| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting REGULAR MEETING - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, Tuesday, December 7, 2004. PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: Don Saven, Building Department REPORTED BY: 1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, December 7, 2004 3 At 7:30 p.m. 4 - - - - - - 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. It's 7:30, 6 and I'd like to call the December, 2004, Zoning Board 7 of Appeals meeting to order. 8 Denise, would you please call the roll. 9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 10 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: Here. 13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 14 MEMBER CANUP: Here. 15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Present. 17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Aye. 19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. 21 DENISE ANDERSON: All present. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 23 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a 24 Hearing Board, empowered by the Novi City Charter to 3
1 hear appeals seeking variances from the application of 2 the Novi Zoning Ordinances. It takes a vote of at 3 least four members to approve a variance request; and 4 a vote of the majority of the members present to deny 5 a variance. 6 This evening, we have a full Board. 7 Are there any changes in regards to the 8 agenda? 9 DENISE ANDERSON: Yes. 10 Case number 04-107 filed by Robert 11 Moorhouse, of R. E. Moorhouse & Associates, 12 representing Carcosutics has been cancelled by the 13 applicant. 14 And under other matters, I'd like to 15 add two more items. Number two, case number 04-001 16 for Harold's Frame Shop the sign and hour of 17 illumination; and three, I'd like to a clarification 18 for the time limit for mock-up signs to remain after 19 case approval. 20 I'd just like to note that the November 21 9th, ZBA Minutes are complete and you did receive a 22 copy, but they were not received in time for this 23 meeting. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Denise, can you 4
1 repeat three, please, clarification of time on mock-up 2 signs? 3 DENISE ANDERSON: Time limit for the 4 mock-up sign to remain after the case has been 5 approved. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 7 All right. 8 Anything else? 9 DENISE ANDERSON: That's all. 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam Chair, I have a 11 matter. I can leave it to the end, if you want. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 13 Go ahead. 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Under other matters. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: The New Market 17 signage, this is the sign next to Gus O'Connor's. We 18 gave them time to come back and they're not on the 19 agenda tonight, and they've got that big mock-up sign 20 still hanging on the building. 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 22 Any other matters to be added to the 23 agenda? 24 Member Fischer? 5
1 MEMBER FISCHER: I believe we approved 2 that sign. We're done with that case. We approved 3 that. 4 DENISE ANDERSON: We -- 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We approved it, but 6 the mock-up wasn't approved. 7 DENISE ANDERSON: Well -- 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: I can remember 9 distinctly that the party that was in front of us that 10 night was the sign maker, and we were not going to 11 approve that sign as big as it was, and he did not 12 have the ability to make any concessions. 13 So we asked him to come back. They're 14 not back, and they've still got that huge mock-up sign 15 there. That's my point, because we did not approve 16 that sign. I can guarantee it. 17 DENISE ANDERSON: I thought we approved 18 it, but we had them bring it down proportionally in 19 size to -- 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Why don't we do 21 this. 22 DENISE ANDERSON: Justin is looking it 23 up. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Why don't we 6
1 continue at this point -- 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: The last time I 3 guaranteed something, I lost 20 bucks. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We'll have somebody 5 check the Minutes and by the end of that, we'll 6 discuss it at that time. 7 Anything else? 8 Seeing none, all those in favor of the 9 agenda, say aye. 10 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: None opposed. 12 There were no Minutes for approval this 13 evening. November's will be tabled until January's 14 meeting. 15 At this time, if there's anyone in the 16 audience that wishes to approach the Board to make 17 comment in regards to a matter, other than a case 18 that's in front of us, you may do so now. 19 Is there anybody in the audience that 20 wishes to address the Board? 21 Seeing none, we will -- I'm sorry, is 22 there somebody? Is there someone? 23 Okay. Not in regard to these. Any 24 other topic like what to get the Board for Christmas, 7
1 you know, those kinds of things. 2 Okay. Seeing none of that, we'll go 3 ahead and call our first case. 4 Case number 04-111, filed by 5 William R. Lutz of Signgraphix for 28550 Cabot South 6 Technology Centre. 7 Good evening. 8 And you are Mr. Lutz? 9 MR. LUTZ: I am Mr. Lutz. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please 11 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our 12 secretary. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or 14 affirm to tell the truth regarding case 04-111? 15 MR. LUTZ: Yes, I do. 16 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You may proceed. 18 MR. LUTZ: This is quite similar to an 19 appeal we had at the last meeting. This involves 20 setbacks at the Haggerty Corporate Office Center, just 21 west of Haggerty Road, north of 12 Mile. Consistent 22 throughout that project has been the request for 23 variances regarding setbacks. 24 And this is very similar to the last 8
1 building that we requested. If we put the signs at 2 the required setbacks of 63 feet, it would be in the 3 middle of the parking lot, and so, that's an issue. 4 We're as far back on the island at the 5 entry way as possible. The rear end of the sign, as 6 you can see from the mock-up, is pretty much up 7 against the light pole or pretty darn close to it. In 8 spite of that, we have some visibility issues, but we 9 would certainly appreciate your consideration for at 10 least putting the sign in that location, because there 11 really isn't another good place for it, frankly, and 12 making it all visible to the traffic on the side 13 street there. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 15 Anything else? 16 MR. LUTZ: That's it. 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in 18 the audience that wishes to make comment in regards to 19 this case? 20 Seeing none, there were 19 notices 21 mailed; zero approvals, zero objections. 22 Building Department? 23 MR. AMOLSH; No comment. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 9
1 Board Members? 2 Member Brennan? 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, given this has 4 gone through planning and we're at where we're at, and 5 it's consistent with other properties there, I'd move 6 for approval due to configuration of the lot and the 7 property design. It's already moved along in 8 planning. 9 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 11 It's been moved and seconded. 12 Is there any further discussion? 13 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 14 call the roll. 15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 18 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 20 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 21 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 22 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 24 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 10
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 2 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 3 zero. 4 MR. LUTZ: Thank you. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has 6 been granted. 7 Have a good holiday. 8 Thank you. 9 10 Our next case is 04-116 filed by John 11 Carroll of Carroll Installations for Staples at 47610 12 Grand River Avenue. 13 Mr. Carroll is requesting four sign 14 variances at the above location for the Staples Office 15 Super Store. 16 Good evening. 17 And you are? 18 MR. CARROLL: Good evening. I'm John 19 Carroll. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Raise your right hand 21 and be sworn in by our secretary. 22 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or 23 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-116? 24 MR. CARROLL: Yes, yes, I do. 11
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 2 You may proceed. 3 MR. CARROLL: Well, the first variance 4 is for the oversize of the signage on the front of the 5 building. Looking at the west elevation, the setback 6 from Grand River is too much distance for a sign of 40 7 square foot that you would normally allow. 8 That's why we're requiring, obviously, 9 (unintelligible) sign of Home Depot, Kroger, they've 10 exceeded the 40 square foot level. 11 As far as the additional signage, the 12 visibility from the interstate behind the building is 13 a great asset to the business, as well as Kroger and 14 Home Depot next door to utilize that. The additional 15 two signs in front of the building, identifying 16 services at the business. That's it. 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 18 Anything else? 19 Is there anyone in the audience that 20 wishes to make comment in regards to this case? 21 Seeing none, there were eight notices 22 mailed; no objections, no approvals. 23 Building Department? 24 MR. AMOLSH: No comment. 12
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members? 2 Member Brennan? 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: Sir, do you have the 4 authority to negotiate with us on this case? 5 MR. CARROLL: I brought a gentleman 6 here from Staples. 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your name and raise 9 your right hand to be sworn in. 10 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or 11 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-116? 12 MR. ULVAN: Yes. 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And your name, 14 please. 15 MR. ULVAN: Don Ulvan, U-l-v-a-n. 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you. 17 My general comments is I don't have a 18 problem with signage on the west and east, even though 19 it's a bit skew. That's in concert with the Kroger, 20 Home Depot put out or already noted. 21 I think the large sign on the front of 22 the building is just that. It's large. I think it's 23 large by effect of 50 percent. I don't believe you 24 need to advertise your services on the front of that 13
1 building, so I have no support for those two signs. 2 And I would support the sign on the east side. 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN; Anyone else? 4 Member Canup? 5 MEMBER CANUP: I guess I follow those 6 thoughts. I know I went there today and sat in the 7 parking lot, very far out, and looked at what I saw, 8 and I can't believe our sign Ordinance is so wrong. 9 There's so much asked for here, and I can't see where 10 we could -- at least, I could ever support what has 11 been asked for. 12 It's going to have to be some serious 13 changes in order to get a positive vote from me on 14 anything, except for what the Ordinance calls for. 15 Your sign is massively bigger than Home 16 Depot's sign. You don't have nearly the square 17 footage or lineal footage on the front of your 18 building, as they have, and the same thing with 19 Kroger's. The only difference in the Kroger sign is 20 it appears that they -- is the fact that they -- at 21 the top and the bottom of it, (unintelligible.) But 22 your sign is absolutely atrociously large. 23 And unless you come back, in my 24 opinion, with something that is acceptable, you're not 14
1 going to get any vote from me on this request. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer? 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Is there only one 4 entrance to your store? 5 MR. ULVAN: Yes. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 7 The reason I asked that is because if 8 there is a separate entrance for the copy and print 9 center, I could support that. But given that there's 10 the one entrance, I think the office supposes is 11 redundant. I believe that copy and print center 12 merely should be advertising that the Staples 13 organization should overcome. 14 And I feel that the large sign on the 15 front overshadows the other businesses. However, on 16 the 96 side, I would be willing to support that sign. 17 Thank you, Madam Chair. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Bauer? 19 MEMBER BAUER: First of all, the 20 location is a destination. People don't go around 21 looking for you. The size of the signs are not to be 22 picked up from 12 Mile Road through -- from Grand 23 River. 24 The office supplies and copy and print 15
1 center, they know what Staples is. I have no problem 2 with the east side; but the Staples side, has to be 3 lower, considerably. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay, gentlemen, I 5 think you can see where the Board is going, and I echo 6 all the members' comments. What is the -- let me just 7 check. We are all in agreement to remove -- to not 8 approve the office supply or the company thing, 9 correct? 10 MEMBER CANUP: My suggestion would be 11 that being that these signs that were submitted are so 12 hideously big or large, that we give these people an 13 opportunity to come back to us with something that is 14 more reasonable and presentable. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Unless you are 16 prepared this evening -- 17 MEMBER CANUP: Unless you want to have 18 us vote on it this evening, and I think if we vote on 19 it this evening, you are going to be very unhappy. 20 MR. CARROLL: Can we come to a 21 compromise with you? 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: If you have one. 23 MEMBER BRENNAN; I was going to suggest 24 if you're comfortable with removing the office 16
1 supplies and copy, print -- if you're comfortable with 2 -- 3 MR. CARROLL: Are you referring to the 4 package and ship and the copy and print on the side? 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Copy and print and 6 office supply, which are both on the front of the 7 building. 8 MR. CARROLL: There's pack and ship on 9 one side; and copy/print center on the other. And 10 below the Staples is the tag line that goes with 11 Staples. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Not according to 13 what we have. It says office supplies on this side; 14 and it says copy and print shop on this side. And 15 this shows -- these are the two -- 16 MR. CARROLL: it's this and this; that's 17 not approved -- 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Right. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: So we're clear on the 20 two long linear signs on the front. 21 MR. CARROLL: Yes, that's correct. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: We will not approve. 23 I would propose reducing the square footage by half. 24 I would just kind of square that up with a thumb; that 17
