| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting CITY OF NOVI NOVI CIVIC CENTER - 45175 W. Ten Mile Road The NOVI ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS taken before me, Darlene K. May, CSR-6479, a Notary Public, within and for the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, at 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, April 6, 2004. PRESENT: Members: Frank Brennan, Cynthia Gronachan, Sarah Gray, Justin Fischer, Brent Canup, Gerald Bauer, Mav Sanghvi ALSO PRESENT: Donald Saven, Building Official; Denise Anderson, Recording Secretary; Thomas Schultz, City Attorney, Timothy Schmitt, Planner; Alan Amolosch, Code/Compliance Officer
1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, April 6, 2004 3 7:30 p.m. 4 - - - 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: At this time 6 I would like to call the April 2004 Zoning Board of 7 Appeals meeting to order. Denise, will you please 8 call the roll. 9 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 10 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 11 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm here. 13 MS. ANDERSON: Member Canup? 14 MEMBER CANUP: Here. 15 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? 16 MEMBER GRAY: Here. 17 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Here. 19 MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. 21 MS. ANDERSON: And Member Fischer? 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Here. 23 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I would like 24 to make a note to the audience this evening in the
3
1 front page of the agenda there are rules of conduct. 2 I'm going to ask anyone that's coming in front of the 3 board tonight to please review that. Keep in mind be 4 mindful of the time limit. We have a very large case 5 load this evening and will be adhering to the time 6 limits this evening. 7 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a 8 hearing board empowered by the Novi City Charter to 9 hear appeals seeking variances from the application of 10 the Novi Zoning Ordinances. It takes a vote of at 11 least four members to approve a variance request and a 12 vote of the majority of the members present to deny. 13 This evening we have a full board and 14 since the full board is present at least four votes is 15 required. At least four votes is required for the 16 variance to be passed. All decisions this evening 17 will be final. 18 On the agenda, Denise, are there any 19 changes or amendments? 20 MS. ANDERSON: No. There are no 21 changes or amendments. 22 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All those 23 move to approve for the agenda say "Aye". 24 MEMBER BAUER: Aye.
4
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Aye. 2 MEMBER CANUP: Aye. 3 MEMBER GRAY: Aye. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Aye. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Agenda's 7 been approved. We have the January minutes in our 8 packet. Are there any changes or -- 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: For the record, I 10 think they're February. 11 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I'm sorry. 12 Yes, they are. All right. 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Move for approval. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Second. 15 CHAIRPERSON: All those in favor say 16 "Aye". 17 MEMBER BAUER: Aye. 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: Aye. 19 MEMBER CANUP: Aye. 20 MEMBER GRAY: Aye. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Aye. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 23 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: The minutes 24 of February 2004 are approved.
5
1 At this time we ask anyone in the 2 audience that has anything to approach the board in 3 regards to a matter that is not on the agenda this 4 evening can do so now. Is there anyone in the 5 audience that wishes to speak to the board on a 6 subject other than what is in front us on our agenda? 7 Seeing none. We will go to our first 8 case which is tabled from January ZBA meeting. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
6
1 Case No. 03-107 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Case number 3 03-107 filed by Brian Kosaian of 150 North Haven Road. 4 MR. HARRINGTON: Good evening, board 5 members. James Harrington, I'm the attorney for Mr. 6 Kosaian 2411 Novi Road, Novi, Michigan. As the 7 members who were here may recall this matter was put 8 off to allow, number one, an opportunity for the full 9 board to sit in this issue and, number two, to afford 10 Mr. Kosaian an opportunity to interact with his 11 neighbor who expressed concerns regarding the lot 12 split at issue. Mr. Kosaian has done his homework. 13 He has met with the neighbor on, I believe, multiple 14 occasions and given him a proposed diagram, schematic 15 of what he is attempting to do. 16 The neighbor feels like the rest of 17 us which he wishes nothing would happen at all. Mr. 18 Kosaian feels that way too, but in his letter to the 19 board he indicates that we've agreed on some 20 concessions. If Mr. Kosaian conclude in his building 21 plan if the city decides to approve his request. 22 Number one, a 15 foot side yard setback would border 23 the shared property. Mr. Kosaian has no problem with 24 that. Number two, the current driveway will remain to
7
1 service the new home and, number three, the new home 2 will be placed within the building envelope required 3 by the city. That is 30 feet from the road, 35 feet 4 from the rear, 15 feet from the shared property line 5 and then 10 feet from the east property line. 6 Mr. Kosaian with any of those 7 provisions set forth in Mr. Kelbert's letter and 8 believes that if the variance and lot split is 9 permitted it removes him from possible position with 10 either "A", he's got to spend 10 or $20,000 or more, 11 move the house, dig a new foundation, move a new 12 foundation to comply with the ten yard setback or ten 13 foot setback "B", he's got two on equal side lots. 14 Because code requires 60 feet. So allowing this split 15 and requiring that the house, the new house to be 16 constructed follow the outline of Mr. Kelbert's letter 17 and city code I think addresses all those issues and 18 we're asking for your favorable reconsideration in 19 this matter. I think Mr. Kosaian is present and if 20 the board has any further questions. And there may be 21 some audience participation. 22 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there 23 anyone in the audience that wishes to make a comment 24 in regards to this case?
8
1 I'm going to ask anyone who comes 2 down to the podium this evening by the television crew 3 to please speak into the microphone so everyone here 4 and at home can hear you. 5 MR. GNATEK: Greg Gnatek, 1947 West 6 Lake Drive. I am here tonight to speak on behalf of 7 Brian and Becky Kosaian. I have reviewed their plans 8 and I think what they're asking for is minimal and 9 reasonable. The placement of the new construction 10 will give ample and safe distance between the proposed 11 construction and the adjacent homes. After reviewing 12 the plans no matter the outcome tonight new 13 construction is possible. However, without the 14 variance the moving of the current home will cause the 15 applicant to spend money that can be better spent to 16 approve the property between his proposed construction 17 and the adjacent homes. I think Brian and Becky are 18 tremendous assets to the neighborhood. I support this 19 project one hundred percent and I hope you are able to 20 approve their request tonight. Thank you. 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anyone else? 22 MR. OLIVER: Good evening, board, 23 William Oliver on behalf of Brian and Becky Kosaian. 24 2009 West Lake Drive, I've known Mr. Kosaian for
9
1 several years. He did an excellent job building his 2 house. He was before the board several years ago. I 3 myself have been before this board to build my 4 residence on West Lake Drive. He does an excellent 5 job in everything that he does. I think he's going to 6 do an excellent job at the project that he's proposed 7 tonight. I think it would be a shame to force him to 8 move this house when obviously everyone knows he has a 9 certain budget to operate in. When you're doing a 10 project such as this and any money that is taken away 11 from the project itself to, say, move the house to be 12 better applied to making a nicer landscape or perhaps 13 approving in other areas I think it would be a shame 14 to deny the request when, in fact, he's done 15 everything that he could to try to purport with the 16 board's requirements and city's requirements and I 17 support him a hundred percent as well. Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 19 MR. HAGAR: Good evening. My name is 20 Jeff Hagar, 2109 West Lake Drive. I can limit my 21 comments very simply to the opportunity of having new 22 construction in an area of Novi that is desperately in 23 need of new construction and I support that. Thank 24 you.
10
1 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anyone else? 2 There were 22 notices mailed. No 3 approvals. No objections. Building department? 4 MR. SAVEN: Just as on a previous 5 case, the gentleman who had a concern, he basically 6 was indicating that his concern was that the house 7 would be closer to his house and I do believe there 8 was some type of a letter that was sent forward to you 9 in regards to that 15 foot setback requirement. I 10 think you should take it into consideration as far as 11 motion if you so choose to do this approval. 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: If it's the 13 board's pleasure I can read Mr. Calbert's letter. 14 MEMBER BAUER: Please. 15 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: "This Letter 16 is written in response to Brian Kosaian's petition to 17 gain a variance of six foot to take the three 40 foot 18 residential lots that abut my property to the east and 19 to create two 60 foot lots. His desire to mark the 20 existing drawing on one of the 60 foot lots and to 21 build on the other. He appeared before the January 22 meeting of the board and was denied. He is again 23 going to meet before you at the April meeting with the 24 same request. At the January meeting I expressed my
11
1 objections with granting his petition on the grounds 2 that he did not have a hardship situation that met the 3 board's requirements. I also expressed my objection 4 allowing a buildable lot on a 60 foot front. 5 "As I stated, when I built my home in 6 1990, I was told that 80 foot was the minimum and that 7 no one would be allowed to build on that lot. 8 Mr. Kosaian and I have met several times since the 9 January meeting and agreed upon some concessions he 10 would include in his building plan should the City 11 decide to approve his request. These are as follows: 12 One, 15 foot side yard setback which would border our 13 shared property. Two, the current driveway would 14 remain to service new home. Three, the new home will 15 be placed within the building envelope that is 16 required by the City, 30 feet from the road, 35 feet 17 from the rear, 15 feet from our shared property line 18 and 10 feet from the east property line. 19 "My desire would be to keep my home 20 and property as it is, but I know the board will act 21 upon the City's best interest. Please advise me of 22 your decision. Respectfully submitted by Douglas 23 Calbert." 24 Board members? Member Brennan?
12
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I clearly 2 remember that the whole burden of the petitioner's 3 request for variance was on his ability to strike a 4 deal with his neighbor. It's as simple as that. It 5 looks like he has and I see no reason to grant (sic) 6 his variance enabling him to build a second home. So 7 I will support his petition. 8 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Member 9 Canup? 10 MEMBER CANUP: In the letter that was 11 written did it mention 15 feet on each side? 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I'm sorry. 13 It did not. It says a 15 foot side yard setback with 14 border on shared property. 15 MEMBER CANUP: On the other side the 16 drawing I have here shows 17 feet. I think there was 17 a reference to something different than that? In the 18 letter that was written by the neighbor? 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. Fifteen 20 feet from our shared property. Ten feet from the east 21 property line. 22 MEMBER CANUP: This drawing that I 23 have shows 17 feet from the opposite property line 24 which is, if we deal with this, is that going to be 17
13
1 feet or is it going to be 10 feet? 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Mr. Saven? 3 MR. SAVEN: Madame Chair, I would 4 allow the flexibility in design for this particular 5 building. I think in terms of the person that 6 objected he was basically concerned about how close 7 that building was going to be to that particular 8 property line. The property plan that was submitted 9 to you shows 17 feet. It probably exceeds the 10 combined total side yard setback by at least 17 feet. 11 This is kind of unusual in this particular case. 12 Mainly we would be dealing with side yard setback 13 variances but in this case it defeats those side yard 14 setback variances for the proposed construction? 15 MEMBER CANUP: My reason for asking 16 that was if you add the 17 and the almost four feet 17 that they're asking for in the lot line to the 18 existing house. That would give you roughly your 20 19 feet which is what you would be required by ordinance 20 anyway? 21 MR. SAVEN: Right. 22 MEMBER CANUP: I would not have a 23 problem supporting this as long as that 17 feet became 24 part of the motion. My reason for that is that would
14
1 give you 20 feet between the two houses. 2 MR. KOSAIAN: My name is Brian 3 Kosaian. I own 150 North Haven. I reside at 4 1523 West Lake Drive. 5 Part of our agreement with 6 Mr. Calvert is to keep the driveway off his side. I 7 may need some help from Mr. Saven for this but we have 8 to allow for a driveway on that side. I would prefer 9 to say with the ten foot side yard setback, if 10 possible. I understand your concerns, keeping 20 feet 11 between my existing home and the new property. 12 Mr. Saven, maybe you can help me. Is 13 there a green area that's required between the 14 driveway and the property line? 15 MR. SAVEN: Due to the design and 16 construction standards of the city there is a required 17 three foot setback requirement on approved areas to 18 allow for drainage. 19 MR. GNATEK: And the standard with 20 the driveway would be roughly -- 21 MR. SAVEN: Eight feet to ten. Eight 22 ten feet. 23 MR. GNATEK: Mr. Calvert has agreed 24 to the ten foot side yard on the east side and if
15
1 that's acceptable to the board that's what I would 2 like to have. 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Canup? 4 MEMBER CANUP: I would like to see 5 20 feet between the houses. 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anyone else? 7 Member Gray? 8 MEMBER GRAY: Yes, I am very pleased 9 that you have met with your neighbor to the west. I 10 don't think anybody has ever said anything about 11 expecting you to physically move the existing house. 12 So I want to make sure that you understand that. I 13 look at this as one of the few conforming properties 14 in the older part of the city on the north end of the 15 lake area as it were. 16 I am not at all comfortable with 17 anything less than -- I mean, I want as much room 18 between those houses as possible and especially after 19 what happened last week, which was an absolute 20 tragedy. I still look at this as a self-created 21 hardship. However, I'm willing to support the 22 variance if you can put as much property as possible 23 between the two houses and ten foot would be the 24 absolute minimum but I would be a lot more comfortable
16
1 with more for obvious reasons. Understanding that 2 there would be six between the new property line and 3 the existing house and then the additional between the 4 new property line and the new house that you will be 5 building. Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anything 7 else? 8 Member Canup? 9 MEMBER CANUP: If I read this 10 correctly the property line for the existing house 11 would be a little bit less than four feet from the 12 property from the existing house. 13 MEMBER BAUER: It says 4.30. 14 MR. BOWMAN: Yeah. 15 MEMBER GRAY: That was a confusing 16 variance, I'm sorry. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Do you see that? 18 MEMBER CANUP: Well, four, right 19 point three, four feet. 20 MEMBER BAUER: And that brings it 21 over the 20 feet? 22 MEMBER CANUP: If he stays 20 feet 23 between the houses I don't have a problem. 24 MEMBER BAUER: I don't have a problem
17
1 with that either. 2 MEMBER GRAY: Can you stay 20 feet 3 between the houses, sir. 4 MR. GNATEK: I'm sorry? 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I think 6 you're getting a feeling from the board that they're 7 very comfortable with 20 feet and I understand that 8 you've worked with your neighbor, but I also have to 9 concur with the fellow board members especially in 10 light of what has recently happened. 11 MR. SAVEN: Madame Chair and board 12 members, I do have a concern in regards to the 13 additional one foot that you're looking at. Possibly 14 the difference is the fact that this particular 15 variance we're looking at is basically a side yard 16 setback for that house. To be able to split this 17 property you must have 60 foot frontage in 6,000 18 square foot of property. If we move that property 19 line at this particular time then another variance is 20 going to need to be sought because that was not 21 advertised. 22 MEMBER GRAY: I don't think we're 23 talking about moving the property line, are we? 24 MEMBER BAUER: No.
18
1 MR. SAVEN: It's my misunderstanding, 2 then, because we're trying to keep the 20 feet but 3 somewhere along that line that difference is going to 4 be there. Either somewhere you're going to add or 5 subtract from that line. 6 MEMBER GRAY: We're just talking the 7 difference between the two structures. We're 8 recognizing the 60 foot property line. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: And we decided that 10 we have 20 feet, right? 11 MS. ANDERSON: Twenty-one. 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: If it's what 13 they're saying it would be the 20 feet total between 14 the two buildings. They're not talking about making 15 the lots any smaller. 16 MR. SAVEN: Okay. I just wanted to 17 clarify that. 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madame Chair? 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Brennan? 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: I heard at least 21 four supports so I'm going to make a motion. With 22 respect to Case 03 dash 107 I would move for approval 23 of the petitioner's requests incorporating his 24 neighbor's requirements and also ensuring that there
19
1 is a 20 feet Siberians between these two buildings. 2 And I would -- I make that motion because the 3 petitioner has established a compliance with the scrip 4 letter of the restrictions in accordance with the 5 unreasonable use of the property. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 7 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been 8 moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Member 9 Canup? 10 MEMBER CANUP: I was going to second 11 it. 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Any further 13 discussion? 14 All right, Denise would you please 15 call the roll? 16 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 18 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 19 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 20 MS. ANDERSON: Member Canup? 21 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 22 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? 23 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 24 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?
