on the ground is 900 square feet, which most of these hosues in the neighborhood are in excess of a thousand. MEMBER GRAY: How does 1,000 square foot apply here? MR. MORRONE: On a single-family home it's regulated by the similar-to-similar ordinance, and it's governed by the surrounding homes on an average, and it has to be within 75 percent of the surrounding homes within 350 feet from that. So with
34 regard to the 1,000 feet, it's not applicable, that I'm aware of here. We've not used the 1,000 foot in determining minimum size for single-family homes. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. Okay. MR. COOK: My point was most of the dwellings on this street, even the ones with small lots, are in excess of a thousand at one story. Mine is 900 square feet, first story, and then it's the Cape Cod as a second story. MEMBER GRAY: That's what my question was. Is it a combination of the two stories that gives you the thousand square feet? MR. COOK: Oh. MR. MORRONE: Then it would be both floors. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. I'm still not happy with five variances. I'd be interested to hear what other commissioners have to say. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a little bit different take on this, Sarah. Two of these variances are relative to a street that's not a street anymore. Okay. Owenton is not a used street. It's grass, it's- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) It's used
35 by a limited number of people, but it is a street. MR. CHAIRMAN: I mean, people drive up and down it? MEMBER GRAY: Um-hmm. The back lot owners to have access to their backyards. MR. CHAIRMAN: But with respect to it being a- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) It's a public street. MR. CHAIRMAN: -traveled public street- MEMBER GRAY: At certain times of the year it's very much traveled, when they're pulling boats out and putting boats in; however, it is -- it's still a public street, to a very limited usage, and I do understand that. I absolutely understand that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I guess my only comment is that we've asked this gentleman to spend to lot of time to canvas the neighborhood. There's a couple other letters in here, especially from Martha, that said that this gentleman has gone through an awful lot to try to get appeasement from everybody in the community up there. It's not going to happen. He's not going to get a hundred percent. I think
36 he's come back with a minimal requirement on a tough lot that legally has been defined as buildable. While it's a small house at 900 square feet, it's also though 30 percent of lot coverage, which is five more than is allowed, so it's a big house on a small lot. Other board members? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, when I went -- and I agree. First off, I want you to know that I read your letter, and I looked at your "Why I want to be in Novi" letter. And my concerns -- and these are concerns, okay. It doesn't mean that I'm -- it's still new construction, and I know that you have a difficult lot. You made reference in your letter that other houses on the lots have been allowe additions, but those are existing dwellings, and they're looked at differently. And I want to clarify that for you. You -- because you made reference to that in your letter. When we're dealing with new construction, we look at it differently. In my book, less is better, and you certainly tried to do that, and I appreciate the fact that you took some of the
37 things that we said to you. One of my other concerns is that -- but there's still five variances, so that's a concern. My other concerns is you make references to the finances, okay, and finances are just not a hardship and we can't take that into consideration. But then I can go back and I look at this lot, and I just -- and I question is there another way to do this. And from -- and like what Frank said, you did put an awful lot of work in this. I just want to make sure in my mind that there's not another way to do this with less variances. I'm not saying that I know that there is, but I just want to make sure that there isn't any other way to do this. And that's where I'm at. I'm teetering at this point. MR. COOK: As far -- the only -- I could get rid of two variances. I just want to build a garage, and at that point it wouldn't be worth it for me to build a house, but that's just me. Someone else may come along and be happy to build a house with no garage. That would eliminate the backgard
38 variance and that would eliminate the lot coverage. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it's realistic that anyone that's going to be up in that area needs a garage. MR. COOK: Especially after this winter. MR. CHAIRMAN: I prefer to look at it all now. MR. COOK: That would be about the only way to get rid of two variances, would be to decrease the lot coverage and eliminate the garage. Even if it's attached it's still a covered area. MEMBER GRAY: Any way to build a garage facing the street and build over the garage? MR. COOK: Actually, in this case, I am building over the garage. That's one of the way the house gets bigger on such a small footprint. And I had the garage facing the street. The board had mentioned -- yeah. You mentioned you want -- someone had recommended I turn the garage around, on the board, and I think that had to do with they didn't like the idea of the garage -- the butt of the house facing Berstadt Street, was kind of the impression I got. And I agree. I kind of feel funny when I drive
39 down the lake and see nothing but people's garages behind their houses, but that's how you build off the lake on a 40-foot lot. And like I said in the letter, I'm trying to be reasonable, and if it works it works. I moved off the property line with Miss Martini to six feet, which is actually what an outbuilding would have to be off the lot, so I'm really not asking for an entire variance. It's kind of half a variance because you are allowed to build that far off the lot line, just not the main house. MEMBER GRAY: I think part of my problem is the porch that you're proposing to the south along Owenton, too. And -- and, again, I know that that is a -- it's a very, very limited usage of that street, but there are times in the spring and in the fall when several of the people who need to get into their backyards for their boats are in and out of there constantly. MR. COOK: Right. MEMBER GRAY: And I would hate to think that something would happen with you being only five-and-a-half feet off that property line and somehow, you know, we would be responsible if
40 something happened by granting this variance. And I'm not trying to redesign your house, please understand that. MR. COOK: Right. MEMBER GRAY: I'm just -- maybe the deck could be on the front. MR. COOK: Well, there is a deck going to be on the front. That actually is going to end up being kind of a side door, but with the cars parked in the back of the house. MR. CHAIRMAN: Laverne, you have any comments? MR. REINKE: I'm just trying to figure out how to, you know, we could position, move, change, and the only thing you can do is -- I remember being down in New Orleans -- is build a shotgun house on that lot, and that's the only way you could really decrease the magnification or the multitude of the variances and the size of the variances, because it has to be long and narrow. It's the only way it will work. The only thing -- the only other thing I have a problem with is to trying to work with a modular spec, and that's really not going to work on
41 that lot. I think it's going to have to be a stick built home. MR. COOK: Well, even at a stick built home, it depends on whether someone thinks a 20 foot wide or 18 foot wide, or however wide you -- this is the narrowest house that -- I didn't go and measure people's houses down the road, but usually they end up with a two-foot drive on one side and a couple feet off the other side. I imagine there houses are all 24 feet wide, a typical house. MR. REINKE: It's not a typical lot. That's the problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that given this lot -- and lot configuration is one of our basis for a variance. I think we need to consider this petitioner, to design a house that has less variances strictly for that purpose of getting less variances when -- I'll go back to my other comment. A couple of these variances are relative to a street that's not a street and at some point may be vacated, which isn't part of our consideration tonight, but it's been brought up so it is. I don't think that it's reasonable to direct this petitioner to build a house that probably
42 in engineering and design and construction would be two three, times the cost of what he can put on this lot. I think what he has submitted tonight is -- and I'll tell you what, just to get a measure of the board's position, I'm going to make a motion to get this moving along, that with respect to this -- Case Number 03-002, that the petitioner's request be approved as submitted for the purpose -- sole purpose of lot configuration, lot size. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? MEMBER REINKE: I can't support the motion because there's other avenues that haven't been approached and looked at in the development of a house on this lot. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any other discussion? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chair, I just want to follow up with Member Reinke's comment. It goes back to if I accept this -- and, again, I understand the idea that -- what the petitioner is trying to do, but then it goes back to the hardship
43 is finances, and I can't -- I can't go with that. MR. COOK: The hardship's not really finances. It's more of a personal thing. I wouldn't want to -- I don't want to build a big house. I don't want to spend a lot of money on it. I don't want it to have a high tax value. I'm trying to be reasonable and economical, and that's -- I'm buying a small lot, I'm putting a really small house on it. I'm not -- the bottom line is not saving money. I can go buy another lot somewhere else, I'd put a modular on that one, too. I just like the concept of the modular house is affordible, it's shaped right, it's reasonably small. It may not be small enough, but that's my approach. MEMBER GRONACHAN: I don't -- but I don't think that it's so much -- and this is going to sound weird here, but I don't think it's the size so much as the shape and the creativity of the houses up in that end of that area. And I know you've done a lot of work and you've looked at, you know -- but when you're with a modular -- when you have a modular home you're limited, and we have -- certainly have seen a number of cases where people have come pretty
44 creative -- have become pretty creative on these small lots, so I know that there's other avenues that you can take. If this is the lot -- if this is your dream lot, I just feel that there's other ways of doing it, and that's why I'm struggling with allowing this with four variances or five variances when I think in the back of my mind that there's something else that can be done. MR. COOK: But it does come down- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) I need to interrupt here. We have a motion on the table. We're discussing the motion. We're not debating this. There's a motion on the table, there's a second. Is there any discussion on the motion, toTom? MR. SCHULTZ: Just to follow up on Member Gronachan's comments, I think in this situation, because we do have what is pretty clearly an existing lot at the time the 40-foot, or the 60-foot, or 80-foot requirement came into being. It is going to take more than just saying I think there might be something else out there. If there is
45 a concern that the petitioner hasn't met what the board would like to see, I think the board is going to have an obligation to tell him tonight as part of this discussion what it is he didn't provide and what it is that the board would find acceptable, because this is one of those things that would otherwise become -- he keeps coming back, or somebody else keeps coming back with another proposal. It's not enough to simply say there might be something else. I think -- and I'm not suggesting what your decision or motion ought to be. I'm just saying that there needs -- that's only half of the way there, and you nee to get to the other end of it if you're going to make a motion one way or the other today -- tonight. MR. CHAIRMAN: And that's fine, but it's not relative to my motion because my motion is for approval. All right. Any other discussion? If not, call the roll. Oh, Terry. MR. MORRONE: Mr. Chairman, one more thing, and excuse me for bringing this up at this time, but in -- and I'm not sure if I have all the
46 paperwork, but I'm wondering which way the car enters the garage. Is it from Owenton, or is it all the way around the back? MR. COOK: From Owenton. MR. MORRONE: From Owenton. And I was just wondering if the board considered the fact that a parking space of a car is about 19 to 20 feet, and if that's the case, then a car sitting in front of the garage would be into the right-of-way. Now, the fact that it's an unimproved road is -- and with little traffic probably won't cause a problem, but in the event, for some reason or another, it does get improved, then you have a car that, if it sits in front of the drive -- sits in front of the overhead door, by then it's going to be in the right-of-way, at least in part, so -- just so long as that's considered. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: You're going to see real quick where I'm going with this. Please call the roll. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.
