| 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, June 7, 2005. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: 1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, June 7, 2005 3 At 7:30 p.m. 4 - - - - - 5 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. I'd 6 like to call to order the May 2005 Zoning Board 7 of Appeals meeting -- June, 2005 Zoning Board of 8 Appeals meeting. 9 Mrs. Backus, would you please 10 call the roll. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 12 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 13 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Here. 15 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 16 MEMBER CANUP: Here. 17 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Present. 19 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Present. 21 GAIL BACKUS: And Member Sanghvi? 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. 23 GAIL BACKUS: All present. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: The meeting is
3 1 now in session. Let's go over some rules of 2 conduct for tonight. 3 Please turn off all cell phones; 4 and remember, five minutes will be allowed 5 for each individual addressing the Board; 10 6 minutes for a group. 7 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a 8 Hearing Board empowered by the Novi City 9 Charter to hear appeals seeking variances 10 from the application of the Novi Zoning 11 Ordinance. It takes a vote of at less four 12 members present to approve a variance 13 request; and a vote of the majority present 14 to deny a request. We do have six Board 15 Members here tonight, so all decisions will 16 be final. 17 Are there any agenda changes? 18 MR. SAVEN: Just under other 19 matters, we do have a request for an 20 extension from the Zoning Board of Appeals, 21 variance request. And it was dealing with 22 case number 04-127, dealing with 1935 West 23 Lake Drive, requesting a 40 day extension. 24 We'll bring it under other matters.
4 1 MEMBER FISCHER: That sounds 2 good. 3 Are there any other changes? 4 All right. Then we'll move for 5 approval as amended. 6 All in favor, say aye? 7 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: All opposed? 9 The ayes have it. 10 Any changes to the minutes? 11 We do have in our packet from 12 May, 2005, which was last month. 13 Seeing no changes, move for 14 approval as submitted. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: So moved. 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Second. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: All in favor 18 say aye? 19 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: All opposed? 21 The ayes have it. 22 We'll move to the public remarks 23 section of the Board Meeting tonight. If 24 anyone wishes to address the Board on any
5 1 matter not on our agenda tonight, please 2 come forward. 3 However, all comments related to 4 a case on the agenda should be held until 5 that case is called. 6 Is there anyone in the audience? 7 Seeing none, we'll close the 8 public remarks part of the agenda. 9 10 And we'll move to Case Number 11 05-028, filed by Tracey Shipley, for 25890 12 Strath Haven. 13 Ms. Shipley is present. 14 You were sworn in last month, so 15 you're still under oath. 16 MS. SHIPLEY: Okay. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Go ahead. 18 State your name for the record. 19 MS. SHIPLEY: My name is Tracey 20 Shipley. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: And present, 22 please. 23 MS. SHIPLEY: Okay. Hello, 24 again. As you, know, I was here last month
6 1 and we talked about some changes that needed 2 to be made with my property regarding the 3 five foot from the road. You wanted me to 4 move the house back to 40 feet from the 5 road; and the new plans and plot plans you 6 have in front of you show that I have done 7 just that. And I now meet the guidelines of 8 the homeowner's association requires of me 9 or requests of me, I should say; as well as 10 what you requested of me last month. 11 I would like to ask, though, I 12 don't anticipate any objections, but if 13 there are any, I would like to request to 14 speak afterwards, because I'm very well 15 prepared for anything that might come up. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Excellent. 17 Anything else? 18 MS. SHIPLEY: That's it. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 20 Well, as -- there were 31 21 notices mailed; two approvals and zero 22 objections. 23 So, does anyone in the audience 24 wish to address the Board regarding this
7 1 case? 2 Please come down, sir. 3 And if there is anyone else who 4 will be presenting regarding this case, go 5 ahead and step behind this gentleman, and 6 we'll move along fairly rapidly tonight. 7 Go ahead and state your name for 8 the record. 9 MR. NELSON: Greg Nelson of 10 Pioneer Meadow representing the homeowner's 11 association. 12 I was here last month, as well, 13 and we have worked with Tracey in terms of 14 satisfying the requirements of 40 feet in 15 front and 40 feet in the rear; 15 feet on 16 both sides. The rear is, you know, very 17 close, so that's -- we don't have an issue 18 with that. So I do have one question and 19 that is -- first of all, we do support her 20 plans and her revised plot plan, and so on. 21 The question I have is, if there 22 are changes to the plot plan, and/or 23 foundation plan and so on, what is the 24 mechanism or the process so that the
8 1 homeowner's association and/or provide the 2 opportunity to, you know, review those 3 after, you know, after approval is given 4 tonight -- assuming that's the case. 5 (Unintelligible) support this. 6 But I'd like to know as you go 7 through the process of review plans and plot 8 plans and foundation plans, floor plans and 9 so on, how do we stay involved with that? 10 MEMBER FISCHER: We'll go to our 11 expert here, Mr. Saven. I'm sure he can address 12 your concerns. 13 MR. SAVEN: Thank you. 14 Couple of things that come to 15 pass, number one, what we're here for now is 16 the Zoning requirement in regards to the 17 building aspect of the building; the 18 construction of the building, the floors, 19 the design of the floors, what have you. 20 These are Building Code issues that we deal 21 with. 22 MR. NELSON: Okay. 23 MR. SAVEN: I cannot -- 24 certainly, there are State laws
9 1 (unintelligible) what they're allowed to do. 2 As far as the design of the home is strictly 3 up to the architect. 4 The parameters of the home, the 5 setback requirements is what we are dealing 6 with here tonight. 7 MR. NELSON: So this is 8 primarily setbacks? 9 MR. SAVEN: If you say the 10 change to the home is the footprint of the 11 building, if it's less than, I certainly 12 don't have a problem. But the only 13 difference that we may have is if it doesn't 14 comply with all (unintelligible), to be 15 compatible with the adjacent homes in the 16 immediate vicinity -- 17 MR. NELSON: Right. 18 MR. SAVEN: -- the homes around 19 that area. 20 So if there's a change in the 21 plans, yes, we could have this requirement 22 for you to provide or the applicant to 23 provide a change in plan to us; and with 24 that in mind, the homeowner's association
10 1 should be (unintelligible) take a look at 2 it, too. 3 MR. NELSON: So that should be 4 the process. 5 MR. SAVEN: That's their 6 prerogative whether they want to do that. 7 Different homeowner's associations have 8 different requirements. Building Code 9 requirements are one thing; structural 10 designing the building means 11 (unintelligible). Setbacks another. And 12 that's why we -- 13 RIGHT2: So this is primarily a 14 setback discussion. 15 Okay. Thank you. 16 At this point, we approve the 17 plan. We don't have any issue with -- the 18 only request we have, is to get a new copy 19 of the plan, which she agreed to provide to 20 us. 21 MR. SAVEN: We would request a 22 homeowner's association approval of the plan 23 before we approve the plans, too, okay. 24 MR. NELSON: Okay. So you want
11 1 that in the form of just a letter or a 2 signed copy of plans? 3 MR. SAVEN: A letter from the 4 homeowner's association is fine. It's a 5 courtesy -- let me repeat -- it's a curtesy 6 that we extend to the homeowner's 7 association, so any homeowner's association 8 in the City, the Building Department nor the 9 City can enforce subdivision restrictions 10 and guidelines. 11 Each subdivision has certain 12 deferences (unintelligent) satellite dishes 13 and accessory structures, we don't get 14 involve with that. 15 MR. NELSON: Sure. 16 MR. SAVEN: We do get involved 17 in extending a courtesy (unintelligible) and 18 say, hey, there's something going on here. 19 Maybe we want to take a look at it 20 (interposing) (unintelligible.) 21 MR. NELSON: Just to be clear, if 22 this is approved tonight, then we would 23 provide yourself and Tracey a copy of a 24 letter that says we've reviewed the final
12 1 plans and we approve them. 2 MR. SAVEN: (Unintelligible.) 3 MR. NELSON: Okay. So we'll 4 take care of that outside of here. 5 In terms of the setbacks and so 6 on, we don't have an issue with the 7 setbacks, okay. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Excellent. 9 We do appreciate your comments. 10 Mr. Saven, do you have anything 11 else to share with the Board? 12 MR. SAVEN: No, I'll shut my 13 mouth. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: That's no fun. 15 Board discussion? 16 Member Brennan? 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: Unless there's 18 objections, I would move to make a Motion 19 for approval of the -- the Petitioner has 20 asked -- has done what we asked her to do. 21 She's got the association backing. There's 22 no objections from the neighbors that we had 23 the month previously. I think she's done 24 what we have asked her to do.
13 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: It's been moved 3 and it's been seconded. 4 Ms. Backus, would you please 5 call the roll. 6 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 8 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 11 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 13 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 16 GAIL BACKUS: And Member Fischer? 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 18 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 19 to zero. 20 MS. SHIPLEY: Thank you. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance 22 has just as been granted. 23 MS. SHIPLEY: Thank you. 24
14 1 MEMBER FISCHER: Moving on to 2 the second case, Case Number: 05-033, Mr. and 3 Mrs. Szelap. 4 You are the Szelaps, correct? 5 MR. SZELAP: Yes. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 7 Could -- you were here last 8 month. 9 Will you be speaking, as well, 10 ma'am? 11 MRS. SZELAP: Yes. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Will you please 13 raise your hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 15 or affirm that the information that you're 16 about to give in the case before you is the 17 truth? 18 MRS. SZELAP: Yes I do. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Please state 20 your name for the record. 21 MRS. SZELAP: Christine Szelap. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Mrs. Szelap, I 24 apologize --
15 1 MRS. SZELAP: That's okay. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: -- for 3 butchering your name, here. 4 Please proceed. 5 MRS. SZELAP: Okay. 6 Since our last meeting with you, 7 we have tried to change all of the requests 8 in remodeling our home, so now, we're only 9 asking for one small variance. 10 The variance that we're asking 11 for is a three foot extension of our 12 existing garage. And we're purposely not 13 going all the way across the front -- only 14 three quarters of the way -- so as not to be 15 a problem with the setback requirements 16 between us and the neighbor next to us; 17 which was a problem previously. 18 By being able to turn our garage 19 -- is what we're trying to do -- we're going 20 to utilize less cement, which is also an 21 issue with our neighbors, as far as the look 22 of the house. We're also not going to use 23 regular cement. We're going to use a 24 stamped type of cement, so it looks much
16 1 more esthetically pleasing to everybody. 2 And we're also going to put in new 3 landscaping. 4 The landscaping that is there 5 right now -- which there is a very large 6 tree in the front -- will remain; plus, 7 we're going to put in new landscaping. So 8 we feel that -- we're putting in a lot of 9 extra money, but we're trying to make it 10 esthetically pleasing to everybody on the 11 court. 12 I believe that you all -- I 13 believe -- received a diagram similar to 14 this. We have a unique situation in our 15 court, where really only a couple people are 16 going to see what we are trying to do here. 17 The neighbors that approved this, did send 18 in a approval form and are with us this 19 evening; and would like to express their 20 opinions, if you'll allow that. 21 Now, the neighbor next to us, 22 I'll be honest with you, does have concerns. 23 As you see in the diagram, they really don't 24 see as much of what we're doing as the other
17 1 neighbors do. There has been some 2 miscommunication between us and them, and 3 we'll agree with that. 4 The first thing we're trying to 5 do is it to extend our existing garage 6 further forward; and that seemed to be a 7 problem. So we moved that back, as you see 8 on our new request. The second problem was 9 that our home seemed to be too wide for the 10 lot. So we, again, shrunk everything down 11 this time, to try to accommodate that. The 12 problem now seems to be the (unintelligible) 13 (interposing.) And as I just talked about, 14 we're trying to rectify that so that 15 everybody is happy with that situation, 16 also. 17 Once again, we do have the 18 approval letter from the homeowner's 19 association, as we did last time. Only this 20 time, the president also gave his approval. 21 They would have been with us this evening, 22 but unfortunately had meetings to attend, 23 but they can be reached if you need to 24 contact them.