1 would give us something more accessible in blending 2 with that complex; and I would move to suggest to move 3 the 96 side sign as okay. 4 So you've got three options. 5 You can accept the previous offer. You 6 can put us off and come back with a whole new plan, or 7 you can have us vote on what you have presented 8 tonight. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Gentlemen, can I 10 make a suggestion, since you don't have anything right 11 off tonight? 12 MR. CARROLL: We don't have anything. 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Why don't we give 14 you a few minutes of a break. You can go out in the 15 back and discuss it. And if you think you can resolve 16 something here, or would you rather -- 17 MR. CARROLL: That's what we would 18 propose, yes. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. So why don't 20 we just table this. Let us proceed to the next case, 21 and when you come up with something, give me a high 22 sign, come on back and we'll work you in. 23 MR. CARROLL: Thank you. 24 MR. ULVAN: Yes. 18
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Next case, 2 04-117, filed by Gregory Gluck of Fox Run Village at 3 41000 West 13 Mile. 4 Mr. Gluck is requesting one sign 5 variance to maintain a temporary construction sign for 6 Fox Run. 7 Good evening. 8 MR. GLUCK: Good evening. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And are you 10 Mr. Gluck? 11 MR. GLUCK: I am Mr. Gluck. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please 13 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our 14 secretary. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or 16 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-117? 17 MR. GLUCK: I do. 18 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You may proceed. 20 MR. GLUCK: As the chairperson said, I 21 represent Fox Run, and we're requesting that the 22 temporary construction marketing sign on 13 Mile 23 remain for an appropriate period of time, as the Board 24 would suggest to us. 19
1 Our construction is continuing into 2 2009, so this is something that we're looking to have 3 a little relief of. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 5 Anything else? 6 MR. GLUCK: That's it. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in 8 the audience that wishes to make comment in regards to 9 this case? 10 Seeing none, there were 197 notices 11 mailed; no approvals, no objections. 12 Building Department? 13 MR. AMOLSH: No comment. 14 MR. SAVEN: I would indicate that this 15 project is an ongoing, and it will continue to a date 16 probably about 2009. It's a mammoth project, and they 17 keep the area very neat and clean and in an orderly 18 fashion, no complaints. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 20 Member Fischer? 21 MEMBER FISCHER: The previous 22 violations -- there aren't any problems with 23 violations currently, correct? 24 MR. SAVEN: No. 20
1 MR. AMOLSH: No, there's no problem. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: They're actually 3 coming before us earlier. The Zoning Board didn't 4 have a problem with the sign before. This is a 5 mammoth project, and this sign is something that I 6 feel that we can live with. 7 How long would you be looking for? 8 MR. GLUCK: Up to three years, if 9 possible. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Three years. 11 Giving the information presented, I 12 would be willing to support anything up to three 13 years. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 15 Member Canup? 16 MEMBER CANUP: Are we empowered to be 17 able to do that? I thought it was only one year at a 18 time. 19 MR. GILLIAM: I think that's practice, 20 as long as I've been coming to the Zoning Board, for a 21 period of a year. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: For the first year, 23 and then after that we can do three years. 24 MR. SAVEN: That's correct. 21
1 MEMBER CANUP: I don't have a problem 2 with three years, because of the size of the project. 3 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Right. 5 MEMBER CANUP: Is it legal? Are we 6 empowered to be able to grant it for more than one 7 year at a time, Don? 8 MR. SAVEN: That's an interpretation 9 issue that you may want to address, based upon the 10 temporary -- for example, temporary uses would come 11 before you and you would review them under the basis 12 of how long they've been coming before you. And if 13 they repeatedly come before you, you could try two 14 years, as long as there was no outstanding violation 15 in regards to a particular project. 16 We have done this before in the past. 17 I don't see this as a problem. 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: Real quick question. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan? 20 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Is anyone living there 22 yet? 23 MR. GLUCK: We have 364 residents or 24 units, so probably about 600 people living there. 22
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: The potential build- 2 out is? 3 MR. GLUCK: 1497 units. 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: So you're roughly 25 5 percent there. 6 MR. GLUCK: That's correct. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup? 8 MEMBER CANUP: I want to make a Motion, 9 if it's acceptable, that we grant the variance for a 10 period of three years with continuing jurisdiction, 11 due to the fact that this is a mammoth, long-term 12 project. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Second. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and 15 seconded. 16 Is there any further discussion in 17 regards to the -- 18 Good evening, Mr. Gilliam. 19 MR. GILLIAM: Madam Chair. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's so dark over 21 there. I didn't see you. 22 MR. GILLIAM: I'm here. 23 Thank you. 24 First of all, in speaking with Alan, 23
1 it's my understanding there's an established practice 2 to allow three year extensions. I see no problem with 3 that from a legal standpoint. 4 Just one point as far as the Motion's 5 concerned, it's my understanding the current approval 6 expires in March of 2005. So I would assume that it's 7 the Board's position that this three-year extension 8 will become effective as of March, 2005, and would go 9 to March of 2008. 10 MEMBER CANUP: We could make that as 11 part of the Motion. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Agree. 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 14 Any further discussion? 15 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 16 call the roll. 17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 18 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 22 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 24 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 24
1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 5 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 6 zero. 7 MR. GLUCK: Thank you. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has 9 been granted. 10 Good luck to you. 11 12 We will call our next case, 04-118, 13 filed by K.J. Albers of Diversified Land Development, 14 LLC, for the Charneth Fen Condominiums Development at 15 12 and a half Mile Road. 16 Mr. Albers is requesting one sign 17 variance to erect a ground sign to be located at the 18 southwest corner of that location. 19 Good evening. 20 Are you Mr. Albers? 21 MR. ALBERS: Good evening. I am Ken 22 Albers with Diversified Land Development. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please 24 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our 25
1 secretary. 2 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or 3 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-118? 4 MR. ALBERS: I do. 5 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 7 You may go ahead. 8 MR. ALBERS: Good evening, Madam Chair, 9 Board Members. 10 I'm here tonight to request a variance 11 to install an off premises sign for our development, 12 Charneth Fen Condominiums. The sign would be located 13 where the mock-up sign is currently. It would be the 14 same size as the mock-up sign, but it would be not 15 that color. It would be the colors here. 16 We have a blue background, white 17 lettering and a gold border around it. The sign we 18 are proposing or requesting is both smaller and longer 19 than what's allowable by Ordinance. The size of the 20 sign, the height and placement was chosen by driving 21 back and forth on Novi Road and looking at it from 22 different directions to determine what would be the 23 least interruptive to the drivers. 24 The location, height and size of the 26
1 sign we have out there is the easiest to see when 2 you're traveling, without raising or lowering your 3 line of vision. It is also the correct size where you 4 don't have to take any more time to read a smaller 5 sized sign, if we put that out there. 6 Our site is unique because it's size 7 and location. It doesn't front any major roads or 8 even a smaller paved road. It's on one of the few 9 remaining dirt roads in the City. The roads are 10 pretty obscure, and that's uninviting to drive on. 11 The condition of the road also deters 12 people from using it as an ordinary route. 13 Without this variance, we would be in a 14 severe disadvantage, compared to the other 15 developments who have major road frontage, or at least 16 paved roads for the public to drive on. 17 Based on these hardships and the 18 location of our site, we're requesting an off premise 19 sign for the period of 24 months, or less if the 20 project sells out during that time. But I think I 21 should probably rephrase that, since to my 22 understanding, the maximum is 12 months. So it would 23 be requested for 12 months. 24 And I'd be happy to answer any 27
1 questions you have. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 3 Thank you. 4 Is there anyone in the audience this 5 evening that wishes to make comment in regards to this 6 case? 7 Seeing none, there were eight notices 8 mailed; no approvals, no objections. 9 Building Department? 10 MR. AMOLSH: No comment. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members? 12 Member Brennan, and then Member 13 Fischer. 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I think this is 15 obvious that there's some hardship involved. 12 and a 16 half Mile is a dirt road. It's kind of bumpy. And if 17 you're going to try to get somebody down there, you 18 have to have a sign on Novi Road to give them some 19 motivation to drive down that nasty bumpy place. 20 So I would support it, if there's 21 enough heads nodding, I'll make a Motion. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer? 23 MEMBER FISCHER: I'll just make a couple 24 comments quickly. 28
1 I'd also like to commend the Petitioner 2 for doing their homework in securing the property 3 owner's approval where they were going to place the 4 sign. This is definitely something obviously 5 important with the Petition in front of us. 6 Originally, I thought it was a little 7 high, but driving by there, there's definitely some 8 hills through there. And so, I can agree with the 9 Motion that I believe you're about to make, Member 10 Brennan. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 12 Member Brennan? 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: With respect to case, 14 04-118, I would move that the Petitioner's request for 15 this sign -- off-site sign -- for the period of 12 16 months be granted for the purpose of marketing. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Second the Motion. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and 19 seconded. 20 Is there any further discussion in 21 regards to the Motion? 22 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 23 call the roll. 24 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 29
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 2 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 3 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 4 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 5 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 6 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 8 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 12 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 13 zero. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 15 Your variance has been granted. 16 Good luck to you. 17 MR. ALBERS: Thank you. 18 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I see our first 20 contestant. Come on down. 21 MR. CARROLL: We have a rendering for 22 you. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, before you 24 start talking -- we need you to pass that out, because 30
1 they can't hear you at home. 2 MR. CARROLL: This proposal is for 115 3 square feet, half of the original size asked for. 4 MR. ULVAN: We'd actually like to go 5 four and a half feet, but again, if you're totally 6 against that, we'll accept four feet; and eliminate 7 the category signs on each side. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And the reason to go 9 to four and a half feet? 10 MR. ULVAN: Just visibility. It's an 11 angle street there, and visibility from the street. 12 Our setback is pretty far. And with the design of the 13 canopy, I think if we get our letters too small, it 14 would be dwarfed by the size of the canopy. I agree 15 that the six foot are overwhelming, but to go half 16 that size, this sign is going to be dwarfed by the 17 canopy, itself. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 19 Member Fischer? 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Personally, I think 21 the four feet is the largest maximum I would be 22 willing to support. I believe that what the 23 Petitioner has come back with us now (unintelligible) 24 the building, if they were up it anymore -- given the 31
1 square footage they have, compared to Kroger, I feel 2 we need to be fair to all of the businesses in that 3 district. 4 So I would be willing to support the 96 5 eastside sign, as well as sign at 115 square feet, 6 with deletion of the other two signs. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: 8 Member Fischer. 9 Member Brennan? 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, it's hard for me 11 to argue when they agreed to do what I asked them to, 12 so. 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup? 14 MEMBER CANUP: The only way I can see 15 this, in my opinion, it should go, the Office Super 16 Store. The sign could be four feet tall and 20 feet 17 long, but the Office Super Store has got to go. 18 Everybody knows Staples is -- anybody in business 19 knows Staples, so you don't have to tell them it's an 20 Office Super Store. 21 MR. ULVAN: That is a trademark name. 22 That is part of the corporate logo, so we would like 23 to keep that on. 24 MEMBER CANUP: My opinion is I would not 32
1 vote for it, the Office Super Store, with that in 2 there. 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan? 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: They cut the sign in 5 half. Now, if they want to eat up the size of this 6 Staple Store, with putting that verbiage on the 7 bottom, I'll leave that up to them, in my opinion. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer? 9 MEMBER FISCHER: I agree. 10 I believe that's up to the Petitioner. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup? 12 MEMBER CANUP: Krogers and Home Depot 13 don't do anything but identify Kroger and Home Depot. 14 They don't say, you know, Home Depot, super repair 15 store or anything like that, and those are the two 16 major tenants there. 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan? 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, let's ask the 19 Petitioner. 20 MR. CARROLL: It's part of the 21 corporate logo. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. So you're 23 saying your corporate headquarters would not -- in 24 actuality then, Staples could be bigger, and to eat up 33