47 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: No. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: No. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. As I pointed out at the very beginning of the meeting, this is a short board. You need four yeses, and you don't have four yeses on an approval. At this point in time we can continue this debate, and probably get nowhere- MR. COOK: (Interposing) Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: -or we can get to a denial, or you can take a recommendation that you go back to the drafting board, knowing that next month there will be two other board members. We will have a full board next month. There's five here tonight. Next month we will have seven. MEMBER BAUER: Six count. MEMBER CHAIRMAN: Six count, but we'll have input from seven.
48 So -- I hate to put you off again, but- MR. COOK: (Interposing) Actually, I appreciate it. I think I just prefer to take the denial. That way -- right now I'm stuck waiting for a variance on my deposited property. MR. CHAIRMAN: You're not going to get a denial -- oh, no, you will because it's the majority. Okay. If you would prefer to cut and run, we can do that- MR. COOK: (Interposing) Get two months. MR. CHAIRMAN: -we'll listen to another motion. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair, in the matter of Case 03-002, I would move that the petitioner's request for the five variances be denied. MR. CHAIRMAN: For? MEMBER GRAY: Based on the fact that it has not been demonstrated, to my mind anyhow, that he cannot build with less variances. MEMBER REINKE: Support. MR. CHAIRMAN. Discussion. Tom? MR. SCHULTZ: With all due respect, I
49 think you're going to need a little more finding to go along with that conclusion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Meaning you just can't say no, you have- MR. SCHULTZ: (Interposing) In terms of the facts that lead the member to -- the motion maker to that conclusion. MEMBER GRAY: One of the -- okay. One of the reasons for the denial would be that if a variance is -- how am I going to word this? MEMBER REINKE: The lot's grossly overbuilt to the City's variances. MEMBER BAUER: Lot size and configuration. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Lot size compared to the house. MEMBER GRAY: Yep, okay. MR. SCHULTZ: A smaller home would accomplish the requirements for a reasonably sized liveable home? MEMBER GRAY: Yes, and would also provide the requried off-street parking in all cases, with new construction, and may -- I'm just going to leave it at that.
50 MR. COOK: What would this house look like? MR. SCHULTZ: I don't know if you want to debate this. MR. CHAIRMAN: No. At this point I can't even -- all I can suggest is coming in and talking to the building department. I mean, we're not architects. You've heard some board members feel that the house as submitted tonight is too much of a house for this lot. We do have a motion, we have a second. Any other discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: No. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: No. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.
51 MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, David, but your package -- your application has been denied tonight. MR. COOK: All right, thanks. CASE NUMBER 02-111 MR. CHAIRMAN: MR. Khanh, you want to come down. Case Number 02-111. Khanh, you want to raise your hand and give us your name and be sworn by the -- 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. PHAM: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. PHAM: Khanh Pham, K-h-a-n-h, last name is P-h-a-m, with Singh Development; address, 7125 Orchard Lake Road, West Bloomfield, 48322. Tonight I'm before you asking for two variances, and you probably read your minutes, that we've been through planning commission and the city council. Because you have a long agenda, I guess I would ask, at your pleasure, whether you want me to
52 go through the reason for our request or just field questions, if there are any, so I'll leave that up to the board. MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don't we try the latter. MR. PHAM: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. There were 11 notices sent. We have no approvals, no objections. Anyone in the audience want to give comment with respect to this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building and planning department, you got something to say? MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Tim Schmitt. I'm actually with the planning department here at the City of Novi. I would just have one brief comment to add. We have been reviewing this plan since approximately October of last year. The applicant has previously eliminated two other variances that were required with the initial site plan. I would also add that for the side yard setback variance, the applicant has indicated, as
53 part of the planning commission approval, they will provide additional setback on the property to the north as part of the deed restriction on that property; thereby, still providing the hundred and fifty feet between buildings, which would be required for the 75 foot setback on each of the properties. That is something that you, Mr. Pham, seems ameanable to at the planning commission, and planning commission felt that was an appropriate condition should the ZBA GATT this variance this evening. MR. CHAIRMAN: Not withstanding the appeal for the setback, is it within the planning department's opinion that this waiver of the noise analysis is probably -- unless you have a bunch of screaming. MR. SCHMITT: Given the intents of the use it's surrounding, and the fact that phase one is alreay in plance and we have not heard any complaints concerning noise from phase one. In fact, this is an assisted living facility. We don't expect much noise to come out of this project. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Board members. We're dealing with two variances. One is a
54 rear yard setback of 14 feet, and the other is the noise analysis. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, I think for the scope of this project it's really a minimal request, and the -- as far as sound, noise analysis, with -- being in existence and not having any problems there, I don't see any real reason for (inaudible). MR. CHAIRMAN: I agree. We have a lot of nods -- or heads nodding. Let's get a- MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Interposing) I just have a question. MR. CHAIRMAN: -get a motion. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Can I ask a question? MR. CHAIRMAN: So close. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, I read my packet, what can I say. The plan review center report dated January 8th, 2003, there is, on page two -- three -- four, says setback requirements. I agree with the previous speaker's comment, until I saw this, and it says setback requirements met, required, no. Then it says a ZBA variance would be required for the rear --
55 sorry, setback. Alternatively, the plans could be modified to eliminate the need for the variance. MR. PHAM: If I may? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MR. PHAM: We're talking about the rear yard setback, correct? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Right. MR. PHAM: Okay. There we go. If -- it's kind of faint, so -- over here is phase one. That's already constructed. As you can see, it's a kind of care facility for independent living. The way it's constructed -- and the reason why I'm going through this is it helps explain why it's designed the way it is. It's designed in a figure eight so that you're allowed for residents to have quick access to the main service hub, which is right here, which is your kitchen, dining room and all the amenities, like stores and everything else. When we redesigned this project, we had to take the -- which is right here, the existing drawing. This is what was approved and was more of a donut, and the drop-off area was right here. We had to take that driveway away from the circulation
56 drive, and also avoid having any confusion with having two entrances on the same side for safety pruposes. So when we redesigned it, we had to create a figure eight, and then the constraint -- because this existing building is there, hold to the circulation of an existing building with an existing service hub. So there is another redesign, but it wouldn't -- it would create a longer building, or would have to go down to the south, and then affect a building that's already approved. So rather than do that, we have the building right here, working with the planning department and the planning commission, since we own the property to the north, to put a deed restriction that we would meet the intent of the ordinance and keep a hundred and fifty feet away so that there would not be an adverse affect on this building. MEMBER GRAY: Khanh, when you measure your setback from the rear, can you show me where your rear line is and where that setback falls? MR. PHAM: Sure. MEMBER GRAY: Just by showing us up on
57 this. MR. PHAM: Actually, I have a diagram that was submitted in your packet, right here. The slope of the -- not slope but the property line is not like a straight line. It curves down because there is a marginal access road that circulates around the building for safety purposes. Because of it being a irregular property line area, that's the only area, approximately, that has the 14 feet deficiency. So from that point on, to the corner of the building, is where, instead of having 75 feet you only have 61 feet; and, therefore, having 14 feet setback problem. MEMBER GRAY: What if you took that jog out of the building right there? MR. PHAM: You would severely affect and diminish the building. When we rotated the building, we had a hundred and two units. I knew that if I came back here seeking variances and still had the same number of units, you're saying why don't you reduce your units. We have reduced our units to, now, 80 units so that we could keep within the confine of this
58 space. MEMBER GRAY: But if you take that one jog out of that corner and then it looks more like the corner facing the south, then you're eliminating the need for a variance, are you not? MR. SCHMITT: If I could interject here. Actually, the entire northwest corner of the building essentially, because it keeps jogging back and forth, that whole area is actually within the setback. It's not that one singular point. Actually, all three points, I believe, require -- are varying within the amount there in setback. The maximum is 14 feet, but that entire area is technically within the setback. And from a design standpoint, looking at alternatives, that's sort of standard language that we put forward. And one of the other variances was eliminated by a design alternative. And that's sort of where that language comes, is to try looking at other things. MEMBER GRAY: Well, I -- I'm trying to look at the spirit of it, too, and 14 feet on this side of a structure is really, with all due respect,
59 nothing, so -- and in the size of the project. I have absolutely no problem with the request for the waiver of the noise analysis due to the location of what's surrounding this. If there's absolutely no other proposal requiring a lesser variance, then I guess then that's what we're faced with. And our decision is supposed to be based on has a lesser proposal been, you know -- have we been presented with a lesser proposal or -- to require no variance, so -- thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it's been how many months going through the planning process and you've gotten this far. And for a building, a project of this size, you'd really be looking at one variance that has any significance, and it's 14 foot on acres and acres of a operation. MEMBER GRAY: I understand. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? (No response) MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps let's move forward and hear a motion. MR. REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-111, I move that the variance request for the rear yard setback of 14 feet and the -- waive the
60 requirement of the noise analysis be approved because of building shape and configuration; and for the noise, that existing buildings have not deemed to really warrant this analysis. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Motion and a second. Any discussion? MR. SCHULTZ: Just a comment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Tom? MR. SCHULTZ: The -- probably be best for this board, if you're interested, you have the clearest authority to require that deed restriction that Mr. Schmitt commented on, so if it plays at all into your decision-making process, it should be part of the condition of the variance. MEMBER REINKE: So added. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Any other discussion? MEMBER GRAY: I just want to point out, I'm going to support this -- this var -- both variances. I just wish it were not required. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes.
