| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting REGULAR MEETING - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and testimony BOARD MEMBERS Mav Sanghvi, Chairman ALSO PRESENT: Don Saven, Building Department REPORTED BY: 1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3 7:30 p.m. 4 - - - - - - 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: There you are. 6 It's 7:30. I'd like to call 7 to order the June 2006 meeting of the 8 City of Novi Zoning Board of Appeals. 9 Will you please rise and join 10 me in the pledge of allegiance? 11 Thank you. 12 BOARD MEMBERS: I pledge 13 allegiance to the flag of the United States 14 of America. And to the Republic for which 15 it stands, one nation, under God, 16 indivisible with liberty and justice for 17 all. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 19 All right. 20 Ms. Working, will you please 21 call the roll. 22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 23 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 3
1 Member Fischer? 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Present. 3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Present. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. 7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 8 MEMBER SHROYER: Here. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, we do 10 have a quorum and the meeting is now in session. 11 I would like to go over the 12 general rules of conduct. I think you'll 13 find them on your agenda, and I think we can 14 all read, so I'm going to skip going through 15 all the details. 16 Just a reminder, please turn 17 off all of your cell phones and pagers. 18 (Unintelligible) may take five minutes and 19 group may take up to ten minutes to address 20 the Board. 21 Zoning Board of Appeals is a 22 Hearing Board empowered by the Novi City 23 Charter to hear appeals seeking variances 24 from the application of the Novi Zoning
4
1 Ordinances. It takes a vote of at least 2 four members to approve a variance; and a 3 vote of the majority of the Members present 4 to deny a variance. Tonight, we have a full 5 quorum, so all decisions made here will be 6 final. 7 Are there any changes to the 8 agenda? 9 MR. SAVEN: Members of the 10 Board, I would like to add under other matters 11 two specific issues. One being an update on 12 Public Act (unintelligible) Public Act of 2006. 13 I'd like our attorney to basically go over a few 14 of these major concerns that each community has 15 been having regarding this particular Act. And 16 also as item number four, input from the Board 17 for Council's Goals and objectives 18 (unintelligible) coming up. Any issue the Board 19 would like to bring forward, I believe this would 20 be a good time to do it. 21 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chair, I 22 have two changes to the agenda, please. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Item number
5
1 three on the agenda, Case Number: 06-043 2 should read on Meadowbrook Road between 12 3 and Thirteen Mile Roads. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Uh-huh, yes. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Okay. Item 6 number nine on the agenda, Case Number 06-050. 7 The applicant would like to extend the use of the 8 sign, not to extend the sign, itself. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, thank 10 you. 11 ROBIN WORKING Thank you. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. 13 The agenda has been amended. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Motion to 15 approve as amended? 16 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 18 e) All signify by saying aye? 19 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Any opposed, 21 same sign. 22 Thank you. We have an agenda. 23 And let's go and have any 24 Minutes.
6
1 We have Minutes here from the 2 April 4th, 2006 meeting, and I hope 3 everybody had an opportunity to look at 4 them. 5 Is there any changes or 6 amendments to the Minutes? 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Motion to 8 approve as amended? 9 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Been moved and 11 seconded. Signify by saying aye? 12 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: All those 14 apposed, same sign. 15 All right. 16 Let's open the meeting for any 17 kind of public remarks section now. 18 Is there anybody in the 19 audience that would like to make any kind of 20 comments about anything, other that be cases 21 which are on the agenda. 22 MS. PERISIAN: 23 (Unintelligible.) I don't have an agenda, 24 so.