1 -- 2 MR. ULVAN: That is correct. We would 3 like to have the smaller Staples sign with the Office 4 Super Store included in it. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 6 MR. ULVAN: That's our corporate 7 direction we were given. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 9 Is there a Motion? 10 MEMBER CANUP: Wait a minute. 11 You know, you people should have looked 12 at this Ordinance before you built your building, you 13 know, before you jumped off on the end there in 14 designing that thing on the front there where the sign 15 is going to be and putting that big of a sign. You 16 should have thought about it before, where you were 17 designing your building and looked at our sign 18 Ordinance and tried to live with that. 19 You're asking for, in my opinion -- 20 still we're giving a bunch more than the Ordinance 21 allows. And it appears, you know, that you people in 22 the beginning didn't take into consideration our 23 Ordinances at all. And in my opinion, if you look at 24 Home Depot, and you look at Krogers, they just say 34
1 Krogers and just say Home Depot. 2 I don't have a problem with the four 3 foot tall Staples portion of it, but I do have a 4 problem with what's underneath it. 5 And I would be willing to make a Motion 6 that we grant a variance for a sign that would be 20 7 feet long and four feet tall. It would say Staples 8 only. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer? 10 MEMBER FISCHER: I'd like to make a 11 Motion. 12 MEMBER CANUP: I just made one. 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: You don't have a 14 second. 15 MEMBER CANUP: Do I have a second on my 16 Motion? Going once -- 17 MEMBER FISCHER: May I try an alternate 18 Motion? 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes, you may. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: I'd like to make a 21 Motion that we approve the variance for the west 22 wall(sic), center sign, Staples, the Office Super 23 Store, as well as the west sign for identification 24 purposes; and deny the two additional signs, due to 35
1 Petitioner has not established that it would not 2 impair (unintelligible) due to overshadowing other 3 businesses. 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: Did you cover the 96, 5 I-96 sign? 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: Second. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 9 It's been moved and seconded 10 Any further discussion? 11 Member Canup? 12 MEMBER CANUP: The sign that's facing 13 the expressway, does that just say Staples? 14 MR. ULVAN: Yes. 15 MEMBER CANUP: It says nothing else. 16 MR. ULVAN: No. 17 MEMBER CANUP: It's good enough for the 18 expressway, but not good enough for Grand River. 19 MR. ULVAN: When you're looking at it 20 from the expressway, you cannot typically read the 21 smaller letters. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Anything else? 23 Mr. Gilliam? 24 MR. GILLIAM: Can we get some 36
1 clarification as to the Motion for the sign on the 2 eastside, as to what the size of the sign would be, 3 please? 4 MEMBER FISCHER: The mock-up and what 5 is included in our packet is what I expect the sign on 6 the west -- eastside to -- 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: 125, I have. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 9 MR. GILLIAM: Thank you. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN; And do you want 11 clarification of the new -- 12 MR. AMOLSH: (Unintelligible) amended 13 sign or Exhibit Number -- 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: As submitted. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: That the west sign 16 will be within specifications as the revised submitted 17 plan right here, which are 20 across and four feet in 18 the Staples part and 1.2 inches for Office Super Store 19 area. 20 MEMBER BAUER: 115 square feet total. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: 115 square feet total. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and 23 seconded. 24 Is there any other discussion? 37
1 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 2 call the roll. 3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 5 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 7 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 8 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 10 MEMBER CANUP: No. 11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 15 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes five to 16 zero. No, that's wrong. Five to one. 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has 18 been granted with those conditions. 19 Please see the Building Department for 20 your permit. 21 MR. ULVAN: Thank you very much. 22 MR. CARROLL: Thank you very much. 23 MR. ULVAN: Have a great evening. 24 38
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Our next case 2 will be 04-119, Glenn Klocke, for a residence at 44480 3 11 Mile Road. 4 Mr. Klocke is requesting three 5 variances for the construction of an addition to his 6 residence located at the above address. 7 Good evening. 8 MR. KLOCKE: Good evening. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Are you Mr. Klocke? 10 MR. KLOCKE: Klocke. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm sorry. 12 Klocke. 13 With Gronachan, you can understand -- 14 MR. KLOCKE: Yes, I understand. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your 16 right hand and be sworn by our secretary. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or 18 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-119? 19 MR. KLOCKE: I do. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You can go ahead. 22 MR. KLOCKE: Yes, I'm requesting a 23 variance and side yard setback. I'm trying to build a 24 barrier-free mother-in-law suite in my home for a 39
1 mother that's wheelchair bound. The reason the one 2 foot in the front, is because our porch, the existing 3 porch, sticks out to the one foot -- six feet there 4 now. There's an easement of 36 feet in front of our 5 house, with another 30 feet to the existing home now. 6 The reason we need the extra foot there 7 is we're obviously re-configuring bedrooms to 8 accommodate children, and not, you know, cramp their 9 style; and also get a space large enough for a mother- 10 in-law suite that -- you can use wheelchairs, roll-in 11 shower, things like that, so we can bring her home, 12 get her out of the home, an assisted living home, and 13 bring her to our house. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Anything else? 15 MR. KLOCKE: No, that's it. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in 17 the audience that wishes to address the Board in 18 regards to this? 19 Seeing none, there were 24 notices 20 sent; three approvals -- first approval is from Mark 21 Toth -- and I should mention, no objections --at 25970 22 Buckminster, Novi; second approval is from Brian and 23 Karen McPherson at 25998, and I apologize, Petros(ph) 24 Boulevard; and then, the third approval is from Bruce 40
1 Jerome at 26040 Lankin Road. 2 Building Department? 3 MR. SAVEN: Just a couple of things to 4 point out. I do not believe it is coming out any 5 farther than the existing porch is, given the front 6 yard setback. 7 And also, you will be staying out of 8 the trees; is that correct? 9 MR. KLOCKE: Out of what? 10 MR. SAVEN: Out of the treed area. 11 MR. KLOCKE: Oh, yes, yes. 12 MR. SAVEN: Thank you. 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members. 14 Member Brennan? 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Having had a father 16 that went through the current Michigan options of 17 taking care of somebody that's disabled, I commend you 18 for bring home your mother-in-law? 19 MR. KLOCKE: It's actually my mother. 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: And I only have one 21 question from my notes, is neighbors, and the 22 neighbors are in support. And I think there is 23 hardship when you have to consider taking in an 24 elderly or considering taking in an elderly. But more 41
1 importantly, you have three variance requests that are 2 within 12 to 24 inches, and I don't think that we 3 should be piddling over that under these conditions of 4 hardship. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Bauer? 6 MEMBER BAUER: Is there a homeowner's 7 association there? 8 MR. KLOCKE: No, there is not. 9 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer? 11 MEMBER FISCHER: My only question -- my 12 assumption is that it would be difficult to build 13 this, given the wheelchair accessibility. But have 14 you looked into building in the back at all, or would 15 that be too difficult, given the wheelchair 16 accessibility that you need? 17 MR. KLOCKE: Well, we had looked at 18 that. But actually, aesthetically, another reason I 19 did it, I think it needs to be in the front. Right 20 now it looks like a trailer. It's flat across the 21 front of our house. It needs some depth. 22 And I think bringing it out to the 23 porch, architecturally, is going to look a lot better, 24 also. And just accessibility for wheelchair and 42
1 everything works better that way. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: What I assumed. 3 I'd be willing to support a Motion or 4 make a Motion. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer? 6 MEMBER FISCHER: I move that in case, 7 04-119, that we approve the Petitioner's request, 8 given that there's still a significant setback, and 9 does not -- and his variance request does not impair 10 the intent of the Ordinance. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Second the Motion. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 13 It's been moved and seconded. 14 Is there any further discussion on the 15 Motion? 16 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 17 call the roll. 18 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 20 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 21 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 22 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 24 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 43
1 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 2 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 4 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 6 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 7 zero. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has 9 been granted. Please see the Building Department. 10 And good luck to you. 11 MR. KLOCKE: Thank you. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 13 14 Our next case is 04-121, filed by 15 David Bastianelli for North Haven Woods; is requesting 16 a temporary use permit for six months to complete for 17 the continued placement of a construction trailer on 18 Lot Number 18, 44610 Ludlow in North Haven Woods. 19 And you are? 20 MR. LASHER: Dave Lasher. 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 22 Would you please raise your right hand 23 to be sworn in by our secretary. 24 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or 44
1 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-121? 2 MR. LASHER: I do. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 5 Proceed. 6 MR. LASHER: Just trying to get a 7 temporary use permit for the construction trailer to 8 continue the operations of the subdivision, and we 9 should be wrapping up the sub in June or July. So 10 it's there currently, and we'd like to continue to 11 operate out of it. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 13 Anything else? 14 MR. LASHER: No. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in 16 the audience that wishes to make comment in regards to 17 this matter? 18 Seeing none, there were 71 notices 19 sent; two approvals, no objections. 20 Marie Watkins at Ludlow of Novi and 21 Diane LeFord. 22 Building Department? 23 MR. SAVEN: I just want to point out, 24 this gentleman did have a temporary use permit through 45
1 my office, to which I'm only allowed to issue a 2 temporary use approval for one year. This is beyond 3 that particular time frame; that's why it's before you 4 today. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer? 6 MEMBER FISCHER: My understanding is 7 the temporary use permit was valid until January 1st 8 of 2004. I also, in my packet, I received that the 9 Building Department has issued a couple violations 10 because of debris and other things. 11 Can you just tell me what, if any, 12 corrective actions that you guys have taken to make 13 sure that won't happen again? 14 MR. LASHER: Yes. We have a clean-up 15 crew that constantly monitors debris in the sub. If 16 not two or three times a week, nearly every day. We 17 do have placement of a construction bin to contain the 18 debris that is produced from construction. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. And how is that 20 different from what was going on back then, back when 21 you received these violations? 22 MR. LASHER: When were the -- I don't 23 know. I don't recall. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: The violation was -- 46
1 this was a month ago, debris and materials behind 2 construction trailer. Please remove debris by 3 expiration date. This is by Maureen Underhill, one of 4 our officers. 5 MR. LASHER: We had some construction 6 materials that wouldn't really fit inside the 7 construction trailer. They were behind the 8 construction trailer. You couldn't see it from the 9 road. I didn't think that was going to be a problem, 10 but we did remove it. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 12 MEMBER BAUER: And then back in 19 -- 13 2002, in September, you also had -- that was when the 14 permit was issued, and then after that came a 15 violation. And I was just wondering if you have any 16 large things that you won't be storing them there. 17 MR. LASHER: Pardon? 18 MEMBER BAUER: If you have any large 19 items, you wouldn't be storing them there. 20 MR. LASHER: No, that is correct. 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members? 22 Member Brennan? 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: Maybe we can wrap this 24 up. 47
1 I'll offer a Motion and we'll see where 2 it goes. 3 The Petitioner says he needs about 4 another six or seven months to finish this off. 5 I suggest that we approve this 6 extension under continued jurisdiction. If he gets 7 cited again, you're going to have to come see us. So 8 keep it clean and finish your project. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Second. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and 11 seconded. 12 Any further discussion with regards to 13 -- 14 Member Canup? 15 MEMBER CANUP: I would ask them -- I 16 would suggest that the amendment to that Motion would 17 be to include the temporary use permit 02-051, with 18 the five items that are listed to be adhered to. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'd accept that. 20 Are you familiar with that? 21 MR. LASHER: I am not. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. Now you are. 23 It has to do with the lighting and keeping things 24 pretty and clean. 48
1 MR. LASHER: Okay. 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: You've probably got 3 that before. 4 MR. LASHER: Okay. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Agreed. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 7 It's been moved and seconded. 8 is there any further discussion? 9 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 10 call the roll. 11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 16 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 18 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 23 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 24 zero. 49