61 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. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. You have your variance. See the building department for your building permits. MR. PHAM: Thank you. Good night. CASE NUMBER 03-005 MR. CHAIRMAN: 03-005 is filed by Harry Chawney, and Harry wants to buy a lot but he wants to build a huge house on it. Want to give us your name and raise your right hand and be sworn? MR. CHAWNEY: My name is Harry Chawney. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth?
62 MR. CHAWNEY: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAWNEY: I would like to (inaudible) for hearing my appeal first of all. I live on 39526 Kartar Lane over on Novi off of Haggerty. The lot I want to buy is zoned R-3, and the house -- can everyone see that? It's basically in the packet I dropped off earlier with the City. The house is located in a flood plane, and through the design process I had to come up with a way to balance a minimal impact onto the flood plane, deal with the headlights from cars turning onto Nine Mile Road. MEMBER GRAY: Could you put it on the overhead so some of the other people could see, please. MR. CHAWNEY: Sure, no problem. MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. MR. CHAWNEY: To continue, I -- the flood plane is located from this point here in the darker line on the site to this point over here where there's a flood plane to lie in between those two points.
63 One factor in the house is the finished floor must be one foot above the flood plane, which is 847, and the main level of the house is actually eight feet above the flood plane. Technically, the house is a three-story house because the main level underneath -- the area under the main level is a parking level, which is allowed under the building code, and you would go upstairs to the main level of the house. And what I'm asking for is a variance for the added area for storage, because you can't store anything in this flood plane. My added area is about 27 percent of the coverage of the main level of the house. And the house itself is 30 feet in the air. R-3 zoning allows 35 feet, so I'm five feet under the maximum height, and R-3 zoning does allow two-and-a-half stories. And, technically, my house is three stories, so I'm asking for a variance for a half-story. And that's basically what I wanted to do. MR. CHAIRMAN: If we have any questions we'll get to them.
64 MR. CHAWNEY: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Anybody in the audience care to make comment? Yes, ma'am, come on down. MS. MAHLMEISTER: Mr. Chairman, good evening. Board members, good evening. My name is Tina Mahlmeister, M-a-h-l-m-e-i-s-t-e-r. My husband, Dan, and I own the property directly to the north of that, which is 43421 Cottisford Road, which has a mailbox of Northville, Michigan 48167. The only thing that separates his property and ours is what's called Thornton Creek, which is a waterway, which has water. We are currently owners. We've been there it will be six years this October, and we have a major flooding problem every spring in that area. I know it shows this lovely little flood plane that's here and here; however, there is flooding that goes both in my backyard all the way up to 15 feet from my deck. My concern is changing the lay of the land with building, and the removal of trees is also going to change the ground saturation where now I'm
65 going to have to address possible flooding in my basement. I currently don't have that problem because the people who built the house before us does have -- did build it with a -- they did address the drainage issue that is currently around the property. Second, esthetics. I kind of questioned from the standpoint of having it elevated so high, not only from my standpoint of looking -- is there a questionable esthetics, but also from the neighbor that is directly to the east of that, which is a ranch home, and there's such a great variance of difference there in height. And you can't tell me that that's going to improve the cost of their home. There's a home on Center Street, which is 975, which is a huge home, and next to that is a ranch, which is 985 Center Street, and that has not increased their value of their home. And I questioned their value of their home, and I also question the value of our home going down to the fact that, number one, with that road expansion of Nine Mile and Novi Road, that intersection, we also now have an increase of noise. And to address that even more, with the building of this home, taking those trees down it's going to increase more noise to our house. And from
66 a resalable point, I question that. Another issue that I have is from a safety standpoint. There is pedestrian walk -- pedestrian lights on each of the intersections on north, south, east, west of Nine Mile and Novi Road. We currently, on the west side of Novi Road, do not have a pedestrian walkway, but people do use it and ride their bikes. My question -- the point that I want to bring up is from esthetics standpoint of something that's towering this far high, and that intersection's so highly traversed, that it's going to cause some -- and it's not even straight on the lot. The house is angled. It's going to cause a visual concern. And I question not only the safety of the children in the area but also the safety of the traffic in the intersection which, if so needed, I will definitely get information from the police department of the increase of accidents since I have been there, since that intersection has been expanded, because even though it is 35 miles an hour on Nine Mile, it is, if I'm not mistaken, 40 or 45 miles an hour on Novi Road, and it does cause a
67 problem in that intersection. And I do object to having this happen; main reason is flooding for my property, and sound. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Somebody else? Sir, give us your name and address. MR. SPEIER: My name is Rob Speier. I live at 43590 Nine Mile, two lots over from the lot in question. We had two issues with the property. At one point in time they proposed changing the zoning to a day care, and we were not happy about that. We're not unhappy about the fact that somebody wants to build a residential dwelling there. The thing that -- again, the -- what I want to find out was how significant the backfill on the property is going to be, because we're in the same situation with our backyard floods. June King, the letter you have, her basement floods every year. As the years have gone by, it has gotten worse and worse. That lot holds a lot of water. And the only thing I wanted to ask Harry was how much backfill he's going to actually do
68 on the property. That's, again, going to raise the level of the water in our backyard. So we're not -- we don't have a significant problem with -- we'd rather see a home there than some sort of a business or a day care, that type of thing, so -- we believe that the lot's going to get developed eventually, and this doesn't sound like the worst thing that could happen, so -- but we're, again, just concerned with the fill. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: There were 12 notices. A letter from Miss King, June King, raised the same issues about flooding with regard to Thornton Creek. Building department? MR. MORRONE: In answer to that letter, I can't tell you if construction of this home is going to increase any flooding in that for Mrs. King. I would think that that will be looked at by engineering when and if this variance gets passed, and will certainly not allow any increased flooding as a result of the construction of this home, so- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Wouldn't
69 we, as a board though, want to know a little bit more about that before we even consider a variance? It's just an open question, yeah. MEMBER REINKE: I don't think really the board can make a recommendation, but I think through engineering they're required to maintain the water on their lot and not have it being in an overflow situation to the neighboring residents. So through City ordinance and City regulations, this issue would be addressed, to the best of my knowledge. MR. MORRONE: But if the natural flow goes down to the creek- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) Right. MR. MORRONE: -that's probably where it would go anyhow. MEMBER REINKE: Correct. MR. MORRONE: To say that the construction of this home would cause increased flooding in the surrounding homes, I'm not sure that the -- that's the case here. It may be other reasons. That has to be looked at by engineering. MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess where I was driving at is that we have residents -- local
70 residents that have raised this as a significant issue. I'd like to recommend that that discussion and that analysis and evaluation be done before we consider any variance and start talking about home construction there. I think they've raised legitimate points. I'd like to recommend that you get with the City and come up with a plan on how you're going to control water on that parcel, and talk to your neighbors, potential neighbors, so that they're not all worried and concerned about it. New construction on new parcels, especially residential, we always encourage the applicants to talk to the neighbors, tell them what you're doing. Obviously they've raised some legitimate concerns about flooding, and they're concerned about what you may do might make it worse. And they're -- that's a reasonable- MR. CHAWNEY: (Interposing) No, I understand. Can I state for the record though that I'm going to put -- bring no fill onto the property at all. That's why I raised the house eight feet. The house is within the setback as required by the
71 City. I'm farther away from Novi Road. I'm on the setbacks from Nine Mile Road. MR. CHAIRMAN: There's some question about pulling trees out and there's not as much drainage, and I think there's legitimate questions. I'd like to have something in front of me from the building department, or from the City, whatever, engineering, that addresses those issues that were raised tonight. I think that that's fair. And in doing so, it sets you back 30 days. MR. CHAWNEY: No, that's fine. I understand. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. If you don't have any problem with that, sir, I -- first of all, you're going to have neighbors that will welcome you, and I think that we need to know what -- how that's all going to be addressed, if you don't have any problem with that. MR. CHAWNEY: No, sure, that's fine. We can table it for a month. That's fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that the gist of the board? MEMBER REINKE: That's fine.