18 1 We've also heard from one of 2 other neighbors that maybe we should just 3 move. It's a very tough situation. I'll be 4 honest with you. We did consider this 5 situation after our last meeting with you 6 folks. However, I have been a resident in 7 this home for 22 years. I work for the City 8 of Novi Police Department. 9 My husband and I teach Karate 10 for the Novi Community Education. We also 11 have a beautiful lot. We're very lucky to 12 have a wooded lot, as you see by the 13 diagram, that we really can't duplicate. 14 It's on a court; it's quite; we love it; 15 I'll be honest with you. We're just trying 16 to make some updates in remodeling that we 17 feel are necessary. I was living alone for 18 many years, and the house really needs some 19 updating. So we're trying very hard to work 20 with our neighbors. And as I said, several 21 of them are here tonight, if you would like 22 for them to speak. 23 MR. SZELAP: As I've drove 24 through the neighborhood -- because I wasn't
19 1 familiar with it as my wife was, and she 2 clued me in on a few things. I'm not asking 3 for anything that hasn't been done in the 4 neighborhood before. There has been a house 5 that has been converted to a court. There 6 is a house that has a separate garage. It 7 has two on it. There are many houses who 8 have added concrete, so that they have 9 circular drives now, or they have additional 10 parking next to their driveway that's been 11 concreted. 12 To try to make the house look at 13 least esthetic from the front, so -- 14 especially for people that are driving into 15 the neighborhood (unintelligible) on a 16 court, don't see as much of the garage 17 situation of the house -- we've added an 18 additional $20,000 in expenses to cover that 19 by adding more brick and remodeling that 20 front center using tresses and other things 21 that will allow us do that, so we don't 22 (unintelligible) big garage door facing the 23 front of the road. 24 I don't know if there's anything
20 1 else we can do to change what we've already 2 done here. We've paired it down just about 3 as far as we possibly can. If we don't get 4 the three foot forward variance, I can't 5 turn that garage door; and then that's going 6 to show no matter what happens. I can go 7 straight up (unintelligible) because that 8 won't require any setbacks. The homeowners' 9 architectural committee would allow me to do 10 that. I don't really think that's the best 11 thing to do; and I don't think that's going 12 to be as pleasing to people. 13 I don't think they realize that, 14 looking at it right now. So, that's my 15 biggest concern. I really want the place to 16 look nice. I don't want it to 17 (unintelligible) and be an eyesore because 18 you have that big situation (unintelligible) 19 to the front. 20 MRS. SZELAP: And again, my 21 husband's a contractor. (Unintelligible.) 22 Thank you for your time. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you very 24 much.
21 1 Building Department, do you have 2 any comments? 3 Oh, I'm sorry. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The audience. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Does anyone in 6 the audience wish to address the Board regarding 7 this case? 8 Please come up, state your name 9 and address. 10 MR. BUSSY: Hi, my name is Jerry 11 Bussy. I live at 23415 Duchess Court, and 12 we're the house that's directly opposite to 13 them on the court, so they see our house and 14 we see their house. 15 We've reviewed the plan, and my 16 wife and I, we've looked. They look very 17 nice. This is going to be an esthetic 18 thing. We know that Z is in the 19 construction business, so it's going to look 20 very professional. We had a house next to 21 us where the neighbor built an addition 22 above his garage. He was a jeweler. It 23 came out very nice. A house about a 24 thousand feet to the right of us, they also
22 1 put an addition above their garage. It was 2 very professionally done. Also looks very 3 nice; and we have a lot of unusual garage 4 situations in our subdivision. Some of them 5 have a drive through garage; and two -- it's 6 a three-car garage on one side that's a 7 drive through; and a one car on the other 8 side that's a drive through -- attached to 9 two different (unintelligible.) 10 So we have some unusual 11 situations. The only thing I can say is 12 they all have been very pleasing. They 13 make the subdivision look different. We all 14 don't have cookie cutter houses. I think 15 it's all very esthetically pleasing. Like I 16 said, Z's in the construction business, and 17 I think it will look very professional. 18 And from my point of view, I 19 think it's very good that we have homeowners 20 in our subdivision that want to improve 21 their houses and invest in our subdivision 22 and keep it a nice subdivision 23 (unintelligible) because it looks very nice 24 when you drive through.
23 1 Thank you very much. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 3 Anyone else in the audience? 4 Please step forward, and state 5 your name and address. 6 MS. MORACO: My name is Beth 7 Moraco. I live at 23467; and we are the 8 adjacent house next to Chris and Ed. And 9 actually we are the home that's going to see 10 the majority of their property. For years 11 they have had some, you know, down to 12 landscaping -- like she said -- told you 13 before, there's a lot of updating that needs 14 to be done. My husband is also a 15 contractor. 16 We have approved the plan -- the 17 very original plan. And our family sat down 18 and looked at it; walk the property with 19 them. They have -- since they're trying to 20 please other people, unfortunately, instead 21 of themselves -- I think that whatever they 22 do is it going to be absolutely beautiful. 23 They have been working very hard 24 in their backyard to make it esthetically
24 1 appealing. It's going to look beautiful. 2 The home, it does need to be updated. I 3 don't think that the other neighbor really 4 has much to look at. Again, our family has 5 the brunt of it, and we don't see anything 6 wrong with it. We are looking forward to 7 them updating it, so. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you very 9 much for your comments. 10 And anyone else? 11 Go ahead, sir; and also state 12 your name and address. 13 MR. CUTTLER: Hi. My name is 14 Dan Cutler. I'm live at 23401 Duchess 15 Court. I'm basically right down the street. 16 I'm about 50 yards a way from the home. 17 My biggest worry is about the 18 second garage. The fact that there will be 19 one garage and another garage and another 20 garage on the opposite side of the home. I 21 don't feel that it would be esthetically 22 pleasing. I am worried about the amount of 23 concrete that it's going to take. I realize 24 there's other ways to do concrete so that it
25 1 looks good. 2 I came in tonight because I 3 wasn't able to come last time. And one of 4 the things that kind of got me was, I was 5 basically -- I heard that the comment was 6 made that my objection should be ignored, 7 because my -- you know, you can't see this 8 house from my house, and that's just not 9 true. 10 Also, there's a couple other 11 things. There was some comments made about 12 needing additional parking for multiple 13 cars. As far as I can tell, there's about 14 four cars in the family, just like most of 15 the other families in our sub. So I don't 16 get that one either. 17 That's basically my objection is 18 the second garage. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, sir. 20 And anyone else? 21 Come on down. 22 MS. DJOWA: My name is Nancy 23 Djowa. I live at 23484 Duchess Court. And 24 I am the person that was referred to that
26 1 lives on the other side. I hope you read my 2 objection letter. It's rather lengthy. It 3 refers to the last meeting with things that 4 were said that weren't true. 5 At this meeting, I just want to 6 talk about the second garage. It's my 7 biggest concern. Our main objection is, if 8 you look at this house, there's a garage 9 here, a garage there. In order to have 10 access to a side entry garage, you need lot 11 of space to be able to pull back out. 12 Then you need garage -- cement 13 space to go out the second garage. The 14 entire front yard -- and I haven't seen the 15 drawings (unintelligible) I do have in my 16 letter -- I didn't see a drawing that stated 17 how this driveway is going to work. My 18 thing is, there lot is extremely narrow. 19 It's pie shaped. It goes down to a very 20 small peak. 21 Already, their driveway is on 22 our property, but it's a (unintelligible) 23 easement. So already they're already like 24 squished in. Now, they're going to have to
27 1 put a driveway to meet both garages. I 2 don't see how they're going to fit any trees 3 there or any kind of greenery with that much 4 cement that they are going to need. 5 And that's my objection. 6 Thank you. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you very 8 much. 9 And is there anyone else? 10 All right. Ma'am, go ahead. 11 MS. BUSSY: My name is Linda 12 Bussy. My husband, Jerry spoke. I live 13 23415 Duchess Court, and I live directly 14 across the street from them. I have seen 15 the plans. They look extremely 16 professional, and very esthetically 17 pleasing; compared -- especially when you 18 look at the house now. It does need a lot 19 of work. 20 And I would object, myself, if 21 the whole front yard was going to be 22 concrete; but it clearly isn't, if you look 23 at the plan and the diagram; that I'm sure 24 you have in front of you.
28 1 I've known Chris all the years 2 that she's lived in that house, and I just 3 can't see them doing anything that would not 4 upgrade the neighborhood. She is a very 5 strong member of the community. As she 6 said, she works for the police department. 7 She teaches Karate lessons, etc. 8 We're thrilled that they're 9 going to do something to improve our 10 neighborhood; and we feel that anybody who 11 does anything to make improvements and 12 upgrade our property values, has our 13 recommendation. 14 So we sincerely hope this will 15 be approved. 16 Thank you. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 18 Is there anyone else? 19 Mr. Saven, I was so anxious 20 before. Please enlighten me. 21 MR. SAVEN: Okay. 22 As you are aware, there were 23 several variance requests that were before 24 you regarding this particular case at the
29 1 last meeting. 2 What is before you right now is 3 one variance dealing with the issue of the 4 setback requirement for the front yard, 5 which is three feet. I have met with Edmund 6 at the counter and we went through several 7 of the items and to reduce the number of 8 variances and it did meet the 9 requirements -- or try to reduce the number 10 of variances to the best of his ability to 11 meet the City Ordinance and meet those 12 requirements. 13 Unfortunately, (unintelligible) 14 right now is the concern of some of the 15 residents (unintelligible) talk about two 16 car garage, or a two car application for 17 attached garage. Attached garage or the sum 18 total of attached garages on a pice of 19 property, if it meets the requirements of 20 the Ordinance, it's acceptable. And I'm 21 just saying the sum total of these attached 22 accessory buildings; whether they're 23 attached or detached, must meet the 24 requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; and
30 1 that's what we have. 2 I'm not sure what the 3 association has, but that's what the 4 Ordinance dictates. That's where we're at. 5 We're down to one variance, which is before 6 you today. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Any other 8 comments? 9 MR. SAVEN: No. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 11 Mr. Saven. 12 Move on to Board discussion. 13 Member Gronachan? 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Since I'm one 15 that suggested you guys go back on the 16 table, I'm glad to see that you 17 (unintelligible.) Obviously, you guys did a 18 lot of homework. 19 MRS. SZELAP: Thank you. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And I kind of 21 chuckled when I heard the neighbor say, you 22 can't please everybody. From the part of 23 it, I can see that you've obviously have 24 done -- attempted to do that.
31 1 I would still go back and 2 address the neighbor to make sure to make 3 sure that he sees the plans; that there is 4 not all cement. And I do have a question 5 for that second garage -- and echoing Mr. 6 Saven's comments -- is now you don't need a 7 variance for the garage, but how are you 8 going to get in there; because my plan 9 doesn't show -- 10 MR. SZELAP: There should be -- 11 if you look in there, there should be two 12 plots; one that shows the driveway going on 13 this one and one that shows the driveway on 14 that one. 15 MRS. SZELAP: If you don't, I do 16 have it right here. One of the issues is 17 our existing driveway, of course, is wide 18 enough for a two car garage. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Go ahead and 20 just set it on there. It should pop up. 21 Oh, there's the star of show. 22 Board Members, while we are 23 waiting for that to be presented up there, 24 there were three objections -- four
32 1 objections, one from John and Nancy Djowa, 2 who spoke; one also from Dan Cutler, who 3 spoke; Steven Hudson, 43450 Algonquin has an 4 objection, with no comments. It says four, 5 but I only see three objections here, so. 6 MEMBER BAUER: And how many 7 approvals? 8 MEMBER FISCHER: And there were 9 four approvals. Four approvals, three 10 objections. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Including the 12 homeowners association. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Correct. The 14 homeowner's association did send in a letter of 15 support. 16 MRS. SZELAP: See we are trying 17 to show on here -- excuse my finger here -- 18 is right here, there is currently cement. 19 Obviously, you need a large piece of cement 20 to get into the two-car garage we have. 21 Now, this piece of cement will no longer be 22 there. That will be lawn and landscaping; 23 whatever we can do to make that as pleasing 24 as possible.
33 1 So now we just have the one 2 strip of driveway, with a little more added 3 up here -- and I don't know if you can see 4 it or not there -- there's a big tree 5 currently right here. All of this will be 6 lawn; and we hope to landscape this with, 7 you know, brand-new shrubs and bushes that 8 look a thousand times better than what's 9 currently there. 10 If I may also address the one 11 objection that you had, I believe it was 12 Algonquin. Those are from Sterling Pines, 13 which are behind us, and there is 50 to 75 14 foot woods separating us from them; and they 15 really have no view of our home at all. But 16 I guess they were within so many feet and 17 they received a letter, so. 18 This is what we're proposing is 19 to -- and again, the neighbor over here 20 maybe does not realize, and maybe it's 21 miscommunication on our part, also, that 22 this piece of cement will no longer be 23 there. 24 MR. SZELAP: The tree that's in
34 1 the front there, that tree is, you know, 30 2 feet tall, and it's 25 feet wide. You can't 3 even see that portion of our home from the 4 front road to begin with. So we don't plan 5 on removing that. Our lot does dip, so 6 we're going to raise that portion up a 7 little bit, and you know, level it off, so 8 that when you're looking at it from the 9 road, you're actually going to see is a 10 stone granite barrier with plantings on top 11 of it. So you won't even see the concrete 12 that's (unintelligible.) 13 And I did give a copy of that to 14 Mr. Djowa. We went over it several times. 15 (Unintelligible.) Especially about removing 16 the existing driveway that's in the front. 17 MRS. SZELAP: I did also speak 18 to Mr. Djowa, individually. I don't know 19 whether Mrs. Djowa was there or not. We 20 spoke and I explained that we were only 21 going for one variance this time to avoid 22 problems between our two homes. And this 23 why we took this one piece out of the 24 garage; (unintelligible) one little piece
35 1 out of the garage, so that we don't have any 2 problems between us and them. 3 Again, there was a lot of 4 miscommunication, I'm sure, between the two 5 families. We're trying to rectify this, but 6 it's kind of hard, you know, the 7 communication just (unintelligible) there, 8 so. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: That's all I 10 have, Mr. Chair. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Any other 12 comments? 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Brennan? 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: There's 16 obviously some emotion here, and I think 17 there's also a lack of communication. We've 18 taken advantage of a situation like this in 19 the past and taken a break; moved onto 20 another case, and let some people talk 21 outside in the corridor. 22 I think that the Petitioner 23 needs to better inform some of the 24 neighbors. That one was ready to bolt down
36 1 the middle aisle. And maybe you ought to 2 take a five to ten minute break and let 3 them talk about this out it the vestibule, 4 and move on to a second case. 5 When they're done, if they 6 haven't resolved their differences, we will 7 make a decision. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Well? 9 MRS. SZELAP: Yes, I will talk 10 to Mrs. Djowa most definitely. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Board Members, 12 how do you feel about that? I see heads shaking, 13 then that is what we'll do. If you'll just pop 14 your head in and give me a wave whenever you're 15 ready. Hopefully you can work things out. 16 MRS. SZELAP: Okay, thank you. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: So we'll move 18 that to later on in tonight's meeting. 19 20 And we'll move to Case, 05-039, 21 filed by Paul Rizzardi, concerning 25300 22 Constitution in Main Street Village. 23 Are you Mr. Rizzardi? 24 MR. RIZZARDI: Yes, I am.