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 2 MR. LASHER: Thank you. 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Good luck. 4 We hope we don't have to see you again. 5 MR. LASHER: Me, too. 6 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Our next case 8 is 04-122, filed by James and Kim Ziegler, for new 9 construction on property located on Dinser Drive. 10 Mr. and Mrs. Ziegler are requesting two 11 variances for the construction of a new home located 12 at Parcel C; is requesting a side yard setback of six 13 feet, and a total side yard setback variance of six 14 feet for both sides. 15 Good evening. 16 MR. ZIEGLER: Good evening. 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You are Mr. Ziegler? 18 MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, ma'am. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please 20 raise your right hand to be sworn in by our secretary. 21 You are Mrs. Ziegler? 22 MRS. ZIEGLER: I am. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Are you going to 24 speak, as well? 50
1 MRS. ZIEGLER: Well -- 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Why don't you come 3 on up and be sworn in. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or 5 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-122? 6 MR. ZIEGLER: I do. 7 MRS. ZIEGLER: I do. 8 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 10 You may proceed. 11 MR. ZIEGLER: Okay. Madam Chair, Board 12 Members, I'm looking for two variances, basically. 13 One, because the lot doesn't -- is not a full acre. 14 it's only 171. Everybody's -- this piece of property 15 was splint into three in 1985. In '86, Lot A, which 16 was more southern to, had a house built on it later, 17 so that's one reason why I think it should pass. 18 The other variance we're looking for is 19 a six foot variance, because the lot width is only a 20 hundred foot; and the houses that we're looking to 21 build are basically 56 foot wide. And we don't want 22 to disturb the trees on the south side. So it was 23 recommended to us to come 19 foot off that lot, and 25 24 foot off the north line, which I drew a picture of. 51
1 You guys probably have it in there somewhere. 2 So -- and we don't believe that the 3 variance will really impact anything. The houses 4 behind us are built on 100 by 120 lots, and basically 5 the house -- the trees in front of the lot, which 6 would be the west side, we're just going to take down 7 what we need for a driveway to make it look the best. 8 That's pretty much it. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 10 Is there anyone in the audience that 11 wishes to make comment in regards to this case? 12 Okay. 13 Come on down, please. 14 Good evening. 15 Please state your name for the record. 16 MR. MAHONEY: My name is Lee Mahoney. 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You don't need to be 18 sworn in. 19 MR. MAHONEY: Okay. 20 I'm the south side neighbor that will 21 be directly impacted, if this variance is approved. I 22 really see no basis for this being approved, other 23 than the house that the Petitioner is requesting or 24 wants to have built is larger than what the City will 52
1 allow for. 2 You will be considering issuing a variance 3 to the Petitioner when a hardship is demonstrated or 4 something unique to the property, which provides a 5 practical difficulty in developing. 6 There is none. This is a large, deep 7 lot, with no wetland, no forest, no ancient trees to 8 be saved. I'm a taxpayer. I believe I will be 9 affected by this building, and I see no basis for it. 10 Our -- the Petitioner knew it was R-A when he 11 considered buying it or being that you considered 12 buying it. 13 R-A comes with certain setbacks to 14 protect the neighboring lots. I seek that protection. 15 That's basically all I have. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 17 Thank you. 18 Was there someone else? 19 Come on down. 20 MR. KLINSMITH: Hi. 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Hi. 22 MR. KLINSMITH: I have just purchased 23 the home directly -- Mr. Mahoney is on one side of the 24 lot; I'm now on the other. And as of December 1st, we 53
1 owned 24895 Dinser on -- we're on the opposite side. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 3 Would you please state your name? 4 MR. KLINSMITH: Oh, I'm sorry. 5 Andrew Klinsmith. 6 When I spoke to the office today, I 7 called after 3:00, so I just made a simple thing in 8 writing, but Denise said it might not be 9 submissible(sic)(ph). So I don't know whether to talk 10 with those things, or if they end up being accepted or 11 -- 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We got a copy of 13 your letter. 14 MR. KLINSMITH: Well, then, just to be 15 very brief, the only reasons we have some concerns 16 with this is when we purchased that land, we had 17 looked at buying the lot, and possibly still would, if 18 it's still open in the future, but we understood it to 19 be unbuildable at under an acre. 20 And we have an autistic child who 21 wanders; and we certainly do our job watching him, but 22 we were very attracted to the amount of space. We 23 normally don't take him out to playgrounds or anything 24 like that, because it's difficult. 54
1 So that was one reason that -- we don't 2 own the land at this point, but we have the opinion 3 that we prefer it to be open. 4 The other thing is this house is odd 5 that it has solar panels only facing that side of the 6 house towards the lot. And I don't know, with this 7 construction, if it might cause shadows, but being 8 concerned for the environment, I thought we could 9 utilize that feature. I don't have a picture of it, 10 because I didn't take one, but if you look at it, it's 11 odd. The whole side of the house is glass, basically. 12 It's a system -- you take the sun only from that side 13 of the house and it's downloaded to the lower portion 14 of the house. 15 And there's some other things. I guess 16 there's no real reason to point that out. I'm not 17 really a technical person, so I didn't research this, 18 but Mr. Mahoney had his well run dry in that area, and 19 so did the Lot C behind it that was built. 20 And I don't know if there's only 21 limited amounts of people that can tap into that 22 ground area that might cause an accelerated loss of 23 water. Maybe that's a ridiculous thought. I have no 24 idea, but it was a concern. 55
1 And the other thing was that I felt it 2 was kind of out of character, because as you go down 3 the road, every lot is a uniform 125 feet or more, and 4 ours looks uniform because it's just an empty space 5 there. But if it was built in, not only would it be 6 the skinniest one, but it would be too wide, based on 7 the Code for that lot. 8 And I felt when they could cut down the 9 trees, if they're only going to cut it open to get in 10 a driveway, then all you're really going to see going 11 down the street is the driveway and the garage. And 12 on the drawing, that garage is 25 feet closer than 13 anything else on the street. They're all setback a 14 certain amount, even, going across; but this one would 15 break the chain and come forward an additional amount, 16 and all that would be garage. 17 And then the last thing, I guess, in 18 closing, is I just felt buying that house, like I 19 said, it had an open acreage feel. I thought it was 20 zoned acreage. And those neighborhoods are coming in 21 on smaller lots, but none of them are on that road. 22 Even Lot C, even though it's connected, 23 the minute you turn that street, you see a different 24 view, and those lots are a hundred feet across the 56
1 street. But no single lot on Dinser is that narrow. 2 All the lots across the street are sideways. So 3 that's why I think it would be out of character. 4 Plus, they're all older homes. And that design is 5 very nice. I will say that the drawing, if it is 6 bricked and done exactly like the drawing, the home is 7 beautiful; but none of the homes are anything like 8 that on that street. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 10 Thank you. 11 MR. KLINSMITH: Was there anything -- 12 did I forget something? 13 Okay. 14 Thank you. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You're 16 Mrs. Klinsmith? 17 MRS. KLINSMITH: Yes. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you have 19 something else to add? 20 MRS. KLINSMITH: Yes, I do. 21 I've been residing at the house right 22 now, in the process of moving in. And from our 23 bedroom windows, from our side entrance portion, 24 because we also have a mother-in-law suite, this 57
1 property is the only grass that we see, other than our 2 backyard. 3 We don't have trees lining our house 4 with the property. The people that we bought the 5 house, used this as their yard. This was the yard 6 part of their property. And seeing that they sold the 7 house to us December 1st, now they're gone, but all 8 the trees are a story high, at the road, at 9 Mr. Mahoney's house and at the house behind. But with 10 us, we would be extremely impacted, if this was built 11 on. 12 MR. KLINSMITH: I just wanted to 13 mention that the -- 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Sir, you're going to 15 have to wait. 16 MR. KLINSMITH: Sure. 17 MRS. KLINSMITH: And so, I'm just 18 saying that our house would be completely impacted, 19 along with everything else my husband said. And my 20 address again is 24895 Dinser. 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 22 Thank you. 23 Is there anyone else in the audience 24 that wishes to make comment? 58
1 Seeing none, there were 27 notices 2 sent; one approval; and this comes from the current 3 owner of the property, Gina and Evan Waldo. 4 MRS. KLINSMITH: We are the current 5 homeowners. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Excuse me. 7 Thank you. 8 And one objection, and the resident has 9 just spoken, Mr. Klinsmith. 10 Building Department? 11 MR. SAVEN: Just a couple issues I'd 12 point out. The two side yard variances is actually 13 almost one side yard variance, based on the fact the 14 variance covers two issues. 15 One, the combined total of the side 16 yard, plus there's a side yard requirement. You see 17 that both of them are having the same amount that's 18 before you tonight. 19 The second thing is, I believe the 20 gentleman indicated that they had solar panels on the 21 one side of the house; is that correct? 22 MR. KLINSMITH: That's correct. 23 MR. SAVEN: Okay. On that particular 24 side of the house, the setback requirements meets the 59
1 requirement of the Ordinance. So whatever is going to 2 take place on that particular lot, based on the fact 3 that this is a side entry garage, and that doesn't 4 have to be 25 feet; and that is met. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 6 Thank you. 7 Board Members? 8 Member Brennan? 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah, I've got a 10 number of issues. Number one, for both of the 11 adjoining property owners, get used to the wells 12 drying up on the west end of Novi. You're in good 13 company. I live in Echo Valley and we average 14 probably ten a year. 15 I guess what concerns me first is 16 dealing with a variance on new construction. I walked 17 this lot. It's a wide-open lot. There's no little 18 streams. There's no 400-year-old oaks. It's a wide- 19 open lot, that I think can be built to meet the 20 Ordinance. 21 I don't see, and have not been 22 presented with any hardship with the design of the 23 building; other than it's their preference. And 24 again, as Mr. Mahoney pointed out, there's no 60
1 practical difficulty with the lot. It's a big, wide- 2 open piece of property. So I have -- I have no 3 compassion for their variance request, only because 4 this Board's obligation to only grant variances when 5 there are certain conditions met. Hardship and 6 practical difficulty are two of them, and I don't see 7 that here. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer? 9 MEMBER FISCHER: You stole the words 10 right out of my mouth. Right on my notes here, I 11 said, we need at least look for lessor variances; or 12 if not, something -- given that it's new construction 13 -- that is in complete conformity. There's a lot of 14 room going back. I feel that there is not a practical 15 difficulty present, and I feel there has been 16 (unintelligible) to develop this lot. 17 However, to comment, the people who 18 wrote in objections or commented tonight, 19 unfortunately it's not -- or unfortunately for you 20 it's not our decision as to whether this gets built; 21 it's our decision whether they get -- the variances 22 are allowed. So it looks like this will be built, 23 because it is buildable. 24 However, I can't support these 61
1 variances. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 3 Member Canup? 4 MEMBER CANUP: It's unfortunate that 5 you've got only three-quarters of an acre and you 6 can't quite fit a home. I would probably -- my 7 suggestion would be that you go back and try to find 8 maybe a home plan that will fit there, without any 9 variances. 10 You know, three-quarters of an acre, 11 I'm sure that you can find something that will fit on 12 that without getting a variance. And it is an area 13 that is -- fairly generous sized lots. Probably the 14 three-quarter acre lot is probably the smallest one 15 adjacent or at least, touching you. 16 MR. ZIEGLER: Right. 17 MEMBER CANUP: And I guess I would have 18 a hard time supporting a variance on that 19 foot, 19 which would be the six foot variance that you 20 requested. I would suggest that you go back and maybe 21 try to find a different plan for the home or 22 reconfigure the home, and get it to fit on that lot. 23 Because the feeling that I'm picking up from the Board 24 here is you're not going to get a variance. 62
1 So that's the feeling I have, but I 2 think when the vote comes, that's what will happen. 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'd like to put my 4 comments on the record. And my favorite saying, it's 5 time to go back to the drawing board. We have lots up 6 in the north end -- and I don't know if you're from 7 Novi or if you've ever watched a Novi Zoning Board 8 Meeting, people who have 40 and 50 foot lots that 9 build in the north end become very creative. 10 And to hear that a lot is not 11 buildable, I'm sorry, but there is no such thing. 12 Everybody has a right to do what they want with their 13 property. I'm sorry for you that you've got such a 14 lovely piece of property in a great location. And I 15 don't want you to think this is a denial, but it's an 16 opportunity to go back and look at something else. 17 This is just not the house for this 18 piece of property. And I think that with the size 19 that you have and the opportunity that you have, 20 you're going to find something that's going to fit 21 right in there perfectly. 22 And perhaps, mend some broken down 23 fences in communication with your new neighbors. I 24 suggest a pot of coffee and brownies, something that 63
1 can make piece. You guys are all going to live 2 together. And believe me, I understand what it's 3 like. You're looking at the house of your dreams, and 4 we're looking at six feet and six feet. But 5 unfortunately, from this side of the table, that's 6 what we have to look at in new construction. 7 So I think that we will -- if there's 8 someone that wants to make a Motion. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: I will. 10 MR. ZIEGLER: Does that mean those two 11 variances are (unintelligible) build on something 12 under an acre? 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: What I'm saying is 14 that, if you go and find another house, you probably 15 -- or change this where you're not going to need the 16 variance -- when you've got new construction, you have 17 more leeway to do something with a brand-new house, as 18 opposed to taking an existing house and trying to fit 19 it into something that's 30 or 40 or 50 feet. 20 You have a hundred foot sized lot, a 21 hundred foot wide sized lot. You have a lot more 22 leeway. And although you may not see it now -- that's 23 why I say I think you need to go back to the drawing 24 board and look at -- perhaps, contact another 64