72 MR. CHAIRMAN: Move to table. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favor, say aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. CHAWNEY: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Who would the petitioner come to see to start things off? MR. MORRONE: Come to our department. MR. CHAIRMAN: Call the building department and they'll give you some direction on- MR. CHAWNEY: (Interposing) No problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does that take care -- ladies and gentlemen out in the audience here, ma'am? MS. MAHLMEISTER: I'm sorry. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you satisfied with that? MS. MAHLMEISTER: I do have one question. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can you come down here? We want to be able to hear you. MS. MAHLMEISTER: I do have one
73 question. The company who came out and did the intersection, which was JCK, they were telling me that they were going to go all the way in the back middle part of my backyard and redo this and revamp it and do all this backfill and change it with compacted cement things and what have you, and the DEQ, if I'm not mistaken, the Department of Environmental Quality, came out and said no, they can't do it. When you're asking him to get approval -- or questionable flooding, does that also include that that department comes out and checks that out, they work with the DNA on that -- the DNR, I'm sorry. I'm in the medical field. MR. MORRONE: No. We would ask the petitioner to hire his own engineering firm to do the own analysis of all the drainage aspects and potential flooding. We would then have our engineers review it in compliance with the ordinances. We would also ask that the State of Michigan DEQ evaluate the flood plane issues. MS. MAHLMEISTER: Okay, thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Maybe you'll give Harry your phone number so he -- you can keep -- all
74 right. Everyone's happy. CASE NUMBER 03-006 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, do we want to take on Catholic Central or take a five-minute break? We can sneak another one in here. Case 03-006. This is John Richard Homes in Autumn Park. This is regarding extension for a construction trailer. Sir, you want to give us your name and be sworn? MR. COLLINS: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Chet Collins. I represent John Richards Homes at 32600 Telegraph Road, suite 200, Birmingham, Michigan 48025. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you 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? MR. COLLINS: Yes, I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. COLLINS: Members of the board, we request a extension on a -- a one-year extension on
75 the existing permit for a construction trailer. There's -- currently on lot 127 in the Autumn Park subdivision. The reason for our request is that we are currently building on the site. We still own 21 lots, and we are continuing our completion of the community and would like to continue our construction staff's location there as we complete the community. It's as simple as that. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Anybody in the audience wish to speak to this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: There were 21 notices; an objection from Miss Waldop regarding four years worth of dumpsters, trailers and portable toilets in the neighborhood, non-maintenance of the empty lots they own, loaded with garbage, construction materials and overgrown weeds. Building department? MR. MORRONE: We would have no objection to extending the time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? MEMBER REINKE: I would like to see a little policing action there in cleaning up --
76 MR. COLLINS: We have been working with the City ordinance officers, and if anyone took a ride through this site, as of today the site is in very good shape and none of those issues exist at this time. MR. CHAIRMAN: You say there's 21 lots that are yet to be sold? MR. COLLINS: That's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: Out of how many total? MR. COLLINS: Out of a hundred and thirty-seven, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: So you've got less than ten percent of the overall- MR. COLLINS: (Interposing) Correct. We're in the final phase. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, I think that if this went through the building season, that there really doesn't need to be a year-extension. MR. CHAIRMAN: I recall in past cases that once we hit that 50 percent mark we typically talk about removing things like this, but I would be inclined to agree with you, Laverne, that if you took them through six months and got them through the summer, that that should be more than sufficient.
77 Any other discussion? MEMBER GRAY: I received some phone calls from some of the neighbors over there who were not at all pleased that you were storing pickup truck caps and such up front. Are you- MR. COLLINS: (Interposing) Pickup truck that was there was a site truck. It's no longer on the site. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. Well, there was some outdoor storage issues that were brought to my attention, and I referred them to the proper people in the City, and I'm sure they've been addressed because when I was there last week there's just a lot of pipe and stuff there. MR. COLLINS: There are a couple existing columns for a home that's under construction that -- they're stored, you know, in the trailer currently. Those will be installed on that home as soon as the home is bricked. It's just a staging point through construction. MEMBER GRAY: I would just encourage you with that development, you might want to try to keep it as neat as you can. MR. COLLINS: We will continue to work
78 with the City ordinance officers to address all those issues. MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: You hear us leaning more towards a six-month extension? Can you work with that? MR. COLLINS: Well, I really would like to see the year based on the current market conditions and the homes aren't selling as fast as they have been in prior years. I would appreciate you consider the year time frame. MR. CHAIRMAN: Remind you, you need four votes of five. MR. COLLINS: I understand. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case 03-006, I move that the petitioner's request for a variance for a period of eight months, and that the trailer is to be removed at the end of that period of eight months for assisted construction of the balance of the lots. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: That takes it through what, November? MEMBER REINKE: Yep.
79 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We got a nod. Call the vote. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You've got an amended variance through the end of November. MR. COLLINS: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We're going to just take a real quick five-minute break, if you don't mind, and we'll be right back and talk about Catholic Central. Looking forward to that discussion. (A short recess was taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's call this meeting back to order.
80 CASE NUMBER 03-007 MR. CHAIRMAN: And we are going to begin by calling Case 03-007, Catholic Central. And, sir, are you an attorney? MR. ARGENTA: No, I'm not. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Then we're going to ask you to be sworn in. Raise your right hand and give us your name. MR. ARGENTA: My name is John Argenta, CPB Architects, 26600 Telegraph, Southfield. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the case before you is the truth? MR. ARGENTA: Yes, I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. ARGENA: Good evening. We have submitted a preliminary site plan and received preliminary site plan approval for the new Catholic Central High School from the planning commission, and it was on the condition that there were five variances that were required. Two of the variances have to do with
81 the lighting of the football field, and three of the variances are landscape variances, which had been reviewed by the planning department and the planning commission. The site that we have is an extremely difficult site with tremendous amount of wetlands through the middle and a lot of limitating factors on the site. The zoning ordinance basically requests that the land adjacent to residential, that you have a maximum 25 foot lighting for general lighting, and the other lighting that's not adjacent to residential can be the height of the -- that's the limit on the site, which is 30 feet on this site. We have provided photometrics and the lighting plan to the planners. It's all -- was acceptable, with the exception of the football field lighting, which, generally, is not addressed in the zoning ordinance as special lighting. The football field was kept to the far northwest corner of this site back in here. This is Island Lakes down in this portion of the site to the south. And the area to the west also is undeveloped but presently zoned residential, and to the north is
82 zoned light industrial and a couple other zonings. The ideal lighting for a football field, the concept of it is rather different from general lighting, and it requires an amount of light to adequately have the event but also to reduce glare, light glow, and any spill out onto residential areas. And in this case to provide that, we've used Musco (ph) Lighting, which is an expert. They've provided lighting for many, many athletic fields across the country, and to provide these ideal lightings and the very sharp cutoff lines, I think you had in your packet the photometrics that we had for this. MR. CHAIRMAN: We've got a pretty substantial packet here- MR. ARGENTA: (Interposing) Okay, good. MR. CHAIRMAN: -with a lot of information that addressed each one of these variances. What I -- and I don't want to cut you off here, but what we would do here is, once we get into discussion, we'll take these one at a time.
83 If there's anything specific that wasn't in the packet, we've had a couple weeks to read through this stuff, so we're pretty familiar with the plan. But if you want to continue on, go down and touch on it -- MR. ARGENTA: Good. So what we're providing is two 80-foot -- or four 80-foot lamp poles with a 45 degree lighting cutoff. The ordinance limits it to 80 feet -- or to 25 feet with a 90 degree cutoff; however, this has been found to be the very best way to provide lighting for a football field and to provide the best lighting for all of the surrounding areas, the minimal spill, very sharp cutoff, and the least detriment to any of the neighbors. We've done this at two or three football fields in Utica in the past year, at Lanse Creuse in Mount Clemens, and the neighbors have been very satisfied with the results. And I have -- if you have any questions on this, I have two gentlemen from Musco Lighting here that can answer any technical question that you might have.
84 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Like I said, we've had a chance to read through all this. I think we've all been following this whole development since day one, so if we have anything specific we'll hit them up one at a time. Anyone in the audience care to comment regarding these variance requests from Catholic Central? No hands. We did have 20 notices. Your neighbor to the north, Cadillac Asphalt, said these are all minor variances that will have no impact on the community. And with that, building department? MR. MORRONE: I would defer it over to planning, please. MR. SCHMITT: Just a couple things that came out of the planning commission due to this project. For comparison's sake, the lights at Novi High School are 90 feet tall. That was a request of the planning commission at that meeting. The cutoff angle is approximately the same. The applicant is requesting the variance for the berm along the surrounding
85 properties; however, as a result of planning commission, substantial additional landscaping, plantings and trees where appropriate are being supplemented in these areas to provide screening due to the lack of berming if the ZBA so desires to do so. Those are the two additional things that you may or may not have known. MR. CHAIRMAN: Tell you what. Let's -- If I might suggest, why don't we talk about the first two variances with respect to lighting. And we have had some discussion amongst us all. I researched as well the Novi High School lighting. It's at 90 degrees. I wasn't sure on the angle, whether that was similar at Novi High School as what they're proposing here. MR. SCHMITT: It's approximately 45 degrees. We couldn't get an exact number, but it's the standard. MR. CHAIRMAN: As I understand it, the whole concept behind this angling is to direct light down so that it's not going out, so this is all in line with they're being close to residential property.