20
1 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 2 MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 4 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 5 zero. 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Your 7 variance has been granted. 8 MR. GNATEK: Thank you. 9 Moving right along. We'll call case 10 number 04- 11 MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing) This 12 next case coming up there is also another case with 13 this. The petitioner would like to combine the two. 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Sure. It's 15 pretty lengthy. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
21
1 Case No. 04-009 and 04-019 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Calling Case 3 04-009 filed by Blair Bowman and also the next case 4 would be 04-019. I don't know if you care to tie the 5 two of them in but you don't need to sit down in 6 between them. 7 MR. BOWMAN: Okay. Fair enough. 8 Thank you for that. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Would you 10 please raise your right and be sworn in by our 11 secretary. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 13 to tell the truth regarding Case No. 04-009 and 14 04-019. 15 MR. BOWMAN: I do. My name is 16 Blair Bowman. I'm representing TBON, LLC, 43700 Expo 17 Center Drive. I guess a little bit of clarification, 18 would I be considered a group or individual? 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: You're the 20 petitioner, you don't need that. Although I will. I 21 have a clock over here. 22 MR. BOWMAN: I really will try to be 23 as brief as possible but obviously this is a very, 24 very important component for us. We are excitably
22
1 anticipating getting going with construction. 2 Literally a project we've been working on for almost 3 seven years in this community to improve and construct 4 a new Exposition and conference center. So one of the 5 key things in that package, if you would, and really 6 one of the final things that we have to complete with 7 the community as far as approval is concerned is the 8 signage package. So tonight before you on the first 9 matter we're dealing with a request for two signs. I 10 guess what I would like to do is if I could get the 11 signal and we're going to just bore you with a little 12 presentation if we might and give you some factual 13 information. 14 The two locations in question as far 15 as the sign is on the I-96 side of the site and on the 16 Grand River side of the site. For those of you who 17 aren't familiar with the location it encompasses the 18 old I-96 rest area and approximately 47 additional 19 acres for a total of 55 acres bordered east by Taft, 20 the north by I-96 and the south by Grand River. 21 The two signs that we are proposing 22 is approximately in our information that we presented 23 here is that the sign face area itself is 24 approximately 550 square feet, recognizing and noting
23
1 that your materials show about 733 square feet and I 2 think technically you have to consider the decorative 3 arch and things of that nature in your gross 4 calculation, but the sign square footage itself is 5 actually approximately 550 square feet. That is for 6 the I-96 sign. 7 The Grand River sign, again, is quite 8 different in actual sign face area as compared to the 9 total amount area if you consider the decorative area 10 as well as the base and pedestal which, I think, then 11 totals your 181 square feet. So, again, if you 12 consider what the actual sign face is it might narrow 13 the amount of variance required. 14 Primarily when considering these 15 signs there are three basic rationale for our 16 request. The first is identification. And it's very 17 important in any signage situation but here more 18 importantly given the type and nature of the venue as 19 well as the fact that we are moving to a new location 20 which will have both the attending public that may not 21 have ever been to an event that needs to determine 22 that they have arrived and have a monument marker for 23 that, but also for those that have been in the 24 previous facility now being asked to, you know,
24
1 identify a new location. 2 In addition, just this year the 3 vastness of the site and the setback off the freeway, 4 the site conditions, existing vegetation that is along 5 particularly the I-96 section of the right-of-way. We 6 did, in fact, in our negotiations in the acquisition 7 of the rest area negotiate with the state to retain an 8 additional 50 feet over and above their current 9 right-of-way in case they ever might need to construct 10 an additional lane. As well as in our current site 11 plan we have a little bit over an acre conservation 12 easement on a large stand of trees. Again, if you're 13 familiar with the rest area that was kind of a park 14 like setting along the right-of-way. They were 15 interested in preserving those and we were more than 16 willing to do that. 17 Then finally again from the 18 identification standpoint is that we are looking to 19 build a very high quality sign and promote a high 20 quality image. 21 Looking at other examples that we 22 provided to you, some of them in your packet, you'll 23 see, again, a major signage for the Palace. It has a 24 total of 1,240 square feet. Something roughly double,
25
1 nearing triple the size that we're proposing. That, 2 again, is the dimensioned area the Palace planned to 3 receive from the City of Auburn Hills. Then a 4 recently opened facility which is, I think, 5 noteworthy, approximately one-seventh Of The size of 6 our facility in Birch Run has a sign that is larger 7 than what we are proposing and, again, that does not 8 take into consideration the architectural appendage on 9 the top side of the sign. 10 For example, some commercial signage 11 in the Brighton area. In fact, there's three of these 12 identifying this one project at various points on 13 Grand River, coincidentally, as well I-96. These 14 total, again, well over a thousand square feet each 15 and a double what we're proposing for our facility. 16 The second feature that's necessary 17 to deal with is safe and executive communication of 18 information. I will deal with it relatively briefly 19 and Jeff Heyn, who is here with me, Planet Neon Group 20 and the sign company which is going to be constructing 21 the sign will deal with that in a little more detail 22 to give you the expert aspect of that. But what we're 23 proposing for that is, comparatively speaking, to the 24 change of a letter sign we currently have at the
26
1 existing Expo location. We're going with the state of 2 the art computer generated LED panel for both sides of 3 the sign. 4 It's important that we do this in a 5 size and nature that is appropriate because we're 6 dealing with, again, public traveling at rates of high 7 speed and then we also need to do it in a tasteful 8 manner with large enough displays. 9 And then, finally, I know of issue is 10 the sponsorship panels on the sign. Similar to what 11 we currently have on our sign and the cross promotion 12 aspect of that. Again, that is approximately 100 13 square feet. Again, a fairly minimal size as far as 14 the size of the overall sign in relation to other what 15 would be considered more commercial or add type panel 16 signs that might be seen along a venue of signs in 17 this nature and venues of this nature along the 18 expressway in other locations. 19 Again, sponsorship is very important 20 to the overall success of the facility. We had an 21 enjoyed relationship with Pepsi in our current 22 location and are transferring that by way of pouring 23 rights agreement to the new facility. They, in fact, 24 in their points of retail location and things like
27
1 that as a part of this arrangement will have posters 2 and on their "Q" packs we'll put scheduled events, 3 ticket promotions, giveaways and cross promotional 4 opportunities are critical to the overall success of 5 the effect and that will benefit everyone including 6 the community. 7 Literally any other facility of this 8 kind or nature whether publically owned or privately 9 owned as we are enjoys these types of signage 10 availabilities. And, again, the pouring rights and 11 the cross promotion aspect of it is very, very 12 important. And there is, again, basically utilizing 13 the same signs that we saw before and to give you some 14 relationship again on the Palace sign it's triple the 15 size of what we're proposing. On the Birch Run sign, 16 again, it's about 50 percent larger than what we're 17 proposing. 18 Even, again, on our existing sign 19 we're somewhat smaller than that paneling height and 20 then I would say to give you kind of a gross example 21 of comparing it along the I-96 freeway to other truly 22 commercial style signs it's literally -- you know, 23 these typical type of billboard signs are over seven 24 times of what we're providing. Given the distance,
28
1 the relationship, the overall size of the sign and the 2 importance of it to the overall and impact on the 3 overall success of the program these are critical 4 components to the sign request. 5 On the Grand River sign, again, 6 you'll notice one thing that is very important here as 7 well is we're not imposing on the community side if 8 you would, the signage package any commercial 9 messages. Simply, again, a very tastefully done sign 10 with, again, instead of a change of letter approach an 11 LED readout panel. It's important also to note that 12 we're dealing with two thoroughfares here so there a 13 need again, and I know one of the variances is the 14 approach we're looking for two signs and, again, being 15 that we have the entrance on Grand River as well as 16 the frontage on 96 we have two points that we need to 17 address as far as signage. 18 Just by way of example, again, we are 19 slightly smaller than the existing sign. It's just 20 adjacent here to this facility at the high school site 21 and the LED readout is slightly smaller than that. So 22 just to give you something that's a visual point of 23 reference. 24 In your need to deal with I think
29
1 technically the term's hardship is utilized in your 2 approach to dealing with issues I think we have clear 3 examples of that at a point. Again, given the size of 4 the sight over 55 acres that we've assembled through 5 some trial and tribulation but it's actually now a 6 very decent size site but with it comes a major 7 topography, vegetation all along the I-96 which we're 8 looking to save and yet presents a very significant 9 problem with visually being able to see the sign and 10 effectively communicating the information and identify 11 the site. We do have the two major thoroughfares and, 12 therefore, need to have two signs. 13 Also, I would like to address the 14 multiple purpose nature of our facility in that we 15 might have at any given time a major consumer event. 16 The boat show, for example, that we would have up on 17 the major marquee sign for the I-96 and regional 18 traffic and then may have a community oriented event 19 going on in the new banquet and convention center 20 which would be a graduation or wedding or social event 21 that would be more of a local nature that would go on 22 the Grand River sign. 23 And then, finally, I think an 24 important point is that literally, again, any other
30
1 facility that you look at that is operating in a 2 similar vein to us has these signs and we are truly 3 doing something unique again in a private party 4 constructing a facility which is typically totally 5 subsidized at taxpayers expense. And, again, we only 6 need look as far as what happened in the city of Troy 7 that was put to a vote and defeated but it was a 8 situation where a community literally was looking to 9 give land and infrastructure and build parking decks 10 and all of those things in order to try and attract 11 developers of this type of facility and we simply are 12 requesting that we not put in a competitive 13 disadvantage which would be a true hardship as it 14 relates to any competitor simply as a competitor even 15 though it's a little unfair as far as the playing 16 field is concerned. 17 So in conclusion I would like to 18 respectfully grant our variances as it relates to the 19 signs but before I open up for your consideration I 20 would like to have Jeff Heyn come up and give you some 21 information about the sign itself and how they came up 22 with the size and the relationship of the LED panel. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right 24 hand and be sworn. Do you solemnly swear or affirm to
31
1 tell the truth regarding case 04-009 and 04-019? 2 MR. HEYN: I do. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 4 MR. HEYN: Good evening, Board 5 Members, I'm Jeff Heyn. I'm with Planet Neon Sign 6 company located on Grand River Avenue in the beautiful 7 city of Novi. 8 We've been doing business here in 9 the community for 25 years. We're very excited about 10 the tremendous changes and the new and upcoming 11 improvement plan for the Grand River corridor. I'm 12 especially proud to be in part of this impressive 13 Novi Expo project and credit is certainly due to 14 Mr. Blair Bowman and his team. It's been a long road 15 to advance as far with their Novi Expo development. 16 When Mr. Bowman brought us on board 17 to be of assistance with the design of both the 18 expressway sign and the Grand River sign, entranceway 19 sign, we realized there were challenges to be met. 20 Having lived and worked in Novi I certainly am aware 21 of the sensitivity towards exterior signage. Clearly 22 with that in mind our goal was to design these two 23 signs to minimal size standards yet still 24 accomplishing our visibility and sign readability
32
1 goals. First I'd like to address the request for the 2 expressway sign. Our objective was to create a sign 3 that would be visible and readable for freeway 4 motorists traveling 65 to 70 miles per hour. The sign 5 would have to be seen from extreme distances of 6 approximately 350 feet from the eastbound traffic and 7 approximately 500 feet for the westbound traffic. In 8 addition, the sign would be placed in a very hilly and 9 very forested area. Many trees would block the sign's 10 visibility especially at certain angles. I realize 11 there's not that much that can be done about this 12 landscape but this dilemma adds greatly to the 13 visibility problem. With that in mind we did actual 14 mockup studies. We placed a man on a twelve foot high 15 ladder holding up different size letter heights or 16 heights with letters. Driving east and west along the 17 I-96 expressway we viewed these letters at the 18 required setback location. Knowledge gained from this 19 experiment we realized that a 24-inch letter was 20 minimal size letter height that we could use and still 21 be readable. Working with that data we designed the 22 electronic message board first and the other sign 23 components next. These 24-inch letters would be used 24 on electronic message board that would convey the
33
1 important Novi Expo show information and events. 2 Additionally, California Institute of 3 Technology has produced a study in letter of 4 visibility chart. This chart states the readable 5 distance for maximum impact for a 24-inch height 6 letter is 240 feet. For a 36-inch letter it's 360 7 feet. Expressway signs and their letters appear to 8 look much smaller when viewed at longer distances when 9 placed in their required setbacks especially viewed 10 from the opposite side of the expressway. 11 I would like to provide a couple of 12 examples of some local expressway signs to illustrate 13 at this point. 14 This is the Dunkin Donuts sign. It's 15 located at the Wixom Road exit. This sign is located 16 on the eastbound sign of the expressway and I took 17 this photograph kind of close to the sign. I think I 18 was only about 75 feet away from the base of the 19 sign. But as you can see the Duncan Donut letters 20 appear small. They're actually 20 inches high and if 21 you view them from where they're supposed to be seen 22 from the expressway they look even smaller. 23 Another example of the Doubletree 24 Hotel located on the Novi exit on the north side of
34
1 the expressway, the pylon sign is actually 22 feet 2 wide. It says Doubletree Hotel. It's 13 feet in 3 height and the sign is 50 feet from the ground to the 4 top of the sign. The "D" in Doubletree is 24 inches 5 high and the "H" is 24 in the hotel. I actually took 6 this photograph traveling eastbound on the other side 7 of the expressway. 8 So to emphasize from our study we 9 need minimally 24-inch high letters for the electronic 10 reader board and 36-inch high letters to distinguish 11 the Novi Expo name. 12 We approached the Grand River Avenue 13 ground sign much the same way. The idea was to design 14 a minimal size sign that would still meet functional 15 and readable standards. This proposed ground sign was 16 not designed involving the Novi High School sign but 17 coincidentally after recently measuring it I found it 18 to be the same size as our proposed ground sign. It's 19 actually the same size reader board and everything and 20 that was unintentional. But just like The Novi High 21 School electronic message system our Novi Expo sign 22 requires three lines of eight-inch high letters. This 23 would enable the Novi Expo to display specific 24 information on upcoming events, traffic and parking
35
1 information. 2 In conclusion, I would like to 3 mention how valuable these electronic message sign 4 systems can be to our community. I think Blair 5 mentioned this as well. The message copy can aid in 6 directing traffic and parking They can be used as a 7 valuable way of finding traffic aid in case of traffic 8 tie ups or accidents that happen on the surface 9 streets or expressway. This type of sign can be used 10 for an amber alert to help get missing children 11 information immediately out to the public. This 12 information could even be used in combination with 13 other signs like the Novi High School sign as an 14 additional networking tool for an amber alert. I 15 would like to thank you for your time and if I can 16 answer any questions I would. 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 18 MR. BOWMAN: I think that's is. We 19 can answer any questions you have. 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there 21 anyone in the audience that wishes to make comments in 22 regards to this case? 23 Seeing none. There were 38 notices 24 sent. Two approvals. One is from Thomas Creech, I
36
1 apologize if I mispronounce the last name, at Wilkins 2 Park and Equipment at 45900 Grand River and James and 3 Mary Frankfurt at 46401 through 46409 and 46411 Grand 4 River. Both approve your request for the variance. 5 Building department? 6 MR. SAVEN: No comment. 7 MR. SCHULTZ: No comment. 8 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board 9 members? 10 Member Brennan? 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, somebody's got 12 to start, huh? I often state the obvious, I'd like to 13 begin there. This is a unique development in that it 14 is a very high volume venue. There's a lot of other 15 out of town exhibitors out of town attendees. There's 16 a different venue every week so it's in constant 17 change. I think it's important that we keep in mind 18 that this is a -- and has been discussed at both 19 planning and at counsel that this is an important 20 development for the city of Novi. It's killing two 21 birds with one rock. It's getting the Expo Center out 22 of their very difficult location for one which is just 23 a traffic jam at big events and, number two, because 24 of the magnitude of the program and the expansion it's
37
1 going to draw in a great deal of revenue for the 2 city. 3 So with that said, I think that there 4 is a couple of very obvious observations that the 5 petitioner's already zeroed in on. Number one, you've 6 got a sign, a major sign on the freeway which is 7 nearly out of the city limits. It's bordering Wixom, 8 but the point is that this traffic is moving at 70 or 9 plus. It's about the only time it moves less than 10 that is between 7:30 and 8:30 in the morning. 11 I'm compelled to accept the Pepsi 12 advertising on this sign because we accepted it before 13 and it's part of their business. It's part of their 14 industry. It's part of the revenues that help them 15 stay in business. I'm very satisfied with the sign on 16 Grand River. I think it's important that it's noted 17 that it is actually smaller than the Novi High School 18 sign. Which I wonder why we didn't have a variance 19 request for that. 20 MEMBER BAUER: They don't need one. 21 It's a school. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: All right. 23 Answered that question. So I guess in a nutshell -- 24 and the fact that this is at least a freeway sign this
38
1 is a quarter of a million dollar sign to be built by a 2 member of our community. I haven't been presented 3 with anything that concerns me. 4 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Member 5 Sanghvi? 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 7 Good evening. 8 MR. BOWMAN: Good evening. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: This is beautiful. 10 You're doing a wonderful job in the community. I have 11 a couple of concerns about this sign and I think you 12 mentioned it and maybe you can clarify it a little 13 further for me. Apart from everything else the Pepsi 14 business on your main sign it looks a little tacky. 15 I'm sure you have a very good reason for putting it 16 there and insist on keeping that. So maybe you want 17 to enlighten us. 18 MR. BOWMAN: Again, we have had a 19 very good relationship with Pepsi and, again, just 20 coincidentally I think if you see on the Birch Run 21 sign there's a Mountain Dew panel and on the Palace 22 sign there's an Ameritech panel. And no matter who 23 the promotional partner might be, these types of -- 24 it's really a fairly small sign but it is an important
39
1 part of the overall tools and our part and parcel of 2 our arrangement that we're able to offer a promotional 3 partner like Pepsi. They get interior signage. They 4 get ticket backs. They get named on promotional 5 information, those types of things and we have 6 actually a pouring right situation where they are the 7 beverage of the facility. All those things, again, 8 make up the arrangement that typical venues have with 9 these types of partners. And with those we're able to 10 promote and enhance the success of individual events 11 as well as the overall facility. And, again, I think 12 that they've worked long and hard on their logos and 13 is one of the recognizable symbols in the world. It 14 is something that I would respectfully disagree with 15 you. I think we positioned them in a very tasteful 16 manner and, again, not overbearing. I mean, compared 17 to any type of true commercialized billboard signage. 18 I mean, it's very, very small. It is one-fifth of the 19 size of the overall sign face. So, I mean, it is not 20 in any way, shape or form to be overbearing. It is 21 simply a part of an existing arrangement that we have. 22 As Member Brennan pointed out this is something that 23 has been approved previously by the community and it 24 is certainly something we wish to continue. Need to
40
1 continue as an overall part of our operations. And, 2 again, very consistent with other facilities of this 3 nature. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you, 6 Member Sanghvi. Any other members? 7 Member Fischer, go ahead. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Personally I like 9 Coca-Cola better but I guess that doesn't go on 10 anything. I'm going to have to echo my colleague's 11 comments that both of them they said that it's a 12 beautiful sign. Unfortunately, I'm not a voting 13 member tonight but I would be inclined to support 14 this. This pretty much the whole board has stated 15 that a lot of concerns that we see are sign ordinance, 16 variance requests, and, I mean, we can't expect 17 something of this size and this nature to really go on 18 with these semi-outdated ordinances and I understand 19 the nature of them but at the same time, as they've 20 explained, this provides more safety than the smaller 21 signs would. So should I have been voting tonight I 22 am impressed. I think they're very tactful and I 23 think the move is a great thing and I personally wish 24 you the best with your endeavor.
41
1 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gray? 2 MEMBER GRAY: Well, Blair, how does 3 this sign compare with the sign we have at the current 4 location? 5 MR. BOWMAN: It is different in a 6 couple of respects. 7 MEMBER GRAY: How about square foot 8 area and how about height. 9 MR. BOWMAN: It is ten feet higher at 10 its top and, again, that takes into account the, I 11 believe the decorative arch. 12 MEMBER GRAY: But then you know that 13 is how we remember signs? 14 MR. BOWMAN: I do realize that. But, 15 again, a good example of what we did on the previous 16 signs before this board we had a much different sign, 17 a larger sign, one with decorative arrangements on it 18 that all over size were eliminated for the readability 19 and for the decorative nature of it I employ to look 20 at what we have now as compared to what we're 21 proposing and that's why we're so firm. I would like 22 to see this past. 23 MEMBER GRAY: What about square 24 footage of the existing sign?
42
1 MR. HEYN: It's close. The new ones 2 may be a little one if you take into account 3 decorative arch. 4 MR. BOWMAN: I think it's just 5 actually under 500 square feet. I would have to go 6 back on the records to actually find that out. 7 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I think 8 Mr. Alan may have that. 9 MR. AMOLOSCH: Actually, the sign 10 approved by the board some years ago was 24 by 12 and 11 280 square feet and 37 feet high. That's what the 12 board granted a variance. 13 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I'm sorry. 14 280? 15 MR. AMOLOSCH: 280 square feet. 16 MR. BOWMAN: It's 24 by 12. 17 MR. AMOLOSCH: Yes. 18 MEMBER GRAY: And I don't understand 19 the necessity for advertising and I realize that 20 losing one of the abilities of the features of the 21 current site and that's going to have an impact too. 22 I'm also very much in support of these signs and the 23 Expo Center moving farther out. My only concern is 24 putting the Pepsi, the sponsorship on the sign but I
43
1 understand there's reasons for it, too. And they're 2 on every other sign at every other arena I've ever 3 seen. And hopefully at some point in time you're 4 going to start bringing some other kinds of events 5 into the city. 6 MR. BOWMAN: Absolutely. 7 MEMBER GRAY: Thanks, Blair. 8 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Bauer? 9 MEMBER BAUER: Classic job. 10 MR. BOWMAN: Thank you. 11 MEMBER BAUER: I first had some 12 reserve as to the height but seeing that we got 70 13 mile an hour cars going but, I do think that a sign is 14 very good. I would like to see it a little smaller 15 but I can understand the height on the Grand River 16 sign. Can't say anything. It's just great. 17 MR. BOWMAN: Thank you. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Madame Chair, may I 19 make a motion. 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. I was 21 going to add my comments. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. Go 23 ahead. 24 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I think this
44
1 is a great job. I really do. I'm very excited about 2 the Expo Center being done. I just want to make a 3 comment to the board members. I just want to clarify 4 to the board members. I just want to clarify there's 5 going to be a sponsor on top of this sign as well? 6 MR. BOWMAN: Yes. The whole 7 intention there is and I think that Jeff touched on, 8 you know, the Novi Expo Center and just very candidly 9 what is the arrangements may not yet be totally firmed 10 up. We're unable to identify exactly what we're going 11 to be called but it is going to be something different 12 and that is a whole part of the branding and new 13 approach to the new facility that we're very excited 14 about and yet it's something that we just needed to 15 identify that there's going to be a name there that 16 would be added to the top sign. 17 MEMBER BAUER: We're not going to 18 have a guy and gal getting married, are we? 19 MR. BOWMAN: On the Grand River sign. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Are you? 21 MR. BOWMAN: Yes. And that, again, 22 but that would be now. That would be a very much an 23 event that's taking place at the center which is 24 directly related to this.