7
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 2 e) agenda right up in front. 3 MS. PERISIAN: 4 (Unintelligible.) 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please come 6 over to the podium and identify yourself. 7 MS. PERISIAN: My name is Ann 8 Perisian. I live at (unintelligible.) I 9 received your letter (unintelligible.) I 10 found it rather misleading. Many of us had 11 the impression that the sign was going to be 12 on Grand River. But at closer observation, 13 we to notice -- I don't see how it got past 14 (unintelligible) we noticed that there was a 15 sign on Meadowbrook previously. 16 Our objection is why do we 17 have to have a sign? I mean, they already 18 (unintelligible) at the school 19 (unintelligible.) So I don't know why they 20 should have a sign. Is there some reason 21 for it? 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: We'll come to 23 that item (unintelligible) the agenda. We will 24 (unintelligible) what this is all about.
8
1 MS. PERISIAN: I beg your 2 pardon? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 4 e) note your objection. 5 Thank you. 6 MS. PERISIAN: Okay. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 8 Anybody else? 9 Seeing none, I think we will 10 close the Public Remarks Section now. 11 12 And move on to Case Number: 13 06-040 filed by National Coney Island at 14 31120 Beck Road. 15 Is the applicant here? 16 Okay. Looks like we don't 17 have applicant here yet. This is 18 (unintelligible) later on. We'll move to 19 the next one. 20 21 Number two, Case Number: 22 06-041 filed by Farmer Jack, at 41840 West 23 Ten Mile Road. 24 Is the applicant here?
9
1 MR. DECKER: That would be me, 2 sir. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please come. 4 MR. DECKER: (Unintelligible) 5 Mark Decker. I'm the new manager of Farmer 6 Jacks (unintelligible.) 7 MEMBER FISCHER: You want to use 8 the podium? 9 MR. DECKER: Yes. 10 What we would like to do is -- 11 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right 12 hand and be sworn in, please. 13 Do you solemnly swear or 14 affirm to tell the truth regarding this 15 case? 16 MR. DECKER: I do. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 18 MR. DECKER: Okay. 19 I'm the new manager of the 20 Farmer Jacks down the street. I've been 21 there for four months. Previously, they 22 have never filed for a permit for outdoor 23 seasonal merchandise; flowers, that sort of 24 thing. And I wanted to do the right thing
10
1 by filing for a permit; and having Council 2 approve this so we can move on with a good 3 commercial relationship between the City. 4 So, I'm submitting a permit so 5 I can have flowers, pumpkins, watermelons, 6 anything that lends to the business in a 7 tasteful fashion outdoors on the southside 8 of the building. 9 That's basically where I'm at. 10 I'm looking for your approval. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good. 12 Any comments from the Building 13 Department? 14 MR. SAVEN: I would like to 15 point out, this is a very similar nature to 16 that what we had before us with the ACO 17 Shopping or ACO business, which is north of 18 this gentleman. 19 MR. DECKER: Yes, same 20 complex. 21 MR. SAVEN: This is a B-3 22 zoning district, and I do believe it is 23 commensurate with his business. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Now, anybody in
11
1 the audience that would like to make a comment 2 about this particular case? 3 Seeing none, (unintelligible.) 4 Member Fischer? 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Notices. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 7 e) 32 mailed; zero approvals, zero objections. 8 Now, Board Members? 9 Anybody would like to have any 10 comments, objections? 11 As far as I can see myself, 12 this is standard thing for a lot of stores 13 in Novi, and (unintelligible) anything more 14 than a normal (unintelligible) way of doing 15 things in Novi in the summertime. 16 And I have no difficulty in 17 recommending it. 18 Yes, Mr. Bauer? 19 MEMBER BAUER: You're going to 20 have some kind of a guard in your 21 (unintelligible) watermelons 22 (unintelligible) in case people walk off 23 with them at night, you don't give the 24 police department extra work?