1 architect, talk with some other people that built in 2 Novi; get in your car and go to the north end of Novi 3 -- seriously. I'm not trying to say that to be 4 insulting. 5 In any way, shape or form, there's some 6 lovely homes at the north end that they have done on 7 40 foot lots, and we are just amazed what they come up 8 with. So we know it can be done. You've got a 9 hundred feet with, you know, specifications that 10 you'll be able to fit it in. 11 MR. ZIEGLER: I guess my question, the 12 two variances -- it's not an acre. 13 MR. SAVEN: You're a legal lot of 14 record. 15 MR. ZIEGLER: Oh, okay. 16 MR. SAVEN: There's two conditions that 17 are associated with that, and that deals with area and 18 width of that lot; because it's a legal splint. That 19 property does have a Sidwell number. It was legally 20 splint, so what you must do is conform to the setback 21 requirement of that district for the R-A district. 22 Front yard, side yard, rear yard, for 23 your accessory structures, the sum total of the square 24 footage for all buildings on the property; that's 65
1 regardless of the width of the lot. A hundred foot -- 2 you know you have a hundred foot in the front. You 3 still must comply with the side yard setback, and 4 that's what you have to deal with, that is what you -- 5 MR. ZIEGLER: I didn't know that. I 6 thought I had to have two variances. So with that in 7 mind, I really don't need a variance. I just have to 8 comply -- 9 MR. SAVEN: You have to comply with the 10 setback -- 11 MR. ZIEGLER: That's fine. 12 MRS. ZIEGLER: So we have a new plan, 13 and we're all set. 14 MR. SAVEN: If the new plan conforms to 15 the setback requirements, that would be great. 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam Chair? 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan? 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: With respect to case 19 04-122, I'd move for denial due to lack of hardship 20 shown, based on the plans submitted tonight. 21 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and 23 seconded. 24 Is there any further discussion? 66
1 Denise, would you please call the roll. 2 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 4 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 5 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 6 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 7 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 8 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 12 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 13 MEMBER SANGHVI? Yes. 14 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 15 zero. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay, good luck. 17 See you at the drawing board. And I'm 18 waiting for those cookies. 19 20 We're going to all take a quick five 21 minute break. Obviously, (unintelligible). I can't 22 talk to myself, so we'll take a quick five minute 23 break. 24 So we'll adjourn for five minutes. 67
1 (Brief recess taken.) 2 (Back on the record.) 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Calling case 4 04-123, filed by Matthew S. Sosin for Haggerty 5 Corridor Partners, LLC, for Columbus Corporate Office 6 Centre. 7 You just like this meeting so much 8 tonight, you decided to come back? 9 MR. LUTZ: You're a great group. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: If you want, fill 11 out an application -- just a little plug there. 12 It's a new case, so we're going to 13 swear you in again, please. 14 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or 15 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-123? 16 MR. LUTZ: Yes, I do. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 19 You may proceed. 20 MR. LUTZ: Well, we have two hardships 21 here. We've got a huge piece of property on the 22 corner of 12 Mile and Haggerty Road, and it's a 23 divided four-lane highway, with a big median in the 24 center. So visibility is an issue, number one; number 68
1 two, this plan has done -- I think everybody would 2 agree -- a very good job of developing these 3 properties in a very forthright manner. 4 And it's their intent to provide a very 5 nice building on this piece of property. It's kind of 6 a cart to horse kind of situation. You almost have to 7 let people know what's going to be there, in order to 8 create some interest, and in order to develop the 9 property the way you want and get a building permit to 10 do it. 11 This sign is permitted, as you know, 12 once the building permit is issued. It's not 13 permitted prior to issuing the building permit. And 14 one of the things that we have tried to do with 15 Northern Equities is develop some changes in the sign 16 Ordinance that would allow this type of sign, because 17 we think it's consistent with the kind of development 18 that you all, the City, are trying to encourage. 19 So in lieu of those changes not being 20 made, we have to come before you for these variance 21 requests from time to time, but it's always a 22 pleasure. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Those cookies paid 24 off earlier. 69
1 Is there anyone in the audience that 2 wishes to make comment in regards to this case? 3 Seeing none, there were 13 notices 4 sent; no approvals, no objections. 5 Building Department? 6 MR. SAVEN: No comment. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members? 8 Member Brennan? 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: I would think that 10 this would be approvable, with the contingent that if 11 they are not issued a building permit, the sign comes 12 down. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Within what period of 14 time? 15 MEMBER CANUP: Is that a Motion? 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: We should probably put 17 some timetable on it. 18 Do you want to help me there? 19 MR. LUTZ: No, I think that's a 20 reasonable request. 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: A timetable, 22 timetable. 23 MR. LUTZ: Timetable, probably a year, 24 I think would be reasonable. 70
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: For a period of one 2 year, and that's a Motion. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and 5 seconded. 6 Is there any further discussion on the 7 table? 8 MEMBER CANUP: What's the height of the 9 sign? 10 MR. LUTZ; The sign, itself, is four 11 feet by eight feet. I can't answer how high those 12 temporaries are, because we did not put them in. 13 Those are very definitely temporaries. I don't think 14 they're excessively high. 15 MEMBER CANUP: It says eight feet. 16 MR. LUTZ: I would think that four feet 17 off the ground to allow for snow and that sort of 18 thing. You know, ideal visibility in most vehicles is 19 about the five to six foot level. So I think it's 20 somewhere in there. 21 MEMBER CANUP: So vertical four feet. 22 MR. LUTZ: For the actual sign area of 23 the sign, that's correct. 24 I don't know that there's Ordinance -- 71
1 MR. SAVEN: It's eight feet. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Eight feet. 3 MR. LUTZ: So four feet for the bottom 4 of the sign. 5 MEMBER CANUP: Eight feet overall 6 height? 7 MEMBER BAUER: Overall, it's eight 8 feet. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Overall. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Motion's so amended. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 13 If there's no further discussion, 14 Denise, would you please call the roll. 15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 18 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 20 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 72
1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 3 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 4 zero. 5 MR. LUTZ: Thanks again. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has 7 been granted. Congratulations. 8 MR. LUTZ: Thank you. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Good luck. 10 11 Case number 04-124, filed by Michael 12 DeBlauw of McShane Construction Corp for Meadowbrook 13 Medical Building at the southeast corner of 14 Meadowbrook and 11 Mile Road. 15 I'm reading this and I look up and I 16 know -- 17 MR. QUINN: The face doesn't match. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: -- the face doesn't 19 match. 20 So good evening. 21 MR. QUINN: Good evening. I'm 22 Matt Quinn, appearing on behalf of McShane 23 Construction. 24 The gentleman you mentioned, 73
1 Mike DeBlauw, was flown in from Chicago earlier this 2 evening and he is present. Only a few of you were 3 paying attention, I can tell. 4 What we're here tonight is for two 5 variances from this exciting project. This is 120,000 6 square foot medical office building, at the corner of 7 Meadowbrook and 11 Mile Road. It's a two-story 8 building. 9 We went in front of the Novi Planning 10 Commission. We received unanimous support, subject to 11 the two variances that we're requesting tonight. The 12 two variances deal with the actual site plan. 13 The first variance deals with the 14 requirement that along our periphery, we're to have a 15 berm or a landscaped wall. The City's landscape 16 architect has recommended support for this variance, 17 due to the heavy natural landscaping that surrounds 18 our property, and the fact that we're going to have 19 supplemental planting. 20 Lance agreed that it was not necessary 21 to actually destroy the natural plantings to put in a 22 berm and/or a wall, and he recommended that that 23 variance be granted. Also, you recall the purpose of 24 the wall and/or the berm, is to screen the parked cars 74
1 from the surrounding roadway. 2 Well, as you drive through this area, 3 Meadowbrook sits about 16 feet lower than the parking 4 surface of our project; and 11 Mile sits anywhere from 5 that 15 down to about five feet lower. So the 6 vehicles are screened just by the natural features of 7 this site. 8 The second variance we have to request 9 is, we have more than 50 percent parking in our front 10 yard. Now, we're unusual, because we have two front 11 yards, because we're on the corner. In order to 12 satisfy that requirement, we'd have to move the 13 building up closer -- and as you saw from the 14 elevation, this is pretty much like Providence 15 Hospital. 16 If you can picture driving up to the 17 main entrance of Providence Medical Center, they have 18 the parking there in front; they have parking on the 19 side; and they actually have parking 360 degrees, and 20 that's what we have here, also. 21 There will be access all the way around 22 to the various office units that are there. 23 So the second variance is a request 24 from the requirement of having more than 50 percent of 75
1 parking in the front yard. Since this is also tied to 2 a site plan, I would ask that this variance be 3 extended for 180 days, so that there's appropriate 4 time to get the building permits for this particular 5 project. 6 I'll be more than happy to answer any 7 questions, or Michael can answer any questions that 8 you might have this evening. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 10 Thank you. 11 Is there anyone in the audience that 12 wishes to make comment in regards to this case? 13 Seeing none, there were 26 notices 14 sent; no objections, no approvals. 15 Building Department? 16 MR. SAVEN: Just once again, the area 17 (unintelligible) if you take a look at this site, the 18 location where the site is in between Meadowbrook Road 19 and 11 Mile, it sits up pretty high. 20 MR. QUINN: That's right. 21 We're removing a real eyesore in the 22 community. 23 MR. SAVEN: That's the second issue. I 24 almost want to embrace this project from my behalf, 76
1 because the previous business that was there -- the 2 bottom line is, the (unintelligible.) 3 MR. QUINN: Well, the Saven Surgery 4 Center has a ring to it. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members? 6 Member Canup? 7 MEMBER CANUP: From the presentation I 8 heard and review of the case, I don't see where 9 there's any problem here. At least, I feel I can 10 support this two requests, given the configuration of 11 the land, as far as the elevations go. 12 It's a corner piece, it's kind of 13 unique. So anyway, I would support a positive Motion 14 for both of these variances. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is that a Motion? 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. 17 Let's make a Motion in case number 04- 18 124 that Petitioner's request be granted, because of 19 the peculiar location and topography of this lot. 20 MEMBER CANUP: Second. 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there any further 22 comment? 23 Member Fischer? 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Two things. 77
1 The landscape plan, that is part of the 2 record, correct, as what will be enforced? 3 MR. SAVEN: That is correct. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: I just wanted to make 5 sure that didn't get altered. 6 Secondly, it was mentioned 180 days to 7 gain the permit. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, I forgot that, 9 yes. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 11 It's been moved and seconded. 12 Is there any further discussion? 13 Denise, would you please call the roll. 14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 16 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 17 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 18 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 19 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 20 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 22 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 24 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 78
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 2 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 3 zero. 4 MR. QUINN: Thank you very much. 5 Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays to you 6 all. 7 See you next year. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 9 10 Okay. Our next case is 04-125, filed 11 by Amy Davenport of ASI-Modulex for DMC at 41935 12 12 Mile Road. 13 Ms. Davenport is requesting two sign 14 variances to erect two additional signs at DMC at the 15 above address. It's located east of Novi Road and 16 west of Meadowbrook. The property is zoned OST. 17 Good evening. 18 And you are Ms. Davenport? 19 MS. DAVENPORT: Amy Davenport. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 21 Did you bring someone with you to talk? 22 MS. DAVENPORT: I brought Debra 23 Gleason(ph), representative from the Detroit Medical 24 Center. 79
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 2 Would you both please raise your right 3 hands to be sworn in by our secretary. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or 5 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-125? 6 MS. DAVENPORT: I do. 7 MS. GLEASON: Yes. 8 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 10 You may proceed. 11 MS. DAVENPORT: The property is located 12 at 41935 currently shares signage along a common entry 13 way with the property at 42005 12 Mile Road. 14 Currently, the existing signage is not 15 adequate to differentiate which services are located 16 in which building; yet they are two distinct 17 properties with two separate addresses, two separate 18 parcel numbers. 19 What we are proposing to do is to 20 produce a ground sign similar to the one that exists 21 at 42005, in order to separate the services that are 22 offered in each building, in each facility. 23 And the reason we want to propose 24 additional ground signage, is because of the 80