45
1 MEMBER BAUER: Okay. 2 MR. BOWMAN: But I would like to 3 argue that is a very nice community related story and 4 I like the story. 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: For the 30 6 year anniversary of the ZBA members. 7 Member Brennan? 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: I don't want to jump 9 in this. But about the amber alert, I think that's 10 incredibly been successful across the nation and to 11 have these guys tie into that I think is a very 12 important community addition and I thank you for 13 making that part of that. 14 MR. BOWMAN: Yes. Please do that. 15 Please do that. 16 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Well, and 17 that's what I was going to add to that. The fact that 18 you brought in the Novi High School sign. I drive 19 past that high school sign every day and I think that 20 is very good and when I went back and looked at yours 21 the Grand River sign is very, very nice and I think 22 that if you could tie it in with the schools that 23 would be a great public service. 24 MR. BOWMAN: We would like the
46
1 graduations. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: One last question, 3 would the would Grand River sign be LED as well? 4 MR. BOWMAN: Both them are programmed 5 by the same computer so we would be able to do both. 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Now, member 7 Sanghvi? 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Do I make motions at 9 the same time or separate motions? 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: If you're 11 comfortable with doing it. We have the four 12 variances. Do you want to go with them one at a time. 13 MEMBER CANUP: Let's do all four. 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Let's do all 15 of them together. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. In the 17 matter of case of 04-009 and case number 04-019. 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Excuse me. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah, it's the same 20 number. 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: On 019 we 22 can't vote on that. We're just voting on 009 at this 23 point. Just the signs. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: The petitioner's
47
1 request be granted on the grounds in the hardships as 2 defined in his recitation. 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: Second. 4 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been 5 moved and seconded that this variance be granted. Is 6 there any further discussion on this motion? 7 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 8 call the roll. 9 MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 11 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 13 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 14 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 15 MS. ANDERSON: Member Canup? 16 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 17 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? 18 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 19 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 21 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 22 zero. 23 MR. BOWMAN: Thank you, very much. 24 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: And now
48
1 04-019. 2 MR. BOWMAN: This is a matter that I 3 think is a technicality that came out of the site plan 4 process and, frankly, I'll take the burden on this and 5 misunderstood and thought it was something that was 6 able to be dealt with at the Planning Commission level 7 or it was at least deciding whether it was to be. We 8 did not realize that we needed to come before this 9 board to deal with it. But after review letters came 10 back it was apparent that we did and that is -- we're 11 proposing loading and unloading area technically in an 12 exterior side yard. That being the side yard facing 13 Taft Road. But I'm assuming you have the plans but I 14 don't know if I have the overhead here. Is that 15 possible to do? 16 Basically, again this is the 96 17 right-of-way. Taft Road is off in the distance here 18 showing, again, a great deal of distance. Well, over 19 -- I think it's over a thousand feet. It's 20 separated. There is a great deal of vegetation. The 21 topography works to screen it. They're screening 22 walls and landscaping measures that have been taken 23 into account in the site plan and, frankly, we thought 24 that we were meeting the spirit and intent of the
49
1 ordinance by putting it behind the banquet and 2 conference operations but technically because it is 3 jutting down by a certain amount of feet they 4 technically ruled that it was still a side yard. 5 So we are here requesting that that 6 be granted the neighbor for variance to allow for that 7 in this particular location and we respectfully 8 request that you grant it. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there 10 anyone in the audience that wishes to address the 11 issue in front of the board? 12 Seeing none. There were 38 notices 13 sent. One approval by James Frankfurt at 46401 Grand 14 River. Building department? 15 MR. SAVEN: Just, once again, a point 16 I had. Mr. Bowman indicated this is what they call 17 the exterior side yard which we're dealing with off of 18 Taft Road and the frontage off of Taft is very 19 minimal. 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board 21 members? 22 Member Brennan? 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: This sure seems like 24 a no brainer. Where else would you put it? Given
50
1 that response unless there is somebody that wants to 2 throw a hand up I'll make a motion that with respect 3 to case 04 dash 019 petitioner's request be granted. 4 It's an ideal location for this and it is within the 5 spirit of the ordinance. 6 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 7 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been 8 moved and seconded. Any further discussion on the 9 motion? 10 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 11 call the roll? 12 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 14 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 15 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 16 MS. ANDERSON: Member Canup? 17 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 18 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? 19 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 20 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 22 MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 24 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes six to
51
1 zero. 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 3 Congratulations and good luck. 4 MR. BOWMAN: We need that. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
52
1 Case No. 04-016 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Moving right 3 along to case number 04-016 filed by Brian Hughes of 4 Northern Equity for 28001 Cabot Drive. Mr. Hughes is 5 requesting a sign variance for the placement of an 6 additional wall sign at the above named address. 7 Good evening. Are you Mr. Hughes? 8 MR. LETZ: Good evening. No, I'm 9 not. My name is Bill Letz, 39255 Country Club Drive 10 with Sign Graphics. We're here on behalf of the 11 Northern Equities Group this evening to address this 12 variance. 13 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Would you 14 please raise your right hand and be sworn in by our 15 secretary. 16 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 17 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case no. 04-016? 18 MR. LETZ: I do. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 20 MR. LETZ: You are probably familiar 21 with the projects along the Haggerty corridor between 22 Haggerty Road and the I-5 extension. This is high end 23 office development park and research development 24 park. A lot of that property has been developed by
53
1 Northern Equities Group and in trying to attract 2 tenants there we've been struggling with the sign 3 ordinance from a design perspective and we've been 4 before the building officials on numerous occasions 5 and probably been before this board, if I remember, 6 correctly on numerous occasions too. 7 One of the problems is we're asking 8 for additional signage for Citizens Bank which has 9 several departments in this building. They're the 10 fifth tenant in this building. There is currently a 11 ground sign identifying this property and each tenant 12 has one little mention on that ground sign. 13 Unfortunately, being the last tenant they're kind of 14 in the snow, as it were, in the wintertime being on 15 the bottom of that. 16 In addition, the hardships of this 17 property, because of the setback of the ordinance 18 regarding the placement of the ground sign this sign 19 is located a considerable distance from the curb gut 20 and the entryway into that building. In fact, it 21 almost doesn't relate to the building visually as you 22 approach it. So that's a little problematic. The 23 additional situation being this is going to be a 24 fairly high location for Citizens Bank. Their mortgage
54
1 lending is going to be there. Their commercial, 2 lending business development, their wealth management 3 departments are all within this facility. They have 4 quite a large presence in this building. So with the 5 high traffic and high volume of folks we have to get 6 them there. And I think the only way to do that way 7 is where our expertise is put some kind of signage on 8 the building. 9 Northern Equity is very tasteful 10 about their sign requirements. You will notice in 11 your -- in fact, if I could approach and give you some 12 additional packets of information to show how this 13 sign will look I'm happy to do that. 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 15 MR. LETZ: One of the key things that 16 Northern Equity never wants to do is look like a 17 commercial development so one of the principals on the 18 signage for these folks has been to self-cover the 19 backgrounds of the signs with brick. So that the 20 background doesn't stick out like a sore thumb and 21 that is what's proposed. So if you look at the first 22 drawing in that packet of information you will see the 23 Citizen sign as is proposed at 40 square feet with a 24 self-colored brick background. I mean, you can't do
55
1 everything with a computer so it's not exactly the 2 same color on the printed drawing that you're seeing 3 there. But the idea is to deemphasize the background 4 so we lessen the impact of that footprint on the 5 building and yet still provide some identification for 6 the back so we can get some folks there. 7 So what is proposed is a 40 square 8 foot sign on the side of the building so that we can 9 get them into Cabot Drive per cut into that property 10 and identify the building as the correct building. In 11 the future there will be another building in front of 12 this building south of the present location and 13 towards the Twelve Mile Highway. So they'll be some 14 visual obscurity. It'll be a low building so it won't 15 obscure the placement off the sign completely but it 16 will certainly busy up the area visually. 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there 18 anyone one in the audience that wishes to make comment 19 in reference to this case? 20 Seeing none. There were five notices 21 sent. No approvals, no objections. Building 22 department? 23 MR. SAVEN: No comment. 24 MR. AMOLOSCH: Bill, I have a
56
1 question. The packet I have got shows a 20 foot by 2 24-inch and it shows in the information I received 3 here a 13 feet four inch by 36. Is this the one? 4 MR. LETZ: Yes. We kept the square 5 footage the same, but once they saw the sign they 6 visually didn't like the looks of it on the building 7 and felt that it was more tasteful to tuck the word 8 bank underneath the word Citizens therefore allowing 9 for a shorter profile sign but keeping the square 10 footage the same allowed a little more height. 11 MR. AMOLOSCH: So the one we're 12 provided with tonight is 13.4 by 36? 13 MR. LETZ: That's right. It's still 14 the same square footage. 15 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board 16 members? Member Gray? 17 MEMBER GRAY: When I was looking at 18 this the very first thing that struck me was that the 19 ground sign is in the most horrible location that it 20 could be in for identification purposes for this 21 sign. For this building, I'm sorry. 22 Is there going to be a branch bank 23 operated at this site too? 24 MR. LETZ: Mr. Drolshagen is here
57
1 from Northern Equities. He can probably address that 2 better than I. 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Would you 4 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our 5 secretary, please. 6 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 7 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 04-016? 8 MR. DROLSHAGEN: I do. 9 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 10 MR. DROLSHAGEN: Citizens Bank is 11 purchasing two acres from us to the west and they are 12 going to be putting in a bank branch there. So it 13 would be a completely different location. This 14 represents the regional headquarters for mortgages and 15 wealth management and things that like that and the 16 branch will be separate. 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 18 MEMBER GRAY: I don't have any other 19 questions. I think the sign on the building is going 20 to be a great bank, a signature type building and I 21 don't have any problem with it. Thank you. 22 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anyone else? 23 Member Sanghvi? 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: I have no problem
58
1 with the sign and if it's okay we can make a motion 2 and get along. 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. This 4 time I promise I won't interrupt you. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: You are very welcome 6 if you want to. 7 But in case 04-016 the request be 8 granted for business identification. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Second. 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. It's 11 been moved and approved and seconded. Is there any 12 further discussion on the motion? 13 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 14 call the roll. 15 MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 17 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 19 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 20 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 21 MS. ANDERSON: Member Canup? 22 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 23 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? 24 MEMBER GRAY: Yes.
59
1 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 3 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 4 zero. 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Your 6 variance has been granted. 7 MR. LETZ: Thank you, very much. 8 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you and 9 good luck to you. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
60
1 Case No. 04-017 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Calling our 3 next case 04-018. Filed by Brother J. Halso for Terra 4 Libra, L.L.C. -- 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: You missed one. 6 MR. LETZ: You can't get rid of me 7 that easily. 8 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Oh, I'm 9 sorry. You're back again. 10 Okay. I saw you there. You're not 11 going anywhere I'm sorry. 12 MR. LETZ: That's right. I almost 13 forgot here. 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We only have 15 twelve pages here. 16 MR. LETZ: This request is really 17 more to extend the visibility of a business 18 development sign or site identification sign 19 preliminary to the issuing of a building permit. The 20 proposed building is going to be a medical office 21 complex so it really varies from the typical office 22 buildings that Northern Equities has been developing 23 in that Haggerty corridor. This is going to be a much 24 more highly visible property.
61
1 Our firm does a lot of the consulting 2 with the health care and hospital field and what they 3 are looking for in terms of their buildings and their 4 site development for their off campus locations is 5 considerably different than a normal office building. 6 So it's important from these folks' perspective to see 7 a picture and know what the site eventually going to 8 look like as opposed to a real estate sign that is 9 going to give them basic information about the for 10 lease and a phone number. So from the development 11 side it really needs to have that kind of visibility 12 prior to the issuing of the building permit in this 13 case. So this variance is simply requesting that we 14 have this sign here before the building permit is 15 issued and leave it up until a building permit is 16 issued at which time it becomes legal. Does that make 17 sense? 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anyone else? 19 Anyone in the audience that wishes to make a comment 20 in regards to this case? 21 Seeing none, there were five notices 22 sent. No approvals. No objections. Building 23 department? 24 MR. SAVEN: How soon before the
62
1 building goes up? 2 MR. HEYN: June, July, something like 3 that. 4 MR. SAVEN: Okay. Thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board 6 members? 7 Member Canup? 8 MEMBER CANUP: I would be willing to 9 make a motion in this case. I don't think there's 10 anything to left to discuss. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Go ahead. 12 MEMBER CANUP: That's case number 13 04-017. 14 MEMBER BAUER: Yup. 15 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Right. 16 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a motion 17 that we grant the variance as requested due to the 18 testimony given by the applicant and the time lapse of 19 one year. 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: Second. 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been 22 moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion 23 on the motion? 24 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Seeing none,
63
1 Denise, would you please call the roll. 2 MS. ANDERSON: Member Canup? 3 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 4 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 6 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 7 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 8 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? 9 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 10 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 11 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 12 MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 14 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 15 zero. 16 MR. HEYN: Thank you very much. 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Good luck to 18 you again. 19 20 21 22 23 24
64
1 Case No. 04-018 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Now we'll 3 talk about case 04-018 filed by Brother J. Halso for 4 Terra Libra, L.L.C. for the proposed project of the 5 Preserve. Mr. Halso is requesting two lot with 6 variances for lots number 14 and 15 in the Preserve. 7 And you're not Mr. Terra? 8 MR. SEIVER: No. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Would you 10 state your name, please, and be sworn in by or 11 secretary. 12 MR. SEIVER: Yes. My name is 13 Cliff Seiver, S-e-i-v-e-r. 14 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 15 or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 04-018? 16 MR. SEIVER: I do. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Thanks. 18 MR. SEIVER: With me here also 19 tonight is also Brother Halso, the applicant and the 20 developer of this project. The Preserve is a 70 lot 21 site condominium project which is being developed 22 under the RUD section of the Novi zoning ordinance. 23 The reason we're here tonight is there are two lots 24 located at about the middle of the project here right
65
1 at the end of the cul-de-sac which we are requesting a 2 larger front yard setback. Under the R-A zoning for, 3 I believe, it's lot 14, the front yard setback is 45 4 feet and we're requesting 150 feet or rather a 157 5 feet of front yard setback, minimum front yard setback 6 in order to move the house back into the lot. 7 And on lot 15 we're also asking for a 8 similar front yard setback from 30 feet to 150 feet. 9 The reason we're asking for that is similar to the 10 reason given for variances that were granted for the 11 Willowbrook Subdivision and the Bradford and Novi 12 Subdivision. 13 There is a wetland which traverses 14 through the park area at the end of the cul-de-sac and 15 we had the option of extending the cul-de-sac over to 16 through that wetland area into the lots and then 17 create the two lots at the end of the cul-de-sac. In 18 providing for this design we have minimized, actually 19 cut the amount of wetland fill in half by doing this. 20 So we have a narrow entrance into the lots here and 21 then the lot width at these proposed setbacks meets 22 the zoning ordinance. In fact, it's slightly more. I 23 think lot 14 will be about 160 feet wide as opposed to 24 150 feet required under R-A zoning. And in lot 15, I
66
1 believe we're around 120 feet in width at that point. 2 So the homes will meet the width requirement for that 3 particular setback. So that's why we're asking for an 4 increase in the minimum front yard setback in order to 5 accomplish that width. 6 And we're here to answer any 7 questions you may have of us. 8 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there 9 anyone in the audience this evening that wishes to 10 make comments in regard to this case? 11 Seeing none, there were 45 notices 12 sent and no approvals. No objections. Building 13 department? 14 MR. SAVEN: In both cases these are 15 two unusual pieces of property with very minimal 16 frontage. 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board 18 members? Member Brennan? 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: I watched this case 20 go through planning and City Council and I really 21 commend the developer. Unlike other situations where 22 they try to squeeze every square inch out, the 23 developer has preserved a lot of water, preserved a 24 lot of space and donated land to the public cause.
67
1 These are two very odd shaped lots that require very 2 narrow driveways to access them. I think it's time we 3 gave back a little to this developer. 4 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 5 Anyone else? 6 Member Gray? 7 MEMBER GRAY: I also think this is a 8 good use of the property. I would've liked to have 9 seen only one lot in this place, but two is okay. And 10 if it's acceptable I would like to make a motion to 11 approve this at this time. 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Go ahead. 13 MEMBER GRAY: In the matter of case 14 04-018, move to approve the variances requested due to 15 the unique lot configuration and also the applicant's 16 desire to preserve the natural features found there. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been 19 moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? 20 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 21 call the roll? 22 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? 23 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 24 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan?
68
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 2 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 3 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 4 MS. ANDERSON: Member Canup? 5 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 6 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 7 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 8 MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 10 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 11 zero. 12 MR. SEIVER: Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Good luck to 14 you. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
69
1 Case No. 04-020 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Our next 3 case, Case No. 04-020 filed by John Fricke of 4 Signature Associates for the existing Novi Expo. Are 5 you Mr. Fricke? 6 MR. FRICKE: Yes, I am. 7 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Would you 8 please raise your right hand and be sworn in by our 9 secretary. 10 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 11 or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case No. 04-020? 12 MR. FRICKE: I do. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 14 MR. FRICKE: Good evening. My name 15 is John Fricke and I'm a principal at Signature 16 Associates located at One Towne Square in Southfield, 17 Michigan. We are a commercial real estate brokerage 18 organization and about three months ago we were hired 19 by Mr. Bowman and Novi Expo Center to begin marketing 20 the existing Novi Expo Center building. Obviously 21 with the intention of retenanting it and making sure 22 that it remained an economically stable, viable 23 property with the, you know, upcoming relocation to 24 the new facility and along many other types of
70
1 marketing that we began doing. 2 You know, one of the things we took a 3 close look at was the signage as we always do and we 4 have met my sign company and there are more signs and 5 we tried to find a balance to what we felt like was 6 the minimum size and height that we thought that any 7 chance at all to be seen and read and noticed, you 8 know, given its unique location on the freeway and the 9 scope of the building and the speed of which the 10 traffic moves by on I-96 and so, as a result, you have 11 before you a request for approximately an eight by 12 eight sign that obviously exceeds the size ordinance 13 by a significant amount and also, I believe, exceeds 14 the height minimum. And we did erect a mockup sign I 15 know at least a week ago. I think about ten days ago 16 showing you the location where we would like to locate 17 this sign. 18 And with that, again, you know, the 19 signage is only one aspect of marketing a property 20 like this but it is an important one and it is 21 certainly something that we don't want to overlook and 22 given the importance of this entire project here and 23 finding an economically Viable tenant or group of 24 tenants for the existing building is certainly an
71
1 important part of that whole effort and we feel like 2 the signage that we're here asking for is important 3 and is a part of that effort. So with that I'll 4 certainly answer any questions you have. 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there 6 anyone in the audience that wishes to address this 7 case in front of the board? 8 Seeing none. There were 23 notices 9 sent. No approvals, but objection. From a Gerard 10 Rosel. Owner of property at 26285 Novi Road, corner 11 of Fonda and Novi Road. He basically wants to know 12 when a code is a code and who would want a sign or 13 double signage. I believe that this property is right 14 next door to us and we should -- we sure had to toe 15 the line. 16 Building department? 17 MR. SAVEN: No comment. 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board 19 members? Member Brennan? 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: Me. 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Go ahead. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm confused. You 23 want two signs or one sign? 24 MR. FRICKE: No, sir. One sign.
72
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: This is what 2 confused me. Because you're showing another sign on 3 Novi Road. 4 MR. FRICKE: I'm sorry. Can I come 5 see that? 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: That's what has 7 confused me. We're noticed for one sign along 96 and 8 yet you have another sign indicated for Novi Road. 9 MR. FRICKE: I don't know, sir. All 10 I can think is maybe our sign company perhaps made a 11 recommendation. I believe that's even right-of-way 12 property that isn't necessarily part of the Expo 13 Center property to begin with. 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: So we're only 15 dealing with a sign along 96? 16 MR. FRICKE: Yes. 17 MR. SAVEN: Frank, that was brought 18 in by somebody else. Mr. Fricke and I had a 19 discussion about the other side on Novi Road and told 20 him he couldn't have one there because of the 21 right-of-way. So that's why it is on there. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: That was the only 23 thing I had issue with. I have no problem with 24 advertising this site. It does the city better to
73
1 fill that thing up as soon as Blair empties it up. 2 MEMBER GRAY: Is that a motion, 3 gentlemen? 4 MR. SAVEN: Madame Gronachan. 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Mr. Saven? 6 MR. SAVEN: Just to point out, that 7 that Mr. Mosel (ph) is located right where that Novi 8 Road sign is. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: So he must 10 be confused. 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: If we have nods I'll 12 make a motion. 13 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: With respect to 15 case -- 16 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: 04-020. 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: With respect to 18 Case Number 04-020 I would move that petitioner's 19 request for this advertising sign be approved for the 20 purpose of leasing the building. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 22 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been 23 moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? 24 Member Gray?
74
1 MEMBER GRAY: Is there a time limit 2 on this? 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: What do you think 4 you need? 5 MR. FRICKE: Well, I guess I would 6 certainly be prepared to, you know, let you know as 7 soon as we had a successful negotiation and document 8 to retenant the building. We're not looking for any 9 free advertising after we retenant the building but, 10 you know, having said that I guess I would say it 11 could certainly take, you know, easily a year or so. 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: How about 18 months? 13 MR. FRICKE: Fine. I would be happy 14 to come back at 18 months and revisit it with you. 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: If you don't lease 16 it in 18 months whoever owns it is going to fire you. 17 MR. FRICKE: They're probably going 18 to find somebody else by then. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Let's limit it to 20 18 months. 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Canup? 22 MEMBER CANUP: I would suggest the 23 18 months. I like that. I would also say the 18 24 months or upon leasing the building whichever occurs
75
1 first. 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll accept that as 3 part of the motion. Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been 5 moved, approved and amended. Any further 6 discussions? 7 Denise, would you please call the 8 roll. 9 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 11 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 12 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 13 MS. ANDERSON: Member Canup? 14 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 15 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? 16 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 17 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 19 MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 21 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 22 zero. 23 MR. FRICKE: Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Good luck.
76
1 Would the board entertain a five 2 minute break at this point? 3 MEMBER GRAY: How about an eight 4 minute break? 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: The board 6 would entertain an eight minute break. 7 (A short recess was taken.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
77
1 Case No. 04-021 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I would like 3 to call the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting back to 4 order and Call Case Number 04-021 filed by Ron Boshaw 5 of Toll Brothers of Island Lake Development. 6 Mr. Boshaw is requesting two setback 7 variances for the construction of a water front park 8 and a boat launch located in Island Lake of Novi. 9 Good evening. 10 MR. RICKARD: Hello, I'm Jason 11 Rickard, R-i-c-k-a-r-d. I live at 10841 Winter 12 Circle. I'm a Toll Brothers representative. 13 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: You're not an 14 attorney, correct? 15 MR. RICKARD: No, I'm not. I work 16 for Toll Brothers, Inc. 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Please raise 18 your right hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 20 or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 04-021? 21 MR. RICKARD: I do. 22 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 23 MR. RICKARD: Just to give you a 24 brief overview of what we're asking here for tonight.
78
1 What we have is a recreational park one of five of 2 Island Lake. A brief overview, we have five water 3 front parks all with different activities on each one. 4 This one we're proposing a boat launch which is a 5 pretty critical aspect of our lake community which 6 gives or homeowners access to unload their boats into 7 the lake in a safe manner and also give them a place 8 to park while they are day boating. There will be no 9 overnight parking at this location or any of the other 10 parks. 11 The requests that we have in here 12 tonight is on the west side, the requirement is an 80 13 feet setback. We actually have 80 feet to the parking 14 but we would have to count it to the pavement for the 15 access road, so on the west side we need a 25 foot 16 variance for that. On the east side the parking is 17 50 feet off. We're actually being counted here. 18 We're 16 feet off. So we're required to get a 64 foot 19 variance on this side. I guess, it's a temporary 20 use. We feel that the parking is the critical point 21 here. We also have increased the berms on either side 22 of this to a four and a half foot required to a six 23 foot to help buffer these areas. Other than that we 24 had to work with the traffic engineer. I know it's
79
1 kind of a difficult situation because of the trailers' 2 access through the park, being able to back up, turn 3 around and park for the boats. This was the best 4 scenario that we could come up with with the traffic 5 engineer which has basically given us this plan and 6 these variances that we require. 7 If you have any questions I would be 8 glad to answer them. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. All 10 done. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to 11 speak in regards to this case? 12 Seeing none, there were 123 notices 13 send. No approvals. One objection. This objection 14 is filed by Marsha and I apologize. This is a 15 photocopy and I'm not able to read her last name. It 16 starts with an "F" at 49704 Timber Trail. "I object 17 to for the following reasons: Toll Brothers owns all 18 the land on that side of the lake. They should put a 19 larger parcel to build a boat launch. They hire the 20 best land surveyors. They can easily pick a larger 21 lot. I paid for my home and my association dues 22 render their representation of certain layout of 23 lots. They seem to want to make changes only to 24 profit Toll Brothers not in the best interest of the
80
1 city of Novi, purchasers of this homes and future 2 generations of this community. My recommendation is 3 to change and choose a larger lot." 4 Building department? 5 MR. SAVEN: No comment. 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board 7 members? Member Canup? 8 MEMBER CANUP: Could you turn your 9 camera back on there? 10 I know you had your traffic people 11 look at this and fell what you to do but in reality on 12 that easterly side I have a problem being as close to 13 that lot line as it is. My recommendation is find a 14 way to get that traffic away -- or at least that boat 15 launch area away from that side. I would think that 16 people who have lived there would be annoyed with 17 that. I would. Has that lot been sold? 18 MR. RICKARD: No. It's under reserve 19 right now. And, I guess, I don't disagree if I can 20 add a comment. This lot here is not sold. So it's 21 under reserve and it looks like out this way. It's 22 very faint here, but there's a condo unit right here. 23 So we've taken into account that that view is in this 24 line here so we are trying to shield it away from the
81
1 view of that lot also. So it's kind of a compromise 2 for us. 3 MEMBER CANUP: I still would not like 4 -- and I don't like what I see here. That's all I can 5 tell you. Possibly the fellow who wrote the letter 6 objecting has got some good points on it and I think 7 the board in my opinion the board needs to take a look 8 at those and listen closely because once we do this, 9 it's done. 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gray? 11 MEMBER GRAY: How are you proposing 12 that the vehicles will pull in and -- I mean, I know, 13 I'm anticipating. Can you show how the vehicles are 14 supposed to pull in to launch their boats and then 15 park, please. 16 MR. RICKARD: They would pull in 17 here, drive back in and then come back in and park. 18 MEMBER GRAY: Do you want to try 19 that in reverse? 20 MR. SCHMITT: Actually, our traffic 21 consultant, the city traffic consultant originally 22 anticipated the movement that, I believe, Ms. Gray is 23 referring to going down the Northwestern side in and 24 then back again.