86 Any discussion or questions of the applicant on these two issues? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. Going at the 45 degree instead of the 90, that is not going to bleed over into residential? MR. ARGENTA: No. In fact, with the added height, it gives it a very sharp cutoff. I think you can see on those photometrics that right at the edge of the football field. It drops to almost less than one foot candle. MEMBER BAUER: Very good. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other question? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to clarify, please. I'd just like to clarify. Now seeing this all put together as opposed to laying out on my living room floor -- it was a little hard putting it together -- I want to verify that -- how far is the football field from the nearest residence? MR. ARGENTA: I think you can probably see this plan a little bit better. This is Island Lakes to the south. The distance from here to here is over 600 feet to the property line, and then actually within Island Lakes there's a lot more to
87 the next residence. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you for the clarification. MEMBER GRAY: What about to the west? MR. ARGENTA: To the west, this is undeveloped. MEMBER GRAY: What about the mobile home park? MR. SARKISSIAN: That -- I'm going to say that that's probably a quarter of a mile away. It's a very considerable open field there. MEMBER GRAY: Well, I'm not that familiar with Novi High School because I live at end of the city where it's Walled Lake School District Consolidated, and I know from my house just off South Lake I can see the lights up on Beck Road north of Pontiac Trail, and that's probably two-and-a-half miles, as the crow flys, to see those lights. Now, I'm not sure of the height of those poles, and I'm not sure of the kind of lighting that they have because that school is 35 years old, but if I can see those lights, and if I can also hear their band on Friday nights at football games, you know, then there's going to be a concern with the
88 residents surrounding you that I'm going to be concerned with, but I'm going to have to trust you on the numbers and hope for the best, because if there's going to be a problem, you're certainly going to hear about it. MR. SARKISSIAN: Absolutely. MR. CHAIRMAN: Twenty notices were sent; there were no objections; however, there's nobody even living on Island Lake and on Sutton Park, is there? MR. ARGENTA: Under this area, I'm not sure exactly. I know more of them down this way. MR. SCHMITT: There's a condominium development further to the southwest. It's approximately -- it's 400 feet from the baseball diamond to the first condominium, so extrapolating that out- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) I guess my point that I was going to get to is that anybody that's going to buy a house in that neighborhood is going to know there's a football field there. In due dilligence, in buying a million dollar home, you better do your homework. Any further discussion on the lighting
89 issue? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Let's see if we can put that part to bed. MEMBER GRAY: In the matter of Case 03-007 as it respects the two variances requested for the lighting, I move that we approve the request for the 55-foot variance for the four poles -- do you want this one at a time or together -- and that we approve the variance for the angle from 90 degrees to 45 degrees. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MEMBER BAUER: Why? MEMBER GRAY: Because this is a special land use and this application was not anticipated when the ordinance was written. Good enough? MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually, I think there was something in the minutes that said that the ordinance regarding lighting didn't take into affect football fields. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. There's nothing in the current ordinance that has a football field in
90 mind. Actually, you may be seeing down the road a request from the City itself for a variance for this requirement. MEMBER GRAY: So with that in mind, should we then, at this point, also refer this matter to ordinance review? MR. SCHULTZ: Sure. That wouldn't hurt. MEMBER BAUER: When we get into schools- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) I understand schools, but there also may be other parochial schools coming in that may want something, or other applications, other than schools. I understand that. MEMBER REINKE: Well, if I may suggest that it just be reviewed to -- or deferred to ordinance review for consideration. MEMBER GRAY: Yep. MEMBER BAUER: Yeah. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. There's a motion. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second.
91 MR. CHAIRMAN: We do have a second. Any other discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: 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 Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Let's move on to the berming. I see I've wrote a note here as I was reviewing the file that -- what the applicant has proposed to do. I mean, he's not just asking for a variance on berming but he has an alternative -- he has other plans. Correct, is that the proper- MR. SCHMITT: (Interposing) Yes. There are additional plans that are being provided. MR. CHAIRMAN: And the bottom line, that their recommendation to this board was to move
92 for an approval, and I'll -- I would support that. MEMBER BAUER: Question. Will this landscape be as thorough as a buffer? MR. SCHMITT: I'm sure the applicant's landscape architect can discuss the thoroughness of the- MR. ARGENTA: (Interposing) This is Ken Wykel (ph), the landscape architect for the project. He can answer your questions. MR. WYKEL: Briefly, with the site's natural features and edges and wetlands and stands of trees, in the areas along the edges the berms are asked to be deleted because of the natural trees that we're keeping in general. If you want me to specifically talk about each one, I could, but that was -- it's -- basically what we're asking for is not having to put the berms in, or screen walls, and that's to keeping the hedge rows and trees and wetlands. MEMBER BAUER: My question again is, are those going to be as dense as a berm would be? MR. WYKEL: I would say no because a berm is solid and planting -- the existing plantings are not. But if we do berm we would kill the
93 existing plantings. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would imagine -- back to planning -- that this particular discussion has had months of back and forth to get to where we're at today? MR. SCHMITT: And certainly at the planning commission level they discuss it further. In some of the areas, the natural features that are currently on the site, especially in the southern property line, and the fact that Island Lake already has a berm in place, the additional plantings that are going to be put in there will be -- provide a higher opacity than any amount of plantings you can get on the actual berm, and along Wixom, the right-of-way berm along Wixom Road, the amount of wetlands in there really -- it doesn't make sense, from our perspective, to fill wetlands to put in a berm. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's the next variance discussion. Anybody else? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I can support this request for variance after reviewing this, especially taking into consideration what our plan review center requested. And I refer to the
94 letter back on February 6th. It's pretty clear that there's a lot of dense wetlands, woodlands, trees that they seem to think they are going to buffer a lot of the residential sections. Granted, I understand that a berm is not the exact same thing, but I think that this wetlands and this woodlands that are existing actually uphold the spirit and the intent of the ordinance, and that is to buffer those and protect those outlying areas, especially to the west and to the south is what I was concerned at, and reviewing this pretty extensively I can really support this ordinance. MR. CHAIRMAN: Variance? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Variance, sorry. MEMBER GRAY: Is that a motion? MEMBER GRONACHAN: It can be. MR. CHAIRMAN: Item three. MEMBER GRONACHAN: All right. Well, in Case Number 03-007, item number three, I move that we support the variance request for the -- to eliminate the berms in the effect that the property is -- offers its own natural buffers with the adequate wetlands, vegitation, trees and uplands; and,
95 therefore, so meets the spirit and the intent of the ordinance. MEMBER GRAY: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We do have a second. Tom? MR. SCHULTZ: Just a clarification the board may want to add, that in the event, in the future -- I guess I'm kind of thinking of the -- our own (inaudible) in the event that natural screening that's there now, for some reason doesn't substantially remain, I presume that the board would want to revisit this or condition the variance upon that being a permanent screen, and if it doesn't stay there then that might be another issue- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Certainly meaning the trees aren't there any longer. MR. SCHULTZ: Trees die. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Major drought. MR. SCHULTZ: I think it's implied in the spirit of the motion the reason they're asking for the variance, but just a clarification on the intent of the board. MEMBER GRONACHAN: I don't have any problem with that.
96 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: And also that in the future, the event that all of the natural wetlands, woodlands and trees die out, that -- then this project would -- this petitioner would come back in front of the board for further review. MEMBER GRAY: Second. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. The Wixom Road right-of-way. This, again, is a buffer, berm, landscape berm, and the petitioner is requesting a
97 waiver of this along Wixom Road. Is that right? MR. RYKEL: Due to the wetlands adjacent to the right-of-way. MR. CHAIRMAN: Discussion here? MEMBER GRAY: I think we can duplicate the previous motion and conditions. MEMBER GRONACHAN: I feel the same way, and we'll call the vote on that one. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll consider that a motion and a second and discussion and we'll call the vote on that one. Go ahead, Sarah. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. The last item is parking area landscaping, required parking lot interior landscaping. By ordinance, 14,000 square
98 feet, and what's proposed is almost 13. Planning, you want to give us a little background here? MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I could get the overhead briefly. I'll go ahead and zoom in on this area. It's the easiest way to describe it. As you can see on your site plans, throughout the site there are landscaped islands in this area. There's a certain amount of landscaping that's provided, that is required to be provided in the interior of a parking/maneuvering automobile area. And as you can see, they are providing in this area, and they are providing it in this lot as well. It was the determination of the City's landscape consultant and the planning department that these buffer-type areas should also be included into its calculation. Given the fact that they are separating two vehicular use areas, the applicant is providing them of their own volition. They could simply put the curb in and have the boulevard and the parking lot adjacent to each other without necessarily providing that landscaped area.
99 If these were counted into the calculations, they would be substantially over these parking lot landscape requirements by approximately -- and I don't have the exact numbers, I apologize, but If I remember correctly, it's over 20,000 square feet of substantial amount, because there is landscaping along the entire boulevard that planning commission determined should not be calculated -- should not be part of this calculation. And that is the history of the request before you tonight. MR. CHAIRMAN: So it's actually there but it's not included in the numbers? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Makes that one a little easier. Any discussion, board members? It sounds like that -- in fact, that it's there, but due to the way you calculate it, it's not included or not counted. I would move that on item number five, that the petitioner has presented a case that he meets the intent of the ordinance, that he probably and excessively calculated a different way. MEMBER BAUER: Second.
100 MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion and a second. Discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MR. HOGAN: Don't we get public comments here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we kind of had that already. MR. HOGAN: This is a separate item. MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. We need to get a mic up to you though. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, can you have him state his name for the record, please. MR. CHAIRMAN: Name for the record, please. MR. HOGAN: Ray Hogan, H-o-g-a-n. As you can see there, that's the lot that's going to be at the stadium, and there's six, I believe, parking spaces for the handicapped in that section. And for the games and activities that will be (inaudible), will be adding cars in all of those fields in the back and the side of the road, and the whole bit out in that area.