12
1 MR. DECKER: Basically, that's 2 a cost of doing business. It's -- we could 3 move them back in side, but the pallets of 4 watermelons will not fit through the front 5 door, so you would have to take them all the 6 way around the building; locate them back 7 inside and bring them back in out in the 8 evening. 9 Mostly, what it will be is 10 floral, seasonal merchandise. If it's -- if 11 any high ticket value, we would be mindful 12 of that to bring it inside, such as, you 13 know, summer tables or things like that. 14 But, watermelons, it's basically a cost of 15 doing business. If someone were to walk off 16 with a watermelon -- I mean -- 17 MEMBER BAUER: I'll remember. 18 MR. DECKER: -- the margin on 19 that is pretty high. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 21 MR. DECKER: You're welcome. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: And 23 Mr. Shroyer? 24 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl
13
1 e.) 2 You're looking at the same 3 location that in years past has been 4 displayed seasonal produce and 5 what-have-you, correct? 6 MR. DECKER: Yes, sir. 7 MEMBER SHROYER: (unintelligibl 8 e) southside of the building, it really is the 9 southside of the entrance. 10 MR. DECKER: Yes. 11 MEMBER SHROYER: From the front 12 of the building; you're not talking about the 13 southside of the building. 14 MR. DECKER: No, not the 15 southside. Just off the entrance, just on 16 the southside. 17 In previous years, they have 18 had put flowers on both sides of the doors, 19 which I don't believe is the right thing to 20 do. I wanted just the one side of the 21 building with a tasteful display in mind, 22 and it's an evolving thing. It will change 23 with what produce is available. It might be 24 corn at one time.
14
1 MEMBER SHROYER: The watermelons 2 (unintelligible) line up all your employees and 3 pass them in one at a time? 4 MR. DECKER: Yeah, if I had 5 that many employees. 6 MEMBER SHROYER: If you'd like, 7 Mr. Chair, I'll go ahead and make a Motion? 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please, go 9 ahead. 10 MEMBER SHROYER: In Case Number 11 06-041, filed by Farmer Jacks, 41840 West Ten 12 Mile Road, where the applicant is requesting a 13 temporary use permit to display seasonal 14 merchandise as a sidewalk sale (unintelligible) 15 time period from June 6th to October 31st, 2006, 16 I move that we -- that the request be granted and 17 limited to a four foot 40 foot sign on the 18 southside of the entrance. 19 The pedestrian walkway between 20 the merchandise and the curbing to be 21 maintained for ingress and egress for safety 22 purposes of pedestrians. And it is noted 23 that the Petitioner has received written 24 permission for this activity from the
15
1 property owner. 2 MEMBER BAUER: Second the 3 Motion. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: A Motion has 5 been made and seconded. 6 Any further discussion? 7 Seeing none, will you please 8 call the roll. 9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 10 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 12 Member Fischer? 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 14 ROBIN WORKING: Member 15 Gronachan? 16 I'm sorry about that. 17 Member Krieger? 18 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 19 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 21 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 22 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 23 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 24 five to zero.
16
1 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm sure Member 2 Gronachan would have said yes. 3 MR. DECKER: Thank you. 4 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Moving on next 6 case, this is case number 06-043, filed by Terry 7 Crossley at Crosspointe Meadows Church, r/k/a, 8 Redford Baptist Church on Meadowbrook Road 9 between 12 and 13 Mile Road. 10 There you are. 11 You are making the 12 presentation? 13 MR. CROSSLEY: Yes. 14 I'm Terry Crossley, 39830 15 Grand River. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: And you'll be 17 sworn in by the secretary, please. 18 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or 19 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 06-043? 20 MR. CROSSLEY: Yes, I do. 21 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 22 MR. CROSSLEY: Yes. We're 23 here to ask for a -- essentially an 24 extension of our sign permit. We've had a
17
1 sign on our property for five years; 2 however, this year we'd like to ask that we 3 change that sign. In the past, it's been a 4 flat ground sign that would run parallel to 5 Meadowbrook Road. 6 And in talking to various 7 people that have traveled Meadowbrook Road, 8 it's very difficult to read, being parallel 9 to the road. They have to slow down. It 10 was mentioned that maybe a V sign similar to 11 what a lot of the real estate agents use 12 would give us better exposure and 13 readability; and not require that people 14 slow down on the road to read the sign. 15 And the previously sign was 16 approximately 48 square feet; and we're 17 asking for the V style. We've taken that 18 down in size. The two signs together is -- 19 brings it up just slightly over 54 square 20 feet or right at 54 square feet. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Anything else? 22 MR. CROSSLEY: No. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 24 Building Department?