37 1 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. Could 2 you please raise your hand and be sworn in by our 3 secretary. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 5 or affirm that the information which you are 6 about to give in the matter before you is 7 the truth? 8 MR. RIZZARDI: Yes, I do. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Please proceed, 10 sir. 11 MR. RIZZARDI: Thank you. 12 We're here asking for an 13 extension for a sign at the intersection of 14 Potomac and Pennsylvania Streets in the Main 15 Street Village development complex. 16 The sign was approved through, I 17 believe, the end of 2002. During 18 construction the sign -- the sign was up 19 prior to our construction. During 20 construction the sign came down, because 21 we've added (unintelligible) intersection of 22 Main and Market; Potomac and Pennsylvania. 23 The intersection realignments 24 took out the (unintelligible) on Potomac to
38 1 put in the new lines. Put in a bridge over 2 (unintelligible) and Pennsylvania; put the 3 sidewalk in. So the sign came down. At 4 some point I imagine, about six months ago, 5 the sign came back up, and since then, Mr. 6 Amolsch has sent us a notice that the sign 7 -- the original permit expired, and we're 8 here tonight asking for an extension, until 9 (unintelligible) leased up. 10 We are currently at 84 percent; 11 we needed to be in the mid-90's, in order to 12 secure our permanent financing of the 13 project, (unintelligible) the sign to the 14 point when we get completely leased up, so 15 we can secure permanent financing at Main 16 Street Village. 17 Do you have any questions? 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, sir. 19 When we get to Board discussion, 20 I'm sure there will be questions. 21 There were 38 notices mailed; 22 zero approvals and zero objections. 23 Does anyone in the audience wish 24 to make any comment regarding this case?
39 1 Seeing none, we'll go ahead and 2 move to the Building Department. 3 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: No comments. 5 All right. 6 Board discussion. 7 Member Brennan? 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I'm kind 9 of torn on this one. Particularly when we 10 get to 80 percent build out, that's about 11 when we cut-off marketing signs. 12 Petitioner's already said they're at 84 13 percent. They're dang near sold out, leased 14 out, whatever it is. 15 At the same time, this part of 16 the new downtown district, and we're -- I 17 think everyone in the City is looking at how 18 we can help to promote that. So, I'm torn. 19 I'll take some guidance from others. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 21 Member Brennan. 22 Member Canup? 23 MEMBER CANUP: I would concur 24 with Member Brennan. That's probably a sign
40 1 that that sign should come down and an 2 extension not be granted; clean up the area. 3 And we are at 84 percent, if I understood 4 correctly. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 6 Mr. Canup. 7 Member Sanghvi? 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: No. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: I thought your 10 hand was up. I'm sorry. 11 Member Bauer? 12 MEMBER BAUER: Since we have 13 one -- I think Mr. Rizzardi says he gets his 14 final money when he gets 90 percent. He's 15 at 84. Six percent is really a short time. 16 I think 90 days, I think we could give him 17 that. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 19 Member Bauer. 20 Okay. Any other comments? 21 I'd like to go ahead and agree 22 with Member Bauer. 23 As Member Brennan said, we do 24 seem to show our up support when we're
41 1 getting at high percentages, such as that. 2 But considering the size of the development, 3 the importance of downtown being developed 4 and having people down there, to visit 5 downtown; I would be willing to compromise 6 (unintelligible) 90, other even 7 (unintelligible) six months. 8 But no more than that. Maybe 9 also including exceptions that once they 10 secure their funding, then they pull it done 11 and/or 90 percent. 12 So, those are my thoughts; 13 that's what I'd be willing to support. 14 If there is any members who 15 would like to make a Motion? 16 Member Gronachan? 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We should ask 18 the Petitioner if he's interested in taking 19 90 days. 20 How quickly do you think 21 (unintelligible)? 22 MR. RIZZARDI: Well, hopefully, 23 we'll get to 90 percent in 90 days. And 24 once we hit 90 percent, then we go through
42 1 the due-diligence period with our financial 2 institutions. So we really need 90 days 3 from hitting 90 percent to secure it. 4 So I'm happy with six months. 5 The problem that we're seeing, even though 6 we take a lot of leases this time of year, 7 we now start seeing move-outs. So in the 8 past, when we start to lease up, you get -- 9 you move a lot of points quick, and now 10 you're getting the people with year leases 11 that are moving out. 12 The last ten percent is the 13 hardest ten percent to lease out a project. 14 I would be willing to (unintelligible) with 15 six months. I beg of you for six months; 90 16 days is just going to make it a little too 17 short for our needs. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 19 Member Gronachan? 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: That's all for 21 me. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Brennan? 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a 24 Motion in case, 05-039, the Petitioner is
43 1 requesting an extension of the sign be 2 granted for a period of six months for 3 build-out and obtaining financing. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 6 Motion and a second. 7 Any further discussion from the 8 Board? 9 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 10 you please call the roll. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 13 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 14 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 15 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 16 MEMBER CANUP: No. 17 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 19 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 21 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 23 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five 24 to one.
44 1 MR. RIZZARDI: Thank you. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, sir, 3 your variance has been granted. 4 5 We'll move on to Case Number 6 05-040, for a residence at 117 Charlotte. 7 MR. STREET: Joel Street, 117 8 Charlotte, Novi, Michigan. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 10 Please proceed, sir. 11 I'm sorry. Madam Secretary, 12 would you please swear this gentleman in. 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you 14 raise your right hand. 15 Do you swear or affirm that the 16 information that you're about to give in the 17 matter before you is the truth? 18 MR. STREET: Yes. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Go ahead. 20 MR. STREET: I'm applying for 21 several variances to keep a shed on the rear 22 portion of the house at 117 Charlotte. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: No further 24 comments?
45 1 MR. STREET: No, sir. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 3 There were 31 notices mailed; 4 one approval, with zero objections. 5 Does anyone in the audience 6 wish to address the Board regarding this 7 case? 8 Seeing none, move to the 9 Building Department. 10 MR. SAVEN: There was an 11 existing slab there for this shed, was there 12 not? 13 MR. STREET: Yes, sir. 14 MR. SAVEN: There wasn't a shed 15 on this slab -- or was there a shed on this 16 slab? 17 MR. STREET: No, there wasn't. 18 MR. SAVEN: Did you receive a 19 notice of violation for this? 20 MR. STREET: Yes. I had -- 21 after accumulating several other items -- 22 bikes, canoes, lawn equipment, lawn mowers, 23 wheel barrels -- the stuff was gathering on 24 the side of the house, and I talked to
46 1 several of the neighbors, and they stayed 2 errently, of course, but -- it's a 3 Rubbermade Shed. 4 So I put it up and storing stuff 5 there. And after three years, one of the 6 inspectors came by and said it's too close 7 to the house. So they said I would have to 8 apply for a variance in order to keep it 9 there. 10 MR. SAVEN: Okay, I'm done. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 12 Mr. Saven. 13 Before we move to the 14 Building -- or, to the Board suggestion, can 15 you clarify -- on the agenda, I believe it 16 gives the difference between the variances 17 that are on the sheet (unintelligible.) We 18 only have one variance request, and Case 19 Number 4 has three. 20 My concern being with the 21 letters that were sent out. 22 MR. SAVEN: Okay. Regarding the 23 initial letter, all of the particular items 24 that are requested for a variance are at the
47 1 top paragraph; even though the Novi Court 2 Order (unintelligible.) 3 What is necessary, it is also 4 noted that Mr. street is requesting three 5 variances, okay. And in the placement of 6 accessory structures upon existing cement 7 slab located at 117 Charlotte. The 8 applicant is requesting a five foot side 9 yard setback variance on the east property; 10 a four foot rear yard setback variance on 11 the south property line; and an eight foot 12 variance for the distance from the main 13 building. Property is Zoned R-4. 14 Particularly addresses all the 15 particular variances that were required. 16 Is this a problem, Thomas? 17 MR. SCHULTZ: I think the notice 18 is adequate. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 20 Mr. Saven. 21 MR. STREET: Can I address the 22 Board? 23 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm sorry? 24 MR. STREET: Can I address the
48 1 Board? 2 MEMBER FISCHER: If they ask any 3 questions, we'll hear that, but -- 4 MR. STREET: Sure. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: -- we'll move 6 on to Board discussion. 7 Member Brennan? 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Notices? 9 MEMBER FISCHER: 31 notices 10 mailed; one approval, zero objections. 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm sorry. You 12 may have said that. 13 A 40 foot wide lot; it's an 14 existing house; it's an existing slab. This 15 piece of concrete has probably been there 16 for quite awhile. I have compassion for 17 people that need storage. I need it myself. 18 I don't see any big deal with 19 this. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 21 Member Brennan. 22 Any further Board discussion? 23 Member Gronachan? 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I think that
49 1 it's important to note that dispite the fact 2 that this Board is not in support of people 3 doing things without pulling permits and 4 checking on things, I understand, again up 5 at that end of town, it can be misconstrued. 6 So I will support this tonight, 7 if you promise me you won't do anything else 8 at that house without coming to see us 9 first. 10 MR. STREET: Okay. I don't want 11 to go through this again. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 13 That's all I have. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 15 Member Gronachan. 16 Any other Board Members? 17 Member Brennan? 18 I'll make a Motion that in Case, 19 05-040 that the Petitioner's request for 20 three variances be granted for reasons of 21 lot size. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Support. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 24 Motion and a second.
50 1 Any further discussion? 2 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 3 you please call the roll. 4 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 6 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 8 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 9 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 11 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 14 GAIL BACKUS: And Member 15 Fischer? 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 17 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 18 to zero. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance 20 has been granted, sir. 21 MR. STREET: Thank you. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Please see the 23 Building Department. 24
51 1 We'll move on to Case 05-041, 2 Marcos Makohon with K4 Architecture for the 3 proposed Citizen's Bank. 4 Please state your name and 5 address and be sworn in by our secretary. 6 MR. MAKOHON: Good evening. 7 Marcos Makohon, K4 Architecture, 8 26899 Northwestern, Southfield, Michigan. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you 10 raise your right hand. 11 Do you swear or affirm that the 12 information that you're about to give in the 13 matter before you is the truth? 14 MR. MAKOHON: I do. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You may 16 proceed. 17 MR. MAKOHON: Again, good 18 evening, Chairman and Board Members. 19 I'm here to present actually for 20 two variances requested for this particular 21 site. The first one -- I've been in front 22 of you requesting for another facility for 23 Citizen's Bank; that has to do with the 24 loading and unloading. And it has more to
52 1 do with business practicality of that 2 particular requirement, and less to do with 3 hardship. 4 The banking business does not 5 require large semi's or any vehicles that 6 occupy any more than a standard parking lot 7 within a parking space within the parking 8 lot. 9 Any exchange of money and so 10 forth happens during off hours. And it's 11 actually -- I don't disclose in public forum 12 how that happens, but it's in the back of 13 the building. The -- anything that happens 14 during the day comes in through small vans; 15 and they will occupy one of the parking 16 spaces temporarily and then move on. 17 The -- all of our suppliers are 18 the standard requirement. They do not sit 19 next to a front door, so, that's the first 20 one. 21 The second one has to do with 22 the request for the variance on the four 23 foot landscaping buffer all the way around 24 the building; which actually presents an
53 1 impracticality, when we're trying to provide 2 a safe area for our clients to use the ATM 3 and night deposit. That will require 4 vehicles adjacent to the building without 5 having a four foot buffer. 6 What I've shown on the diagram 7 is that we more than have satisfied the 8 landscaping requirement; with the exception 9 of that piece along side of the building. 10 And it's just is necessitated by the use of 11 a drive through facility. 12 Thank you. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you for 14 your comments. 15 There were 14 notices mailed; 16 and zero approvals and zero objections. 17 Is there anyone in the audience 18 that wishes to comment on this case? 19 Seeing none, Mr. Saven or our 20 Building Department? 21 MR. SAVEN: Once again, this is 22 an issue involving a bank. We are looking 23 presently to changing the Ordinance in 24 regards to the four foot greenbelt area
54 1 around the drive-up window; and also for the 2 unloading and loading zone due to security 3 reasons. 4 And it's a problem with the same 5 issue that has been presented to you time 6 and time again. We're trying to get the 7 Ordinance changed right now. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 9 Mr. Saven. 10 Board members? 11 Member Canup? 12 MEMBER CANUP: You know, it's 13 very few times that we see such a 14 illprepared presentation come to us. 15 There's no drawing. There's nothing here. 16 I would make the suggestion that 17 we table this case until the Petitioner has 18 an opportunity to get us a layout drawing of 19 what he's asking for. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Other Board 21 Members? 22 Member Brennan? 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, you know 24 you're right.