82
1 MR. RICKARD: I apologize. You're 2 right. It would make much more sense. 3 MEMBER GRAY: What I want to know at 4 this point is how long is it from the curb that you're 5 going to be backing down to the ramp? 6 MR. RICKARD: This section here? 7 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. How long is that? 8 MR. RICKARD: Approximately a hundred 9 feet. 10 MEMBER GRAY: Okay. From practical 11 experience I live in the north end off Walled Lake and 12 I have an access lot that's 30, 35 feet deep and when 13 we're backing our trailers in and our boats in, there 14 is an awful lot of pull out, back up. You know, 15 there's an awful lot of maneuvering involved with 16 launching a boat and if you're going to have somebody 17 pulling in and launching a boat where they have to 18 back up a hundred feet you're going to have an awful 19 lot of noise. You're going to have an awful lot of 20 fumes. You're going to have an awful lot of stuff for 21 the neighbors to deal with and I am going to suggest 22 that you may want to find a larger lot in your area 23 there to site this. Because I sure as heck would not 24 want it next door to me if I was paying that kind of
83
1 money for a house. I would not want this right next 2 to me. No way, no how. Not even with a launch in the 3 middle of the property. 4 And another comment, putting the bike 5 rack where you did has got to be the stupidest thing. 6 And it's just a little thing but it's just like, you 7 know -- 8 MEMBER CANUP: What are you really 9 thinking about? 10 MEMBER GRAY: Yeah. So that's my 11 comment. I absolutely cannot support this. There is 12 no way that this should go next to. You've got to 13 find a different parcel on. 14 MR. SCHULTZ: Two points in direct 15 response and I guess just to shed a little information 16 that I should have thrown out there at the outset. 17 The first is this is not a nonmotorized lake. Is 18 that it? 19 MR. RICKARD: That's correct. 20 MR. SCHULTZ: So we're not talking 21 motor boats, speedboats. The second issue and I think 22 this is a much more important one. This is an RUD. 23 It is one of those situations where the city granted 24 some different kinds of approvals in exchange for some
84
1 different benefits to the community. What happens at 2 the end of the RUD process is we essentially enter are 3 into a contract with the developer and attach the 4 plan. The plan shows this is a boat lunch, 5 recreational park. There is not at this point the 6 opportunity to ask the developer to find a different 7 site. There is an ability to work with the developer 8 to make the best out of this situation that both of 9 the parties find themselves in and I guess -- and 10 maybe Mr. Schmitt has some comments about what's 11 happened at the department level to get this to this 12 ZBA with this kind of a configuration of the boat 13 launch, but it is going to be a park and it's going to 14 be a boat launch. 15 MEMBER GRAY: May I? 16 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Go ahead. 17 MEMBER GRAY: That having been said 18 then, even though the lake is going to be used for 19 nonmotorized boats you're still going to have the 20 vehicles pulling forward and backing up to launch the 21 boats and having looked at other launch sites that are 22 very typical and comparable to this such as the DNR 23 sites up on Union Lake, where people -- and I realize 24 you're specifying how many people can use this and
85
1 it's a daily site only. Have you anticipated that 2 there may be people lined up there to get in to 3 launch? 4 MR. RICKARD: I'll be real honest 5 with you, what we have on this RUD is all the lots and 6 condo units on the water have their own dock. All the 7 boats they have will be at their own house. This is a 8 way for them to get their boat into the water. The 9 people who live inside our community also have rights 10 to this lake. I highly doubt we're going to have a 11 big amount of our homeowners that are going to have 12 pontoon -- we're looking at a lot of pontoon boats 13 that are going to be back down here, the kayaks. 14 They're not going to have Hobie Cats. They're going 15 to be able to carry. They're not going to wanting to 16 back down there. So it's basically what we're looking 17 at is a few. I don't anticipate very many because, 18 you know, they're not allowed to store them in their 19 yard. They're barely going to fit in their garage. 20 So I don't anticipate a large number of homeowners off 21 the lake using this on a daily basis other than the 22 kayakers and the paddle boats and the canoes. 23 But, like we said, it's essentially 24 for our homeowners that live on the water that have
86
1 those docks in place we give them a reasonable means 2 to get into that -- into the lake. 3 I would be glad -- as Mr. Schultz has 4 mentioned, I would be glad to work with you on any 5 alignment to help the situation. It was just, like I 6 said, the direction from the traffic consultant that 7 we've come to this plan. 8 MEMBER GRAY: The other question I 9 have, if I may, Mr. Saven, does the -- I realize this 10 is private property and I realize this is a private 11 development. Does the lake front protection ordinance 12 also apply to this property? 13 MR. SAVEN: I'll refer to 14 Mr. Schmitt. 15 MR. SCHMITT: If I may, the lake 16 front protection ordinance specifically was waived in 17 the original RUD in 1996. 18 MEMBER GRAY: But the lake front park 19 ordinance? 20 MR. SCHMITT: The lake front park 21 ordinance was waived with that as well. All the 22 provisions with respect to lake front access were 23 waived with the specific provision that mentioned five 24 parts be provided and boat launch be provided at this
87
1 location. 2 MEMBER GRAY: Okay. Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Mr. Schultz, 4 I have a question. Did all of this other stuff that's 5 in this park, the bike trail or the nature trail, the 6 bike rack, is that required to be there? Is that part 7 of this RUD or Mr. Schmitt? 8 MR. SCHMITT: In the original RUD the 9 park actually would technically include a large amount 10 of things; a picnic area, a playground, sand beach, 11 bike, the path is included, anticipated parking and a 12 launch and dock. It had a laundry list of items that 13 would actually be included in these parks. 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Wouldn't it 15 make more sense to move that over and put it right in 16 there and get rid of that nature trail and I can 17 understand the bike rack that come down but to move it 18 over because it's too close to this other house. 19 Unless they -- and I understand we're not going to 20 pick it up and move it to another lot but the other 21 option is to not build the next lot to it and Widen 22 the lot. 23 MR. SCHMITT: The original proposal 24 we had the launch closer to the center of the
88
1 property. At the preapplication meetings we sat down 2 and our traffic consultant, as I previously mentioned, 3 basically wrote a letter redesigning it for them so 4 you could get the proper turning radiuses. So you 5 could have while, as Mr. Gray pointed out, not optimal 6 certainly relatively easier access to the launch 7 itself. 8 What you would end up having if you 9 slid it over you would either have a really long 10 bowling alley in or you have a very tight turn to make 11 in the center. As it's designed Bill Simpson is very 12 happy with the turning rate on it. Unfortunately, I 13 think the reason this is in front of you this evening 14 is more a matter of timing than a matter of 15 ordinance. Because this project came after the 16 clubhouse which is really the only other area that has 17 off street parking. Essentially what happened were 18 the standards of the clubhouse were applied to this 19 park as well which were 80 feet setbacks to the 20 property lines. Obviously, the clubhouse is a 21 substantially larger parking area and because the 22 applicant has chosen to provide, I believe, 13 parking 23 spaces here and we had already established precedent 24 for the setback that would be applied to the parking
89
1 throughout on the lake. It was brought to our 2 attention that was the standard we apply here. If 3 this park would've come before the clubhouse it is 4 likely the variance would not be necessary and we 5 would have found a different standard to apply. 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: The only 7 thing I'm going to say is that I live next to a boat 8 launch and at 60 feet they're some nights that we 9 could six cases of beer and 50 tickets. So instead of 10 bike racks you might want bleachers. Yes. Go ahead. 11 I'm making fun. A 100 feet being a 12 boater I have a hard time. 13 MR. SCHULTZ: I would not like to 14 lose points with regard to the other items that are in 15 here. The RUD agreement talks about the parks 16 generally and I'll distinguish between them, having 17 active kind of recreation area. There was discussion 18 at the Planning Commission whether they have enough 19 there and I think the Planning Commission had sort of 20 the approval over what things would be there other 21 than the boat launch. 22 Mr. Schmitt can correct me if I'm 23 wrong. This is essentially what was agreed to in 24 terms of that issue. So I guess I want to put that
90
1 information out there. 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: My only 3 concerns I have about this is you have water and we 4 have a boat launch and we have a dock and it's going 5 to be summer nights and you have people gathering out. 6 You know, where there's water and there's summer 7 there's crowds. Mostly people sitting around having a 8 couple of whatever, lemonades, and we sit out here and 9 we're real close to these houses and I'm concerned 10 about those residents. 11 Member Canup? 12 MEMBER CANUP: I think I have 13 somewhat of a solution. It's obvious there's going 14 to be a boat launch or one way or another. 15 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Right. 16 MEMBER CANUP: My solution would be 17 to take the boat launch drive if you want to use that 18 and shift it to the west and line it in line with the 19 entrance of the parking area. That would be my 20 suggestion. The other suggestion would be that if the 21 board saw fit not to move the dock. To grant the 22 variance based on the fact that the adjacent lot to 23 the east could not be sold until the parking -- or the 24 boat lunch was fully in and fully landscaped. That
91
1 way whoever bought that lot would know what they're 2 buying. 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: What they're 4 building next to it. 5 MEMBER CANUP: And another thing, I 6 guess, looking at this this is not your typical public 7 boat launch. My opinion the people who put boat in 8 here will put one in the spring and take it out in the 9 fall. It gets used twice a year by the people who 10 dock on the lake. The people that live here aren't 11 going to come out and put it on a trailer and probably 12 just isn't going to happen at least very often. So 13 those are my two solutions to solving the problem. My 14 suggestion to the board would be to have them move the 15 drive or the boat launch to the west and line it up 16 with the drive. And if you're looking at how traffic 17 would flow through there it would be just a reverse 18 flow of what was originally there. 19 Therefore, I would make a motion. I 20 would make a motion that in case number -- whatever it 21 is. 22 MEMBER BAUER: 04-021. 23 MEMBER CANUP: 04-021, that we grant 24 the two variances as requested with a modification to
92
1 the boat launch drive to be moved to the west and 2 aligned with the main entrance drive where the parking 3 lots are or the parking spaces. 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: Discussion. 5 MEMBER CANUP: Does everybody 6 understand that? 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah. Discussion on 8 that. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Do you realize what 10 we're talking about? 11 MR. RICKARD: Could I comment at all? 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member 13 Brennan? 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: I think we need to 15 be careful here. I was on a different page on this 16 thing. We got a parking specialist that has made some 17 recommendations based on vehicles turning and radii 18 and this and that and I think we ought to be a little 19 bit careful about re-engineering something that we're 20 not specialists in. 21 MEMBER CANUP: If you look at this 22 and where I've moved that they haven't changed the 23 terms any turns any. You just flip it over and 24 traffic will come in and go to the east, make a circle
93
1 and turn. 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: So you're looking at 3 doing this? 4 MEMBER CANUP: Looking at doing 5 that. Right. The traffic would come in and go to the 6 east, make their turn to the west and then they would 7 be pulled up and lined up exactly with the back 8 straight up. 9 MEMBER BAUER: One thing, we're only 10 taking care of the side yard setback. Nothing else. 11 We cannot add that on to it. It's not in our 12 jurisdiction. 13 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Unless he 14 goes back and redraws it. 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: If we can ask him to 16 redraw it, don't we have to renotice this? 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Right. 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: We can't ask him to 19 re-engineer this tonight and vote on it. It's got to 20 be renoticed. 21 MEMBER GRAY: Not necessarily. The 22 setbacks may change. 23 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: That's what I 24 was worried about is the setbacks.
94
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: What does our 2 planning department say? 3 MR. SCHULTZ: Couple of different 4 things and it sounds to me like maybe the board 5 doesn't have enough comfort level with this being the 6 layout that our traffic engineer wants. It's not as 7 easy for this board to just shift things around 8 because our traffic engineer deals with manuals and 9 standards and things that we review plans under. 10 The other issue I think that it 11 impacts wetlands which starts the planning commission 12 back into the process. It certainly is an option. 13 I'm not aware of any timing other than their usual 14 construction issues. If you were really set on sort 15 of realigning this to get it away from the property 16 line I think you need some input from the traffic 17 engineer before that's done. 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: I don't think that 19 there's enough support at this table the way it's 20 been noticed and presented and I don't think that 21 we necessarily have to deny it. I move or at least 22 suggest that the petitioner that he take it back to 23 planning and relook at it. 24 MEMBER CANUP: And I made a motion
95
1 and I will withdraw that motion. 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes, sir. 3 MR. RICKARD: I would be willing to 4 -- and I don't have any problem with reserving that 5 lot until everything is complete. If you want to go 6 forward with the plan we have here. Like I said, you 7 know, we've worked with the traffic consultant. We do 8 have, you know, homeowners that, like I said, we've 9 pushed it to one side with a berm with a traffic 10 consultant knowing that if it's one way or the other 11 to make it function the best way, the views that we 12 get are ideal for the condo unit while still good for 13 the home and we'll have the whole thing completed, 14 landscaped 100 percent before we would ever put that 15 lot up for sale. We would be more than happy to do 16 that. 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Would that be 18 okay with you, do you like that? 19 MEMBER CANUP: I'm one person on this 20 board. 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I understand 22 that. 23 MEMBER CANUP: That would be my 24 second best let's put it that way.
96
1 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gray? 2 MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Rickard, you said 3 you have this lot to the east reserved. That means 4 it's not for sale? 5 MR. RICKARD: That is correct. And 6 just intervene one more time. I'm sorry. This boat 7 launch and I know it's not your, you know, absolute 8 concern but spring is getting here and this is our 9 access for -- you know, we have probably 50 homeowners 10 now that are moved in on the water and they're going 11 to want to go right away so if we have to go through 12 the whole process we're not going to be able to get 13 this thing in for quite sometime. 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We 15 understand. 16 MEMBER GRAY: I think that in light 17 of everything that has been discussed here, and I 18 understand, you know, why you want to put this here 19 and why people want to have access to a lake. I think 20 the question I have is that the fixed use of the park 21 with the safety -- with the paths going in and around, 22 maybe they're not all that compatible. So maybe you 23 want to relook at that. However, if you want to 24 preserve the use of the condominium of the lake and
97
1 you're going reserve the property to the east, 2 understanding that at such time as it is sold that 3 they fully understand what they're next door to, then 4 I don't have a problem with it. Because it is caveat 5 inferred and if there's going to be problem they're 6 going to let you know about it before they let us know 7 about it. Thank you. 8 MR. RICKARD: Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Canup? 10 MEMBER CANUP: If I feel some sense 11 of support I'll make a motion to the effect we grant 12 the motion variance for this particular case based on 13 the hardships addressed by the petitioner that the 14 lots adjacent to the east will not be sold until the 15 complete launch area is presented. In other words, 16 they have to have it completely done, landscaped 17 before that lot can be sold. 18 MEMBER GRAY: Support. 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. It's 20 been move and supported. Is there any further 21 discussion? 22 MR. SCHULTZ: Just one short thing. 23 If the maker of the motion can indicate that the 24 condition is based upon the representations of
98
1 Mr. Rickard and if he can say one more time on the 2 record that he accepts that then we'll be set. 3 MR. RICKARD: I accept that. 4 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been 6 moved and seconded. Is there any further 7 discussion? 8 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 9 call the roll. 10 MS. ANDERSON: Member Canup? 11 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 12 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 14 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 15 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 16 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? 17 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 18 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 20 MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 22 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 23 zero. 24 MR. RICKARD: Thank you, very much.