18
1 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: No comments, 3 very good. 4 This is then time then for the 5 comments by the public. 6 And you already made your 7 comments heard. 8 MS. PERISIAN: Yes. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Anybody else 10 who would like to make any comments about this 11 particular case? 12 Seeing none -- 13 MS. PERISIAN: Can I say 14 something? 15 I think you've got to be very 16 careful -- 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Ma'am, ma'am, 18 you have to (unintelligible) (interposing.) 19 MS. PERISIAN: I think we have 20 to be very careful that we have a church 21 sign very close to the school. 22 (Unintelligible) we don't want to appear 23 that we're endorsing, you know -- 24 affiliating the school with the church. So
19
1 I think we have to be very careful nowadays, 2 because so many things are politicized now 3 and they're connected with -- and actually 4 they are not. They're not supposed to be. 5 So, I would be in favor of not having one at 6 all. I don't think it's right for the 7 school to really have -- to bear that. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 9 All right. Any other 10 comments? 11 We sent out 247 notices were 12 mailed; zero approvals and two objections. 13 Ms. secretary? Oh, you are 14 over there. (Interposing) (unintelligible) 15 would you kindly read the (unintelligible.) 16 ROBIN WORKING: The Building 17 Department received two objections. 18 Objection number one in Case 19 06-043 from, from Ann Perisian? 20 MS. PERISIAN: Yes. 21 ROBIN WORKING: I'm opposed to 22 the erection of any sign on the property 23 (unintelligible) would urge the Zoning Board to 24 enforce the current Code of Ordinance Section
20
1 2811A. I plan on attending the Public Hearing on 2 June 6th. 3 The second objection was 4 received from Elizabeth Ann Hurbert and she 5 states that (unintelligible) on Meadowbrook; 6 and when they build a church, that should be 7 sufficient. 8 And that is all the 9 correspondence at this time. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 11 All right. 12 Yes, Mr. Schultz. 13 MR. SCHULTZ: I think 14 (unintelligible) I may briefly through the Chair, 15 while I understand the comment from the member of 16 the public in the context that it was intended, 17 just so we're clear. This is property that's 18 owned by the church, and which they actually have 19 a site plan approved to build a church. I want 20 to make sure the Board's aware that this is 21 permitted, if you permit it and (unintelligible) 22 sign variance request; pretty much only that. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 24 Yes?
21
1 MR. SAVEN: Also to point out, 2 I do believe -- I do believe the gentleman 3 indicated this is a replacement sign for the 4 existing one. 5 MR. CROSSLEY: Yes. This 6 would be replacement(unintelligible) 7 (interposing.) 8 MR. SAVEN: (Unintelligible) 9 (interposing.) 10 MR. CROSSLEY: It would be a 11 replacement for the existing sign. We have 12 had the sign there for five years now. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead, 14 Mr. Bauer? 15 MEMBER BAUER: 16 (Unintelligible) going to have a sign also 17 for building? 18 MR. SAVEN: I think from a 19 standpoint (unintelligible) he may have to change 20 it to a building sign, which would be 64 square 21 foot; is that correct, Alan? 22 MR. AMOLSCH: Construction 23 identification sign. 24 MR. SAVEN: A construction
22
1 identification sign would probably have the same 2 inference (unintelligible) that sign would 3 probably come down and this construction sign -- 4 MEMBER BAUER: (unintelligible.) 5 MR. SAVEN: Still ending up with 6 one sign. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Anybody else? 8 Yes, Ms. Krieger? 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Regarding the 10 sign the applicant has requested, that it would 11 be reduced in size, even though the overall size 12 of two views would make it larger, but it would 13 make it a safer drive for north and southbound, 14 for anyone that would be trying to view; and also 15 that it is the applicant's private property, so 16 that they would have the opportunity to display 17 what their intention is with that property, and 18 draw attention. 19 And so I have no objections to 20 it. 21 Thank you. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 23 Anybody else? 24 Anybody like to make a Motion?