55 1 Board Member Canup is right. I 2 wonder if the Petitioner might have gotten 3 some direction that these types of variances 4 for banks have gotten granted many times. I 5 was going back, and I have got at least nine 6 in the last two years; and the City's 7 already talking about changing zoning. 8 I was prepared to support it, 9 not even realizing that I didn't have the 10 details; but known it's the same old thing, 11 same old. It's the same variance that every 12 other bank has asked for. 13 I guess I -- unless the 14 Petitioner's got something he wants to show 15 us tonight, other than what we have in our 16 packet -- I mean, there's a layout there. 17 Does that give you any detail? 18 MEMBER CANUP: If you're asking 19 me, we haven't had a chance to look at this 20 at all. We don't know what's next door. We 21 don't know what's in back of it. I don't 22 think we have enough information to be able 23 to vote on it. 24 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah. I guess
56 1 we have a lot of people -- okay. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Any other Board 3 Members? 4 Member Sanghvi? 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 6 I think the problem we have is 7 we have a lack of information, because there 8 is a lack of communication between the 9 applicant and our Department. I'm sure the 10 Building Department looked at this 11 application (unintelligible.) 12 And on a technicality, yes, we 13 don't have enough information about this 14 thing. In reality, we have a recommendation 15 from the Plan Review Committee, presented 16 from the City, itself. And this 17 (unintelligible) has been approved by the 18 Planning Commission, as well. 19 And for the nature of business 20 they are in, maybe we make a Motion that 21 this only applies to the current applicant, 22 and not (unintelligible.) So that we move 23 for a banking business, this variance will 24 be (unintelligible); rather than come back
57 1 again with further details. 2 That's my suggestion. 3 Thank you. 4 Thank you, Member Sanghvi. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: I would tend to 6 agree with Member Sanghvi and Member Brennan. I 7 hate to see this Petitioner come back; given the 8 Plan Review Center reports that we did receive, 9 and this has gone through preliminary site 10 approval, correct? 11 MR. SAVEN: Correct. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: So the Planning 13 Commission has seen this interior landscaping -- 14 2100 provided, 1944 required; given -- and that's 15 from the preliminary site plan. And we have seen 16 this before, and the City's in the midst of 17 reviewing. 18 Just to deny this applicant or 19 make them come back, purely because of the 20 fact that we don't have map in our packet -- 21 although one was provided that we could 22 enter into the record -- I can't see denying 23 this, and I would be in support of approving 24 it.
58 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: May I make a 2 Motion? 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Sanghvi? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: In Case Number, 5 05-041, we grant the requested. This is 6 only for banking business. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 8 Motion. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Support. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a 11 second. 12 Is there any further discussion? 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes, discussion. 14 I think that's a wise Motion. I 15 remember a bank that's on the corner of 10 16 Mile and -- it used to be bank. It's now a 17 dentist office, and they had to relandscape 18 that. So, smart move. 19 I support that Motion. 20 MEMBER BAUER: He's a smart guy. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes, he is. 22 Thank you, Member Brennan. 23 There is a Motion and a second. 24 Any further discussion?
59 1 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 2 you please call the roll. 3 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 5 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 7 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 8 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 9 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 12 MEMBER CANUP: No. 13 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 15 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five 16 to one. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance 18 has been granted. Please see the Building 19 Department. 20 MR. MAKOHON: Thank you very 21 much. 22 And if I may address Board 23 Member Canup. 24 We did request whether we needed
60 1 a drawing and it was indicated that we did 2 not. That's why they were not provided. 3 So, thank you. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, sir. 5 6 7 8 Moving on to Case Number, 9 05-042, Mark Hacker of Sally Beauty Supply 10 at Novi Town Center. 11 No, I believe we take care of it 12 in back. 13 MR. HACKER: Okay. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Can you please 15 state your name and address for the record, and 16 be sworn in by our secretary. 17 MR. HACKER: My name is Mark 18 Hacker. I live at 45677 Lakeview Court, 19 Novi, Michigan. And -- 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you 21 raise your right hand. 22 Do you swear or affirm that the 23 information that you're about to give is 24 true?
61 1 MR. HACKER: Yes. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Please proceed. 4 MR. HACKER: What I have here is 5 the new logo for Sally Beauty Supply; which 6 is an existing store on Crescent View in the 7 corner of the shopping center. They do have 8 a sign now. It does read Sally Beauty 9 Supply, but there -- it's kind of like an 10 old solid block letter; and they're kind of 11 close together. 12 This new logo is little bit more 13 airy, plus they added their new logo, which 14 is -- it's supposed to be (unintelligible.) 15 And it causes -- this is the size they 16 requested at 27 square feet. Because of the 17 logo, it has gone to 27 square feet. 18 Basically, it's the same (unintelligible) 19 letter as they have now; except, for now 20 they have a logo. 21 So we're requesting an 22 additional three square feet near asking and 23 addition a little three feet 24 (unintelligible) go over to their new
62 1 design. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Excellent. 3 Any other comments? 4 MR. HACKER: No, I guess not. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 6 There were nine notices mailed; 7 zero approvals, zero objections. 8 Is there anyone in the audience 9 that wishes to address the Board regarding 10 this case? 11 Seeing none, Mr. Saven? 12 MR. SAVEN: No comment. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Amolsch? 14 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 16 Board Members. 17 This is an interesting sight. 18 Member Canup? 19 MEMBER CANUP: I guess my 20 question is, to get a new sign, a new 21 design, why can't it be made to live within 22 the Ordinance? Number one, what's the 23 hardship? It's a brand-new sign. 24 Any way, it's a brand-new sign.
63 1 I don't see why it couldn't be made to fit 2 and shrunk down enough to live within the 3 Ordinance. I don't see a hardship in this 4 case. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 6 Member Canup. 7 Other Board Members? 8 Member Bauer? 9 MEMBER BAUER: I agree with 10 that, by being a new sign, (unintelligible) 11 three feet. (Unintelligible) it says 24, 12 should be enough. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Sanghvi? 14 Well, I just had a question. 15 What do this kind of sign all 16 along he shopping mall there, the wall 17 signs? 18 MR. AMOLSCH: What was the 19 question? 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: The question is, 21 what is the kind of sign we've been 22 permitting? Have we given any variances on 23 those signs before? 24 MR. AMOLSCH: It goes by the
64 1 lineal frontage of the business. 2 (Unintelligible) 40 square feet. There are 3 several light variances (unintelligible) 4 that are 45 or 40 square feet. So it 5 goes -- I'm (unintelligible) of the business 6 but most of those signs over there are 24 7 square feet. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 10 Gronachan? 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, I think 12 the Petitioner hit the nail on the head when 13 he said it's the logo that causes the 14 problem; and I don't find that a degree of 15 practical difficulty at this point. 16 So I'm not able to support this. 17 I think they should -- they need to go back 18 to the drawing board and either ditch the 19 logo or work or reduce the sign. But I 20 think there's other things that can be 21 done; without going for a three foot 22 variance. And I know this sounds minimal. 23 But on the signs, there's just no practical 24 difficulty in my opinion.
65 1 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 2 Member Gronachan. 3 MR. HACKER: May I address the 4 Board one more time? 5 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm sorry, sir. 6 It's time for Board discussion right now. 7 MR. HACKER: Oh, okay. I had a 8 answer to the question about hardship. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: We have looked 10 through your packet and we have received some 11 correspondence. I'm sure that it was a long 12 those lines. I do appreciate your willingness to 13 address us, but we are at the table right now. 14 MR. HACKER: Okay, thank you. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Canup? 16 MEMBER CANUP: You know, in 17 looking at the sign, I think again, the 18 problem is the logo. And you can live 19 without the log real easy, and then be able 20 to (unintelligible) within the Ordinance. 21 So really a foot -- actually, you could make 22 the sign a little bit bigger. 23 What purpose does the logo 24 serve? It's really not an (unintelligible).
66 1 It's an ego. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: It's what? 3 MEMBER BAUER: Ego. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: I will go ahead 5 and make the mention that safety factor that I am 6 seeing with the neon sign -- I believe the 7 Petitioner has a right to have whatever they want 8 on their sign, including logos. If they want to 9 make it the neon illuminated -- which is referred 10 to in our packet -- they have a right to do that, 11 as well. 12 Am I correct, they have neon 13 signs? 14 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: And in order to 16 do that, they request that the certain bolts are 17 needed or certain things (unintelligible.) And I 18 can appreciate that but, I also have to stick 19 with the fact that, or than that, there's no 20 hardship with this particular case 21 (unintelligible) the store front in this case. 22 And although, you know, driving 23 through there I see some -- I'd like to 24 almost see some Ordinance review in general
67 1 in the Town Center, because they do seem to 2 be having a lot of vacancies. I guess the 3 point is, is that, that's not our job to 4 make the laws regarding a general business 5 environment. 6 So, I'll support this due to the 7 fact that it is a general business case. 8 So, with those comments I would 9 appreciate someone with a Motion. 10 Member Canup? 11 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a 12 Motion in Case Number 05-042, filed by Mark 13 Hacker, Marquee Sign Company, that we deny 14 the request as stated due to a -- no 15 demonstrated hardship. 16 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a 18 Motion and a second on the table. 19 Discussion? 20 Mr. Schultz? 21 MR. SCHULTZ: Just briefly. 22 Since this is a denial, the 23 maker of the Motion, if he could just 24 incorporate his earlier comments; that will
68 1 be on record; lack of hardship, due to the 2 fact it's new sign and there's no stated 3 reason for why it could not comply with the 4 Ordinance. 5 Just in terms of since it's 6 denial, clarify that. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, sir. 8 MEMBER CANUP: Please let those 9 comments be an amendment to the -- 10 MEMBER BAUER: I'll second that. 11 MEMBER CANUP: -- change. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: The second does 13 approve of that amendment. 14 All right. 15 Are we all set? No more 16 discussion? 17 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 18 you call the roll. 19 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 20 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 21 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 22 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 23 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 24 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.
69 1 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 3 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: No. 5 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 7 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five 8 to one. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance 10 has been denied at this time. 11 12 Case Number, 05- -- unless we 13 want to entertain a recess at this point? 14 Let's go ahead and take a recess 15 at this time for five minutes, and then 16 afterward, we do have the Duchess Court. So 17 we'll see that right after the recess. 18 Ten minutes. 19 20 (A brief recess was taken.) 21 22 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 23 Let's get back to business, and 24 I do see that the second case on the agenda
70 1 is back in the audience, so let's go ahead 2 and call the Szelaps up. 3 And if you'd give us a little 4 summary of what happened, and please 5 remember that you're still under oath. 6 MRS. SZELAP: Yes, sir. 7 Our association president has 8 arrived. Is it all right for him to add? 9 MR. SZELAP: (Interposing) within 10 the architectural committee. He's been 11 there since the very beginning in the 12 subdivision. 13 MRS. SZELAP: He's the one who 14 gave us approval. He asked if he could 15 speak. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Do you have 17 anything to add at this time or did you want to 18 give a summary before he gets up to inform the 19 Board as to any discussions or decisions, and 20 then we'll give him an opportunity. 21 MRS. SZELAP: Okay. I'll try. 22 I was the one that talked to the 23 parties, and we tried to keep on a friendly 24 level. Unfortunately, it didn't always stay
71 1 that way. It's kind of unfortunate. It's 2 one of those things, agree to disagree; or 3 they have to live with what we're doing; we 4 have to live with what they're doing. 5 We explained that we are within 6 the variances, other than this little three 7 foot thing. I tried to explain. My 8 neighbor, Nancy Djowa was listening very 9 well to me, I believe. I explained 10 (unintelligible) take that little piece out. 11 I tried to explain that the driveway is 12 going to be the same width it is now. It's 13 going to be moved over to the left. 14 There will actually be more 15 greenbelt between she and I. She is worried 16 about the front being too much cement. She 17 wasn't aware, I think before, as I recall 18 her saying, that it was going to be a 19 stamped pattern cement, rather than just 20 gray cement. 21 I tried to assure her that we 22 are going to keep the trees and the grass. 23 She does feel our yard is narrow, which it 24 is. I also explained to her that
72 1 (unintelligible) in order to get into this 2 garage, we're going to have to go forward 3 and then back up; which thus is more of a 4 pain for us, in truth than just going 5 straight in; but the reason we're doing this 6 is to turn that garage; keep the windows to 7 the street. 8 So it actually, from the street, 9 looks more like a den or a room, than a 10 garage. The folks that will see the garage 11 door, will be the Moracos, which spoke 12 earlier. The one garage that will be seen 13 from the street is the smaller one. I did 14 explain that. Again, I don't think -- there 15 was some miscommunication. 16 I explained to Ms. Djowa that we 17 moved the lines so that we are in -- agrees 18 with the variance; and I also explained that 19 whatever we do here -- getting a permit -- 20 whatever we do, we are under the guidelines 21 that we draw. I know that everything will 22 be checked, as far as us staying, you know, 23 with what we said we're going to do. 24 They are not in agrees with us.