101 And I'd like to make sure that for the games and the large numbers of people that will come to activities there, other than the football games specifically, have the proper amount of parking spaces for the entire area so that we can have people that are seniors and persons with mobility issues to be able to get in from the closest point to the door, which they are allowed to do. And I have a solution for it, simply rolling out additional signs for the specific -- customizing or -- just for that issue. We do it at hotels all the time for conferences. You simply roll out single poles with weights on them, and you have a blue sign that says handicapped parking. You can take them back down after the game and have all the non-handicap you want. But you only have 13 on the entire site, and the only other one there is the student parking area down the road. MR. CHAIRMAN: Planning, does this site plan meet the handicap ordinance? MR. SCHMITT: In terms of the number of parking spaces required, it does meet the ordinance. We have heard this concern before, and I think the
102 portable signs, if Catholic Central, down the road, finds a need for this, would be an appropriate solution; however, at this time we don't think it's something that necessarily should be required of them. They are providing the -- they are actually splitting their handicap parking between the building and the football field, which actually they're not required to do specifically. MR. HOGAN: It would be nice if they have it all at the football field. They only have six for the entire 3,000 seats that are going to be at that stadium. MR. SCHMITT: Certainly I think that they're going to -- they may see down the road that they do need to provide some additional handicap parking. I believe they have approximately 30 handicap-accessible seats, at least on the home side of the stadium. I can't remember exactly the visitor's side, so -- there may be an imbalance there that they need to work out down the road, but in terms of meeting the ordinance, they do meet the ordinance requirement. MR. CHAIRMAN: What's before us, and what has been -- what has been -- the motion that's
103 on the table is regarding the interior landscaping. MR. HOGAN: Actually, the landscaping is also an issue, because when you started taking on square footage away from the parking lot and making variances, you're also reducing the amount of handicap parking spaces for that area, so at the very least the entire amount that's required by the zoning ordinance should be accounted for and then take off whatever landscaping they're going to do -- or whatever variance they're going to have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, I'm not going to debate this with you. MR. HOGAN: I'm making a statement. I'm addressing the landscaping issue. I'm making a statement. I'm addressing exactly what you're (inaudible). MR. CHAIRMAN: Your concerns should be in front of planning and planning commission. We've got five variance requests in front of us. Nothing had been brought in front of us that this plan is out of whack with respect to handicap spaces. MR. MORRONE: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MR. MORRONE: As a function of the
104 building department, we do review the entire site and the building for compliance to the State construction code, which includes barrier-free design and accessibility issues, so all of this will be evaluated, and if there is -- if there are parking spaces required in this area, they will be there, and if the petitioner chooses not to, then he has to appeal that to the State of Michigan. So we will, again, go through this process, in addition to the ordinance, to make sure that all accessible parking is provided, wherever the State law required it to be. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on the motion? MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair, I would just like to point out that by virtue of the fact that we are considering granting this variance, it -- this is going to require Catholic Central not do as much as they would be required to in the interior landscaping by counting these other areas where they are going to be, so this should actually enhance the availability of parking for everyone. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion on the motion?
105 (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Mr. Brennan had said yes. Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have your variances. See the building department. MR. ARGENTA: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: We look forward to seeing Catholic Central in Novi. CASE NUMBER 03-008 MR. CHAIRMAN: The next case is 03-008 filed by John Richards Homes, Autumn Park. They're looking for a rear yard setback for new construction. MR. COLLINS: Good evening again, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. I'm
106 Chet Collins, John Richards Homes. MR. CHAIRMAN: You're already sworn. MR. COLLINS: Okay. I have a brief explanation of our requests, if that- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Yep. MR. COLLINS: -is okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got the floor. MR. COLLINS: Okay. We are requesting -- you know, faced with the challenges of selling homes over the past year in an unstable market. We have a buyer with a signed -- we have a buyer now with a signed purchase agreement contingent on approval of the variance shown on the plot plan before you for lot number 120, Autumn Park. This buyer has selected one of our standard house plans on a specific site because of its location and views of the community. Because of the irregular shape of this lot, the rear of the house encroaches the setback less than ten feet on the right side and less than two feet on the left side, as you all know the plan. As you can see, we are not trying to put a huge house on a small lot. We are just trying to put one of our standard homes on this lot, which
107 would fit on 99 percent of the other lots in this community for this specific buyer with your approval. Furthermore, also because of the irregular shape of this lot, we are -- we significantly exceed the minimum required combined side yard setbacks by approximately 28 feet. Only because of the cul-de-sac location and the irregular size of the house, the house is just virtually pushed slightly further to the rear. Finally, because of this -- that this site backs up to Argyle Park North, there really is virtually no impact on the existing homeowners in the community. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anybody in the audience care to make a comment in this case? Come on down. Give us your name and address. MR. PRATT: Good evening. My name is Charlie Pratt. My wife, Lydia, and myself live at 23051 Argyle Court. That is lot 119. That is the lot immediately west to the subject lot. And we are strongly opposed to granting this variance for three key reasons. Number one, violating this rear yard setback severely impacts our view and enjoyment of
108 the adjacent woodlands, trees and pond. When we bought our house and our lot about two-and-a-half years ago, we took a great deal of consideration to place our house on that lot to maximize our view and enjoyment of those those woodlands, and we did it in consideration for what the buildable lot was -- or the buildable space went in the lot next to us. And by exceeding the rear yard setback, that will considerably obstruct our view of Argyle Park and the pond to the south and to the east. Secondly, violating this rear yard setback will destroy a large stand of mature trees that's located on the southwest corner of the lot. And if I can show you an overhead of those trees, this is -- that is the grove of trees. And the rear corner -- the southwest rear corner of the house, as it is laid out, would sit virtually at the edge of those trees. And if I can show you one more picture to display that approximately where I am standing in that picture is where we have marked off the corner of that lot to be. It is in the -- very close to the buffer of the wetlands right there.
109 So our view is that exceeding this setback will severely damage those trees, which is an integral part of the woodlands and the wetlands of that area. Thirdly, John Richards is attempting to build the largest house, a Georgian Three model, that they have in this neighborhood. They knew that when they laid out this neighborhood, when they entered the neighborhood, that this was an odd size lot and that they would need to put a smaller house or modify an existing plan. That is not what they've attempted to do. They've attempted to place their largest home on this lot. So for those three reasons, impacting our view and enjoyment of the wetlands, destroying the stand of trees, and the fact that they are overbuilding on this lot we oppose the request. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? Come on down, give us your name and address. MR. ALDRICH: Good evening. My name is Ken Aldrich. I live at 23011 Argyle, Novi, Michigan 48374. My house is just on the side of this
110 lot in question, lot number 121, and this is where my house is. We also oppose the approval of this variance for three reasons. Number one, as Charlie Pratt had pointed out already, there is, behind this lot, some very mature trees and some very nice wetlands and natural area within the subdivision. We put our house where we did for that very reason, because the area around there is very much an open wetlands meadow kind of area with these trees right there, and it's very much in the interest of all the homeowners that we preserve as much of that growth as we possibly can. By putting this house on there, as Charlie showed you, that would really impact and require the removal of a very significant grove of mature trees on that side of the cul-de-sac. Secondly, the cul-de-sac itself has this one lot between Pratt's house and my house, and then there's another lot on the other side of that. Both of these lots are very irregular shaped, rather small, and I think it would be difficult to put a very large house on either one of those lots, which
111 John Richards knew when they did lay out the floor -- the site plans in there. So what we're now doing is putting the largest house, among several house and floor plans that are available, on this lot. There are certainly other -- I would imagine other house plans that would fit in this lot that John Richards would be able to accommodate, and I think, as you heard the gentleman from John Richards say in the other case, I think there's 21 lots still available. If the, you know, proposed homeowners wanted this floor plan, this house, I'm sure they could find some other spots in the subdivision where they could put this house; otherwise, I think it would be in the best interest to put a house that's within the requirements on this lot. The third reason is, again, just the overall esthetics of the cul-de-sac. This is a very large house, not only going back, but also the breadth of the house. It's a pie-shaped lot on a cul-de-sac, and you could imagine, even though the setback's in the back, as pointed out, I guess are within the requirements, it's difficult for me to see how a house of this size would actually look and, you
112 know, fit within this size lot. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else? No. There were 21 notices sent; no approvals, five objections. The objections all were based on the same theme; the house is too big, the lot's overbuilt, and they don't want to lose the trees that are a natural esthetic to the neighborhood. Building department? MR. MORRONE: I have no comment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Board members? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Chair, I have a question. I would -- is this request for this variance in the wetland buffer? MR. COLLINS: No, ma'am, it is not. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. How far from the wetland buffer is it? MR. COLLINS: I'm not exactly sure of the footage. Looking at the plan, I would say it's probably eight, ten feet. At the worst point, yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you.