1 visibility of the buildings from 12 Mile Road. 41935 2 sets back from the property line approximately 360, 3 which puts it somewhere around 450 feet from the 4 center of 12 Mile Road; which means that visibility of 5 wall mounted signage on the building from 12 Mile is 6 limited. 7 Part of the reason also that we want to 8 make very distinct differentiation between the 9 services that are offered in each of the buildings, is 10 because the property at 41935 is offering urgent care 11 services for after-hour injuries, sicknesses for 12 residents of the community; which is a valuable public 13 service that we would like to be able to direct people 14 to the appropriate location for. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 16 Anything else? 17 MS. DAVENPORT: No, that's it. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in 19 the audience that wishes to add anything in regards to 20 this case? 21 Seeing none, there were nine notices 22 sent; no objections, no approvals. 23 Building Department? 24 MR. AMOLSH: No comment. 81
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members? 2 Member Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, if you have been 4 following what has been happening to DMC over the 5 years, the distinction they want to create is very 6 understandable and necessary. 7 It is also important to realize that we 8 have a facility available for after-hour urgent care 9 here; other than just an emergency room. And these 10 kinds of things are the real things that are going to 11 keep the health care costs down. 12 In every respect, this is a win/win 13 situation for the community, and I have no hesitation 14 in supporting the request. 15 And I'd like to make a Motion that in 16 case number, 04-125 that the Petitioner's request be 17 granted because of their special circumstances. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there a second? 19 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: Some additional 21 discussion. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 23 Member Brennan? 24 MEMBER BRENNAN: I have a problem with 82
1 a LED sign. This is not typically permitted. I think 2 the exception is the school. There was a suggestion 3 about a LED sign in front of City Hall, that was run 4 down the river three or four years ago. 5 I also wondered whether the location of 6 that one sign along 12 Mile to be there. And I'd like 7 to ask for some other discussion. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 9 Member Fischer? 10 MEMBER FISCHER: I would have to agree 11 with Member Canup on the LED sign. I'm not so 12 concerned with whether LED or not -- 13 I'm sorry. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Brennan. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Oh, I'm sorry. Member 16 Brennan. 17 I agree with Member Brennan as to that 18 sign. 19 First and foremost is the placement. 20 The size of the sign, included with the location of it 21 in the median of the parking lot, I feel -- I have 22 some concern about parking around there, public safety 23 in that parking lot. 24 I feel that that's a detriment that 83
1 definitely -- so, I can see the necessity for the 2 sign, although not one of that size. And I think that 3 primarily the LED sign (unintelligible) of the 4 property is the reason for that increased size. 5 Thank you, Madam Chair. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 7 Member Canup? 8 MEMBER CANUP: Isn't there an Ordinance 9 against a changing sign like that? 10 MR. AMOLSH: It's not a prohibited 11 sign. In fact, we've got several in Novi now. LED 12 displays are not supposed to scroll or flash or blink 13 or anything like that. The fact that it is LED 14 changeable copy sign is not a prohibited sign. 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Is that a new change? 16 MR. AMOLSH: (Unintelligible.) 17 MEMBER CANUP: For some reason I had in 18 my mind years ago that those signs were not permitted, 19 the changeable script on them. 20 MR. SAVEN: You're taking issue with 21 the pulsating, the flashing, (unintelligible) was a 22 problem for these particular type of signs. Also, the 23 scrolling aspect and the time factor that was 24 associated with the scrolls. So it became a 84
1 distraction, rather than a message bearing type of 2 sign. 3 So those issues now, I believe, have 4 been corrected for these LED type of signs. 5 MEMBER CANUP: I guess another question 6 I have was about the after-hour urgent care in two 7 different locations. 8 MS. GLEASON: The urgent care sign that 9 is (unintelligible) just to let them know that it's 10 there. The one, the smaller one, the 16 square feet, 11 is the one that's at the door to give direction as far 12 as where to go in, to enter the building there. 13 That's our urgent care. And that's right at the 14 building, if you look at the drawing. I don't have 15 that in front of me. 16 MS. DAVENPORT: On the site plan, it's 17 location number seven, is the 16 square foot sign; 18 which is to identify the actual entry to the urgent 19 care. 20 MS. GLEASON: (Unintelligible) there's 21 also a sign of urgent care at the same entrance. We 22 don't want people to be confused as far as entry into 23 that urgent care entrance. There's a lobby and veers 24 to the left, and the clinics are beyond that. So that 85
1 was the proper place for it to go. If that answers 2 that question. 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer? 4 MEMBER FISCHER: So that building 5 houses two other (unintelligible.) 6 MS. GLEASON: There are clinics in the 7 building, chiropractic clinic is in there. And the 8 urgent care is run by Huron Valley/Sinai Hospital. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Bauer? 11 MEMBER BAUER: I'm really confused. I 12 would like to see a whole sign set-up at this 13 location, not just the ones that they're -- 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thanks for taking 15 the words out of my mouth. 16 How many signs do you have altogether 17 now, with these two? Are there signs on the building, 18 as well? 19 MS. DAVENPORT: On the site plan, there 20 are approximately, I think, ten locations noted. Some 21 signage that is at the site right now is to be remove 22 and replaced with new copies. Specifically, the 23 lettering that's currently on the building facade 24 would be removed and replaced. 86
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's not going to be 2 removed. It's going to be changed, correct? 3 MS. GLEASON: The sign that says 4 Detroit Medical Center Health Center, that would be 5 removed from the building, bearing our new name that 6 was approved; that goes on the east tower of the east 7 side of the building; that would replace that DMC 8 Health Center sign. 9 The sign at the road is one right now 10 that is shared between the two properties that we're 11 trying to give a distinct identification for the 12 health center or the clinic building, versus the rehab 13 center that's there on the other property, which sign 14 is at the entrance. 15 So we're trying to give the two 16 distinct identifiers for the two different buildings, 17 two different properties. 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I have no idea 19 what's where. When I went up there, actually last 20 weekend, I counted five signs on the building. I went 21 back there yesterday, and there was some frayed pieces 22 of plastic in the front. There was a new sign in 23 front of the front building. 24 But I think this is very, very 87
1 confusingly presented, and I would suggest that this 2 be tabled and represented, because I don't know what 3 I'm looking at. 4 MEMBER BAUER: That's right. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer? 6 MEMBER FISCHER: And maybe also as an 7 exception, as well, when there's so many buildings 8 within one organization, I would almost prefer in 9 both, for one larger sign giving directions, as 10 opposed to -- I see a location number 12 on here -- 12 11 different signs attempting to confuse people going 12 there, as well as the Board. 13 So that could even be taken into 14 consideration. I'll just throw that out as a comment 15 to the Petitioner. 16 MS. GLEASON: I would like to say will 17 all the various locations and so forth, are for us to 18 identify, as far as (unintelligible.) They were 19 coming down. I think we're asking directly for the 20 sign at the entrance -- there's two signs, one at the 21 entrance, which would show (unintelligible) 16 square 22 feet, who want to go to urgent care. The second is 23 one below -- the other things are on (unintelligible) 24 locations; the things that we're going to take down, 88
1 replace, whatever. 2 And I think that's where the confusion 3 is coming in. But this drawing that we have right now 4 is for use within our own organization, as far as the 5 number of signs. 6 I apologize for the confusion. 7 MS. DAVENPORT: There are actually 8 seven signs on the plan, only two of which we're 9 seeking the variance. The signs at location number 10 nine and location number seven. All of the other 11 signs are either existing and are going to stay, or 12 are existing and are going to have face changes. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Still -- 14 MS. DAVENPORT: Well, if I might 15 respectively submit, you have it right there. All of 16 the locations of the signage that are to stay are 17 noted right on this print. Only highlighted items are 18 numbers nine and seven, which we are seeking the 19 variance. 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, as you can see, 21 there's about five of us that don't understand it. So 22 maybe you need to look at it again. Because I had it 23 this thing, I laid it on my kitchen floor and I was 24 confused then. I was hoping I would come here and be 89
1 the only one that was stupid, but I obviously am not. 2 MS. GLEASON: May I ask what better can 3 we do? 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You need to spell 5 out how many signs are involved, regardless if you 6 don't need variances. All of that criteria is looked 7 at, okay. We want to see what's being identified here 8 and for what purpose. 9 I understand that you're saying these 10 are the only two you're looking at, but we're talking 11 about other signs that may change, they go, they stay. 12 MS. DAVENPORT: All of the locations 13 are on the print that you have right now. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I understand that, 15 but that's not very clear for any of us. I know all 16 these people at the table are a pretty bright group. 17 They don't usually get confused. 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: You read me anything 19 that's on that that's legible. There's nothing on 20 there that you can even read. I suggest that you come 21 out with a plot of the property. You show me the 22 existing signs, give me a picture of the existing 23 signs; give me a rendering of what you want to change. 24 What's coming down, what's new, and 90
1 summarize it. Because if you're going to ask me to 2 move on this tonight, it's a denial because I don't 3 understand it. I'm not going to vote yes for 4 something I don't understand. 5 MS. GLEASON: We could put it in a 6 different format and we have that available. 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: Alan, can you help 8 them with that? 9 MR. AMOLSH: Certainly will. 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: There you go. 11 MEMBER CANUP: We have a Motion on the 12 floor. How do we handle that? 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, I made a Motion. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I didn't know it was 15 seconded. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: And the issue here is 17 what is confusing is it is an existing Woodland 18 Medical Center, which is not part of the DMC. The DMC 19 has undergone a lot of changes in their internal 20 structure. 21 Now the Huron Valley/Sinai Hospital and 22 other people have become part of the group. There's 23 going to be a changing of certain names, and also rest 24 of the signs are being -- I've been in that building 91
1 umpteen times, and I know what the signs and what they 2 are telling you where to go for different departments. 3 4 They are what they are, and they're not 5 going to change. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup? 7 MEMBER CANUP: I guess we need to ask 8 these people to come back to us with a more defined 9 plan for the total sign package for the total piece of 10 property. 11 And in order to do that -- we have a 12 Motion on the floor -- 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Oh, I can withdraw 14 that Motion. 15 MEMBER CANUP: That was the question. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: If you are confused, I 17 can withdraw it. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: All right. 19 Thank you. 20 The Motion's been withdrawn. 21 Is there another Motion? 22 Member Fischer? 23 MEMBER FISCHER: I move that we table 24 case 04-125, and give the Petitioner a new opportunity 92
1 to present the Board with a site plan, as discussed. 2 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 3 Question, when do they have to have 4 them, so we'll see it next month? 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Denise, do you have 6 it? 7 DENISE ANDERSON: I believe it's 8 December 14th. 9 MS. GLEASON: We have information by 10 way of photos. We can put it in a different format 11 and return with that. 12 MR. SAVEN: I'd just like to point out 13 to the Board, several issues were not before the Board 14 in terms of signage which is there and the signage is 15 subject to change. 16 And I'm concerned about the signs that 17 are subject to change, Alan, because -- based on the 18 fact, we only have one sign per parcel of 19 (unintelligible.) If that signage is going to be 20 changing, does that not have to be before the Board to 21 adjust the (unintelligible.) 22 MR. AMOLSH: (Unintelligible.) 23 MR. SAVEN: I just want to make sure 24 cover that to keep them from coming back another time. 93
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Right. 2 MR. AMOLSH: These changes are 3 permitted. Just for the Board's information 4 (unintelligible) sign in the center, both sides, with 5 (unintelligible) rehab wall sign, which was approved 6 by the Board in the past. 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: It's my recollection 8 that this applicant has bene before us at least twice. 9 MR. AMOLSH: That's correct. 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: I counted five 11 relatively large signs, and I've got seven to twelve 12 -- let's get a complication of what's exactly there, 13 what they want to do. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 15 So all those in favor of tabling this 16 case, say aye? 17 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Any opposed? 19 Okay. 20 We'll see you next month. 21 MS. GLEASON: Thank you for your time. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 23 24 The final case tonight, is case number 94