99
1 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
100
1 Case No. 04-022 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Calling case 3 04-022, Mr. Marlin Wroubel of Collier International 4 for Meadowbrook Corporate Park. 5 Are you Mr. Wroubel? 6 MR. WROUBEL: Yes, I am. 7 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Would you 8 raise your right hand, please, and be sworn in by our 9 secretary. 10 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 11 or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 04-022? 12 MR. WROUBEL: I do. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 14 MR. WROUBEL: First thing I would 15 like to point out Is I'm not with Colliers 16 International. I'm with Ketkes (ph) Developer Company 17 and I represent the owners of the property. Collier 18 International is our leasing brokerage firm. 19 I'm here today to ask for an 20 extension. The Zoning Board was good enough to grant 21 us a sign variance for our park and that sign variance 22 has expired. To reduce the size of the sign at this 23 time I think would be a hardship especially with the 24 upcoming reconstruction of the medical growth because
101
1 it's going to be even more difficult for them to 2 recognize or for us to properly advertise the property 3 and I'm here today to ask whether we can be granted an 4 extension of that sign. 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there 6 anyone in the audience that wishes to make comment in 7 regards to this case? 8 Seeing none. There were 18 notices 9 sent, zero approvals, zero objections. Building 10 department? 11 MR. SAVEN: No comment. 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board 13 members? Member Brennan? 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: At that last time we 15 gave you this variance, this property was 50 percent 16 leased. Do you know what that percentage is now. 17 MR. WROUBEL: We have incurred one 18 lease since then. The last year has been a very 19 difficult year and again that decrease in the signage 20 is going to further inhibit our ability, we feel, to 21 lease that tree property. It is starting to pick up a 22 little bit. We've had more showings. We think that 23 when the construction of Meadowbrook Road starts it's 24 going to, again, have a negative impact on people
102
1 looking at the property. 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Let me ask you 3 again. A year ago you were 50 percent leased, what 4 are you leased now. 5 MR. WROUBEL: Probably 53 percent. 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you. 7 Madame Chair, we typically supported 8 this signage for a development buildout until we get 9 to the 70, 80 percent. And I would be compelled to 10 grant an extension. 11 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is that a 12 motion? 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make that 14 motion unless there is anyone that has objection. 15 With respect to case 04-022 I would move for an 16 extension of an additional year for the purpose of a 17 lease out, build out. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Support. 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been 20 moved and supported. Is there any further discussion 21 on the motion. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Say one quick thing. 23 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: I do notice it was
103
1 based on a violation and I hope next year if there is 2 a another variance needed we would come to us before a 3 violation. 4 MR. WROUBEL: We will. That was my 5 oversight. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 7 MEMBER CANUP: Hopefully you'll be 8 leased up before then. 9 MR. WROUBEL: I hope so. 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: No further 11 discussion. Denise, will you please call The roll. 12 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 14 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 15 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 16 MS. ANDERSON: Member Canup? 17 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 18 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? 19 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 20 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 22 MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 24 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes six to
104
1 zero. 2 MR. WROUBEL: Thank you. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
105
1 Case no. 04-023 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Our next case 3 is 04-023 filed by Brent Beshears, 1395 East Lake 4 Drive. Mr. Beshears is requesting three variances for 5 the expansion of attached garage of the above listed 6 property. 7 Are you Mr. Beshears? 8 MR. BESHEARS: Yes, I am. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Would you 10 please raise your hand and be sworn in by our 11 secretary. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 13 or affirm to tell the truth in Case 04-023? 14 MR. BESHEARS: I do. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 16 MR. BESHEARS: Brent Beshears 1395 17 East Lake Drive. The couple of things I wanted to say 18 I was not the original builder or homeowner on this 19 project. It was originally constructed or 20 construction started about three years ago, I believe, 21 and I had taken it over last spring and then took, 22 actually, occupancy in the fall. Since then we found 23 that the way the original architect homeowner designed 24 the home is that you can only really get one car in
106
1 the garage due to the fact that the bathroom is 2 protruding into to the garage in the east side of the 3 garage and -- or I'm sorry on the west side of the 4 garage and the east side of the garage was put right 5 to the edge of the door. I'll give you guys some 6 illustration. Hold on a second. 7 What I was referencing before on the 8 design you can see right here where the bathroom 9 protrudes out. If you were to park a car and get it 10 in as close as you can to the bathroom here you still 11 wouldn't have enough room to get a second car in the 12 garage due to the fact that the house line comes 13 straight down towards the edge of the garage door and 14 typically you need about 21 inches and two feet to 15 open a door and it can swing open and you can get 16 out. 17 The main reason for the garage 18 expansion is two things. One, we all on the lake have 19 a hardship and that's parking and by adding this 20 garage it creates more parking for the lake during the 21 summertime months. Two, it is to alleviate from all 22 the seasonal toys that are usually placed outside on 23 the property on the lake lots and adjacent to the 24 houses in the winter months so that would add storage
107
1 for that reason. 2 I did speak with the adjacent 3 property owners. It appeared That I saw no resistance 4 them unless any letters have been written. Also we 5 are cognizant of trying to keep the proposed drive 6 expansion further away from the property line than the 7 adjacent homeowners as well. So you can see to the 8 east the home here to the east side I think is nine 9 feet, ten inches going off on memory. You guys have 10 the measurements in front of you. And the proposed 11 garage is, I think, twelve feet, six inches so we 12 still kept it farther away from the property line than 13 the existing structure here and obviously just from 14 seeing it visibly we're plenty of distance from the 15 property line to the south compared to the other 16 adjacent property. 17 Secondly, by designing the garage 18 between the house it's not visible from the street 19 versus if there was an alternative plan to do a 20 storage structure which, obviously, the ordinance is 21 much more lenient on locations and finishes we could 22 possibly put a finished structure. Showing you an 23 example of what my architect drew up for me. 24 A finished structure of a storage
108
1 facility could go approximately there which would be 2 visible from South Lake Drive and obviously showing it 3 to the adjacent property owners they're much more in 4 favor of the original plan versus the alternative plan 5 and according to my architect the uniqueness Of the 6 lake that I wouldn't everyone need to come in for a 7 variance to build the alternative plan. 8 So what we've done is basically we're 9 trying to tuck the garage behind the house for a 10 visibility aspect. The finish of the garage, 11 obviously, will be a brick face and siding where if we 12 were to do the adjacent storage structure -- which is 13 the sheds like this gentleman has here are just 14 usually metal sheds and seasonal structures for 15 housing lawn equipment and et cetera. So the finishes 16 of the product would be much better. It would be less 17 visible from the boat and also farther away from the 18 neighbor's property lines. If you have other 19 questions I would be happy to hear them. 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Is 21 there anyone in the audience that wishes to make 22 comments in regard to this case? 23 Seeing none, there were 41 notices 24 sent. No approvals. No objection. Building
109
1 department? 2 MR. SAVEN: Just a comment. Brent, 3 with that accessory structure that you talk about you 4 did need a variance for, you're talking about meeting 5 the requirements for the 850 square feet for sum 6 total? 7 MR. BESHEARS: Correct. I have a 8 printout here if you would like to review it. 9 MR. SAVEN: Okay. 10 MR. BESHEARS: It falls 846 square 11 feet and then an ordinance calls for 850. 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Board 13 members? Member Sanghvi? 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: I went and saw this 15 place and it so happened that Brent was there in the 16 house at the time so we looked at the plot plans right 17 at the site. It took some very visible thing to do as 18 opposed to anything else and I have no problem 19 supporting his application. Thank you. 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member 21 Brennan? 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Who's your neighbor 23 to the east? 24 MR. BESHEARS: I can't recall their
110
1 name offhand. Just have met him only twice, but 2 physically went there and gave him the prints and gave 3 him the plan that I'm presenting in front of you today 4 and also gave him the alternative plan. 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: I notice that as 6 part of your submittal -- and I can't let this pass. 7 You sent this article that was in the Novi News about 8 four car garages and expanding. I hope you don't 9 think that we're going to consider this request as 10 similar to one and a half acre lots on Beck Road that 11 have come in for four car garages. So I'll tend to 12 ignore that and listen to your case. I'm not going to 13 go, by the way, right now. 14 MR. BESHEARS: Right. The only 15 request is to create more parking on the lake lots in 16 the summer and to create more storage in the winter 17 for the seasonal toys. 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gray? 19 MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Beshears, what are 20 you going to do with the existing garage, are you 21 going to keep it as a garage? 22 MR. BESHEARS: Yes. 23 MEMBER GRAY: I think you're asking 24 for too much. I think if you were going to put on one
111
1 additional bay, if you call it, bay, that would give 2 you a three-car garage and that would keep you farther 3 from your neighbor to the east. That would still give 4 you room in your backyard for storage for your kennel, 5 for your other items that you have. And I seem to 6 recall that when you had the three-car garage when you 7 lived on South Lake you had adequate for your -- for 8 the stuff you needed to store. Because I know 9 everybody puts their boats on their lake lots out 10 there and this lot -- I mean, this is huge by East 11 Lake standards. With the three lots together plus the 12 lake front. I mean, you have one of the best sites on 13 East Lake as far as lot size goes but I think your 14 asking for a four-car garage is a bit much and I can 15 support an additional one car addition but not two. 16 MR. BESHEARS: If I can reiterate, 17 the car garage is not a two car garage right now. You 18 cannot put two cars in there and actually get out of 19 the cars. That's what we're trying to illustrate in 20 the plan. 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 22 Let the board members finish. I don't want a rebuttal 23 going back and forth at this. 24 MR. BESHEARS: Okay, I agree. Thank
112
1 you. 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 3 Anybody else? 4 I would like to put my comments on 5 record. Frank, you made me laugh because when I saw 6 that article in here with our packet I was trying to 7 wonder what the subliminal message was and since you 8 brought it up I'm also going to note that the article 9 in the paper was written about future ordinances on 10 newer constructions and I just want to clarify that. 11 I unfortunately cannot support this 12 request. I feel that this is too much. I don't know 13 why we have not heard from anyone on East Lake and 14 that's very unusual. The neighbors are very proactive 15 in their community and their surrounding when there is 16 any kind of changes. So that makes me a little 17 nervous and there were a couple of letters that were 18 returned here. 19 Do you know what the street address 20 is next door to you, by any chance? 21 MR. BESHEARS: No, I do not. 22 MEMBER GRAY: It's Herman. The side 23 street is Herman. 24 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anyways. I
113
1 feel that this is a little too much for this type of 2 residence and I am not able to support this request. 3 Nobody has anything else to say? 4 Member Brennan? 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll throw a couple 6 of options at Mr. Beshears. Number one, an option of 7 coming back with a modification with the expansion 8 design. One of the notes I have here is that the 9 proposed addition makes this quite overbuilt and I 10 have a problem with overbuilt lots on the lake. So I 11 share the sentiments there. I don't know if you're 12 going to ask support for the proposal I submitted. If 13 he would like to redraw it and come back that's a 14 recommendation I would like to make to you. 15 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: If I can add 16 something. Just because you said and this is was the 17 magic thing for me. When you stated that there could 18 be something else built with lesser variances I can't 19 support this. And that's why I request, I think this 20 needs to go back to the drawing board and some thought 21 needs to be given to that. Member Canup? 22 MEMBER CANUP: I don't. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: I just wanted to 24 point out on this sheet here that the variance is
114
1 written in front of required here they are rear yard 2 setback variance. I'm sure that's an error. And that 3 is giving a different impression to the whole thing. 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: How was it 5 advertised? 6 MR. SAVEN: Thirty-five feet rear 7 yard setback. Proposed he needs a 22.5. So it's 12.6 8 what it is showing. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: See, what it should 10 be is the required rear yard setback 35 feet, not 11 variance. 12 MEMBER GRAY: He's talking about the 13 extra word here. 14 MEMBER GRAY: He's talking about the 15 other word here. 16 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: The way it 17 was advertised they're saying the required rear yard 18 setback is 35 feet and proposed rear yard setback 19 variance is 12.5. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: And that gives a 21 totally wrong impression of the situation. 22 MR. SCHULTZ: Madame Chair? 23 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Mr. Schultz? 24 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess I would just
115
1 point out that the paragraph immediately above that 2 cites the ordinance section and says requires a 3 minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet and I think the 4 law makes some accommodation for an occasional 5 typographical miscue. 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madame Chair? 7 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member 8 Brennan? 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Let's just cut to 10 the chase here. There's not support for the proposal 11 as best as I can get. There's not support for the 12 proposal as submitted. Typo is nonissue and, again, I 13 suggest that the chair talk to the petitioner about 14 what his options are to help him get what he wants. 15 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: At this point 16 your options, and these are your options. Would be 17 take the board's advice and take it back to the 18 drawing board and rework this plan based on given the 19 comments by the board this evening. We talked about 20 overbuilt, over the lot size. So there's some 21 thought. Perhaps you might want to get with the 22 building department see what your options are or if it 23 doesn't pass here tonight we'll deny it if we vote on 24 it as it is. But if you take the option to table it
116
1 and we would table it until next month and come back 2 with something else that may work better and the 3 decision is yours. 4 MR. BESHEARS: Okay. We'll table it. 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All those in 6 favor of tabling Case 04-023 say "Aye". 7 MEMBER BAUER: Aye. 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Aye. 9 MEMBER GRAY: Aye. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Aye. 11 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Aye. 12 MEMBER CANUP: Aye. 13 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All opposed? 14 None. 15 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: This case 16 will be tabled until May. 17 MR. SAVEN: Madame Chair, in an 18 effort to give this some direction I would assume that 19 we're looking at trying to minimize the number of 20 variances also; is that correct? 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Correct. 22 MR. SAVEN: This will give you an 23 idea of where to go. 24
117
1 Case No. 04-024 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Let's call 3 our next case 04-024 filed by HEFCO Properties 4 proposed Meadowbrook Office Building. 5 Mr. Friedlander is requesting two 6 variances to the landscape standards for the 7 projection of a property known as Meadowbrook Office 8 Building. 9 Are you Mr. Friedlander? 10 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: Yes, I am. 11 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Will you 12 please raise your right hand and be sworn in by our 13 secretary. 14 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 15 or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 04-024. 16 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: I do. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Go ahead. 19 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: Howard 20 Friedlander, 51378 Village Coats (ph) Drive, West 21 Bloomfield. 22 I brought some boards. I didn't 23 know you were going to have an overhead. The two 24 variances that I'm requesting, the first is to
118
1 eliminate the berm around the building in these areas 2 along Meadowbrook Road and Twelve Mile. Those 3 locations have no parking to screen it. My 4 understanding is the ordinance is that the berm or 5 wall is to screen parking areas from visibility and to 6 provide an interesting view from the rights of way. 7 If we did that in this case and we do have the 8 required berm over here and over here, it's simply 9 around the building where there is no parking that we 10 want to eliminate it. If we put the berm there I 11 believe we would be frustrating the purpose of the 12 ordinance. We would be hiding or obscuring attractive 13 architecture. We deliberately placed the building up 14 right at the road frontages to highlight the 15 architecture. We have a lot of nice landscaping 16 designed around it. If we put a berm there, which 17 could be done, we would be hiding part of the 18 building. We would have to adjust the landscaping and 19 make it less attractive. So that's the reason for 20 requesting a variance of the berm in those areas. 21 Should I go on to the second item? 22 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Please. 23 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: The second item 24 that is being requested is a reduction of 1,554 square
119
1 feet of required interior parking landscape. We could 2 meet the interior landscape requirement by designing a 3 site to the existing right-of-way. By doing that, 4 over here along this area right now at the City's 5 request, we designed it to the future right-of-way. 6 By doing so, we have 13 feet of extra landscape buffer 7 along Meadowbrook Road. We could relocate that 13 8 feet, put it in the parking area, making a long island 9 right here of landscaping. We would pick up more than 10 1,700 additional square feet. 11 However, when Meadowbrook Road is 12 widened as it is scheduled this evening, the sidewalk 13 that we would have placed out further to the east 14 would have to be removed at City cost and we would 15 lose -- we would have about three area feet of 16 landscaping outside of the parking lot. There would 17 not be enough room for a berm so the parking area 18 would be highly visible. So to avoid those problems 19 we designed this to the future right-of-way. We 20 maintain a 20 foot landscape buffer over here. We 21 have the ability to install a berm, which is in the 22 plans, and we avoid the problem that would occur when 23 Meadowbrook Road is widened. 24 I would also like to point out that
120
1 the south area around the parking while we are not 2 required to have the berm, we've put one in the plan 3 just to make the parking area more private around this 4 area. And, as you can see, although we are a little 5 under in the parking area, the site has ample 6 landscaping. We have a wetland area over here that 7 needs to be preserved as well as our detention ponds. 8 So the entire site is surrounded with landscape. 9 If I would answer any questions, I 10 put the other board up in front there, which shows the 11 elevations of the building. If you have any questions 12 I'll answer them. 13 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 14 Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to make 15 comment with regards to this case. 16 Ma'am, you can come down. 17 Before you start can we please have 18 your name and address and tell us who you're speaking 19 on behalf of. 20 MS. S'GEPPERT: Sue Ann S'Geppert. 21 I live at 27563 Meadowbrook Road. I am speaking for 22 myself, my mother, Marjorie S'Geppert, same spelling, 23 and Mrs. Mary Louise Taylor who lives at 27551 24 Meadowbrook Road, which is the property next to ours.
121
1 Right here. This is my property 2 right here along their southern border and then my 3 aunt's property is the next property down. We have 4 long, narrow lots. She says, "Since I cannot attend 5 Mrs. S'Geppert is to speak for me. A wall, a berm is 6 necessary to relieve the noise and debris from the 7 Meadowbrook office building. The wall to run west of 8 Meadowbrook. We would like assurance that we will not 9 have a water problem from the construction proposed." 10 In that we weren't given much in 11 the letter that we were sent. We would -- and we 12 didn't know that there was a berm plan and then my 13 response and my mother's response, "A reduction in 14 landscaping trees and shrubs will result in an 15 increase in noise along Twelve Mile Road and 16 Meadowbrook Road and for our property which is just 17 south of the building site. We request that trees 18 evergreens be planted along a continuous berm or 19 continuous wall which will run along their south, our 20 north boundary line to ameliorate the noise and any 21 possible blowing trash from the parking lot. We also 22 request that if any of their plans for water runoff 23 away from our property should fail, that the condition 24 be corrected. We should not have to pump away any
122
1 extra water from them. Also during construction we 2 desire a temporary water trench to handle any water 3 runoff and to hire debris fence to catch all their 4 building debris. Additionally, we are concerned about 5 possible light pollution. It would effect us on the 6 north, east and west sides and intrude into our 7 privacy." 8 Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 10 Okay. Anyone else? 11 Seeing none. There were ten notices 12 sent, zero approvals. Building department? 13 MR. SAVEN: Just to point out that 14 during the course of construction of these buildings 15 it's built the issue of the ordinance requirements 16 will be handled through neighborhood services. What 17 is before you today are the issues regarding the berm 18 and the landscaping requirements and I believe 19 Mr. Schmitt can answer or address those particular 20 questions. 21 MR. SCHMITT: Just briefly to the 22 board through the chair. Both of these items are 23 items that have been taken care of in the new 24 landscape ordinance that become more of a design
123
1 criteria. Hopefully the board will see very, very few 2 of these in the future. What essentially is being 3 requested is along the two main right-of-ways around 4 the building is to give the landscape architect on the 5 project some design leeway to do a little bit 6 different frontage thereby requesting a waiver of the 7 berm and as Mr. Friedlaender pointed out because of 8 the designs of the future right-of-way the reduction 9 in the interior building landscaping. 10 I can also say that I've spoken with 11 the city engineer, civil engineer on this project has 12 reviewed it and this homeowner maintenance plan has 13 been approved. Ultimately the water for this 14 projection is going to be draining to the north out of 15 an outlet that is detention based. The rear of this 16 property is close to being at the highest point. But, 17 ultimately, the project is designed to go to the 18 detention basin in the southwest corner and then 19 outlets into the wetland. Thank you. 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 21 Mr. Schultz? 22 MR. SCHULTZ: Very briefly. This is 23 one of those unusual instances, I guess, like the one 24 before it where the property owners have acknowledged
124
1 that he can meet the ordinance if he had to. I don't 2 have a preference as to what the board ought to do but 3 remember that in reviewing the variance request you 4 look at that as one issue that they're complying with 5 the ordinance, but you also have a couple of other 6 issues that you look at. For example, would a 7 variance do substantial justice to the city and the 8 public and would a variance do justice to the 9 adjacent property owner. If you need to evaluate it, 10 in this case, just to make sure you've given a full 11 view as to is there any benefit to the city and to the 12 public and to the adjacent landowners even though he 13 could comply if we come out. You know, if we come out 14 and widen the road and he's going to remove 15 landscaping is that an issue that you need to take 16 that into consideration and it's permissible for you 17 to do that. 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Thank 19 you. Member Brennan? 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: I want to address 21 two things. I want to address what's before us in the 22 variance and I want to address the homeowner. I heard 23 three issues raised. One, berming -- 24 And you understand, ma'am, now that
125
1 they are proposing to put a how tall, six foot berm. 2 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: Three feet, I 3 believe, is what the ordinance requires along 4 Meadowbrook Road and the berm that we're putting on 5 The south is not required. We're going to have-- 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: I understand. I 7 just wanted to be clear on height. 8 So along your property line -- 9 MS. S'GEPPERT: The entire property 10 line? 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: The entire property 12 line he's going to put a three foot berm and have 13 landscaping on top of that. 14 MR. SAVEN: Excuse me. I don't think 15 that's correct. I believe her property is directly to 16 the north and his south property line. I don't think 17 that's what he has. He's looking at the Meadowbrook 18 Road. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: No. No. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Down south. 21 MR. SCHMITT: Along the southern 22 frontage there is a berm proposed roughly in the 23 center of the site and the remainder of the site will 24 be grated as normal. It's fairly obvious landscaping.
126
1 MEMBER BAUER: It's going south. 2 MR. SCHMITT: Yes. The berm is not 3 on the southern property line. The berm does not run 4 the entire length. 5 MEMBER GRAY: And how high is that 6 berm on the south? 7 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: I'm not sure. 8 It's on the plan. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: I don't know how 10 this got so complicated. Let me start over again. 11 This is north. This lady's property 12 sits right here. Are you putting a berm across that 13 entire property line? 14 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: Not a typical berm 15 that is completely mounted all the way across. We 16 have provided berming. There is, you know, some 17 contouring. We have added some additional material 18 that amounts to a berm that I can't say it's a 19 continuous berm that's three feet high across that 20 entire property line. But we have provided additional 21 screening that isn't required under the ordinance. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. Let me move 23 on to the next item. The next item raised was water 24 drainage. It's been presented the water in the
127
1 parking lot drains north, not south. Correct? 2 MR. SCHMITT: It starts by going 3 southeast to the detention basin and then goes north. 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. I'm trying 5 to address this lady's concerns here. Third item is 6 lighting, we've had in the past year a lot of parking 7 lots lighting issues that were brought up that were 8 solved with a particular design of lighting that was 9 directed light straight down and there wasn't a lot of 10 parallel lighting. Are you familiar with that from an 11 architect side? 12 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: Somewhat. 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Do you know if 14 that's what you plan on implementing here? 15 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: I don't. 16 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, it is. My 17 apologies for jumping in. Yes, the applicant is 18 proposing full cutoff lighting. Full cutoff is, 19 actually, required under the ordinance. So the site 20 does meet ordinance requirements under the lighting 21 ordinance. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Hold on, ma'am. I'm 23 trying to address your questions, all right. 24 I don't know if I'm personally
128
1 completely satisfied with the berming issue to the 2 south. I'm satisfied that the development can go in 3 as proposed and take care of drainage and lighting. I 4 didn't have any initial problem with either of the 5 variance requests but I want to satisfy the neighbor. 6 MR. SCHMITT: The applicant's 7 proposing to plant 15 White Spruces and -- I'm drawing 8 a blank on the other species of trees. Five Lindens 9 on the southern property. Spruces are partially on 10 the berm that he's been discussing. Partially not. 11 That is the most heavily landscaped area in the site 12 in all reality. Spruces will grow relatively quickly 13 and should fill in and provide very adequate 14 screening. I believe that the majority of those 15 spruces aren't necessarily required under the 16 ordinance. It's something the applicant's done to 17 attempt to screen it better because of what minimal 18 space they have in that area a full berm would not be 19 able to be put in but they have done a fairly good job 20 to attempting to screen and should be a factor once 21 the landscaping is maintained. 22 In addition to the entire Meadowbrook 23 corridor is zoned OST. While we do take into 24 consideration existing, quote, unquote, nonconforming
129
1 houses, they are still existing OSD. There isn't a 2 substantial screening requirement Between light zoned 3 properties. Specifically the OST is called out where 4 properties that are zoned OST or master planned for 5 this type of use do not necessarily have to provide 6 the specific screening. This applicant has chosen to 7 do so because they're basically the first one in this 8 part of this corridor and try to set some sort of a 9 precedent in standard and design. I'm done. 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gray? 11 MEMBER GRAY: I initially had no 12 problems with your variance request because the first 13 one for the landscape buffer and berm provided for the 14 property's right-of-way. I had no problem with that 15 because the initial intent of providing the berm wall 16 is not present on your site plan. So it doesn't make 17 sense to ask you to provide something that's going to 18 screen what's not going to be there from the view. So 19 I didn't have a problem with that and I also didn't 20 have a problem with the variance on the parking lot 21 because it sounds like this is something that we as 22 the City are asking you not to do so that's -- you 23 know, it's not a hardship. Other than it's city 24 imposed. And I also understand that you're putting
130
1 berming along the south property line where you don't 2 have to and while residents do live there, you know, 3 it's a catch 22 situation. 4 Can you meet with your neighbors and 5 see if there is a compromise? I mean, short of 6 putting a wall along there which may not be required. 7 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: I think we are 8 there. You know, we planned it this way for a couple 9 of reasons, one knowing that it is currently used as 10 residential next door even though it's zoned OST and 11 under the OST ordinance, there can be shop areas that, 12 you know, receive very big deliveries, trucks and so 13 forth and this building, even though it's an OST is a 14 pure office building. So it's -- we want it to be 15 screened from our future neighbor who might be a 16 heavier, you know, a little more of a, you know, 17 technology user and didn't want to be looking at 18 that. So, you know, it seemed like a good solution, 19 you know, as pointed out. It's a very, thick green 20 belt and I think we've done as much as we could and we 21 did that deliberately to satisfy everyone, including 22 ourselves. 23 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anyone else? 24 Is there any other board members that
131
1 wish to make any comment? 2 Is there a motion? 3 MEMBER GRAY: I'll make a motion. 4 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 5 MEMBER GRAY: In the matter of case 6 04 dash 024 move to approve the variances requested 7 based on conversation of how to table and due to the 8 fact that requirements for a berm and wall are not 9 present in this application to the north and the to 10 the east and that the interior landscaping be based 11 due to future right-of-way requirements imposed by the 12 city. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been 15 moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion 16 on the motion? 17 Seeing none, Denise -- 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: Wait. 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I'm sorry. 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: I would like to make 21 a friendly amendment that the discussion about the 22 berming and the landscaping is part of this whole deal 23 even though it was part of the discussion to satisfy 24 the concerns of the drain.