23
1 MEMBER FISCHER: I have a 2 question. 3 What's the square footage of 4 the current sign? 5 MR. CROSSLEY: The current 6 sign is 48 square feet; the proposed sign 7 would be 54. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: You're 9 increasing. 10 MR. CROSSLEY: We are 11 increasing. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 13 I personally think that five 14 years has been quite a while to have such a 15 sign up there. The speed limit on that road 16 is 30 miles per hour. I don't have any 17 problem seeing it, and I go a little faster 18 than that. 19 Also, I guess I have a 20 question why the sign doesn't read something 21 to the effect of it's coming. We have final 22 site plan approval now. 23 So if it's all right with the 24 Board, I prefer to discuss this a little
24
1 more and see if we can bring the sign down 2 and talk some verbiage. This sign's been up 3 there for five years now. I can't see 4 approving it for much longer. 5 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 7 Anything else? 8 Yes Mr. Saven? 9 MR. SAVEN: The sign does show 10 (unintelligible) top left corner. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: That's true. 12 But it also advertises the time of the church and 13 everything. I think that that could be taken 14 care of in advertising and marketing. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, what's 16 your pleasure? 17 You can make a Motion. 18 Yes, Mr. Shroyer? 19 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl 20 e) ask another question. 21 Mr. Amolsch, explain to me 22 about the construction sign. At what time 23 would that go up during the construction 24 permit?
25
1 MR. AMOLSCH: A construction 2 identification sign can be (unintelligible) 3 64 square foot; 15 foot tall; construction 4 ID sign. 5 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl 6 e) permission, (unintelligible) have not applied 7 for a building permit? 8 MR. AMOLSCH: They have not 9 gotten a building permit yet. 10 MEMBER SHROYER: They've got 11 final site plan approval. 12 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes 13 (unintelligible.) 14 MEMBER SHROYER: Mr. Crossley -- 15 MR. CROSSLEY: May address the 16 timing on our plan? 17 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl 18 e) applying for the building permit. 19 MR. CROSSLEY: The final site 20 plan was approved earlier this year in 21 March. We're currently working with our 22 architect to get all of the information 23 required for a building permit. We plan to 24 have a groundbreaking in the fall of this
26
1 year, with construction beginning in the 2 spring of 2007, next year, with completion 3 in 2008, spring of 2008. 4 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 5 So does groundbreaking 6 officially begin construction? 7 (Interposing) (unintelligible.) 8 This fall (unintelligible.) 9 MR. AMOLSCH: He doesn't have 10 to (unintelligible) Board (unintelligible) 11 the Motion (unintelligible) of the 12 construction identification sign, unless you 13 want to have two signs on the project. 14 MEMBER SHROYER: No, we don't 15 want two signs. So really we're talking maybe 16 four months, 5 months? 17 I believe that you could live 18 with the current sign for a period that 19 would be that long, as opposed to granting 20 another sign that may end up with two V 21 signs (unintelligible) actually larger than 22 the existing sign. Once you put up the 23 construction identification sign, you know, 24 obviously, people are going to know the
27
1 church is being built; and then said it's 2 going to be another good period of time 3 (unintelligible) the church is built. 4 So at this point, I believe 5 I'm against approval of this variance 6 request. 7 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 9 All right. 10 Any other discussion? 11 Anybody wants to make a Motion 12 one way or the other? 13 Yes, Mr. Fischer? 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 15 Mr. Chair. 16 I would move that the Board 17 deny Case Number 06-043, filed by Terry 18 Crossley of Crosspointe Meadows Church, 19 given that the Petitioner has not 20 established a practical difficulty, given 21 that the timing for the sign that that has 22 been requested would be somewhere around the 23 area of four months, or until the building 24 permit is issued; at which point they could
28