73 1 I'm not telling you that they are. We're 2 just trying to work this out the best we 3 can. And I think that we tried our best to 4 come down to just that little three foot 5 variance. But as I explained to Mrs. Djowa, 6 if we don't do that, everything else within 7 the variance -- we can go ahead it, but 8 we're going to have that garage facing the 9 street, which we just don't think is going 10 to look that nice. 11 That's kind of where we're at. 12 Thank you for your time. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you for 14 the update on the meeting, and also the 15 association president, I believe -- 16 MR. LIN: No, that's not quite 17 right. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 19 Well, if you could please tell 20 us your name and your role, as well as your 21 address. 22 MR. LIN: My name is Lin, i-n. 23 My address is 23496 Winthrop Court in Novi. 24 I am on the Board of Directors of their
74 1 Orchard Ridge Homeowner's Association. I 2 also happen to be the chairman of the 3 architectural committee. 4 Personally, we moved into Novi 5 1980. We moved into Orchard Ridge. We were 6 the sixth house in that subdivision. We've 7 been here awhile. I have been involved with 8 the association almost entirely for the 20 9 some years, because I'm concerned about the 10 neighborhood; and want to make sure that, 11 you know, that Novi and Orchard Ridge lives 12 up to the standards that we all expect and 13 enjoy here in Novi. 14 My job as -- on the board is to 15 make sure that when people do want to do 16 something in the subdivision, they meet the 17 bylaws of the subdivision. That's primarily 18 my function. I have reviewed the plans for 19 this particular project twice. Both times, 20 as far as we are concerned as a homeowner's 21 association, they met all their requirements 22 of the -- you know, of our bylaws. 23 So there is no objection from 24 any of us on the board as to what they're
75 1 trying to do. So they have our approval. 2 Me, personally, I also happen to 3 be a licensed builder. I have looked at 4 plans. I think they did a fabulous job of 5 taking what he had and what he wanted to 6 present, and did it in a very professional, 7 very well looking manner. And in my person 8 opinion, it's going to enhance the value of 9 the property; and it's not going to have any 10 detriment on our subdivision whatsoever. 11 So with that, they have my 12 personal vote; and they have the approval of 13 our board. So I just wanted you folks to 14 know that. I sorry I couldn't be here 15 earlier. I had a meeting and I snuck in 16 just before the break. 17 So, well, I appreciate you 18 giving me the opportunity to speak. 19 Does is anyone have any 20 questions for me? 21 MEMBER FISCHER: I don't believe 22 so. But we do appreciate your comments. 23 Thank you. 24 Thank you for your comments,
76 1 sir. 2 MR. LIN: Thank you, Mr. Fisher. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: And we've gone 4 through the rest of the procedure, so we will go 5 right to Board Member discussion. 6 Member Brennan? 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, it's too 8 bad you couldn't hammer out an agreement; 9 and sometimes that works, sometimes it 10 doesn't. But, what the Board is faced with 11 is a single variance in front of us. We're 12 not debating a second garage. We're not 13 debating the percentage of the building on 14 the lot, and we're not debating how much 15 concrete. The only thing in front of us is 16 a three foot variance extension on the front 17 of the building, that actually enables cars 18 to be park from the side; rather, than from 19 the front, which I think is typically viewed 20 as a better arrangement. 21 Given that's the only thing in 22 front us, I would support the Petitioner's 23 request. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is that a
77 1 Motion? 2 MEMBER FISCHER: I think Member 3 Sanghvi has something to say. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. I'll 5 make a Motion. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: In Case Number 8 05--33, we grant the applicant's request for 9 the variance of three feet -- a front yard 10 variance of three feet, because of the lot 11 configuration. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Support. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: We do have a 15 Motion and a second. 16 One thing I do want to mention, 17 also, is that I do want to commend the 18 Petitioner -- because of the amount of 19 variances we did see last year or last 20 month; the way that the variances were cut 21 down in size this month, I look to that 22 creativity as a positive. 23 So -- 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member
78 1 Sanghvi, can I make a friendly amendment? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead. 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: That this 4 variance be granted due to the fact that the 5 Petitioner has substantiated enough proof 6 that this house upon completion will be 7 consistent with the neighborhood; has a 8 minimum impact with the surrounding 9 neighbors; and that the appearance is going 10 to be nothing but improvement, and certainly 11 not a detriment. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, the point 13 here -- the core issue we're dealing with is 14 a three feet front yard setback. The rest 15 of that is all decoration, and I want to 16 just stick with the core. 17 Thank you. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. We do 19 have a Motion and a second. 20 No further discussion that I 21 see. 22 Ms. Backus, would you please 23 call the roll. 24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi?
79 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 3 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 4 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 6 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 8 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 9 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 12 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 13 to zero. 14 MRS. SZELAP: Thank you. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance 16 has been granted. 17 MR. SZELAP: Thank you very much. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Please see the 19 Building Department. 20 MRS. SZELAP: Yes. 21 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Move now to 23 Case Number 05-043, Colliers International. 24 He has stuck around for the
80 1 case. 2 All right. 3 Okay. Your name and address. 4 MR. KELLY: Larry Kelly with 5 Colliers International, 2 Corporate Drive, 6 Southfield. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you 8 raise your right hand and be sworn in, 9 please. 10 Do you swear or affirm that the 11 information that you're about to give is the 12 truth? 13 MR. KELLY: I do. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Please proceed. 16 MR. KELLY: We are -- I believe 17 this is the third time that we are 18 requesting a year extension. We are the 19 marketing firm for Burton, Katzman 20 (unintelligible) is a high tech development. 21 We have two structures up now that were 22 spec'd originally -- three years ago si when 23 they were first spec'd. They were 55,000 24 square feet each, facing each other, 110,000
81 1 square feet total; with units ranging from 2 5,000 feet to the entire, which is 110,000 3 feet. 4 We also have room for an 5 additional five buildings. I believe the 6 entire build out of Meadowbrook Corporate 7 Park is to attract high tech businesses is 8 approximately 250,000 square feet in total. 9 We are about 50 percent of the 110,000 10 square feet that's now existing and built; 11 and we are negotiating with tenants now. I 12 believe plans are in for approval. The 13 permits were Sanyo Automotive, which we just 14 signed, for 10,000 square feet; which is one 15 of these two 55,000 square foot buildings. 16 Burton, Katzman is considering 17 (unintelligible) one of the addition five 18 out buildings that were built in the rest of 19 the park; and just need more activity here; 20 as you know, we've been grinding this 21 economy. 22 We're looking for an addition of 23 one year to continue our marketing efforts 24 for the Meadowbrook Corporate Park.
82 1 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you very 2 much, sir. 3 In this case, there were six 4 notices mailed; there were zero approvals, 5 zero objections. 6 Anyone in the audience that 7 wishes to comment on this case? 8 Seeing none, Building 9 Department? 10 MR. AMOLSCH: No comments. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: No comments. 12 All right. Board Members? 13 Member Brennan? 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: A year ago, 15 according to the record, you were about at 16 53 percent build out; now you're at 50. I 17 guess it's a moot point. You're only half 18 way there. I would support another year. 19 MR. KELLY: Comment on that? Or 20 just -- 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Is there a 22 question? 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: That's just my 24 --
83 1 MEMBER CANUP: I don't have a 2 problem with the sign; except for the fact, 3 you know, it's an advertising sign for 4 Burton, Katzman (unintelligible) associates 5 and Colliers International. 6 I think that sign could be 7 downsized a bit. I don't see a need to 8 advertise the architect and the developer. 9 The main message there is, we've got 10 property we want to lease, phone number and 11 the contact name. 12 I'd make a Motion, if that was 13 acceptable. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Is that -- 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Can we say 16 anything about what's on the sign right now? 17 This is just for an extension, because he's 18 got the sign -- 19 MEMBER CANUP: We can do 20 whatever we want, basically, if we want to 21 downsize the sign. Or if we want to make it 22 bigger, we can do that. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Schultz? 24 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may.
84 1 I think it's appropriate to 2 address the size of the sign. I think once 3 you get into the message on the sign, you 4 just have to be careful. And if you're 5 going to reduce the size of the sign, I 6 would suggest that it be limited to 7 particular information. 8 That's a more appropriate Motion 9 than saying remove the architect and remove 10 (unintelligible.) (Interposing) it's got to 11 have sufficient information to convey the 12 typical information that somebody renting 13 that or leasing that space would expect to 14 see. 15 I think you should deal with 16 it -- with the size, rather than the 17 information. If there is specific 18 information you're concerned about, I think 19 maybe (unintelligible) with the Petitioner 20 and see if we can have a discussion about 21 that. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 23 MR. AMOLSCH: Mr. Chairman, just 24 to clarify this. The size of the sign --
85 1 this started out as a construction 2 identification sign; which is allowed to be 3 64 square feet in area and 15 feet in 4 height. 5 The year passed that the 6 construction sign was allowed; therefore, 7 after that, they required a variance to keep 8 the sign there. The size of a real estate 9 sign on a occupied piece of property is only 10 allowed a six square feet area, five feet in 11 height. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, sir. 13 The Board Members? 14 I'm going to have to disagree 15 with limiting what the sign is. We have 16 approved it in the past, and they are 17 allowed certain things on it when it was a 18 construction sign. 19 MR. AMOLSCH: Correct. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: And in front of 21 me I see that they are looking for -- they're 22 looking for an extension of the time that they're 23 allowed. So, I would prefer not stepping on the 24 feet of the ACLU anymore. I think we have had
86 1 enough of that here, so -- not here, but with 2 other times and with free speech with what 3 they're allowed. 4 So I would not be willing to 5 support something where we were to limit 6 them in what they're allowed. 7 Member Gronachan? 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I need 9 clarification, Alan, please. 10 So you're saying that the actual 11 signage size should be six square feet? 12 MR. AMOLSCH: For a marketing or 13 lease sign. (Unintelligible) marketing or a 14 lease sign is six foot (unintelligible.) 15 This sign is larger to begin with, because 16 it's a construction identification sign. 17 (Unintelligible) verbiage of what it says on 18 the sign, except it has to contain verbiage 19 regarding developers and the owners and all 20 that kind of thing. 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The verbiage 22 is not -- but the size, and I think that's 23 what Member Canup was going for. At this 24 point, can we ask the Petitioner to go with
87 1 the regulation sign? 2 Mr. Schultz? 3 MR. SCHULTZ: Just if I may add, 4 the issue before the Board is the extension for 5 the sign that's here. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I understand. 7 MR. SCHULTZ: The Board can 8 certainly deny that and articulate reasons for 9 that. Or, it can explore with the Petitioner a 10 reduced size sign. This doesn't have to be the 11 size of a permitted permanent -- like a permitted 12 typical advertising sign. 13 Clearly for a large-scale 14 project like this, it would be very unusual 15 to limit a Petitioner to that small of a for 16 sale sign. So, if the Board is really 17 concerned about the size of the sign, I 18 think it ought to convey that to the 19 Petitioner, and see if there's something 20 less that it can live with. 21 I think there is a certain 22 amount of information on here. This is kind 23 of typical information on one of these 24 signs; and I think it would be appropriate
88 1 for the Board to say, okay, we're really 2 just going to consider -- this is a typical 3 sign. We want to give them another year. 4 If you don't want to do that, all I'm saying 5 is maybe you can explore with the Petitioner 6 something less. 7 But if you're okay with this 8 sign and the extension, you don't need to go 9 down that road. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you for 11 the verification. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Further 13 discussion? 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Let's see where 15 the Board sits. I'll make a Motion. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Can I ask one 17 question quickly. 18 You mentioned some more 19 development. Is the further development 20 part of this sign? 21 MR. KELLY: Yeah. See, I think 22 that's where the confusion is. The 50 23 percent and 53 percent -- the Meadowbrook 24 Corporate Park (unintelligible) encompassed
89 1 property is 250 -- 300,000 square feet 2 (unintelligible) today. So this sign is for 3 the entire park, which -- we should be 4 hopefully breaking ground on one of the new 5 facilities as soon as they can get approval. 6 We were nearing -- 7 (unintelligible) Electric and a few other 8 high-tech companies that are sniffing at it 9 and (unintelligible.) We're nearing a point 10 where they're willing to go in and start 11 (unintelligible) one of the other facilities 12 in the park. 13 So, we would -- until this is 14 ugly -- keep this sign. The construction 15 will continue probably for -- I would 16 imagine couple, three years, and hope to 17 have a sign of this size for that time 18 frame; until the development -- in which 19 case, at that point, we would go to a 20 typical leasing sign. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 22 Let me go back to the Building 23 Department (unintelligible) additional 24 construction allows another construction
90 1 sign. 2 MR. AMOLSCH: If it's another 3 phase, they will be allowed another 4 construction sign. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 6 MR. AMOLSCH: If there is 7 construction going on. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 9 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess I'll ask 10 the Petitioner through the Boards, is this a 11 phase development or is it one site plan with 12 several buildings, but one phase? 13 MR. KELLY: With one phase? 14 MR. SCHULTZ: Was it all 15 approved at one time? 16 MR. KELLY: I don't believe it's 17 all -- I don't believe the other facilities 18 are completely site plan approved; just 19 conceptually approved. 20 MR. SCHULTZ: So the answer 21 without more -- I think it's very possible the 22 sign would be permitted in connection with some 23 other development, but without seeing that site 24 plan, it's really impossible to answer the
91 1 question. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 3 Mr. Schultz. 4 Member Brennan, do you still -- 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah. I'll 6 just go back to my initial point. They're 7 at 50 percent on this phase. It's an 8 existing sign; and that's consistent with 9 what we've done in the past. 10 So I'll make a mention with 11 respect to case 05-043, that the 12 Petitioner's request be granted for another 13 year. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Support. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a 16 Motion and a second. 17 Any further discussion? 18 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 19 you please call the roll. 20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?