132
1 MEMBER GRAY: I'll accept that. 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been 3 moved and amended. 4 MR. SCHULTZ: Just if I could, to the 5 Chair, the terms of the plan is acceptable as it's 6 shown? 7 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Right. Yes. 8 Denise, please call the roll. 9 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? 10 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 11 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 13 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 14 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 15 MS. ANDERSON: Member Canup? 16 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 17 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 19 MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 21 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 22 zero. 23 MR. FRIEDLAENDER: Thank you. 24
133
1 Case No. 04-025 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Calling the 3 case of 04-025 filed by Daniel Heileman of Heileman 4 Signs for Varsity Lincoln Mercury Ford Dealership. 5 Mr. Heileman is requesting one sign variance to permit 6 the installation of an illuminated replacement service 7 sign of 10.5 square feet. 8 Good evening. Are you Mr. Heileman? 9 MR. HEILEMAN: Good evening. Yes, I 10 am. 11 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Would you 12 please raise your right hand and be sworn in by our 13 secretary? 14 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 15 or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case No. 04-025? 16 MR. HEILEMAN: I do. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 18 MR. HEILEMAN: Dan Heileman, 4797 19 Gratiot, St. Clair. 20 What we are requesting from the board 21 is to consider replacing the existing nonilluminated 22 service lights that are currently at Varsity Lincoln 23 Mercury with a two and a half square foot larger set 24 of letters that will light up and I don't think it's
134
1 an issue of the letters, it's more of the size of the 2 that we're dealing with here. And the reason we're 3 here is -- I'm a local installer here in Metro 4 Detroit for Ford and Lincoln Mercury. I do not 5 manufacturer these letters. These letters are 6 manufactured by Ford Motor Company to their 7 specifications. This is the smallest set of 8 illuminated service letters that they manufacture for 9 their dealerships. 10 The owner, Mike Stanford, originally 11 when he came in front of the board well over a year 12 ago. He remodeled his whole dealership, thought that 13 nonilluminated letters at eight square feet would be 14 sufficient to direct public to where those bay doors 15 are to come in for service. With winter winding down 16 he's found out that that's really not the case. There 17 is some problems of locating where those doors are and 18 he's thinking by changing these letters to an 19 illuminated set which then raise it to ten and a half 20 square feet from the original eight that will help 21 eliminate that problem and that's why we're here in 22 front of you today. 23 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there 24 anyone in the audience that wishes to make comments in
135
1 regards to this case? 2 Yes, sir, please come down. 3 MR. HAROLD: My name is Ed Harold, 4 23554 Greenwood Drive, Novi, and I work at Varsity 5 Lincoln Mercury. 6 I just wanted to add the original 7 construction of the dealership was a lighted sign 8 above the service and when they repaved the road we 9 tried to get by without that. And it is very 10 difficult when it's dark, in the mornings at night, 11 for people to find that. Coming west on Grand River, 12 it's very easy to see when that is lighted up and they 13 can turn in. There's also an entrance right at the 14 light at target where you can go in and around back 15 through the service entrance rather than off Grand 16 River and that would just make it a lot easier for 17 people to get in and out and it was lighted prior to 18 our construction. And we tried it without and it's 19 just not working. 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 21 Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to 22 make comments in regards to this matter? 23 Seeing none. There were 19 notices 24 sent. Two approvals. First one is from Glenda Glenn
136
1 at Hennessey Pub and second one is from Ken Shihann at 2 49251 Grand River. "Great company. Okay with us to 3 allow variance," is his statement. Building 4 department. 5 MR. SAVEN: No comment. 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board 7 members, Member Brennan and then member Bauer. 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: What time does 9 service open? 10 MR. HEILEMAN: 7:00 a.m. 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you. I think 12 that everyone knows that at 7:00 a.m. in the 13 wintertime is very dark. It seems like this is a very 14 reasonable request. 15 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member 16 Bauer? 17 MEMBER BAUER: In fact, I was there 18 last week coming in from Grand River and a man stops 19 his car and waved at me and says, "Where is service?" 20 So, enough said. 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is that a 22 motion? 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: If there is no other 24 I'll go ahead and make a motion. With respect to case
137
1 04-025 that petitioner's request for this variance be 2 granted for the purpose of identifying the service 3 function of his facility. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been 6 moved and seconded. There's been a motion and 7 seconded is there any other discussion on the motions. 8 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 9 call the roll. 10 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 12 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 14 MS. ANDERSON: Member Canup? 15 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 16 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? 17 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 18 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 20 MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 22 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 23 zero. 24 MR. WILSON: Thank you, very much.
138
1 Case No. 04-026 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Let's go to 3 next 04-026 filed by Gordon Wilson at 1322 East Lake 4 Drive. Mr. Wilson is requesting six variances for the 5 construction of a new home on an existing foundation 6 at 1322 East Lake Drive. 7 /Good evening, are you Mr. Wilson? 8 MR WILSON: Good evening, yes, I am. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Will you 10 please raise your right hand and be sworn in by or 11 secretary. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 13 or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 04-026? 14 MR. WILSON: I do. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 16 MR. WILSON: Gordon Wilson, 1322 East 17 Lake Drive, Novi, Michigan. I've been a resident of 18 Novi here for ten years. This is the second house 19 that I've owned on Walled Lake. I mean, I feel 20 privileged and honored to live in Novi and lucky to be 21 on Walled Lake. I stand here kind of embarrassed that 22 I'm asking for six variances. But I would like to 23 point out that five them are already preexisting. I 24 moved into this house as a single man. I look at
140
1 planning on getting married here shortly and raising a 2 family and I would like to do it in the city of Novi 3 and I would like to have a little more space and 4 little more room where I can accommodate a family. 5 I submitted a few drawings. It's the 6 fourth page back. If you were to take a look you 7 would see the existing house with a deck and carport. 8 And what I'm proposing here tonight is basically just 9 to square off all the corners. Taking a carport, 10 squaring it off with the back of the house there and 11 up in front where the deck is, squaring that off, 12 keeping all the setbacks the same. 13 If you move forward, three pages 14 forward, you will see where it says the proposed house 15 with a full basement and a garage. Once again, 16 keeping all the setbacks, keeping them all the same. 17 I tried to do this as simple as 18 possible. I've contacted both neighbors. Mr. Solomon 19 couldn't be here today. He was kind enough to write 20 me a letter. 21 If you notice, to the right which 22 would be the north property line, which that's where 23 the houses are the closest together. Mr. Smith was 24 kind enough to come here today to share his views. So
141
1 not only have I taken the time to contact neighbors, 2 sat down with them. I plan on being here for a long 3 time. I don't plan on building and moving and when I 4 met with the neighbors it was in the true spirit of 5 trying to be a good neighbor and build a house that 6 fits in with everything along there and not go too 7 high or too far forwards but to fit in with the rest 8 of the neighborhood and I think that's all that I have 9 at this point and I'm happy to answer any questions. 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 11 Is there anyone in the audience that 12 wishes to make comments in regards to this case? 13 MR. SMITH: My name is Dennis Smith. 14 I live at 1320 East Lake Drive. 15 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Go ahead. 16 MR. SMITH: I've lived on the lake 17 for approximately 16 years and adds that. Directly 18 across and I've seen a lot of improvements on the lake 19 and I would like to see them ten. Gordy has showed us 20 the plans and my wife and I have no objections to do 21 that. I'm hoping you would grant the variances for 22 us. 23 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there 24 anyone else?
142
1 Seeing none, there were 37 notices 2 sent, two approvals, two objections and two objections 3 were from one person who owns two lots on East Lake 4 Drive. The approval from was from Kim and Dennis 5 Smith at 1320. John and Maryanne Bennett at 1328 and 6 the objection is from Mr. Mackerwitz who lives in 7 White Lake but he owns 1327 and a lake lot on a 8 separate area according to this letter. 9 It says, "This house is too close to 10 the road for safety. Too large of a home for lot 11 size. Please stop this for the betterment of the 12 neighborhood. I think the variances requested are 13 excessive. I have requests in the past sent to me 14 before but never objected to any of them. When I 15 built a 1008 square foot home years ago I didn't even 16 need a variance." 17 Board members? Member Canup? 18 MEMBER GRAY: No. Don. 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I'm sorry. 20 Mr. Saven? 21 MR. SAVEN: If the board so chooses 22 to approve this variance I do want to point out that 23 the distance of the one foot eleven inches will need 24 some fire protection for that side for the
143
1 construction on that wall. 2 MR. WILSON: I would be happy to 3 accommodate anyway that I can. 4 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Canup? 5 MEMBER CANUP: Although I sympathize 6 with this gentleman who would like to remain in Novi 7 and possibly raise a family here that it appears that 8 there is a gross overbuild for the size of the lot 9 that's available. And if the person needs that big of 10 a home and would like that big of a home I would 11 suggest that possibly they might look elsewhere for a 12 lot that would fit that home. Basically, a two feet 13 side yard to me is just unacceptable. And if our 14 ordinance calls for a lot coverage not to exceed over 15 25 percent and they're proposing 45 percent, the 16 numbers are just too far apart in my opinion for 17 reality. 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gray? 19 MEMBER GRAY: With all due request, 20 this is an existing house and it has been here for 21 many, many years. When was it originally built? 22 MR. WILSON: It's over a hundred 23 years old. I do not have an exact date. 24 MEMBER GRAY: Did you buy from
144
1 Lyndelle Lloyd? 2 MR. WILSON: Yes, ma'am, I did. 3 MEMBER GRAY: This house has been 4 here for a lot of years. 5 Brent, you'll remember when Lillian's 6 grocery was next door to it and it has now been 7 converted to a house. What Mr. Wilson is requesting, 8 to square off his house for a garage in the front will 9 put him no closer to the road than the property to the 10 north. Is that where Mr. Solomon lives? 11 MR. WILSON: No. Mr. Solomon lives 12 to the south. 13 MEMBER GRAY: What about your 14 neighbor to the north? 15 MR. WILSON: The party store would be 16 Mr. Smith. 17 MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Smith? 18 MR. WILSON: Yes. And that would be 19 to the north. 20 MEMBER GRAY: You know that I'm 21 against, you know, but this is here and he wants to 22 rebuild on an existing foundation. He wants to 23 improve his house and I'm torn but I really can't -- 24 you know, I can't say no because he's been here, you
145
1 know, and, yes, it's increasing the nonconformity by 2 building the garage in the front and all he has is a 3 carport now and I think it's fair to allow him to have 4 storage on his property. This is one of those awful 5 situations where it's a catch 22 and everybody else 6 around him is improving and to deny him the right to 7 improve his house as well is, I think, arbitrary with 8 all due respect. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member 10 Brennan? 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I have similar 12 observations that Brent had and number one what 13 concerns me more than anything else is that with the 14 proposed plan that garage is nine feet off the road. 15 You're not going to park a car in that driveway. 16 Number two, the size of that garage bounces that 17 proposed lot coverage up to 45 percent. That's a huge 18 dwelling and garage on that parcel. I think it's 19 hugely overbuilt and I won't accept it as presented 20 tonight at all. 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I would like 22 to put my comments on the record. I understand Member 23 Gray's statement in regards to this house that this 24 house is huge; however, I concur with Member Canup and
146
1 Member Brennan because of the fact that this is too 2 much. And you heard me earlier, if there can be less 3 then I'm going for it. Granted, I can't do anything 4 about the one foot off the property line. However, to 5 overbuild a house of this nature that close to another 6 house, is just I can't support that. Then we're 7 talking, health, safety and welfare. I think there's 8 options that you can do with this house and you heard 9 me earlier and if the board will concur with me I 10 think maybe you should table this and take this back 11 to the drawing board and go back and look at your 12 other options. If you are so inclined to do so, but I 13 feel there is a lot of flexibility that can be done on 14 this lots. Which we've all sat here and looked at the 15 creativity that have come out without a 45 percent lot 16 size proposed lot coverage. I feel that to allow this 17 would be just unjust at this point. So I think you 18 need to take another look at this. I cannot support 19 this this evening. 20 MEMBER GRAY: Can I have another 21 comment? 22 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Sure. 23 MEMBER GRAY: If you're going to 24 relook at the situation perhaps look at putting
147
1 building over a garage and moving the garage farther 2 to the south, and building over a garage. If you're 3 going to do major you might as well do it major and do 4 it right. The best you can. Thank you, sir. 5 MR. WILSON: Ms. Gray, I totally 6 agree and when I started this project I intended to do 7 everything right and I'm open to suggestions. So if 8 you have suggestions. I'm a foot and a half from the 9 lot. I can't help that. I can't help that and I'm 10 open for being creative. I'm open for trying to try 11 something different, something new. That's why I 12 brought Dennis with me today. And if you look at the 13 garage the plan is to stagger it and if you look at 14 the draw east lake drive anchored so the garage 15 wouldn't be straight across. The garage would be a 16 two car garage but it would be staggered keeping the 17 same distance from the road that I am now. And when I 18 compiled this plan the whole purpose was to not go any 19 closer, not go any closer to the water, not go any 20 closer to the road or any neighbor and this is the 21 best that I and a builder friend of mine could come up 22 with and I'm wide open for suggestions. I'd love some 23 help but I don't see anyway I can go other than up. 24 There is nowhere else to go and if you were to go
148
1 north on East Lake Drive, there is been several new 2 homes or newer homes that have been built on that 3 similar lot. There is one that is in construction 4 right now where I have pictures where this is brand 5 new construction, not remodeled, and that is four 6 feet. And, you know, I don't have and axe to grinds 7 here. I'm trying to do the best that I can and I'm 8 open for suggestions and I would be happy to table 9 this and come up with something different but I need 10 some direction. 11 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Canup? 12 MEMBER CANUP: I guess I would like 13 to give you some direction but we can't do that. 14 MR. WILSON: Suggestions? 15 MEMBER CANUP: We're not in the 16 building business and we try to look at ordinances and 17 look at something efficient and my suggestion would be 18 maybe look for a different lot. It looks like you 19 just got a very small lot with a foot, existing 20 basement that is nonconforming and it is becoming more 21 common nine feet in the road. Nine feet, I don't 22 think you can buy a car that's nine feet long that you 23 can park there. It's a safety situation and I don't 24 know what the answer is and I don't think anybody on
149
1 this board knows what the answer is and if they did 2 they shouldn't give it to you because we're not in the 3 design business and my suggestion would be to look for 4 different lot. So with that, I would make a motion 5 that we present the opportunity to table this or we 6 vote no and that would be your decision. 7 MR. WILSON: Fair enough. I don't 8 know if you happened to get a copy of the four photos 9 I have here. Everything is in line? 10 MEMBER CANUP: Sir, I made a 11 suggestion of one of two things. 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: So what would 13 you like to do, table it and take it back to the 14 drawing board or have it denied this evening? 15 MR. WILSON: Obviously, I will be 16 happy to table it. 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: So moved. 18 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been 20 moved and seconded all those in favor of tabling case 21 number 04-026, say "Aye". 22 MEMBER BAUER: Aye. 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: Aye. 24 MEMBER GRAY: Aye.
150
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Aye. 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Aye. 3 MEMBER CANUP: Aye. 4 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We'll see. 5 MR. WILSON: Ladies and gentlemen, 6 thank you for your time this evening. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
151
1 Case No. 04-027 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: 04-027. 3 Filed by Lee J. Mamola and Mamola and Associates of 4 Family Fun Park. Mr. Mamola is requesting two 5 variances for the construction of an indoor/outdoor 6 entertainment complex. The variance is requesting is 7 a 64 foot parking lot setback from adjoining 8 residential property and the second request is for a 9 landscape variance to allow the elimination of the 10 landscaping around the perimeter of the Kart Loading 11 building. 12 Good evening. And you are? 13 MR. MAMOLA: Lee Mamola and Mamola 14 Associates, architects. 15 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Would you 16 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our 17 secretary. 18 MEMBER BAUER: I can swear this guy 19 but that one I can't. 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: No, the other 21 one you do. 22 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 23 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case No. 04-027. 24 MR. MAMOLA: Yes, sir, I do. With us
152
1 tonight -- Lee Mamola, the architect for the project. 2 With us tonight are the owners, other consultants on 3 the design team, landscape architects, traffic 4 consultants and engineers and the owner's legal 5 counsel in this matter Mr. Joe Galvin. I'm going to 6 turn the floor over to Joe Galvin for the bulk of the 7 presentation. 8 MR. GALVIN: Thank you, Lee. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: At this time 10 I just would like to remind the petitioner's counsel 11 that we do have your packet. We have reviewed the 12 information and we've all been out to the site so and 13 it's a late hour and we still have other cases so if 14 you can do a condensed version the board would very 15 much appreciate it. 16 MR. GALVIN: Madame Chairman, I will 17 not only do a condensed version I'll talk really 18 rapidly. My name is Joe Galvin. I'm here on behalf 19 of Jeff Wainwright and the Family Fun Project. 20 I left City Hall today to go eat 21 dinner and work out. I had been here for the bulk of 22 the day and during the course of the day I've had a 23 bunch of stuff brought to my attention. I have a 24 flyer that was sent to all Eleven Mile Road
153
1 residences. I have copies which the staff kindly 2 provided at my request of a bunch of letters from a 3 whole lot of people that have been presented to the 4 board. I have spoken with the staff. I have spoken 5 with your attorneys. I read all of that stuff while I 6 was eating dinner and then I went to the work out 7 place and I worked like crazy on a bunch of machines 8 trying to figure out where to start on this tonight 9 and at the end of all of that stuff the conclusion I 10 reached was to say to you we're here tonight asking 11 for two dimensional variances. These two dimensional 12 variances are the only thing we're here tonight to 13 talk to you about. Naturally should any member of the 14 board ask us a question about anything else having to 15 do with this project, we are pleased to answer those 16 questions. But what we would like you to do is to 17 provide us a dimensional variance for this parking lot 18 in the area that I am indicating from a 100 foot 19 setback requirement which is required under the 20 ordinance because the parcel that I'm outlining with 21 my finger is zoned in the light industrial district 22 and this parcel over here is zoned for residential 23 use. Your ordinance says there has to be a 100 foot 24 setback and there is not.
154
1 Now, Lee has kindly done a little 2 blowup which starts to illustrate why practical 3 difficulties and unnecessary hardship exist in this 4 case which allow and in our view would require the 5 board to grant a variance. Specifically you will see 6 that these distances and this is the line of the 7 industrial property and there is a gap but I'm not 8 going to talk to you about that tonight. We're 9 assuming that we abut and, therefore, the hundred foot 10 requirement is there. 11 This is the specific location of the 12 buildings. This is the wetland between us and those 13 buildings in which nothing is going to ever be 14 constructed and this is what your ordinance says. If 15 you have a residentially zoned property you can build 16 the building up to 35 feet from the property line and 17 then there is a hundred feet required to the parking 18 lot for a total of 135 feet. In our case, we have 109 19 feet, but that 109 feet is measured from the building 20 to the property line and then there's 36 feet to the 21 property. The total being 145 feet. The point being 22 that we don't violate the intention of the ordinance 23 that creates the setback. Physically we have it. 24 Physically it will remain and without -- and I mean
155
1 this. Without trivializing the situation there is no 2 potential harm that the ordinance was intended to 3 protect. Where there is no potential harm there is no 4 real reason for a variance to be denied. This is a 5 practical difficulty. The numbers are on different 6 sides of the property line but the physical 7 relationships are what they are. 8 There are a couple of other reasons 9 to grant this variance. I want you to note how this 10 parcel is organized. All of the activity is kept as 11 far away from the residential as is physically 12 possible. This mandates putting parking here. Now, 13 ask yourselves, why in a light industrial district is 14 there a requirement for a 100 foot setback. It's 15 because you don't want those trucks sitting there all 16 night with their engines running near residential 17 uses. That isn't going to happen here. The reason 18 for the rule doesn't apply. Physically we meet the 19 requirements. We have done our best given -- and here 20 your ordinance says, look at the physical 21 configuration. What's missing? This is what's 22 missing, the Gatsby's parcel. The Gatsby's parcel 23 creates a physical relationship that creates a 24 hardship and practical difficulties.