1 04-126, filed by Marcos Makohon for K-4 Architecture, 2 LLC, for Citizen's Bank on 12 Mile Road. 3 Good evening. 4 MR. MAKOHON: Good evening, Madam Chair 5 and Board Members. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And you are? 7 MR. MAKOHON: Marcos Makohon for K-4 8 Architecture. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please 10 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our 11 secretary. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or 13 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-126? 14 MR. MAKOHON: I do. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 17 You may proceed. 18 MR. MAKOHON: Again, my presentation 19 this evening is a result of part of our plan being 20 approved by the Planning Commission, with the request 21 to present this to you, as the actual lack of the 22 implementation or the waiver of the requirement for 23 the loading and unloading zone. 24 This case is presented to you, not from 95
1 a hardship point of view, but from a futility point of 2 view; the validity of having this kind of a space on 3 specifically a financial institution. 4 The business of the bank, there are two 5 main types of deliveries. One is clerical in nature, 6 bringing forms, bringing paperwork. Those are done 7 entirely with a small minivan, which occupies a 8 singular space. The other one, which I will not 9 elaborate on the public forum, is monies delivered to 10 the bank. And that's after-hours and a great deal of 11 security, also does not use a well designated loading 12 space for loading that. 13 Our main thrust of the layout of the 14 building was to provide client parking at just the 15 front door, and a secured way for employees to come 16 in, obviously, during off hours. 17 The plan that you have in front of you 18 shows the possibility of a 36 square foot -- 360 19 square foot loading space, which is not conveniently 20 located. It's opposite the front door, opposite of 21 the side door. So that's what we're presenting this 22 case to you, for your consideration. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 24 It's pretty clear that there's no one 96
1 out in the audience to make a comment. 2 There were 31 notices mailed; no 3 objections, no approvals. 4 Building Department? 5 MR. SAVEN: I just want to bring up to 6 the Board that this is a similar case of several 7 similar cases before you, basically having the same 8 concern; not only the issue of loading and non- 9 loading, but the other issue of four foot greenbelt 10 area as a drive-up. 11 This is basically their business. 12 That's what they did. And what they're trying to do 13 right now is to handle this basically through an 14 Ordinance change. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 16 MR. SAVEN: And this is very similar, 17 because of the loading and unloading areas, because of 18 security issues, as I understand it, as one of the 19 things that they're taking into consideration. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So this is up for 21 review. 22 MR. SAVEN: This is up -- from my 23 understanding, it is up for review. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 97
1 Thank you. 2 Member Fischer? 3 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm sorry -- 4 MR. MAKOHON: If I may interject, we do 5 have a second site plan in process, which we again, 6 did not include the loading and unloading and the four 7 foot screen, hoping that there would be some 8 resolution prior to us coming. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: So we're going to see 10 you again, possibly? 11 MR. MAKOHON: Hopefully not. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: They've given us ample 13 evidence. There's no use for a loading area in the 14 back. It would more so be a detriment to public 15 welfare, if they were required to put this loading 16 area in. So if there's no other comment by the Board 17 Members, I'd like to make a Motion in case number, 04- 18 126, that we approve the variance requested, due to a 19 practical difficult shown, given that there's no use 20 for the loading area; and in order to keep public 21 safety secured. 22 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and 24 seconded. 98
1 Any further discussion? 2 Seeing none, Denise, would you please 3 call the roll. 4 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 6 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 7 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 8 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 11 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 12 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 16 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 17 zero. 18 MR. MAKOHON: Thank you very much. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has 20 been granted. 21 Good luck to you. 22 MR. MAKOHON: Thank you. 23 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And that leaves us 99
1 to our other matters. 2 Denise, you want to bring -- evidently, 3 Mr. Bowman is requesting a six month extension for the 4 Expo sign? 5 Member Fischer? 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Given the size of this 7 and given the subcontracting problems that he has 8 written us about, I would move that we grant the six 9 month extension for the case you've cited. 10 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and 12 seconded. 13 Is there any further discussion? 14 I have a question. 15 Would it be from -- six months from 16 now? What date? Do you know? 17 MR. SAVEN: Should be six months from 18 now. That gets us into better weather, probably 19 closure of the project and getting closer to that 20 time. 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 22 Thank you. 23 Denise, do you need to call roll or -- 24 Denise, would you please call the roll. 100
1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer? 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan? 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 5 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer? 6 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 7 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup? 8 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 13 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to 14 zero. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Just to make 16 Member Fischer happy. 17 Okay. Moving right along. 18 Case number two, Harold's Frame Shop. 19 We received correspondence indicating that the light 20 was on actually at 10;30 at night. So we contacted 21 the Petitioner. 22 MR. AMOLSH: Okay. I contacted Planet 23 Neon who put the sign up. I heard from Planet Neon 24 and they said they're not allowed on the property any 101
1 more. They're involved in some litigation with 2 Harold's. 3 But I got a call from the manager of 4 Harold's who said the two managers were away deer 5 hunting, and they would fix the problem as soon as 6 they got back. I don't know if they fixed it or not, 7 because I don't go by there. (Unintelligible.) Has 8 anybody driven by there? 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer? 10 MEMBER FISCHER: I have not been by 11 lately, but given the fact that there is litigation 12 going on; I'm the one that brought it up and the 13 managers were away, I wouldn't see a reason to let it 14 go for this long. And we'll revisit it at next 15 month's meeting to see if the managers contacted you; 16 see if the litigation's done. 17 I'll drive by there tonight and I'll 18 call you tomorrow to let you know what's going on. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 20 Member Brennan? 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Two issues. 22 I'm going to eat some crow, but not pay 23 some money. 24 The New Market sign, next to Gus 102
1 O'Connor's, was amended. They were going to make it 2 smaller. That was a Motion by me; and that's crow 3 that I'm swallowing right now. 4 Second was a number of issues that's 5 been bugging me for sometime, regarding the 6 chairmanship. When I joined the Board in, I think 7 '96, we had a -- we were rotating chairman. And when 8 it didn't happen last year, I raised the question. 9 And I went back and checked with Mr. Harrington. 10 And yes, indeed, there was not a 11 policy, but there was an understanding on the Board, 12 due to direction from the City Council, who challenged 13 the Board to rotate chairman, because there was a 14 perception that was Board was getting very repetitive. 15 And with new people in place, new 16 faces, new ideas, new ways of doing things, it seemed 17 to make it better. And that was the case for Mr. 18 Harrington's duration; that's why I raised that 19 question a year ago. 20 So just to fill everybody in, we had 21 been doing it for awhile, and there was a reason for 22 doing it back in the Quinn, the Matt Quinn 23 administration. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, if you wait 103
1 awhile, you may have a whole new election. I'm 2 running for re-appointment. We did have an election, 3 so I mean -- 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: It wasn't anything in 5 the rules, but we had a running understanding -- 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's a tradition. 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: A tradition -- 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: If you can wait till 9 February, we may be running elections anyway. 10 Before we go, could we check -- verify 11 our list, here. We've got one more, clarification of 12 time limits on mock-up signs. 13 MR. AMOLSH: That case was Better 14 Health Market that -- in your Board rules or 15 regulations or whatever, it says that the sign has to 16 be removed in five days after it's denied. It doesn't 17 really say if it's approved. 18 And my recollection of the Board was -- 19 wanted the Petitioner to be allowed to keep the mock- 20 up up before the store opened, so he'd have some 21 identification. I don't know if I'm misinformed about 22 that or -- there's nothing in writing that says that. 23 In this case, technically, they weren't 24 approved for what they've got out there. They were 104
1 approved for the smaller sign. So I would like some 2 clarification from the Board or some rule of procedure 3 that we can give people telling them that they have to 4 remove it, even if it's approved. 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, you're in that 6 business, if they walk out of here with the 7 understanding of a variance request -- and in this 8 case, something less -- they go back to their sign 9 company -- what's typical, 90 days? 10 MR. AMOLSH: 30 to 60. 11 MEMBER CANUP: The mock-up sign is put 12 up there for our benefit. So we can see that sign and 13 see what it's going to look like. It's not put up 14 there for the benefit of the Petitioner to have an 15 advertisement. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Right. 17 MEMBER CANUP: And as far as I'm 18 concerned, when he walks out of here, that sign is an 19 illegal sign. That's my opinion. 20 MR. AMOLSH: Probably (unintelligible) 21 is that a Board stipulation for -- above removing the 22 sign or mock-up? 23 MR. GILLIAM: That's part of the rules 24 of procedure. 105
1 MR. AMOLSH: Rules of procedure? 2 MR. GILLIAM: I looked earlier to see 3 if that was addressed in the sign Ordinance, itself, 4 and it isn't. I think ideally that's something we 5 should address -- the sign Ordinance, too -- in terms 6 of enforcement, a violation of your rules and 7 procedures isn't something that Alan and the rest of 8 the Building Department can really act on this. 9 You can take it into consideration or 10 you can act on it, but it's not something that the 11 City has formal enforcement power. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is that something we 13 can refer to Ordinance review, again, to add that? 14 MR. SAVEN: Let me just throw something 15 out here. 16 I think it would be something to take a 17 look at. 18 When that mock-up sign goes up, that 19 building's wall is up. Normally the building -- 20 there's a point -- there's a point of maybe within 90 21 days, you're going to be taking occupancy of that 22 building, relative to that particular issue. 23 So we know the building's up; we know 24 that things are going to happen within that 90 day 106
1 period. Maybe that's something you want to take into 2 consideration, if you consider putting a time factor 3 that's involved in the mock-up sign and when the mock- 4 up sign comes down. 5 You know that if they're here, they're 6 here based upon two months, possibly before they're 7 going to open, maybe have 30 day requirement. 8 Something along this line. Maximum 30 days for 9 approval or if the sign is not approved, the sign 10 comes down within five days. 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Is it really a problem 12 we need to fix? I mean, a mock-up isn't something 13 they want forever -- 14 MR. AMOLSH: Just need an amendment of 15 the rules and regulations to say, mock-up will be 16 taken down five days after meeting, period. Right 17 now, the case with Mr. Johnson from the Cornell Sign 18 Company, read those rules and said it doesn't say here 19 that I have to remove it if it's been approved. It 20 says, you have to remove it if it's been denied. 21 MEMBER CANUP: I think the five days is 22 accurate. 23 MEMBER BAUER: That's five days. I 24 mean, the mock-up is put up so we can see what's 107
1 there. And when we say, yes, you can put up a sign, 2 he's got to put up a sign. 3 MEMBER CANUP: Or, no, you can't. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Or, no, you can't. 5 MEMBER CANUP: Here's an example of 6 Staples. They're going to leave that sign up there as 7 long as they possibly can -- until their permanent 8 sign shows up. And I think the five days is more than 9 adequate. In fact, I think when they walk out of 10 here, they need to have notice -- it has to come down. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Just as long as you 12 don't suggest that we go in after the meeting and take 13 them down. 14 MEMBER CANUP: I think what needs to be 15 done, five days, out of the way, on the application, 16 on the side of the application where -- is there 17 anything that states that they're going to put up a 18 mock-up? I think on the application it needs to be 19 stated that that sign must come down within five days 20 after the date of the meeting of the Board; whether 21 the Board acts on it or not. 22 Because if we table it -- we know what 23 that sign looks like. It doesn't need to be there for 24 another 30 days. That sign needs to come down at the 108
1 first meeting, after the application is submitted. 2 And if they table -- if they ask to be tabled, it 3 comes down then, not after the meeting which it was 4 tabled for. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 6 Member Sanghvi? 7 MEMBER CANUP: That would be my opinion 8 of how to do it. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Sanghvi? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: I don't understand 11 this discussion at all. What difference does it make? 12 It cost money to put a sign up there. And if it is 13 granted, the proper sign is granted and 14 (unintelligible), what harm does it do? If at all, it 15 does good for the business. What's wrong with 16 something that does good for the business? 17 MEMBER FISCHER: I agree with Member 18 Sanghvi. 19 MEMBER BAUER: They're having it 20 instead of putting up a sign. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, we'll just stick 22 a (unintelligible) as long as it takes 90 days. 23 Within 90 days, the new sign should go up and the old 24 should come down. It -- 109