92 1 MEMBER BAUER: No. 2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 3 MEMBER CANUP: No. 4 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 6 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 8 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes four 9 to two. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: That's correct. 11 Your variance has been granted 12 for one year. 13 MR. KELLY: Thank you. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, and 15 good luck to you. 16 17 We'll go ahead and call Case 18 Number 05-044 for a residence 1623 West Lake 19 Drive. 20 Good evening. 21 Can you please state your name 22 and address for the record, and then be 23 sworn in by our secretary. 24 MS. DOAN: I'm Hong Doan, 2554
93 1 (unintelligible) Howell, Michigan. 2 MR. TRAN: I'm Xuan Tran. I'm 3 her boyfriend. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you 5 raise your right hand and be sworn in, please. 6 Do you swear or affirm that the 7 information that you're about to give in the 8 matter before you is the truth? 9 MS. DOAN: Yes. 10 MR. TRAN: Yes. 11 MS. DOAN: We're here requesting 12 four site (unintelligible) deviations of 12.2 on 13 one side, four on the south side, 14 (unintelligible) 16.2; and also a lot coverage of 15 two percent. 16 On the side setback, this side 17 would cover (unintelligible.) Basically, these 18 are all a straight perpendicular line across the 19 lot. It is 38.58 feet wide. So if we stay 20 within the allowable zone, then the house would 21 be 13.58 feet wide. We requesting to build a 22 house of 29.78 feet. And this would include -- 23 should be wide enough for a two car garage; plus 24 a front entry.
94 1 And also we are proposing to 2 have one side of the garage large enough for a 3 vehicle to be able to pass through for emergency 4 exit, if necessary. And also, if we would build 5 within the Code or the range, we would have a 6 very narrow and very long house. 7 And also, we would like to 8 address the concerns of the uneven biased for the 9 north side of the lot. And we're doing this to 10 balance the visual space perception. Since 11 currently, our northside neighbor is further away 12 than our southside neighbor. So by doing this, 13 we would -- from house to house -- we would -- it 14 would be 12.8 feet on the north side from our 15 house to our neighbor's house; and then 10 feet 16 from the southside. 17 And also for the southside 18 setback now, there's no access room at all. It 19 would allow for some room. 20 Then the next item we'd like to 21 present is the lot coverage. Because of the 22 narrow lot, it overall would make the lot small. 23 If you -- and what we're proposing to build is a 24 four bedroom. It's slightly less than 3200
95 1 square feet for six people to live in. 2 And we would like to have a 3 courtyard two manage the two young children that 4 we have; and also, we intended to do was to open 5 the space between -- to the southside; because 6 the gentleman currently has the house and then 7 an open courtyard, and then his detached garage. 8 So right now, there's a fence 9 right there, because the house is no bad looking, 10 so he wants to cover it. (Unintelligible) open 11 it up. And then the courtyard would minimize 12 fire damage, because of the lack of access. And 13 the breezeway is what takes up a lot of the 14 footprint, but we feel it's necessary for the 15 above benefits. And then, of course, the lack of 16 basement, because it's on a -- near water, we 17 need a lot of ground, big footprint for storage. 18 And that would be in the garage; and the 19 breezeway and the main house. 20 We did get one concern from the 21 north side neighbor, and we are going to address 22 it here. I think one concern was blocking of the 23 view. But if you see where we are proposing, our 24 house lines up with the neighbor's house on the
96 1 board here. And then also she's concerned with 2 the vehicle access. And which -- when I 3 questioned today, I wasn't -- the issue wasn't 4 very clear because there's a fence right now, she 5 has on the border between her house and our 6 house, and that would be not be disturbed. 7 But as I questioned further, I 8 guess -- I think her main concern was she feels 9 that with the more people coming to the 10 neighborhood asking for variances, that this 11 would set a precedence. Which I -- I mean I've 12 told her that is not the case, because I was told 13 this was a case by case situation. 14 In conclusion, we're proposing 15 to build a house for our family of six -- that's 16 two of us, two young children, and my parents; 17 because in our culture, we take care of our 18 parents as they're getting older. It would 19 beautify and sustain the value of the 20 neighborhood. And the -- by tearing down the 21 current house and putting up this new house, it 22 would replace an unsafe structure; which we've 23 received a citation for, for a very 24 unstructurally sound garage, (unintelligible.)
97 1 And not (unintelligible.) And 2 it would also resolve a (unintelligible) property 3 mistake. See, our garage is actually two feet 4 into the neighbor's yard. 5 And lastly, our families came 6 here after the war as refugees. We've worked 7 very hard to get where we are. And not to sound 8 cheesy, it's our dream to do this. 9 Any questions? 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Not at this 11 time. If there are any questions, the Board 12 will let you know. 13 In this case, 55 notices were 14 mailed out. There were zero approvals and 15 five objections. And a lot of concern has 16 to do with fire Code, ten feet between 17 houses, and the minimum should be kept up 18 within the properties along that -- in that 19 area. 20 (Unintelligible) Seaman of 1653 21 West Lake Drive; Paul and Christie Winthrop 22 of 1641 West Lake, also concerned with the 23 fire code if these variances were to be 24 approved. Ann Boels of 1405 West Lake Drive
98 1 says that although it's appropriate to 2 accommodate some requests within reason, 3 still has concerns about houses in that area 4 and fires. Three objections that I have in 5 front me. 6 Building Department? 7 MR. SAVEN: Basically, a couple 8 people touched base on the issue about the 9 fire safety requirements. The closer you 10 get to structures, or the closer your 11 structures (unintelligible) fire protection 12 is necessary for the development of that 13 structure. So that you'll be required to do 14 certain things for that side gets closer to 15 the property line. 16 If the Board's decision to 17 approve the variance, we'll require you to 18 take certain precautions for that particular 19 home to be built that close to the property 20 line. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 22 Mr. Saven. 23 Is there anyone in the audience? 24 Please, come down.
99 1 MR. WINDORPH: My name is Paul 2 Windorph. I live at 1641 East Lake Drive. 3 And I was one of the objectioners that you 4 have there. 5 And also (unintelligible) 6 secretary two retractions -- people that had 7 given approvals before, when it was 8 explained that they only had 2.8 feet on one 9 side, they retracted their approvals, so I 10 gave that to the secretary there. 11 Anyhow, I'd like to just point 12 out that I talked with Olga, and she's the 13 neighbor on the northside. I think it's 14 1619, if I remember right. And really, if 15 you think about it, by granting a variance 16 of only 2.8 feet -- which is hardly enough 17 to walk through -- but by granting that 18 variance, you're basically subtracting 19 value, if you will, away from the -- from 20 Olga's property. 21 I can see that the neighborhood 22 is very tight, and there's certainly a lot 23 of variances that have been granted, in 24 fact, in the past. But down to the level of
100 1 2.8 feet, you're basically taking, you know, 2 dollar value if you will, away from her 3 property. Because in the future, she, or a 4 future owners of the property, can probably 5 have no possibility of ever getting, you 6 know, close to the moving that house any 7 closer than what it is right now. 8 So you're basically taking value 9 away. I can certainly see there's a fire 10 code -- if I remember right -- it's like ten 11 feet. I'm not positive on that. But, you 12 know, splitting the difference and at least 13 put it like a five foot, so it's equal on 14 both sides, so each side could get to that 15 minimum amount in the future. I could see 16 that sort of thing. But to push it back 17 closer to the property line makes it very 18 (unintelligible) and doesn't sound good to 19 me. 20 So that's my comments. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, sir. 22 Anyone else in the audience? 23 Seeing none, yes, we did 24 receive the retractions; three approvals.