156
1 I have given you three independent 2 justifications to grant this variance. I really think 3 if it weren't for all that stuff that I read at 4 dinner, that I wouldn't have to say anything else, 5 but I do. And I can't really apologize to you for 6 this because I know you know this but I have to say 7 it. This is not the use that is in front of you 8 tonight. That's permitted. We have a special land 9 use permit. We have the Planning Commission minutes 10 which I believe are in your packet which grant us 11 everything that we need except the two variances. And 12 these variances were justified both under your 13 ordinances, the physical circumstances of the 14 property, the intention of the ordinance and your 15 prior decisions in similar situations. 16 What's the other variance? The 17 landscaping requirement around this building. This is 18 the building which has openings onto this track and 19 which has openings for persons to come off the 20 remainder of the property onto the track. It is not 21 physically possible. Functionally, functionally to 22 put landscaping entirely around this building. We're 23 asking for a variance to permit us to build this to 24 operate functionally. The difficulty, imminently
157
1 practical. The hardship, obvious. Practical 2 difficulties, unnecessary hardships and we have made 3 other accommodations on this site. We have worked 4 very closely with the staff landscaping person, our 5 landscaping consultant has put, as you can see, 6 additional landscaping above and beyond in a number of 7 areas on this site. We have in effect made up for 8 whatever was the deficiency that was created by the 9 practical and functional use of the building. 10 Now, I know that when I sit down that 11 you are going to hear a bunch people talking about a 12 bunch of issues which were determined by the Planning 13 Commission in their determination that is special use 14 permit should be issued. As I said at the outset we 15 have the folks here prepared to answer any question 16 that you folks may have with respect to any issue but 17 I would urge you -- and as I have often seen this word 18 properly do before, to say to me and to anyone else 19 who comes before you, the issue before us is a 20 dimensional variances here and a dimensional variance 21 here. A setback which serves no particular purpose 22 when you have ten feet more than the ordinance allows 23 if you look at what's in the real world on the ground 24 on this site. And a dimensional variance which allows
158
1 a structure to function as it is intended to 2 function. 3 I know it's late. I'm not going to 4 say anything else. I hope I was clear. I hope I was 5 to the point and that's really my request tonight. We 6 have spoken to the issues properly before you. We are 7 prepared to answer any questions that you like and at 8 the conclusion of your deliberations we ask you to 9 grant these variances because we have shown practical 10 difficulties and unnecessary hardships within the 11 meaning of the ordinance. 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 13 I know that there's a large group of 14 people out there and I also know that there's 30 15 objections that have been sent and received by our 16 building department. So I will make a note to the 17 record that there were 43 notices sent, 30 objections, 18 two approvals. I will not read all objections; 19 however, if your objection is in here it's been duly 20 noted. So I will address that with the board as it 21 comes. 22 Is there anyone else in the audience 23 this evening that wishes to make comment in regards to 24 this case?
159
1 Yes, sir, please come down. 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madame Chair, may I 3 make a recommendation. Can we have a show of hands of 4 how many people are here for this particular case. Do 5 you a common spokesman? 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Have all of 7 you written letters? Who has not written a letter 8 that is not in this stack? 9 MALE SPEAKER: I have not written a 10 letter. 11 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Sir, just one 12 moment. What is your recommendation? 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I was hoping 14 that there might have been some collective thought 15 amongst the homeowners that maybe there is somebody 16 that can present the basis for the majority of their 17 issues in lieu of hearing 60 people give the same 18 testimony. That's all I'm trying to get to. 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Canup? 20 MEMBER CANUP: I would suggest that 21 we ask the audience that wants to participate that if 22 they have something to say that's already been said be 23 very brief. 24 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: So if all of
160
1 you want to come and like to start lining up against 2 the back wall there. So we know. 3 MS. GARDENER: Can I say something. 4 Jane Gardner. 5 Having been through this process 6 before for those of who want to comment against these 7 issues it gives those people who comment after us a 8 chance to rebut what we have spoken about and it puts 9 us at a huge disadvantage, frankly, to all of us who 10 speak first. So having been at these meeting before I 11 know that that sounds kind of like a trite issue to 12 you. 13 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I'm sorry. I 14 don't take it as a trite issue. 15 MS. GARDENER: So I have found that 16 to be terribly true. So that if we speak in this 17 manner people that speak after it that are for it 18 that are able to rebut almost a debate something we 19 don't get a chance to speak. So I don't know if that 20 makes a difference. 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We're set by 22 rules. We have a procedure to follow. I am the chair 23 and I am trying to maintain some decorum here. Who 24 speaks and what order I have no control over. I'm
161
1 sorry you feel a disadvantage to that. I understand 2 what your concerns are, however, there's not a lot I 3 can do about it. If you wish to speak in this matter 4 what I'm asking all you to do at this time, to speed 5 this up so we don't have any further delay, is to line 6 up. Come down. Whoever hasn't written a letter yet 7 so we can hear your concerns and address them 8 accordingly. So if you wish to do that please do that 9 and we'll let this gentleman start. Is there anyone 10 else that wants to address the board tonight come on 11 down and line up against this wall, please. 12 While we're doing to do that we're 13 going to just take a three minute break and everybody 14 can line up. The board's going to entertain a three 15 minute break. 16 (A brief recess was taken.) 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. We're 18 going to call the meeting back to order. 19 Sir, would you like to state your 20 name for the record and spell your last name for our 21 recording secretary and then proceed. 22 MR. SHANKAR: Yes. My name is G. 23 Shankar, G like in letter "G" and S-h-a-n-k-a-r. This 24 is the first time I'm addressing the honorable zoning
162
1 board members. I own the property at 44553 Williams 2 Drive, Novi, Michigan 48375. I bought this property, 3 awhile ago in 1996 for three reasons after surveying 4 the neighborhood. There is good school system, safe 5 neighborhood and good resale property value. By 6 allowing the requested variance all the three reasons 7 will be defeated. The school will be unsafe being 8 close to a public parking and will have bad influence 9 on school children. The resale value of the property 10 especially the new subdivision coming up will greatly 11 get negatively effected. So because it is effecting 12 my property value, I do not agree with the request for 13 variance and it should not be granted. Thank you very 14 much. 15 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 16 Next? 17 MR. VALBUENA: Good evening, my name 18 is Felix Valbuena, Jr., V-a-l-b-u-e-n-a. I live at 19 4055 Andes Hills Court. I'm here representing myself 20 this evening and my father, Felix Valbuena, Sr., who 21 owns the condo in the drawing at 45525 Andes Hills 22 Court. 23 I want to say that the Wainwrights 24 have taken the time to include us in making decisions
163
1 about the project, but tonight we're not in agreement 2 with the variance that they're asking for for the 3 parking for the obvious reasons of the proximity to 4 our homes. 5 The traffic from the parking could 6 potentially be there until 11:00 in the evening which 7 is when the park closes so that would bring some noise 8 in at late hours and in the evening. And then we're 9 also concerned about how that is going to effect our 10 property value down the line. And those are all my 11 comments for tonight. Thank you. 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 13 Next? 14 MR. BRUSHER: Good evening. My name 15 is Jerry Brusher, B-r-u-s-h-e-r. Me and my family and 16 I live at 25833 Lockmoor Lane, east of Beck, south of 17 Eleven. And I'm sure that the concerns that we have 18 over public disturbances and safety and our privacy 19 have already been raised at the Planning Commission 20 meeting and will property be mentioned by others 21 tonight as well. What I wanted to point out is that 22 when I listened to your discussions tonight overall 13 23 cases, this will be the 14th, that have been brought 24 forth thus far and all those concerned dimensional
164
1 variances such as this. I've heard you express 2 various values in your decision making process and I 3 think that a lot of us will share those values. Among 4 those are a concern that there be an agreement between 5 the developers and their neighbors and they want to 6 satisfy the neighbors and so I would ask has that been 7 achieved thus far? 8 It's also been raised that people 9 should know what this is that they're building next 10 to, that is people who are building homes should know 11 that. So with the boat launch, for instance, you 12 wanted to halt construction of that last house until 13 construction of a boat launch had been completed. 14 You've also brought up the value of perhaps something 15 else could be built with fewer variances so in this 16 case there are only two however one and zero would be 17 fewer. You've also made comments such as summer 18 nights water crowds, being very close to houses there 19 would be a concern over that. People who live next to 20 certain things they would be annoyed. I wouldn't want 21 that next door to me. Also you've brought up a 22 considerable revenue before the city of Novi with 23 respect, perhaps, to the Novi Expo Center and also 24 businesses being developed on the Haggerty corridor.
165
1 So whether this particular business falls into that 2 category, I can't say. So what I would ask is that 3 you just keep in mind those values that you've applied 4 consistently throughout the night and you consider 5 this case this evening. Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 7 Next? 8 MS. GARDENER: Hi. My name is 9 Jane Gardener and I live at 25858 Arcadia Drive and 10 that's in the Waldenwoods sub. I did not buy property 11 in Waldenwoods, which is quoted in the Novi News 12 previously my visit here. I guess the two things that 13 strike me with these variances, it gets to the heart 14 of two things, safety and aesthetics of this park. 15 You know, in listening to the counsel's point of view 16 about the ordinance it really is his interpretation of 17 this ordinance and what he feels his interpretation 18 is. It is not what the ordinance is. So in terms of, 19 you know, you're gaining this. It's how he's 20 interpreting it and not actually how it's written and 21 what the city of Novi intended it to be. It's his 22 interpretation. So that's a point. And that 23 addresses my argue of safety. 24 In reading through the minutes from
166
1 the Planning Commission meeting I came across 2 something. Because it got so late I couldn't hear the 3 very end of it. Something about the parking that 4 concern me is the bus issue. This is also a bus area 5 parking along the back of this parking lot if I'm not 6 mistaken for school groups or daycares or whatever. I 7 think that makes a huge difference when you're looking 8 at this parking variance and how much space is needed 9 to provide safety which, again, one of the key issues 10 here is safety in this parking lot. 11 Number two, in terms of the 12 landscaping aesthetics of this I know it's important 13 to all of us and, again, there is other variances that 14 they grant on this property through this process for 15 the Fun Park and it just seems like it's one more 16 variance of the general scope before us. I think with 17 some of these things the variances are important and 18 they were not intended and all they do is cause 19 hardship or they're not proper but in this case it 20 seems like they want this variance so we will comply 21 with them. The idea is that they comply with the way 22 we want Novi to look. So it seems to grant this 23 variance also maybe they need to change the design. 24 Maybe they need to alter it in some way so that it's
167
1 functional and also aesthetically pleasing. It's 2 another variance. I think we should try to turn 3 careful how we grant those. Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 5 Next? 6 MS. STONE: Hi, my name is Margie 7 Stone and I live at 25895 Arcadia Drive and that is 8 also in the Waldenwood Subdivision. And I just wanted 9 to say that my husband and I strongly recommend you 10 that deny the variances for the 64 foot parking 11 setback for the residential district as well as the 12 lack of interior landscaping that the applicant 13 desires. In December and January the applicant came 14 before you to determine whether the parcel that he was 15 proposing to build on would require special land use. 16 It was determined that even though this parcel has two 17 separate zoning requirements, it was to be treated as 18 a single parcel and would require special land use for 19 his proposed site use. He knew at that time that he 20 had abutted to residential zoning and needed to follow 21 the residential zoning requirements. The applicant 22 can modify his site plan if he so desires to 23 accommodate the 100 Foot setback. The Andes Hills 24 Court residents deserve every foot of that 100 feet
168
1 space between their property and the parking lot 2 because this is where the buses are supposed to be 3 parking and lots of times those buses don't shut off 4 and they just stand idle which causes in addition to 5 noise a lot of smell if you're too close. We really 6 see no reason for you to grant this 64 foot variance. 7 Now I would like to address the 8 interior landscaping requirement. The applicant is 46 9 percent shy of the required internal landscaping 10 requirement. The City of Novi requires a certain of 11 amounts of landscaping around the buildings to help 12 integrate the buildings into the surrounding landscape 13 and a previous aesthetics appearance. If a builder 14 could choose to put in no landscaping and fill in 15 every square foot with revenue generating features he 16 would do this. His goal is not necessarily to provide 17 an aesthetically pleasing location but a location for 18 people to come and spend their money. Please, let's 19 maintain the high standards that Novi requires and 20 deny the applicant's request for a landscaping 21 variance. There is no reason for you to grant this 22 variance. 23 In conclusion, we do not want the Fun 24 Park on this proposed location. The Planning
169
1 Department has already compromised significantly on 2 issues that are important to us and we don't want to 3 compromise anymore. We strongly recommend that you 4 deny the applicant's request for the parking lot 5 setback and interior landscaping requirement 6 variances. There is no reason for you to grant these 7 variances. Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 9 Next? 10 MR. DULAN: My name is Leon Dulan I 11 reside at 2918 Heartwood. I do not abut to any of the 12 property that's in question tonight. I'm just 13 speaking as a neighbor and friend -- or mainly as a 14 friend of the people, the Wainwrights, who are wishing 15 to have the variances granted here tonight. I've 16 known these people. I've known them for many years 17 and I know that they're the type of people that what 18 not do anything to our city that would in anyway bring 19 harm at all to the residents whose property abuts to 20 this proposed area that's in question here tonight. I 21 would support them in my area knowing the people that 22 have proposed this development. Knowing as I do the 23 people who are here before this development, I really 24 feel that they are the type of people who would not
170
1 create anything that would in any way effect the 2 property values of property in their surrounding area 3 of development. Thank you very much. 4 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 5 Next? 6 MR. ROZEK: Good evening. My name is 7 Matt Rozek, R-o-z-e-k, at 45950 West Eleven Mile 8 Road. I request that the parking lot setback variance 9 not be approved for the following reasons: Number 10 one, with public coming and going throughout the day, 11 evening and on weekends the 100 foot setback is 12 necessary for all residents adjacent to the Fun Park 13 properties. There most likely will be more activity 14 there and if this was an industrial office building 15 typical of an I-1 zone area the City recognizing the 16 importance of a 100 foot setback and create a specific 17 ordinance to require this for offstreet parking. 18 Number two, with Jeffrey Wainwright 19 specifically identifying the southerly section of the 20 parking lot being used for anticipated bus traffic the 21 nearby residents need this 100 foot to be buffered 22 from the bus fumes, noise of the buses running and 23 passengers loading and unloading. 24 Number three, the closer the parking
171
1 is to the residential homes the further the parking 2 evaluations of these homes will be reduced. This 3 represents unhappy Novi residents and a lower assessed 4 value on these homes. In other words, less city tax 5 dollars. 6 Number four, improving the setback 7 variance and setting a precedent which other 8 businesses will be looking to leverage when they are 9 created next to a residential properties. 10 Number five, this project does not 11 meet the 100 foot setback from the residential 12 property. There is an additional four acres of 13 property owned by the Wainwrights of which some could 14 be used for this parking. The plan should be revised 15 to use this property and not require any setback 16 variance. I do not see a good reason to grant this 17 variance on this project. Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 19 Next? 20 MR. HUNT: My name is Scott Hunt. I 21 live at 46790 West Eleven Mile and I am totally 22 against these variances for tonight and what I would 23 like to add real short is I would like to suggest what 24 one of the board members suggested to a prior
172
1 applicant. Find a different lot or rework this whole 2 thing. Because this is not a good thing. This is not 3 a feasible workable solution and I think there's 4 enough turnout and enough opposed people here that 5 are -- you know, you've got an issue here. So that's 6 it. Thanks. 7 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 8 MR. JOHNSON: Joseph Johnson from 9 Gatsby. The closest people to the Wainwrights' 10 property and I have no problem with what they're doing 11 right now. Talking about making a parking lot a 100 12 foot setback more is it the man on the level? Does he 13 want it next to him? 14 Do you want the parking lot back 15 there; is that what you're saying? 16 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Excuse me, 17 sir. 18 MR. JOHNSON: I thought he was 19 saying he wants it back there. 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: This is not 21 time for rebuttal. You're here to address the board 22 this evening. 23 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Sorry. I have 24 no problem with the parking lot. It's actually
173
1 abutting right up to my parking lot and I see no 2 problem with that. Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 4 Next? 5 MR. RIEGEL: Good evening. My name 6 is George Riegel, R-i-e-g-e-l, and I live at 47145 7 North Umberland. That's in Broadmoor Park. I've been 8 a Novi resident for 20 years and I do support the 9 Family Fun Park. I've discussed the park with many of 10 my local friends and neighbors and every Novi resident 11 I spoke to seems to be pleased with what's going on in 12 the park. I do, however, understand the nearby 13 residents' initial concern for the Novi family Fun 14 Park but the reason should be justified, real and 15 substantial. Not just speculation. 16 Over the recent past weeks I've heard 17 many complaints from neighbors behind the planned Novi 18 Family Fun Park and then in my opinion there are 19 legitimate concerns initially including noise levels, 20 lighting, landscaping, et cetera. Mr. Wainwright has 21 researched the planning and building of this park 22 extensively. Independent engineers have documented 23 the noise, the lighting study to be in compliance with 24 the Novi City ordinances. The City of Novi Planning
174
1 Commission approved the land to proceed with the minor 2 issues to be resolved tonight. So my opinion the 3 illegitimate complaints of trespassing, possible 4 breakins and decreasing property values are not 5 supported here. Occasional break-ins happen in all 6 areas of Novi and any city really, including my 7 property. At 20 years we've seen a lot of change in 8 Novi. Residential tax base is very high. A good 9 sound commercial development should be a good tax 10 revenue for the city and despite all the residential 11 commercial development our residential commercial 12 values continue to rise. It's great to live in Novi 13 and have some wildlife and nearby nature with 14 protected wetlands but this is a city serving all the 15 residents in Novi not just a select few and the Novi 16 Family Fun Park is on Grand River zoned commercial 17 land and recommended by the city to utilize this 18 property for this specific use. 19 This is and will be a fun, relaxing 20 park for young kids and their families to enjoy and I 21 trust the board to move forward to approve the site. 22 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 23 Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to 24 address?
175
1 MR. SMITH: Good evening. I 2 appreciate you staying late tonight to hear us. My 3 name is Dan Smith. I'm a private investor in the Novi 4 Family Fun Center. I just want to address a couple of 5 things real quick. Number one, anyone that thinks 6 Jeff and Teresa Wainwright aren't concerned with the 7 aesthetics of this park and Novi are dead wrong. 8 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Excuse me, 9 Mr. Smith, you're an investor to the park? 10 MR. SMITH: Yes, I am. 11 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We've already 12 had the petitioner up in regards to the park. 13 MR. SMITH: Okay. 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: This is 15 audience participation at this point. I'm sorry. 16 MR. SMITH: That's fine. Jeff and 17 Teresa are top notch people and it'll be a great thing 18 for this community. 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there 20 anyone else that wishes to address this board in 21 regards to this case? 22 Yes, sir. We're going to bring a 23 microphone in the back just one moment. 24 MR. HOGAN: Hello. Can you hear me?