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll give you an 2 example, Mav. The sign in front of that medical 3 building on 12 Mile is all shredded. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: I know. They didn't 5 make holes in the plastic, the guy who put it in, so 6 if the wind blows, it blows away. 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: So how long is that 8 crap going to sit there blowing in the wind? 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: That should go. I 10 agree. 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Five days. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: If it is an eyesore, 13 it should go. I have nothing against it. But like 14 the sign on the Better Health Store, where old Vic's 15 used to be, I mean, it's still there. 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: It's not an open 17 building -- it's not an open business. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: They're going to have 19 a smaller sign put in there. What's the difference? 20 MEMBER CANUP: Well, what about the 21 ones we turn down? 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah, it should come 23 down. I agree. 24 MEMBER CANUP: It should be taken down 110
1 in five days. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: I'm not talking about 3 the ones that are turned down. I'm talking about the 4 ones that we approve. 5 MEMBER BAUER: Only if it's denied. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I tend to support 7 the ones that we deny, that they should be removed 8 within five days. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: It already says that. 10 I'm talking about the ones that have 11 been approved. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I don't know how big 13 of a problem this has been in the past. 14 MEMBER CANUP: You know, we should make 15 them all come in five days, and be done with it. That 16 makes Al's job real easy. These are just -- all these 17 are, are for our benefit to see what this thing's 18 going to look like. It's not to be an advertising 19 sign. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I agree. 21 Okay. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a Motion. 23 I would make a Motion that amend our 24 sign application to say that the mock-ups are to be 111
1 removed five days after a Hearing; whether approved or 2 denied. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Or tabled? 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: Or tabled. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: I have a question for 6 the attorney. 7 Is it within our jurisdiction to add 8 this language to an Ordinance? 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, it's not an 10 Ordinance. It's the application. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: The application is all 12 part of the Ordinance. It's not separate from it. 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Gilliam? 14 MEMBER BAUER: It's approved by the 15 attorneys. 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: It's all part of the 17 signed application. 18 MR. GILLIAM: I think it's within the 19 discretion to modify the application. In terms of 20 what the enforcement power is if someone doesn't 21 comply, that is where -- 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: That is where you have 23 a fuzzy line. 24 MR. GILLIAM: That's where the 112
1 discussion is going to come in, because Alan or Don or 2 anybody from that Department wouldn't be able to go 3 out and issue a ticket or anything like that, if 4 there's non-compliance, with the terms of the 5 application; because there's non-compliance with your 6 rules and procedures. 7 It's all in terms of how you handle 8 cases currently, compliance or non-compliance with the 9 application or the rules would be a different story. 10 That is something you'd be able to take into 11 consideration. 12 MEMBER BAUER: I really don't care if 13 they leave it up until the new one comes in, but it's 14 got to be a time frame. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Right. 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll withdraw my 17 Motion and ask the attorney, would it be smarter for 18 us, rather than moving tonight, leave this with you to 19 do a little investigation and make some consulting 20 recommendations? 21 MR. GILLIAM: That's fine. 22 What I was going to indicate anyway was 23 that I think it would be appropriate, in addition to 24 any changes being made to the application, that you 113
1 make changes to your rules and procedures. And the 2 rules and procedures provide that any proposed changes 3 have to be submitted to you in advance. 4 So you can't really make any changes to 5 the rules and procedures tonight anyway regarding 6 that. 7 If you like, we can take a look at it 8 and we can have it back on the agenda either in 9 January or February, formally on the rules and the 10 application, as appropriate. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 12 Is everybody in favor of that? 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yep. 14 MEMBER BAUER: All set for that. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Anything else? 16 MEMBER CANUP: Yes, yes. 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup? 18 Glenda's Market. 19 MEMBER CANUP: Glenda's, whatever it 20 is, presented us a nice site plan with a picket fence 21 around the front, nice white fence. And when I drove 22 by there, oh, a few days ago, I didn't see anything 23 different than what I saw before. 24 Al, is that a good assumption or have I 114
1 missed something? 2 MR. AMOLSH: No, I haven't seen it 3 either. 4 MEMBER BAUER: The roads going back are 5 changed and they don't have their junk in the back. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: That's why we have 7 them coming back in front of us. 8 MEMBER BAUER: But there's no fence. 9 MEMBER CANUP: You know, they agreed. 10 They submitted the site plan, showed us what they were 11 going to do, and that's been what, 60 days? 12 MEMBER FISCHER: More than that. 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: It's been months and 14 years that the City's been at war with them. And I 15 would suggest that we request they come back and see 16 us. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: They are already, in a 18 year. That was the point of not doing continuing 19 jurisdiction, and doing -- making them come back in a 20 year. 21 Didn't we approve it for one year? 22 MEMBER BAUER: One year. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes, we did. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: So we will be seeing 115
1 them come summertime. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: August. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: I think August, as 4 well. That's the exact reason I did not want just 5 continuing jurisdiction. You've heard many times that 6 that does not -- tougher for Mr. Gilliam to prove and 7 to get things done. So that's why we brought it back 8 to us. 9 MEMBER GILLIAM: So, Alan, do you want 10 to, like, alert them about this fence? 11 MR. AMOLSH: I'll give them a call. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Because the ground's 13 going to be hard, and they're not going to be able, 14 and that's going to be an excuse. 15 MR. AMOLSH: Right. 16 MEMBER CANUP: I would suggest that 17 someone write them and then have it on record, because 18 of the problems that have been surfacing in the past, 19 and that's why we have a paper trail. 20 MR. AMOLSH: I will do that. 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 22 Anything else? 23 MR. SAVEN: Yes. 24 If I may, I am saddened we are going to 116
1 lose Denise. Denise is taking a job -- I can't have 2 anybody work for me. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: What's wrong with you, 4 Don? 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, it's the fact 6 that he does such a wonderful job that they're so 7 excelled and they keep getting promoted and excelling 8 throughout City Hall. 9 MR. SAVEN: Denise is taking a job with 10 another Department. This is in line with what her 11 forte is, and she's just a Cracker Jack person, and I 12 will definitely miss her. I think she's taken very 13 good care of the Board, and I don't know what else to 14 say, but she's an exceptional employee. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: I will say one thing, 16 Don, your request is denied. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, you get used to 19 people and they just keep moving on. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Denise, I'm sure I 21 echo the other Members' comments, my comments, but I 22 have worked with Denise for the last year and it was 23 kind of scary when Sarah was leaving and we had all 24 these things going on with the Board at the time, a 117
1 year ago. And it was kind of a nightmare for me. I'm 2 shaking in my boots as the newest chair, but you made 3 the transition very well, and I wish you all the best. 4 5 And I truly enjoyed working with you 6 and I am going to miss you, but I don't know what my 7 future is yet, either. We'll know in January. And 8 then after that, I do wish you all the best. And I 9 can certainly see why you were snatched out of Don's 10 Department. 11 MR. SAVEN: Hopefully she'll be here 12 one more meeting for the transition, but I definitely 13 will miss her, no doubt about it. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So I can come and be 15 Denise's replacement then. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: That's fine. 17 MEMBER BAUER: As we have done in the 18 past, shouldn't there be a letter from the Board to 19 the Council? 20 MR. SAVEN: Yes. 21 MEMBER BAUER: The two that are up? 22 MR. SAVEN: The two that are up, I 23 believe they're taking applications right now, if I'm 24 not mistaken. 118
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, they moved our 2 interview date to the 20th. It was supposed to be the 3 13th. So they advised us that we're serving at the 4 pleasure of Council at this point. So we will 5 interview in December, and then they'll -- we'll find 6 out the appointments in January. 7 Member Fischer? 8 MEMBER FISCHER: One last -- going back 9 to that whole chair thing that Member Brennan brought 10 up -- that was Member Brennan, right? I keep mixing 11 you two up. 12 Can you tell me more about the 13 environment back then, because we've had such problems 14 with people staying on the Board. You know, we're 15 having transitions with the staff we're working with. 16 I voted -- I don't think I actually voted -- but 17 either way -- yes, I did vote for Cindy's chair, and I 18 think that missing a chair would not have been the 19 smartest thing to do at the time, just to answer your 20 -- why I voted. So I voted for Cindy's chair. 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: My question wasn't 22 voting Cindy's chair. Cindy was voted chair 23 unanimously. I was just -- I wanted to go back into 24 the history, because my memory, having been on the 119
1 Board for eight or nine years, was they always 2 rotated. 3 I asked Jim what was the basis for 4 this. And the basis was, in the late '80's, early 5 '90's, there was a continual Board make up, that 6 seemed to vote without any discussion. Okay. It was a 7 rubber stamp board. And it got the City into trouble 8 on a couple of occasions. 9 And without going into specifics, it 10 got them into trouble. And at the time, in the early 11 '90's, there were three, I think -- no, there were 12 four attorneys on the Board -- Harrington, Nuvan(ph) 13 -- my neighbor, Harris, and the guy that runs the 14 trailer park. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Danna(ph). 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Danna. And it was 17 their agreement that, you know, let's shake this up 18 every year, so that there's no accusation that 19 everything is boom, boom, boom. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: No, I understand. I'm 21 not talking about Cindy at all. It 22 was(unintelligible) about a smart transition, at a 23 time when we were having (unintelligible) on the 24 Board, as well. 120
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I mean, I don't 2 think you're suggesting (unintelligible) tonight. But 3 -- I mean, were you? 4 MEMBER FISCHER: No, no. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I mean, the 6 elections are in March. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm talking about the 8 transitions back when we voted. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Oh, right. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: A lot of different 11 things -- Sarah, me. We had people missing, 12 alternates missing. She just talked about how Denise 13 was the new person in with us; that is the transition 14 period that I'm talking about, back when we voted, and 15 why I didn't think it's smart to change chair people 16 at that time. 17 Thank you. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 19 Can I go home now? 20 MEMBER CANUP: That's a good policy, if 21 you have a good chair. If you have a bad chair, then 22 that's a horrible policy. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Sorry. I didn't -- 24 MEMBER CANUP: I'm not saying anybody's 121
1 good or bad. I'm just saying it's a good policy when 2 you have a good chairman. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Yep. 4 MEMBER CANUP; If you have a lousy 5 chairman, six months is too long. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Yeah, I mean, 7 obviously, that's common sense. 8 MEMBER CANUP: And then you're stuck 9 with policy. I think the policy would be if you 10 rotate, that gives you protection whether you like it 11 or not. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Right. 13 MEMBER CANUP: And if my memory is 14 right, back when I was on the Board with Mr. Bauer, 15 back quite a few years ago, when I left that Board 16 shortly after the policy made that Board, that that 17 chairman should rotate, and the members should serve 18 more than one term consecutively as chairman, Board 19 policy. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I really don't think 21 it's going to happen again, especially after tonight. 22 But I mean, seriously, come March, there's going to 23 be, hopefully, a consistency of membership to, and 24 people wanting to go fill all the positions on the 122
1 Board. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: A common sense 3 approach completing this is, don't fix something that 4 ain't broke. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I appreciate that. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: And with that, I make 7 a Motion to adjourn. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Second. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Under one condition, 10 I can say Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all of 11 you and Happy Holidays, and Hanukkah. 12 This meeting's adjourned. 13 (The meeting adjourned 14 at 9:38 p.m.) 15 - - - - - - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 123
1 C__E__R__T__I__F__I__C__A__T__E_ 2 3 I do hereby certify that I have 4 recorded stenographically the proceedings had and testimony 5 taken in the above-entitled matter at the time and place 6 hereinbefore set forth, and that the foregoing is a full, 7 true and correct transcript of proceedings had in the 8 above-entitled matter; and I do further certify that the 9 foregoing transcript, consisting of (122) typewritten 10 pages, is a true and correct transcript of my said 11 stenograph notes. 12 13 14 ________________________________________ 15 Machelle R. Billingslea-Moore, Reporter. 16 17 __________ 18 Date
|