101 1 They are noted. 2 Member Gronachan? 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Wow, 3,000 4 square feet. 5 Whenever this Board is looking 6 at new construction -- and basically it's 7 what you are starting here -- okay, it's my 8 understanding that you're going to take down 9 the existing buildings, correct? 10 I know that this is probably 11 your first experience in building a new 12 home, So I'll be easy with you. I cannot 13 support any of this, and the reason why is 14 because of the issues stated, the safety and 15 concerns of the entire neighborhood. You're 16 far too close to that property line. These 17 properties -- these lots up there require 18 creativity and an out-of-the-box thinking. 19 And since I've been on this 20 Board for the last four or five years -- 21 I've lost count because it's been so much 22 fun -- we have sent people back to the table 23 and told them to think it over. And I'm 24 amazed at what they come back with. I'm not
102 1 going to tell you that this is too much 2 house for the lot and to go buy something 3 else. I'm going to tell you to take this 4 lot and go re-look at your lot. 5 Go out to the northend and get 6 some better ideas. There's houses up there 7 that can fit a family of six; they can 8 address the safety concerns. Granted, I 9 understand that you're not going to be able 10 to build without any variances, but when 11 you're doing new construction, my theory is 12 less is better; and I would start out with 13 that right from the beginning. I would 14 start out with -- I have to think safety. 15 Two feet is not going to do it, okay, 16 especially up there. 17 And I wouldn't even want to live 18 in a house two feet -- that close to the 19 property line; and live with the guilt if 20 something happens. There have been fires up 21 there, and they're tremendous. So I'm going 22 to tell you that I fully support your 23 creativity here, but I think you need to go 24 back to the drawing board and think it
103 1 again. 2 Thank you. 3 MR. TRAN: Can we have a 4 rebuttal, because we never had -- 5 MEMBER FISCHER: No, sir, not at 6 this time. But possibly as questions might be 7 asked. 8 So we'll move back to the table, 9 and see if there's are any further Board 10 discussion. 11 Member Canup? 12 MEMBER CANUP: Well, you know, 13 in the long and short of things, it's 14 basically overbuilding a lot. You know, I 15 think by Ordinance, you're allowed 25 16 percent. Here, we're looking at 27, did I 17 see. And if you take and throw in the 18 courtyard -- which is, realistically, really 19 not part of the house, but it does give 20 about 500 square feet in there; that could 21 be used in other areas on the front or the 22 back. 23 And I think, also, I got a real 24 problem with the two and a half feet; two
104 1 feet on the side of the neighbor. It's just 2 an unsafe situation. I think realistically, 3 what could be done in my opinion, is that 4 courtyard in the middle, the house could be 5 brought together, and make it a little more 6 smaller on the lot. 7 And bring in those sides and 8 move it over a foot on the one side; because 9 I think you've got six feet on one side. 10 You can move it over a foot and then shrink 11 it; maybe six inches on each side, some how 12 or another. (Unintelligible) in order to be 13 able to get it down to where you can at 14 least have five feet on each side, so you 15 can walk through there. 16 Two and a half feet, 17 unfortunately, is just -- it's as wide as 18 this table. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 20 member Canup. 21 Board Members? 22 Anyone else? 23 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a 24 Motion that we table this case and give them
105 1 an opportunity to go back and address the 2 discussion that the Board has had and couple 3 back to us possibly with something that is 4 more suitable. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Basically at 6 this time, the sentiment of the Board is that the 7 2.8 feet, especially, and maybe even the maximum 8 lot coverage aren't things that can be approved 9 at this time because of the safety concerns and 10 other things that the Board Members have said. 11 And therefore, we would like to 12 give you the opportunity to table this case, 13 and if you could relook at the plans with 14 your architect and rethink things, and 15 possibly bring something with lesser 16 variances. And that is pretty much the 17 sentiment of the Board, from what I see with 18 all these shaking heads. And then come 19 become at next meeting. 20 If that is what you prefer, the 21 we can go ahead and vote on this Motion. 22 MR. TRAN: Having not -- having 23 seen only one objection before the meeting, 24 we actually have the answers to some of
106 1 these that are really simple, and if I could 2 just talk to -- 3 MEMBER FISCHER: The main thing 4 is that it's not even the objections -- in the 5 discussions, the objections weren't even brought 6 up that much. We have our own concerns that we 7 look at every time we look at a case. And I 8 don't remember a time that we have approved 9 something 2.8 feet. And it would be best to 10 table this and look at that and come become 11 before us. That would be my suggestion, as well 12 as most Board Members' suggestion. 13 We're not trying to deny -- 14 MR. TRAN: No, I understand. 15 I'm just -- 16 MEMBER FISCHER: -- we're going 17 to work with you. 18 MR. TRAN: -- saying that we 19 have some easy fixes. It's just -- not 20 having -- because it's such a narrow lot, 21 and not having the Code really relate to 22 narrow lots, we had no idea what to shoot 23 for. Because like 2. -- I don't like 2.8 24 feet either. The only reason we went that
107 1 way is because we figured, well, at least we 2 widened one side of it to have access. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: And the best 4 thing is it to take the discussion of the Board 5 tonight, redraw it, and come back to us; and we 6 would be more than willing to look at it at that 7 time. And we feel -- we have compassion for 8 these types of lots. You know, I'm sure that 9 even Don has -- has plenty of ideas in his head, 10 I'm sure he'd be willing to share with you or 11 someone else within the City. 12 But this isn't feasible, given 13 the safety concerns that this Board does 14 see. 15 MR. TRAN: I guess I would like 16 to ask direction, as far as the setbacks, 17 because it is 39 feet. And realistic -- 18 theoretically, you know, it's supposed to be 19 13.9 feet. Is there something in between, 20 so we don't have to go back and forth all 21 the time; that the Board would accept? You 22 know what, 13 seems kind of unreasonable, 23 but what's -- you know what I mean? It's 24 hard -- we don't want to waste your time or
108 1 our time. 2 MR. SAVEN: I would suggest that 3 you listen to what the Board Members 4 (interposing) (unintelligible.) One Board 5 Member gave something, do the adjustment, 6 place the house in the center of the lot; to 7 look at reducing that 2.8 -- extending that 8 2.8 to a certain (interposing) 9 (unintelligible.) That will be a little 10 more palatable, okay? 11 MR. TRAN: Okay. I heard -- 12 MR. SAVEN: It's already 13 mentioned. I can't instruct you on what to 14 do to violate the Ordinance. If I tell you 15 this is going to be acceptable here, I just 16 violated the Ordinance. We just heard some 17 recommendations on how the Board looks at 18 lots on the lakeside. 19 And I think if you 20 (unintelligible) it up, and you took a look 21 at the distance between the home and 22 whatever you've got, it might be something 23 that maybe reasonable to the Board but, 24 okay. They've also mentioned too much house
109 1 on the lot; lot coverage, itself. 2 (Unintelligible.) You may want to take a 3 look at redesigning. 4 MR. TRAN: Okay. 5 MR. SAVEN: I'm just making that 6 a suggestion as to what the Board's been 7 looking at. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 9 Mr. Saven. 10 That's pretty much where we're 11 at. 12 Did you have something, Member 13 Sanghvi? 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: I just wanted to 15 address and to tell them that it is in their 16 best interest to let's us table this; rather 17 than go ahead and deny it. Just as simple 18 as that. I think this is an opportunity for 19 you to think again, talk it over, talk it 20 over with your architect, with your future 21 neighbors, if you are not living there; and 22 come to a consensus, and that's the best way 23 to go. 24 And that's why it's the best
110 1 idea to table it tonight. 2 MR. TRAN: Okay. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: So do you agree 4 to table this at this time? 5 (No verbal affirmative 6 response.) 7 Thank you. 8 There is a Motion. Do we have a 9 second? 10 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Seconded by 12 Member Bauer. 13 Any further discussion? 14 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, please 15 call the roll. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 19 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 21 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi?
111 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 4 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 5 to zero. 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Chairman? 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes, and I know 8 where you're going. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: For the sake of 10 the Petitioner, may we have them up first on 11 the agenda next month? 12 MEMBER FISCHER: That's correct. 13 We will place you right up in front at the 14 beginning of the agenda, so you don't have to 15 wait through the rest of the cases. 16 MR. TRAN: Okay. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: We look forward 18 to seeing you then. 19 20 Case Number, 05-045, residence 21 at 25610 Arcadia. 22 Would you please state your name 23 for the record, and be sworn in by our 24 secretary.
112 1 MR. VELICK: Stephen Velick. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you 3 raise your right hand. 4 Do you swear or affirm that the 5 information that you're about to give in the 6 matter before you is the truth? 7 MR. VELICK: Yes. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 9 MR. VELICK: I'm here with my 10 wife, Debra, in the back. And as you said, 11 we live at 25610 Arcadia. We're requesting 12 two variances in order to enclose an 13 existing courtyard back porch, that's in the 14 rear of our home. Our home is located on 15 the corner of Arcadia and Gina Court. 16 We have an unusual lot 17 configuration, as Gina Court is the 18 cul-de-sac, and we're right at the corner, 19 so it does kind of come in a little bit. 20 The notice that was sent out actually said 21 we needed a front yard variance of 5.7, and 22 that was a little confusing to some of my 23 neighbors, so I did clarify that. 24 It was really in the court, and
113 1 it wasn't Arcadia. We weren't adding five 2 feet to the front of house. And the other 3 variance that we require to do this is a 4 rear yard setback of 7.08 feet. 5 In your review, I'd like the 6 Zoning Board to consider two primary 7 factors. First, as I just mentioned, is the 8 configuration of the lot. And the fact that 9 it -- this porch, which is poured cement and 10 brick, already exists. And all we're trying 11 to do is enclose it. 12 And second, and more important 13 to us, is the use of the room, will 14 really -- is intended to be for 15 rehabilitation for my wife who has multiple 16 sclerosis; had it for 30 years. I did 17 include an addendum to my application, and 18 we truly believe that this addition and 19 the -- what it would provide for her, the 20 functionality will allow her to have greater 21 mobility and maintain some of the gains that 22 she's recently had; and increase the quality 23 of her life. 24 I did run our plans by the
114 1 architectural committee of our subdivision 2 association. I've talked to my neighbors, 3 especially the ones who would be in direct 4 view of it, although it is landscaped quite 5 well, and there isn't really much of a view 6 of that. They've been supportive, and Debra 7 and I would appreciate your support of this 8 project. 9 And we thank you for your time 10 and consideration, and be happy to answer 11 any questions. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, sir. 13 There were 17 notices mailed. 14 There was one approval and zero objections. 15 Is there anyone in the audience 16 that has any comments? 17 Seeing none, Building 18 Department? 19 MR. SAVEN: You know I get 20 carried away on corner lots and definitions, 21 so you do have two front yards, as far as 22 I'm concerned, I'm sorry. 23 MR. VELICK: Yeah. And 24 maintaining the lawn and the landscaping and
115 1 two driveways, it is does feel like two 2 front yards. 3 MR. SAVEN: No doubt about the 4 particular one based on a lot configuration. 5 It's a very difficult issue. If you go 6 along, follow the curb of the property -- 7 which is on the Gina Court side, you will 8 see where that front yard comes in -- into 9 place for that particular variance. So, 10 just want to bring that to your attention. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 12 Mr. Saven does that just to 13 cause trouble. They like to do that to me, 14 too. You should have heard what he said 15 about my tie. 16 Board Members? 17 Member Canup? 18 MEMBER CANUP: I don't see any 19 problem with what they're asking, due to the 20 fact it's a corner lot. Circumstances are 21 very unique. 22 And I would be willing to make a 23 Motion to that effect. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Please do.
116 1 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a 2 Motion that in Case Number 05-045 -- yeah, 3 05-045, that we grant the variance as 4 requested, as long as any modifications that 5 are proposed match the existing architecture 6 and the facade of the existing home. 7 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 9 MR. VELICK: Absolutely. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Petitioner? 11 Excellent. 12 There's a Motion and a second. 13 Is there any further discussion? 14 Ms. Backus, would you please 15 call the roll. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 17 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 19 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi?
117 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 4 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 5 to zero. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance 7 has been granted. 8 Good luck to you. 9 MR. VELICK: Thank you very 10 much. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Please see the 12 Building Department. 13 14 Move on to our tenth case on the 15 agenda, Case Number, 05-046, for a residence 16 at 23925 East Lebost. 17 And will you both be speaking 18 tonight? 19 MR. WYATT: Yes. 20 MS. RESSEGUIE: Yes. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Please state 22 your names and raise your right hands. 23 MS. RESSEGUIE: I'm Karen 24 Resseguie. I'm the homeowner; and I brought
118 1 my friend Tom Wyatt with me. He's a little 2 more savvy with the math. 3 MR. WYATT: Tom Wyatt, 4 974(unintelligible) Northville, Michigan, a 5 friend. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: And if you 7 could raise your right hands to be sworn in, 8 please. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 10 or affirm that the information that you're 11 about to give in the matter before you, is 12 the truth? 13 MS. RESSEGUIE: Yes. 14 MR. WYATT: Yes. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Go ahead. 16 MS. RESSEGUIE: Again, my name 17 is Karen Resseguie, and I thank you today to 18 allow me to present my variance opportunity 19 here. 20 I am requesting to have a 21 attached garage put onto my house, and 22 replace the existing carport that's there. 23 And I would -- I'm requesting some variances 24 that you have in front of you; and I'd just
119 1 like to take this opportunity to let you 2 know that I'm very happy to be in the Novi 3 community. 4 I -- as a young individual at 5 17, I would drive out here to Novi to work 6 at the nursing home at 10 mile and Novi 7 Road. When I came to this community to work 8 out here, I decided that I would want to 9 live here. So after a lot of hard work and 10 studying, I was able to purchase my first 11 home out here. 12 So with that, I would like to 13 add value to my existing home by putting an 14 attached garage to this. I see this 15 community as an entrepreneur community, as 16 well as myself as an entrepreneur. 17 Therefore, I (unintelligible) at my home by 18 value to it by putting an attached garage. 19 And I'm just asking if you would 20 grant that for me. 21 MR. WYATT: I'd like to add a 22 couple things. Once again, my name is Tom 23 Wyatt. Karen is a single woman who has to 24 come home each night in the dark. And there
120 1 is her open carport is exposed. There is an 2 old metal shed in the back, also. The added 3 safety of an attached garage would add a lot 4 of comfort to her. 5 A two-car garage which she's 6 asking for, which is only 20 feet wide. 7 Most garages now are 24, 25. She's asking 8 for the minimum, with a two-car garage, as 9 most of homes in the neighborhood now have. 10 The variances -- there are four 11 variances. This is the current plot plan. 12 And the house is already 25 feet from the 13 road. And the one variance asks for -- it 14 says from 30 feet is the required setback. 15 The house as it was built 48 years ago, was 16 already 25 feet from the road. So, she's 17 asking more an additional five feet in front 18 to pull the garage out. 19 The house has no basement; has 20 no place for a laundry. She'd like to be 21 able to put a washer and dryer in the back 22 of the garage, and needs a little depth to 23 be able to do that. 24 The -- also on a side setback on
121 1 the northwest side setback of 15 feet, is 2 eight; that's already existing. That's 3 arrow shows north, on the northwest side. 4 Again, that was 48 years ago that house was 5 built and had only eight feet. So that -- 6 she can't really control that without 7 knocking down parts of the house. 8 The existing house, as it sets 9 right now -- and there is a shed back in 10 this area right here; and it is already very 11 close to the lot line. And the garage that 12 she is proposing -- which would be right 13 here, which would be farther from the lot 14 line than the existing shed is. 15 The carport, the existing 16 carport comes out to this front edge right 17 down here. And she's asking that the garage 18 go to the same distance as the carport has 19 been all along when she bought the house. 20 So she's not asking to come closer to the 21 road, or closer to the lot line. The 22 difference is, this would be a wood 23 structure with very fieldstone facia brick 24 on it, the facia on that, versus the open
122 1 carport on the side. 2 So the total variance -- the 3 fourth variance, which is total on both 4 sides, becomes difficult because she 5 already has eight feet. She's already seven 6 feet below the total variance from the house 7 being so close on the northwest side as it 8 was built. 9 The front yard is the main one, 10 and it shows a 12 foot front yard, but she's 11 really only asking for a five feet, to stay 12 within where her carport is, and allow for 13 the garage. This is a current picture of 14 the home; and you can see the carport right 15 here. And with the overhang on the front, 16 she's asking to come out to that same point 17 as that carport is right now. 18 All of the homes in the neighbor 19 hood are very close together. It's not an 20 open look view where someone might want to 21 open look, because as you can see, you have 22 trees over on this side. And each of the 23 houses are generally fenced in, closed yard, 24 trees and bushes put along those sides.