113 MR. CHAIRMAN: My first observation was -- I'm surprised Laverne didn't jump on this right away. What happens two years from now when the homeowner wants to come in and put a gazebo on the back because the mosquitoes are killing us, and we're looking at another variance right out of the pipe. This is new construction. I don't see any reason why you can't put something else in there. MEMBER REINKE: What's the square footage on this home? MR. CHAIRMAN: 3,697. MEMBER REINKE: Lot's overbuilt. MEMBER GRAY: The standard that's applicable is, has the applicant demonstrated that they cannot build with less of a variance, and I don't think you've met that. When I look at your previous request -- and I know all the vacant lots that are still in there from driving around in there -- and they're all very lovely homes. If this is the home that they want to build, perhaps they should look at a different lot. And if they want that lot with that view -- because it's a very nice view -- then they need to consider a smaller home, because exactly the
114 same thing I thought of was well, they're going to build the house and next year they're going to come back and they're going to want a variance for the deck and then after that they're going to want to close it in and then, and then, and it's got to stop somewhere. MR. COLLINS: I understand your concerns. MEMBER GRAY: I know you're representing the potential purchasers, but I can't see it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? (No response.) MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Did you want to say something, Tom? MR. SCHULTZ: That sounded like good finding of fact for a motion, if Member Gray was going to be the motion maker. MEMBER GRAY: Laverne started talking. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case 03-008, I move that the petitioner's request be denied due to the fact it has not been demonstrated that a home could be built on the site without a
115 variance. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, sir. Your application has been denied. MR. COLLINS: I understand. I just wanted to thank the board for your time. CASE NUMBER 03-009 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Let's get Novi Town Center and Planet Neon down here. Case Number 03-009.
116 MR. QUINN: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Matt Quinn appearing on behalf of the Linder (ph) company, the managers of Novi Town Center. And also with me is Jim Clear from Linder Company is here. Also, Kevin Blake from Planet Neon. Kevin's here for the sympathy vote tonight because of his injury, so we hope you would note that. Also, Kevin has provided a letter of support just now from Mrs. Tuck, the owner of the Novi Auto Parts across Grand River from the entrance. I think her letter is interesting in that it says that Novi businesses need the support of the City administration as far as increase of signage is concerned because all businesses need help right now. Currently at the Novi Town Center we have two brick walls that act as a sign and state the name of the center, Novi Town Center, at each entrance, the Novi Road entrance and also at the Grand River entrance. And I'm putting on the overhead a copy of the mockup that you saw at the Grand River entrance, as soon as that pops on. Now, the request is to add the names of
117 the eight anchor stores at the mall. Currently there are 41 stores at Novi Town Center, and these eight are identified as major tenants as a result of the leases that they have, the square footage that they have, and the business that they draw. You know, when Novi started and our sign ordinance was developed for malls like this, we all knew locally where everything was. But, of course, as we all know, now that Novi, from a shopping perspective, has become more and more of a regional area, we have more strangers coming to town, more people that do not know where these businesses are located. And as we have, for example, on Novi Road -- Mr. Clear just gave me today a traffic count for '97 in front of the mall, and it showed about 47,000 cars. We are now five, six years more than that, so we know that there are more cars going through that area per day now. A lot of these cars are visitors to town. When they come and they're looking for Mervyn's, that is something you cannot see from Novi Road. People do not identify, quote unquote, Novi Town Center at that location. You have too many
118 Novi malls in a particular area for people to understand where certain stores are. You've got Novi Town Center, you have Novi Prominade. You have -- I forget the one on -- south of Grand River. It's Novi something Center. You've got then on the other side the malls that exist to the north. Purely for a, really, a traffic safety reason, it becomes necessary to place the names of the main tenants on the entrances to these signs -- to the malls so that as you have the people going down Novi Road, both directions, and the people going on Grand River, both directions, they will be able to visibly see where Mervyn's is, where Linens N' Things is, as compared to trying to find the name of a mall that they are not familiar with. Mr. Clear can testify to you the real problems and calls that the merchants get, even -- not only the main anchor tenants but also the smaller tenants. When they're told that well, we're right next to TJ Maxx, they need to know where TJ Maxx is. And, again, the only reason they'd be calling and making the inquiry is because they are not what I will call a Novi resident or a Novi regular.
119 With the increase in traffic that we are seeing on Novi Road, and once and for all on Grand River once the bridge is done, and traffic will even be more than it was prior to, and with the movement of the Expo Center from its current location around the corner, again you're going to have more and more people looking for the restaurants, looking for Brady's, for example, which is hidden in the back. It's very easy for Brady's to tell somebody we're right next to Novi Town Center 8, the movie theatre, when they call. So all in all, this is a necessary sign at all the entrances, and I think you will agree that this is not a sign that jumps out. It's not neon. It's a white lettering, so it's not obtrusive. It's something that's tastefully done. And Kevin will tell you a little bit more about the sign, the size of the letters. Kevin? You'll have to swear him in. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Could you 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? MR. BLAKE: I do.
120 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Please state your name for the record. MR. BLAKE: Kevin Blake with Planet Neon Sign Company in Novi, Michigan. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. BLAKE: What we're doing is proposing six-inch channel letters -- well, I'm sorry, six-inch non-illuminated letters for all the anchor stores. And the Novi Town Center, the tallest upper scale letter will be eight inches. They're all fabricated out of aluminum and primed and painted and mounted directly to the existing structure. And then they'll be intern --externally illuminated with the lights that they have for landscaping. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anybody in the audience care to speak on this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building department? MR. MORRONE: I have no comment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? Oh, I'm sorry. Forty-seven notices, the one approval that Mr. Quinn alluded to. I'll give you my gut feel right off the
121 bat. I don't like this at all. The four entrance signs are already there because of a variance request. This complex, this shopping center, has more sign variances than any other shopping center in the city. Granted, it's laid out a little strange and there's access from two sides, and we've been very supportive of signage, and I just don't like the idea of putting all this additional signage on these main entrances. Personal opinion. Other board members? MEMBER BAUER: I think when this first came up -- and it was Trammel Crow that wanted just the signs as they are. I think if all of the proceedings of this case were brought out, I think that's what it would show. They did not want any other names on it. I know times are tough, but I'm still not for it, the change. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, I think the one objection or the one reason I have for problems with it, I think it's adding a lot of clutter and it's causing a -- an indecision point of trying to address all the information that's on there.
122 MR. QUINN: If I could inquire, the request is for all of these signs -- or the additional eight tenants to be on both signs at both entrances. Is there a possibility that the board would consider the names on one of the brick walls at each entrance? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, actually, when I first looked at this -- and I was out there on Saturday and saw the mockup -- my first opinion on this was that at high rate of speed that you're going you don't see it anyway. You certainly don't see all the store names. Novi Town Center is a well-located area, and it's well-known. Everybody -- you know, it's the Town Center, the Town Center. I don't know that naming all those stores on all of the signs is going to help. I mean, the economy is part of the problem. Getting in there and fighting through the traffic is truly -- and I'm speaking to you as a board member but also as a consumer, because going through there and weaving around and trying to find the stores, it is pretty frustrating. So I don't know that this is the
123 answer, if that's what the problem is. If the problem is to locate the stores more readily, if that's what the actual problem is, I don't know that this is the solution. When I did look at this, that was my first thought, was that it was only going to be one sign on each side, but I have -- I tend to agree with Member Reinke in that there is a lot of clutter on that sign. That's an awful lot of letters. So I'm going to look to my other members for other ideas. MR. QUINN: All right. Mr. Chairman, I think then -- given the comments that we've had so far, and we'll appreciate any other comments, too, but I think that we would appreciate having a full board present and ask that the matter be tabled for next meeting. MR. CHAIRMAN: You can do that. MEMBER GRAY: May I ask a question? MR. CHAIRMAN: Ask questions and I'll give some direction to -- Sarah. MEMBER GRAY: Are there directional signs in there that -- like there are at Fountain Walk and at Twelve Oaks Mall?
124 MR. QUINN: Not right now. There's an application I think for consideration of those interior signages. MEMBER GRAY: With what we've been looking at over the last couple years with development, not just at the Town Center but Fountain Walk and Main Street and everything else, my own personal opinion is that, you know, the directional signs tend to have more impact. Most people that I know that would be coming to the Town Center from outside the area probably are going to do some kind of a Mapquest search or a phone call to find out where they really are, and then once they get into the complex then look to the directional signs to help direct them to -- to the site which they are attempting to arrive. So I would suggest that that maybe want an alternative that you may want to consider. And we tend to be fairly -- real tough on signs, but we also seem to think that these directional signs are a little bit better than the clutter on a monument sign. MR. QUINN: Yeah. Not to disagree,
125 because I agree with what you're saying, but we are forgetting one whole segment of the consumer, and those are the people that are in the area not knowing where anything is, who may stop into a Linens N' Things if they know that it's in the center. They will never know as they drive by this shopping mall that Linens N' Things ever exists because there is no way to see it from the outside. MR. CHAIRMAN: Matt, the same could be said of any store that's in Twelve Oaks. MEMBER BAUER: That's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: if Linens N' Things were in Twelve Oaks, you wouldn't know it driving down Twelve Mile. MR. QUINN: Well, we're not quite on their scale, Twelve Oaks. We're quite smaller than they are. But I understand what you're saying. MR. CHAIRMAN: You're more than welcome to come back before a full board. I'd encourage you to think about something alternative to this, and that's the signage inside the parking lots. Look at Twelve Oaks. For me, I think that worked out quite well, but that's up to you. We'll put it on next month's agenda.