176
1 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes, we can 2 hear you fine. 3 MR. HOGAN: I wanted to say that 4 Jeffrey and Teresa and children are a family making a 5 family park. The setting has two acres of picnic 6 area. It has four acres not being used and some of 7 the landscaping on the inside of it is being done in a 8 way it is because of accessibility. They've gone 9 above and beyond the ADA in many issues and to the 10 point where it's going to be a showcase for 11 accessibility for children and will be a frequent 12 visitor from Easter Seals and our children. 13 Regarding the bus issues, we simply 14 turn the buses off. It's only the right thing to do 15 especially with the economy and the gas and the fuel 16 issues. They have worked tired to go out and set to 17 discuss with the citizens more than I've seen any 18 other park do, actually. And it's sad to see that a 19 few have changed their minds that they now don't agree 20 with it. I did hear on more than one occasion, also, 21 that the police department believes that it would be a 22 security risk to have a berm in that area because of 23 the visibility issue. We're talking about children 24 and the safety and security measures of these places
177
1 are dependent upon the visibility of the cameras and 2 so on. Because we are talking about safety and 3 security of children and I just wholeheartedly agree 4 with the whole project. 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Sir, could 6 you give us your name for the record, please. 7 MR. HOGAN: My name is Wayne Hogan, 8 H-o-g-a-n. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 10 Anyone else. 11 MR. MCGLOFFLIN: Looks like I'll be 12 your last one. My name is James McGlofflin. I reside 13 at 22237 Fairfax Street, Taylor, Michigan. I have 14 known the Wainwrights for 30 years and I know what 15 they do. How they react to things and they have got 16 in their minds that this will be a first class deal 17 and I have been to a couple of the parks with them to 18 do some research. So I know what they're looking 19 for. 20 The other thing is that I realize 21 that these people have a problem with it. I've never 22 seen any venture at all -- I'm in real estate also and 23 I've never seen any venture at all that there's a not 24 in my neighborhood syndrome. So if people purchase
178
1 their property and it's got something that's not zoned 2 residential right next to them, you know, that's part 3 of the risk. They don't know what's going to be in 4 there, but I think that they could alleviate their 5 fears because I'm sure this will be a first class 6 operation. Thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. 8 Is there anyone else left in the audience that wishes 9 to address the board in regard to this case? 10 Seeing none, I will address the 11 letters. There were two approvals. One was from 12 Art Johnson at 45525 Grand River and one was from 13 Michelle Louis at 25666 Arcadia Drive. And as I 14 mentioned earlier there were 30 objections in the 15 packet and if the board needs to have highlights on 16 them I'm happy to go through them, but I think you get 17 the gist of them. Building department? 18 MR. SAVEN: No comment. 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board 20 members? Member Brennan? 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I'll go back a 22 couple of months ago when I said I wanted to hold 23 comments until we heard from Andes and others and we 24 have. I'll make a comment that what's before us
179
1 tonight is not a vote on the Wainwrights and the type 2 of facility they might build or the nice people that 3 they are. That's not before us. Nor is this what is 4 before us a not my backyard because that's the 5 Planning Commission and City Council. 6 What is before us are two variances 7 on new construction. One that has always very 8 seriously impacted any of my discussion and it relates 9 to construction that abuts to residential property. 10 For anyone to suggest that I don't appreciate that, I 11 have two industrial oil wells next to my residential 12 property. So believe me, 15 years ago when that 13 happened that's why I'm on this ZBA. So I'm very 14 sensitive to residential abutment. And while the 15 petitioner presents that physically they meet the 16 setback you don't need it on your property and that's 17 what the law says. 18 So I don't buy the case that because 19 there is a 109 feet on the Andes side that you're 20 meeting the intent. You're not. You're not 100 feet 21 off. I realize that's going to present other parking 22 lot problems but I think you're going have to find a 23 way around that. 24 I'm disappointed that you've
180
1 eliminated any landscaping as best as That I can see 2 around that building so that said I'll keep my comment 3 short. I won't support either of the variance 4 requests. 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you, 6 Member Brennan. Member Gray? 7 MEMBER GRAY: I echo Member Brennan's 8 comments. My initial reaction was that while the 9 petitioner may meet the intent of the distance between 10 a resident structure, residential structure, and a 11 parking lot, that the ordinance specifically says from 12 the residential district. It does not say from a 13 residential structure. And this property to the south 14 of this is residential and with Andes the condominium 15 is residential and we also know as stated that there 16 is an additional four acres that could be used should 17 the petitioner wish to do so. So I absolutely cannot 18 support the parking variance requested. 19 From a point of view of buses parking 20 along the perimeter, when I was going with the Walled 21 Lake Western Marching Band as a chaperon those school 22 buses when we went to Michigan State or wherever we 23 went busses sat running. They generate a lot of 24 noise. They generate a lot of fumes and it's just not
181
1 fair to any residential property whether their house 2 corner is 170 feet away or not, the ordinance is 3 specific. As to landscaping. I can see why the 4 petitioner requests that there be no landscaping 5 around this building but we always have problems with 6 storm water runoff and one would think there would be 7 at least some landscaping and I realize that there is 8 very minimal amount shown on here but there has to be 9 some to absorb the runoff otherwise you'll have 10 torrents running down all this pavement and that's all 11 I have to say, thank you. 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anyone else? 13 Member Canup? 14 MEMBER CANUP: Really everything I 15 thought has been said and with that, apparently no one 16 else raised their hands so I would make a motion if 17 that's acceptable. 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Go ahead. 19 MEMBER GRAY: Um -- 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I'm sorry. 21 MR. SCHMITT: My apologies. I just 22 want to jump in about the landscaping on the 23 building. I consulted with our landscaping architect 24 before I came tonight and it had something to do with
182
1 landscaping and natural features. The applicant 2 originally actually had a sort of dual variance here 3 around the service building and around this park 4 building. We thought they would be coming for both 5 and, amazingly enough, they were able to meet the 6 requirement around the service building. 7 In looking at this because of the 8 track actually going into the being and not being able 9 to broken up by landscaping, the staff would be 10 supportive of that waiver because we do not feel that 11 it would be overly aesthetically pleasing to try to 12 pack it all in the rear and still basically maintain 13 the overall perimeter of not having landscaping. So 14 we can say with certainty that this site is somewhat 15 overlandscaped. So should the board choose to grant 16 that variance the staff would be supportive and would 17 work with the applicants and beef it up where we can. 18 But we're not entirely sure we can meet the overall 19 ordinance in general. This is one sort of use that is 20 not really taken into account into the ordinance 21 currently. 22 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you, 23 Mr. Schmitt. 24 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a motion
183
1 in Case Number 04-027 that we deny the request for the 2 64 feet variance of the parking area and that we deny 3 the request for a variance elimination of the 4 perimeter building landscaping. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been 7 moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion 8 on the motion? 9 MR. SCHULTZ: Madame Chair, I guess 10 under the circumstances given the sort of profile of 11 the case and the number of people involved and the 12 length of the presentation I think that there really 13 needs to be a considerable effort given attaching 14 findings to both of these motions that would support 15 the denial. I guess I'll be happy to sort of assist 16 one at a time the kinds of things that I heard if the 17 Chair or the board would want me to do that or the 18 maker of the motion. 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member 20 Canup? 21 MEMBER CANUP: From a legal 22 standpoint. 23 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Right. 24 MR. SCHULTZ: Well, we talked a
184
1 number of times that we need to go through the 2 standard and Mr. Galvin is correct that the board has 3 before it a dimensional variance which is the 4 difficulty standard and your initial inquiry is going 5 to be is there a substantial burden to the property 6 owner in meeting the ordinance requirement. Picking 7 up Member Gray's comments it sounded to me that at 8 least -- and there were some other discussion that 9 perhaps the parking could be addressed on the 10 remainder of the property to make up for the 64 feet. 11 That's one of the issues that I heard. 12 MEMBER CANUP: Well it's not our duty 13 to redesign their project for them. 14 MR. SCHULTZ: But the board needs to 15 make a finding and the motion needs to include an 16 indication -- if this is your finding that he hasn't 17 proved to you that he can't somewhere on that entire 18 site meet the parking requirements and that's what I 19 understood at least a couple of the members to comment 20 about that. 21 The other issue with regard to that 22 first variance related to the bus issue and how the 23 specific indication was made that this was planned to 24 be a bus storage area in the area of the parking
185
1 towards the rear and I believe there was also some 2 reference to Mr. Galvin's argument that he was meeting 3 the intent. I understood one comment to be that the 4 intent, as you find it, is that it's a hundred feet on 5 the property itself. So I offer those comments as 6 sort of what I heard the board members say. 7 MEMBER CANUP: Do those need to be a 8 part of the motion? 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes, they do. 10 MR. SCHULTZ: Part of the motion as 11 part of the findings if -- and I'm not making the 12 findings for you. I'm asking you to word it correctly 13 what you say. 14 MEMBER CANUP: We just got to get it 15 in writing. 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: I can maybe help 17 here if I can. 18 MEMBER GRAY: Flush it out for us. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: If I can amend the 20 motion. 21 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: That I would propose 23 to amend the motion to deny this use variance. 24 MR. SCHULTZ: Nonuse variance.
186
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm sorry. 2 MR. SCHULTZ: Practical difficulties. 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: That the petitioner 4 has not established that there are practical 5 difficulties in not meeting ordinance with respect to 6 both the setback and landscaping. 7 Does that all work? 8 MR. SCHULTZ: The idea being that 9 the remainder of the site is available. 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: The petitioner has 11 not established that even with grant of the variance 12 the spirit of the ordinance will be observed, public 13 safety secured and substantial justice done because 14 there is enough evidence brought before us tonight 15 that suggests that public safety and adjoining 16 residential properties may be negatively affected. 17 MR. GALVIN: I'm still working on- 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: (Interposing) 19 I'm sorry, sir. We're in the middle of a motion. 20 MR. GALVIN: I understand that. I 21 ask through the chair and you refused me to speak. I 22 won't speak. 23 MR. SCHULTZ: No. You didn't refuse 24 him permission to speak. You said you were in a
187
1 middle of a motion. I assume we'll give him and 2 opportunity speak later. 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Correct. 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: I think that's all. 5 MEMBER GRAY: Member Brennan, did you 6 address letter F on that? 7 MEMBER BAUER: Address what? 8 MEMBER GRAY: The letter F on that? 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: The F on that. The 10 motion is amended. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: And the 13 seconder accepts. So it's been moved and approved and 14 seconded. Is there any further decision on the 15 motion? 16 Member Sanghvi? 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Just a question for 18 the attorney. How do you define a residential 19 district? 20 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the care that 21 the district has established through a zoning 22 ordinance that zones a metes and bound property to a 23 particular district. A metes and bounds of this 24 property is described in the city zoning map and the
188
1 district line is as it's shown on the plan. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: So is this violating 3 the district code called a building that it would be 4 on? 5 MEMBER BAUER: District. 6 MR. SCHULTZ: I'm sorry, the 7 district -- the setback is from the district lines. 8 Not from the home. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Mr. Galvin, 11 you wish to address the board one more time? 12 MR. GALVIN: Yes, ma'am, I do wish to 13 address the board specifically with respect to the 14 motion. The notion of there being a safety issue. I 15 would request on behalf of the applicant that the 16 board point out what the safety issue is that is 17 included in the motion because at the time the 18 comments were made by the audience member I did not 19 find any factual support for any safety issue as to 20 the persons living in the residents by virtue of the 21 location of the variance and it's -- it would just 22 seem to me that that clarification would be in order 23 and thank you for the permission to speak. I 24 understand Mr. Schultz's concern about factual
189
1 specificity and I will not address the board further 2 except to say I would like, as Mr. Schultz would like, 3 if the board is to deny that there be factually 4 specific rationales for each of them and I would ask 5 that the two be separated if that's possible. But I 6 understand that that's up to the maker and seconder of 7 the motion. 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madame Chair, I made 9 that motion and I'll reiterate what the residents 10 discussed in their sworn testimony that they based on 11 previous assessment with the Planning Department that 12 buses were going to be in that location and they were 13 going to create noise and stink and I think that has a 14 direct relative of relationship to safety. 15 MR. MCGLOFFLIN: Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Mr. Schultz? 17 MR. SCHULTZ: One last comment, 18 Madame Chair. I just want to make sure the record is 19 further discussed and through the amendment to the 20 motion that the finding that practical difficulty has 21 not been established with regard to substantial 22 burden. It is based upon a determination as I heard 23 it and I need a confirmation, based upon of the 24 ability of the parking to be placed elsewhere on the
190
1 property. 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Correct. 3 MEMBER GRAY: Correct. 4 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Because it 5 was standing by the -- 6 MR. SCHULTZ: I'm not hearing it from 7 Mr. Brennan. 8 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I'm sorry. 9 Mr. Brennan, you need to say it. 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: The petitioner had 11 presented it and the evidence was presented there was 12 additional property that the parking lot could be 13 modified to meet the ordinance. 14 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you for the 15 indulgence. I really did want to get that. 16 MEMBER CANUP: Can we have a 17 discussion on the motion? 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I don't think 19 we have stopped, have we? 20 MEMBER BAUER: We're still on the 21 discussion. 22 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Canup? 23 MEMBER CANUP: I think the point is 24 well taken in the property that there is additional
191
1 properties that is obviously been left of this design 2 for who knows what reason and I think that property 3 could be used very well for additional parking if 4 needed and could be worked to fit within the ordinance 5 or at least we haven't been proven it wouldn't fit 6 within the ordinance and this was one of the reasons 7 for my motion; therefore, I would call for a vote on 8 the motion. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I would like 10 to add a comment on the record if I could. There was 11 a gentleman out here that very eloquently recapped our 12 evening. He gave the highlights of what this board 13 did all evening long. He indicated to us that we 14 looked at the property and looked at the residents, 15 the nearby neighbors. We looked at the health, safety 16 and welfare issues. We told people to go back to the 17 drawing board. We guided people throughout the 18 evening and with all the neighbors in mind. This case 19 has had an exorbitant amount of negativitity from the 20 outside residents; however, they stated very clearly 21 the noise pollution, they stated several times 22 throughout the evening that there would be buses 23 specifically parked in that area. They also indicated 24 that there's residential abutting that property line.
192
1 Thus, there is residential next to an OST district 2 which requires this 100 feet very clearly to be from 3 not the building but the property line. 4 Even though that the ADA was 5 addressed and that the petitioner has addressed some 6 of the ADA requirements, I don't feel that the 7 residents that have been living in this area, that are 8 going to continue to live in this area that their 9 concerns, that their needs and that their issues with 10 regard again to the buses, the parking, the fumes, the 11 noises, the lights, the late hours have been addresses 12 fully and, therefore, we'll be supporting this motion. 13 Denise, would you please call the 14 roll. 15 MS. ANDERSON: Member Canup? 16 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 17 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 19 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 20 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 21 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? 22 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 23 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 24 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes.
193
1 MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 3 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes, six to 4 zero. 5 MR. MAMOLA: Madame Chair, I ask for 6 a clarification. It sounds like there is going to be 7 some adjustment to a parking configuration. Whatever 8 that is, I don't know what it's going to be, but it 9 sounds like there's going to some adjustment to the 10 parking lot arrangement. It also sounds by the way of 11 the motion read you included both requests for 12 variances in the motion; is that correct? 13 MR. SCHULTZ: No. The only motion 14 has been on the parking variance and you still have to 15 finish the second one. 16 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We're not 17 done. The second part of this request is there a 18 motion on the table for the landscaping? 19 MEMBER GRAY: Madame Chair? 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gray? 21 MEMBER GRAY: In light of the 22 comments made by Mr. Schmitt of our planning 23 department and whether I agree with them or not, I 24 guess I would move to approve the variance requested
194
1 for the waiver on the landscaping around the Kart 2 Building due to the nature of the building and the use 3 of it. 4 MR. SCHULTZ: And Mr. Schmitt's 5 comments on the record. 6 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. And Mr. Schmitt's 7 comments on the record, yes, thank you. 8 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been 10 moved and seconded; is there any further discussion on 11 the motion? 12 Seeing none, Denise, will you please 13 call the roll. 14 MS. ANDERSON: Who seconded it? 15 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Mr. Bauer. 16 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? 17 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 18 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: No. 20 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 21 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 22 MS. ANDERSON: Member Canup? 23 MEMBER CANUP: No. 24 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?
195
1 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 2 MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 4 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes four to 5 two. 6 MR. GALVIN: Thank you. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
196
1 Case No. 04-028 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Let's call 3 Case 04-028 filed by Mark Kassab of PT Commerce, LLC 4 for the proposed Deeridge Subdivision. 5 Are you, Mr. Kassab? 6 MR. KASSAB: I am. 7 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Sir, you're 8 not an attorney? 9 MR. KASSAB: No, I'm not. 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Would you 11 like to raise your right hand and be sworn in by our 12 secretary. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 14 or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case No. 04-028. 15 MR. KASSAB: I do. 16 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Please go ahead. 17 MR. KASSAB: Thank you, Madame 18 Chair. I'll try to keep this as brief as possible. I 19 know we're all tired and this is a late evening. 20 Mark Kassab again on behalf of 21 PT Commerce, LLC address 31550 Northwestern Highway, 22 Farmington Hills, Michigan. The property is this 23 particular parcel here. Approximately 65 acres north 24 of Brightmoor Church. This property as you know it is
197
1 no longer there. The property was quite challenging 2 from a development standpoint due to the heavy nature 3 of woodlands and wetlands on the site. The property 4 was rezoned to multiple sometime ago. 5 The property was rezoned to multiple 6 sometime ago with the development agreement attached 7 to the property allotted to 192 units. Furthermore 8 preserving five acres of wetlands and fifteen acres of 9 woodlands. We've on our plan, or engineering plan we 10 have roughly about eleven plus acres of wetlands and 11 over fifteen acres of woodlands, actually, that we 12 plan to preserve on this particular plan. On the 13 onset through our planning with the city, the focus 14 has been to preserve the natural features of the 15 property. Currently our plan entails 190 units so 16 we're still below that par. 17 About eight or nine months ago we 18 acquired this landlock parcel from MDOT at and MDOT 19 auction access right-of-way auction and the intent of 20 that acquisition was to shift the development to the 21 east to literally keep out of the woods. Where that 22 tree line is on the western portion of the property, 23 these are 30 inch maples, elms, ashes and so forth. 24 Some real pretty woodlands. In working with Tim and
198
1 the staff, we thought it would be best to acquire the 2 parcel, shift the development to the east and thus we 3 have what we have today. 4 The lot in question is lot 101 and 5 102 and as you can see we have enough property to put 6 another cul-de-sac there or some sort of an eyebrow 7 but in preservation of the woodlands we look to the 8 City for some relief to allow these units and I would 9 add that through our Planning Commission meeting 10 where we did obtain site plan approval it was 11 unanimous recommendation to this meeting for this 12 approval for this also. Again to keep it short I'll 13 entertain any questions you have. Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there 15 anyone in the audience that wishes to make comment in 16 regards to this case? 17 Seeing none. There were 32 notices 18 sent. No approvals, no objections. Building 19 department? 20 MR. SAVEN: It's basically typical of 21 one of our first cases we heard earlier on in terms of 22 one of the requirements you're looking at. 23 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board 24 members? Member Brennan?
199
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Based on the 2 Planning Commission minutes and based on the layout of 3 this particular corner, I mean, how else are you going 4 to do it. I think there is still the intent of 5 providing space to give back to these individual units 6 and I think it's a reasonable request. 7 MEMBER GRAY: Motion? 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: If there is no other 9 hands I'll make a motion with respect to case 04 dash 10 028 that I move that the petitioner's request be 11 approved due to lot configurations. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 13 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been 14 moved and seconded is there any further discussion on 15 the motion? 16 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 17 call the roll. 18 MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 20 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 21 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 22 MS. ANDERSON: Member Canup? 23 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 24 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray?
200
1 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 2 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 4 MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 6 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 7 zero. 8 MR. KASSAB: Thank you, Madame Chair 9 and Board. 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Good luck. 11 MR. KASSAB: Thank you for time. 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. We 13 have a couple of items to take care of this evening. 14 We have elections this month and I will open up the 15 floor at this time for nomination for the board. We 16 need a chair, a vice chair and secretary. Dr. 17 Sanghvi? 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Madame 19 Chair. I don't believe in fixing something that is 20 not broken and I am willing to continue. I propose 21 the names of the nominations to the respective 22 positions. 23 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Who is our vice
201
1 chair right now? 2 MEMBER GRAY: (Nods.) 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: And this is 4 our secretary. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: I knew that. 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Comment on the 7 motion. No disrespect to anybody but about 15 or 18 8 years ago there was a -- I don't know where it came 9 from whether it came from the mayor or where but there 10 was a great pressing desire to have rotation and I 11 don't remember the Reason and maybe, Member Bauer, can 12 remember. 13 MEMBER BAUER: That's the first I 14 heard about it. I never heard about it. 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Maybe I'm incorrect. 16 MEMBER BAUER: No, you're not, but I 17 don't remember hearing that. 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: Don, does that ring 19 a bell? 20 MR. SAVEN: This doesn't ring a bell 21 with me. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Maybe Brent I know 23 Brent was here I know? 24 MEMBER CANUP: I was on ZBA for
202
1 fourteen years and I think the chairman for twelve 2 Years and at the time I left The ZBA I think there was 3 a motion made and I don't know the policy made by the 4 board say that it had to do with rotation and I don't 5 know that it's anything. 6 MEMBER BAUER: It's been rewritten 7 since then. 8 MEMBER CANUP: It's been rewritten 9 since then and I don't think it's an issue and quite 10 briefly I think my opinion is we've got good 11 officers. Things seem to work well. 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay, thank 13 you. Member Gray? 14 MEMBER GRAY: And frankly I agree 15 that that rotation can be good and I have to tell you 16 that I was approached and I was asked if I would be 17 interested with my health issues at this time. I 18 think Member Gronachan, Chair Gronachan is doing a 19 fine job and I have absolutely no problem with her 20 staying in the position which she is currently 21 serving. I would be honored to continue serving as 22 vice chair if that's the pleasure of the board. If 23 there wants to be a rotation for vice chair I'm not 24 against it, but it's at the pleasure of the board. I
203
1 just wanted to put those comments on the record. 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Tonight was 3 the wrong night to bring that up after midnight. I 4 would be honored to serve again if it pleasures the 5 board if there is any -- it just depends on what the 6 board wants. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 8 MR. SCHULTZ: There is a second from 9 one of the members not up for office. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: And I'm getting 11 conflicting reports on if I can or can't. 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We need a 13 second. 14 MEMBER CANUP: So moved. 15 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: So we have a 16 motion and second on the floor to keep the current 17 board members the same. 18 MEMBER GRAY: Officers. 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Officers. 20 Sorry. Let's try to keep the board members the same 21 which is where we are at to begin with. Let's keep 22 the board members the same. All those in favor say 23 eye "Aye". 24 MEMBER CANUP: Aye.
204
1 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Aye. 2 MEMBER BAUER: Aye. 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: Aye. 4 MEMBER GRAY: Aye. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Aye. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 7 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All opposed? 8 None. 9 Elections are owe officially over 10 with. Thank you very much. 11 Update of accessory structures. 12 MR. SAVEN: It's so late I forgot 13 them. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Can we table it for 15 the next meeting? 16 MR. SAVEN: Just real quick. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 18 MR. SAVEN: I know on several 19 occasions when issues come before the boards that are 20 repetitive problems so we might have these issues 21 relooked at as far as the ordinance goes. I do know 22 they are and I did attend one of these meetings in 23 regards to the square footage of accessory structures 24 predominantly in the R-1 and R-A district. We seem to
205
1 have most of our problem in that area and we're 2 entertaining the part of increasing the square footage 3 so we wouldn't have people coming earlier on any type 4 of agreement or any type of agreement comes forwards 5 maybe we can have some type of amendment that would 6 address those particular issues because there is a lot 7 of times that we're trying to preserve woodlands and 8 wetlands on property and sometimes those properties 9 Dimensions do not meet the requirement and therefore 10 come back to us. So maybe we can take a look at 11 something it would be to that advantage. So we are 12 actively pursuing this and I wanted to get this 13 generated and be heard. 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Thank 15 you. Ms. Anderson, yes? 16 MS. ANDERSON: I just want to let 17 everyone know I accepted 15 cases for May not taking 18 into consideration you could table and you did table 19 two. So I guess we'll do 17 for next months. 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Seventeen 21 cases for next month because she table two cases. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Was Denise ready to 23 leave tonight? 24 MS. ANDERSON: I wanted to.
206
1 MR. SAVEN: Chances are we'll have 2 one drop off. 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: No more, 4 please and we all have to work this out. 5 I hereby adjourn this meeting. 6 Motion to adjourn. 7 MEMBER GRAY: Second. 8 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All those in 9 favor. 10 MEMBER CANUP: Aye. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Aye. 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: Aye. 13 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Aye. 14 MEMBER GRAY: Aye. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Aye. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 17 (The meeting was concluded 18 at 11:40 p.m.) 19 - - - 20 21 22 23 24
207
1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 4 I, Darlene K. May, do hereby certify 5 that I have recorded stenographically the proceedings 6 had and testimony taken in the above-entitled matter 7 at the time and place hereinbefore set forth, and I do 8 further certify that the foregoing transcript, 9 consisting of two-hundred-eight (208) typewritten 10 pages, is a true and correct transcript of my said 11 stenographic notes. 12 13 14 _____________________________ Darlene K. May, RPR, CSR-6479 15 16 ___________________ 17 (Date)
|