123 1 For safety reasons, she would 2 pull this tree out on this side and pull the 3 fence out so it will be an open backyard 4 back there, rather than closed in fenced. 5 And also the fence on the opposite side by 6 this carport here would come down, which 7 would allow more access and safety; in that 8 it would also allow her lawnboy to get in 9 and get lawn mowers for the backyard. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: All set. 11 MR. WYATT: I think so. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 13 There were 42 notices; and there 14 was one approval and three objections. One 15 objection from Michelle and Gary LeBeck at 16 23920 East Lebost. A lot of homes in the 17 subdivision have added garages, but they do 18 not project from the house. They are more 19 often flush with the house. 20 Another concern is the drawing 21 of the proposed garage and the depth of 22 that. Overall, no objections to the 23 addition of a garage; but would like to see 24 closer in alliance with the guidelines.
124 1 Sean Falkner of 23934 East 2 Lebost would request that the proposed 3 garage be set even with the front of the 4 house; also mentioned depth of the 5 structure. 6 And lastly, Shay and Michelle 7 Lorence, L-o-r-e-n-c-e, of 23911 East Lebost 8 have a concern about the size of the garage 9 and how far it would protrude from the 10 house. We approve of a garage with 11 dimensions similar to other homes in the 12 neighborhood; including the front yard 13 setback, closer to the required 30 feet. 14 Seeing only the next Petitioner 15 in the audience, we'll move to the Building 16 Department. 17 MR. SAVEN: Only for the fact 18 that the side yard setback requests are 19 based upon what the requirements are of the 20 new Ordinance. One of the variance requests 21 are dealing with the existing structure for 22 the side yard setback (unintelligible) 23 violations of the Ordinance, taking in 24 consideration the sum total of both sides
125 1 (unintelligible) that part of the package. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 3 Mr. Saven. 4 Board Members? 5 Member Sanghvi? 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 7 Mr. Chairman. 8 Question, how big is your house? 9 MS. RESSEGUIE: About -- just 10 shy of 1400 square feet. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: How big is the 12 garage that's going to be, what's going to 13 be square foot of the garage? 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: It's going to 15 be a total of 650 -- 16 MEMBER FISCHER: 620. 17 MS. RESSEGUIE: 620 square feet. 18 So it's basically -- 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Almost 50 20 percent of -- have you talked it over with 21 your neighbors and your neighborhood 22 homeowners association and the 23 architectural committee or anything like 24 that?
126 1 MS. RESSEGUIE: I did talk with 2 the neighbor across the street of me, who 3 had the concern of how far it was going to 4 come out. I indicated to her that it's 5 coming out no farther than the existing 6 carport currently, that she sees now. 7 The other neighbors, I was not 8 aware there was an issue. I know the 9 neighbor across the street had spoken and 10 said that it was fine. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Do you have a 12 homeowner's association? 13 MS. RESSEGUIE: I do. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Sanghvi, 15 if I could clarify that. There was a letter from 16 the homeowner's association, stating that they 17 did not have time to -- not that they didn't have 18 time -- they were too busy, but they didn't 19 receive any plans, and therefore, didn't have an 20 appropriate amount of time to review all the 21 plans; in order to make a approval or a denial. 22 And if more specific 23 instructions would be given to them, then 24 they would proceed with that approval or
127 1 denial. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: My only problem 3 is the front yard setback. A carport is one 4 thing; and a closed garage is a totally 5 different thing. And I don't think you can 6 compare the two. It's an open thing. 7 Beyond that, I don't have any 8 problem. 9 Thank you. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Brennan? 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Along the same 12 lines, do you have anymore detail than this 13 little sketch that we have? I mean, are you 14 at a point where you've gotten any 15 preliminary or elevation drawings or -- 16 MS. RESSEGUIE: I'm having my 17 contractor sketch that for me. I wasn't 18 really aware. I was trying to meet the 19 deadline for today to come in. 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: I have a same 21 or similar sentiment with respect to the 22 garage lining up with the front of the 23 house. I think you had two, if not three of 24 the neighbors make that same point. And
128 1 maybe you ought to consider that, what it 2 does to the backyard. I don't know. Do you 3 have a backyard setback? 4 There seems to be more interest 5 in having that flush along the front of the 6 house than jetting out, and I would support 7 that as well. I don't deny anybody's 8 interest in having a garage. That's for 9 darn sure. I'd like to see a little more 10 detail. I would (unintelligible) front of 11 the house, but that's just my personal 12 observation. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 14 Gronachan? 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I concur. I 16 would like to help you out. I don't know 17 what kind of time schedule you're on, but I 18 think that this needs to go back and we 19 need -- and taking the neighbors' concerns 20 about it being in front of the house, I 21 think you need to go back to the drawing 22 table; and see what it would do to put it 23 flush with the house and then take from 24 there.
129 1 I think if you did that, I think 2 you're going to make your neighbors happy. 3 And unfortunately, we couldn't approve it 4 like that, because it would have to be 5 readvertised. 6 MR. WYATT: Would it be your 7 recommendation that we actually make like a 8 frontal elevation view, also? Is that -- 9 would that be helpful? 10 MEMBER FISCHER: The more 11 detail. We like getting nice thick packets. 12 It's fun for us. The more detail always the 13 better; but -- 14 Member Canup? 15 MEMBER CANUP: The own thing 16 that I can see that we asking to change si 17 to move the garage back five feet, and that 18 would extend the rear yard five feet 19 farther. And if that didn't create -- we're 20 actually doing less than what was asked for. 21 Therefore, if my understanding 22 is right from the past lecture from the 23 attorney, that we can do that, we can give 24 less, but we can't give more. So if we move
130 1 the whole thing back five feet, make the 2 front line up; and then protrude five feet 3 farther in the back. As long as that 4 doesn't get into some rear yard setback 5 problem -- 6 MR. SAVEN: May I suggest that 7 you put the plot plan back up on the screen, 8 so we can take a look at it and see if we 9 can resolve it right now. 10 MEMBER CANUP: If we can deal 11 with this tonight -- nothing's going to 12 change between now and next month, except 13 for the fact that, they'll have it drawn on 14 paper -- 15 MEMBER FISCHER: The reason I 16 would like to see it is these objections. We can 17 have her work with her neighbors, and hopefully 18 get an association approval, as well. That's the 19 only reason I would like to see her go back. But 20 let's take a look and -- 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: How far is it 22 to the back lot, do you know? 23 MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) that's 24 in relationship to the side yard
131 1 (interposing) (unintelligible.) 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: We're going to 3 have to have her come back. 4 MR. WYATT: But if we are to the 5 front, we still would be five feet less than 6 the 30 foot requirement, because that's how 7 the house already is. Would that be 8 acceptable, because our builder wanted -- 9 because of the side variance that he was 10 mostly concerned, because she has to get 11 approval before she proceeded on with the 12 plans and the association. 13 MEMBER CANUP: That's fine. 14 If we agree to table, I don't 15 have a problem with that. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Would you agree 17 to that, tabling it until next month; given the 18 recommendations that the Board has given? 19 MS. RESSEGUIE: Yes. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: All right, 21 then. 22 We'll entertain a Motion. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: So moved. 24 MEMBER BAUER: See you next
132 1 month. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Please call the 3 roll. 4 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 5 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 6 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 8 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 9 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 17 to zero. 18 MR. WYATT: Thank you. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Your case has 20 been tabled; and we look forward to seeing what 21 you can bring back and (unintelligible) with your 22 neighbors. 23 MS. RESSEGUIE: Okay. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you.
133 1 2 And lastly, waiting so 3 patiently, Case Number 05-047, Northern 4 Equities, for an existing construction sign 5 at 39475. 6 Did you enjoy the meeting so far 7 tonight? 8 MR. LUTZ: Good evening. 9 Absolutely. I'm going to write 10 a book some day about these meetings. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Are you an 12 attorney? 13 MR. LUTZ: No. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 15 Then if you could raise your 16 hand and state your name and be sworn in by 17 the secretary. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 19 or affirm that the information that you're 20 about to give in the matter before you is 21 the truth? 22 MR. LUTZ: I do. 23 My name is Bill Lutz for Sign 24 Grafix at 39255 (unintelligible) Drive,
134 1 representing Northern Equities. 2 What they're asking for here is 3 an extension of the variance that was 4 granted about a year ago for a construction 5 site sign for Lewis Medical Center. That 6 facility has just been granted a certificate 7 of occupancy within the last couple of 8 months; and we've started to move a few 9 tenants in. It's about 12 percent leased 10 currently. 11 We are hoping to have it leased 12 within the next year, so we're asking for an 13 additional year for this construction site 14 sign. And I note, it doesn't say anything 15 about the architects or designers or any of 16 the other paraphernalia on it. It's pretty 17 straight forward. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 19 sir. 20 In this case, there were five 21 notices mailed; zero approvals, zero 22 objections. 23 No one in the audience. 24 Building Department?
135 1 MR. SAVEN: No comment. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Brennan? 3 MR. AMOLSCH: Bill, we talked 4 about this earlier, about those right of way 5 problems and (unintelligible.) 6 MR. LUTZ: Absolutely. I'll 7 mention that to Matt tomorrow, and we'll 8 make sure that that's moved, 9 (unintelligible) because it's not located 10 correctly. 11 MR. AMOLSCH: If the Board 12 approves it. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: I only had one 15 question, build-out, and you answered that 16 12 percent. I have no problem supporting 17 this. 18 I guess we have some little work 19 to do, relocation and -- 20 MR. LUTZ: I think the sign was 21 put in before, Alan, the sidewalk was there, 22 was it not? 23 MR. AMOLSCH: Yeah, that's 24 correct.
136 1 MR. LUTZ: That might have been 2 (unintelligible.) 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: With the nods 4 -- in Case Number, 05-047, I would move that 5 the Petitioner's request be granted for an 6 additional year; with comments by Alan as 7 part of the record. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: A Motion and a 10 lot of support. 11 And seeing no further 12 discussion, Ms. Backus, please call the 13 roll. 14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 19 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 21 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?
137 1 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 2 Congratulations. 3 MR. LUTZ: Thank you very much. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: After all of 5 that. It took two minutes to get your variance. 6 MR. LUTZ: Always nice to see you 7 all. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We're looking 9 forward to the book. 10 A. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: We'll move on 12 to other matters. 13 The Building Department wanted 14 to inform us as to 05-127? 15 MR. SAVEN: Yes. 16 In your packet, you have a 17 request from Mr. Sam Khoury. He had 18 received a variance from the Board February 19 2nd, 2005. He's asking for a 40 day 20 extension, due to the fact that he's 21 (unintelligible) completion of his final 22 architectural plans. And we're taking a 23 look at site (unintelligible) problem 24 (unintelligible) trying to deal with right
138 1 now, and he's asking for a 40 day extension. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 3 Mr. Saven. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Do we need to 5 make a Motion? 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. 7 Member Sanghvi? 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Oh, I'll make a 9 Motion to approve this extension of 40 days 10 in this particular case. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: 14 days or 40 12 days? 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: 40 days. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: From today's 15 date? 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: From today's 17 date. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a 19 Motion. Is there a second? 20 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Any further 22 discussion? 23 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, please 24 call the roll.
139 1 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 3 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 4 MEMBER BAUER: Yes? 5 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 7 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 8 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 9 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 13 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 14 to zero. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 16 Lastly, just a reminder to Board 17 Members, as well as anyone watching at 9:47, 18 that next month's meeting is the second 19 Tuesday, July 12th, because of the holiday. 20 And this Board stands adjourned 21 until July 12th, 2005. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 23 (The meeting was adjourned at 24 9:50 p.m.)
140 1 - - - - - - - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
141 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 I, Machelle Billingslea-Moore, 4 do hereby certify that I have recorded 5 stenographically the proceedings had and testimony 6 taken in the above-entitled matter at the time and 7 place hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify 8 that the foregoing transcript, consisting of (134) 9 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript 10 of my said stenograph notes. 11 12 13 ___________________________ Machelle Billingslea-Moore, 14 Certified Shorthand Reporter 15 16 July 14, 2005. (Date)
|