126 We'll put it at item number one. You've been with us all night tonight, so we'll talk to you guys first. MR. QUINN: We appreciate everything. We've watched you tonight. It's a great education. Thank you. MEMBER BAUER: We don't charge. CASE NUMBER 03-010 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. 03-010, Sign Fabricators representing Farm Bureau Insurance. This is a business on Grand River, the West Market, which is Grand River and Beck, that northwest corner. Sir, you want to give us your name and be sworn? MR. WHITE: Tim White. I live at 37675 Lakeville in Harrison Township. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give us in the matter before you is the truth? MR. WHITE: Yes, ma'am. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. You can -- you've got the floor. We've also read what you want. MR. WHITE: My customer is just looking
127 for a slightly larger sign. A few of the signs in the plaza are slightly larger than what was allowed, and that's basically it. They're occupying two spots in that plaza, so we're not looking for, like, twice the sign amount, just slightly larger so they can be seen with their logo and their insurance name on there. The sign is kind of busy, but that's how they have us fabricate them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anybody in the audience want to talk about this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: There were four notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Building department? MR. MORRONE: No comment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board members? MEMBER GRAY: I'm going to make the same comment I did about the last one. Going to see their insurance agents are going to know exactly where they are or they're going to call first or they're going to do a Mapquest. Recognizing that you have two suites, I suppose that there's something to be said about one
128 sign as opposed to two, and -- I think the signage issue goes with occupancy, does it not? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: Does the sign issue go with the occupancy, so if they occupied three suites it would still be, potentially, one sign? MR. CHAIRMAN: What was the board members' impressions of the mockup? I have to fess up. I didn't see it. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Can I give you some other -- can I say a few other things? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. MEMBER GRONACHAN: When I first looked at this -- and I have to fess up that I work in insurance and I wish sometimes my clients didn't know where I was, so the fact that, you know -- but this is a destination location. I mean, this type of business, okay, so when people call, generally they do -- and I have to say in my experience of insurance, although I love people that walk in to come see me, they already know where I am, okay. And I am at a location that's a destination location. I never give my address. I always tell them where I'm located, you understand what I'm saying?
129 MR. WHITE: Oh, yeah. MEMBER GRONACHAN: When people call it's I'm in such and such plaza. This location has huge signs out in the front. We approved, at this board, to locate -- to help locate that destination, okay. And so I find it difficult that a larger sign is needed to find that business, okay. And so that's why I'm having problems with a larger sign. I realize that we're looking at 16 feet, but I go back and look and I -- and the fact that the other businesses have larger signs, I don't take much weight in that because of the type of business this is. There are plenty of signs to locate the destination at that mall, all right, but I just don't feel that -- and, again, generally if you're looking for drive-by traffic, and I don't -- then that's something -- if that's- MR. WHITE: (Interposing) No, not really. I don't think that's what they're looking for. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Then I do have a problem with the size for those reasons.
130 MR. WHITE: Okay. Is GNC under the same stipulation, when they're half the size and larger than 24 square feet? Just curious. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Again, I didn't look at the other -- they're not a destination -- you know, they're not a- MR. WHITE: (Interposing) They might be able to -- MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm not going to debate a different business or another case. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think they were before us with their sign (inaudible). MR. WHITE: They are within the ordinance? MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't recall them coming- MR. WHITE: (Interposing) Because they're over 24 square feet. MS. MARCHIONI: They've never been here. MR. CHAIRMAN: They've never been before us, so maybe they have a larger storefront. I don't know. MR. WHITE: Actually, it's not.
131 MEMBER GRAY: Well, we'll check into that, won't we? MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't imagine Allen would miss a new sign going up that was twice the size of what's -- I mean, that's all he does, is drive around looking at signs. MEMBER BAUER: Not just that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Among the many other things that Allen does. MEMBER GRAY: We'll have him check it out. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, sounds like you may have to go back to the boss and tell him that there wasn't a lot of support. Do you want us to vote on this now, or would you like to discuss it with him? MR. WHITE: There is no boss. It's me. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were the sign manufacturer. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. MR. WHITE: Not a problem. What did you think of the mockup though, proportionally correct on the building? Just curious. MEMBER GRONACHAN: I saw it. I still
132 don't -- MR. CHAIRMAN: We've had this discussion in the past with businesses that are perceived to be destination businesses versus in the same shopping center. All right. Any other discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Motions? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Are you waiting for me, is that it? Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion. In Case Number 03-010, that the motion for the 16-foot variance for the sign for this business be denied based on the previous discussion at this table, that this business is a destination location and that the actual location is, in fact, properly identified. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
133 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, sir, but your request has been denied. MR. WHITE: All right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other matters. This was my idea. I'd like to suggest discussion of item number one with the possibility of adding it as the new number one under rules of conduct. I think- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Absolutely. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it is absolutely inappropriate for somebody to attend a meeting like this, have cell phones blasting off, having beepers blasting off. Quite frankly, even if we didn't have this in here, I would ask somebody to leave if it happened. But let's assume that not everyone is smart and let's consider adding this as the new number one on our rules of conduct. I don't think it's unreasonable.
134 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No. MEMBER BAUER: It's just like a movie. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. MEMBER GRONACHAN: That's right. You can put it on vibrate. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favor, say aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: All those opposed? (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We have a revision in our rules of conduct. We have a new item one, the rest all move down. And I hope that other boards take this -- assume this as well. Any other -- sir, do you want to see us? MEMBER REINKE: One other- MR. PAPP: (Interposing) Do you have another audience participation? MR. CHAIRMAN: Come on up. MR. PAPP: I apologize for my appearance. Larry Papp, 46000 White Pines Drive. I can't believe I jumped out of bed to come down to the
135 zoning board meeting. The trailer on White Pines Drive which John Richards -- I understand there was 29 notices sent out; however, I can see the trailer from my house, so I don't know what your rules are as far as sending notices. If you're sending them to 27 vacant lots that belong to John Richards, then chances are you're not going to get an objection to this trailer. I would personally like to see the trailer gone. I had John Richards remove cement from the woodlands that was dumped there by one of the builders. It was a very large amount of cement, it was about five feet high, that was put in the woodlands. I've also called the City regarding the weeds that John Richards let's grow. They only cut it once a year. They don't cut it twice or three times a year. So I don't know what the notice policy is. I would like to know the 29 notices that were sent out, to who they were. MS. MARCHIONI: Are you directly behind the property?
136 MR. PAPP: I'm sorry? MS. MARCHIONI: Are you behind it? MR. PAPP: I'm right across the street from it just about. I'm in the Arden Glen sub, and I believe I'm within a thousand feet. MS. MARCHIONI: Three hundred feet. MR. PAPP: Then how do you send out 29 -- is there 300 -- is there 21 notices within 300 feet of that trailer? MS. MARCHIONI: Yeah. MR. PAPP: Could you send me a list of those addresses, because I- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Got them right here. MR. PAPP: I'd like to see that list and see where they're at. Within 300 feet, I don't think you could have 21 homes within that site of that trailer because there's a lake nearby. Just let me take a look at the list and I'll drive around and see how many are vacant lots. MS. MARCHIONI: We have- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) We have -- we've got the list here. We'll run you a copy real quick.
137 MR. PAPP: Yeah, that would be great. I mean, if we're sending them to vacant lots, then we're wasting- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) If you listened to that discussion on that case, there were a number of people that brought up the issues of garbage and everything. You need to call building department, ordinance enforcement, and raise holy heck with them. MR. PAPP: I'm on the planning commission, so I know the rules. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. PAPP: Thank you very much for your time. MR. CHAIRMAN: You want to stick around, maybe Sarah can run that for you. MR. PAPP: I told her -- I said I want to transfer from planning to zoning because you guys get out earlier than we do. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other new business? MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, one thing that would help us a lot, like we put up mock signs for identification, we get a visual. We have cases
138 on vacant lots, we have trouble identifying. If the petitioner could just put a stake up in the ground with lot number, address, something like that. MR. CHAIRMAN: I couldn't find that three-story site. MEMBER REINKE: It would save a lot of running around. MR. CHAIRMAN: I could not find that. MEMBER GRAY: Right at the northwest corner. MR. CHAIRMAN: I went there Saturday, and then I went back Sunday looking. I couldn't find that thing. MS. MARCHIONI: Stake with a lot number. MR. CHAIRMAN: Couldn't find that address. MEMBER BAUER: So you can see it. MR. CHAIRMAN: So I didn't know whether it was on -- I thought it was that corner lot on Novi Road. MEMBER REINEK: Or even just put the case number on it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Somehow identify it,
139 yeah. MEMBER GRONACHAN: ZBA in bright orange or something, you know, with a stake so we know. MR. CHAIRMAN: You can't find it if it's vacant, there's no identification. MEMBER GRAY: And it is that corner, that northwest corner of Nine Mile and Novi Road. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, is it the empty lot going into the subdivision off of Novi Road? MEMBER GRAY: It's that whole northwest corner, that whole flood plane. MEMBER GRONACHAN: That you causing the traffic jam on Sunday? MR. CHAIRMAN: I couldn't find that, I couldn't find the sign. MEMBER GRAY: It was not a real easy place to turn around there either. MR. CHAIRMAN: Point well made. Anything else? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Are we all done? MR. CHAIRMAN: We're all done. Thank you. (The meeting was adjourned at 10:01 p.m.) Date approved: June 3, 2003 __________________________ Sarah Marchioni Recording Secretary
140 - - -
141 C E R T I F I C A T E I, Cheryl L. James, do hereby certify that I have recorded stenographically the proceedings had and testimony taken in the above-entitled matter at the time and place hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify that the foregoing transcript, consisting of one hundred and fifty (150) typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript of my said stenograph notes to the best of my ability. ------------------------- Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786 -------------- Date
|