1 have their construction identification sign. 2 MR. SAVEN: Point of clarity? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Saven. 4 MR. SAVEN: I guess a question I 5 would have is that he be allowed to have a sign 6 until the building permit? 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 8 MR. SAVEN: We need to move to 9 extend the existing -- (unintelligible.) 10 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may, 11 Mr. Chair? 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 13 MR. SCHULTZ: Based upon the 14 Motion that's on the table, they would be 15 permitted no sign, and what's there would have to 16 come down. (Unintelligible.) 17 MEMBER FISCHER: I would like to 18 withdraw that Motion. Then I would move to just 19 approve the current sign? 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Extend. 21 MEMBER SHROYER: No revision. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: I move that in 23 Case Number: 06-043, filed by Terry Crossley at 24 Crosspointe Church, at 29200 Meadowbrook Road,
29
1 that the Board grant an extension of the current 2 sign, in lieu of the one requested for the period 3 of up to six months or when the building permit 4 is issued, whichever is first; given that the 5 Petitioner has established practical difficulty 6 for a sign of that size; as opposed to the one 7 requested. 8 MEMBER BAUER: Second 9 (unintelligible.) 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion as been 11 made and seconded. 12 Any further discussion? 13 Seeing none, Ms. Working, 14 please call the roll. 15 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 16 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 17 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 19 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 20 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 21 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 23 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 24 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
30
1 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 2 five to zero. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 4 5 All right. Moving on. Next 6 one, Case Number 06-044, filed by West 7 Market Fuel at Westmarket Square 8 Development. 9 Is there anyone here to make a 10 presentation? 11 Will you please identify 12 yourself and be sworn in by the secretary, 13 please. 14 MR. HAMAME: Michael Hamame 15 for West Market Fuel. 16 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly 17 swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case, 18 06-044? 19 MR. HAMAME: Yes. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 21 MR. HAMAME: Well, Members of 22 the Board, at this time we'd like to ask for 23 a continuance on this matter. We have a 24 Planning Commission meeting scheduled for
31
1 the 28th, at which point we believe we 2 should get a variance -- a waiver; in which 3 case, we won't need this variance. 4 We'd like to be placed on the 5 agenda for the 11th of July. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. You'd 7 like this to be tabled. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Motion to table 9 this case until July, 2006. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 11 All those in favor, signify by 12 saying aye. 13 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: All those 15 opposed, same sign. 16 Your Motion has been tabled. 17 MR. HAMAME: Thank you. 18 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 20 e) Case Number: 06-045, filed by Jamie Kjos 21 (unintelligible) Brightmoor Christian Church at 22 40800 West 13 Mile Road. 23 MR. KJOS: You did great. 24 (Unintelligible.)
32
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please identify 2 yourself -- please give your name and address -- 3 and be sworn in by the secretary, please. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly 5 swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case: 6 06-045? 7 MR. KJOS: I do. 8 My name is Jamie Kjos of 9 Commerce Township, and it's just an honor to 10 be in front of the Board here for the first 11 time. I had an opportunity of moving from 12 Pennsylvania to the great state of Michigan 13 now, so I'm a Michigander. 14 So I stand in front of you 15 realizing tip number seven, encourages me to 16 be concise and to the point, so I will. 17 I stand before you on behalf 18 1800 people that come to Brightmoor 19 Christian Church, asking the leaders of Novi 20 that you would grant us a sign variance for 21 the following reasons. 22 Since I had the opportunity of 23 moving here last October, I have performed 24 numerous weddings, funerals and certain
33
1 events, and have noticed that people have 2 been trickling in sometimes 15, 20 minutes, 3 30 minutes late to some of these events. 4 And when we go to question them or they 5 would actually come and talk to me about why 6 they were late, they would say, we could not 7 locate your building. Your church does not 8 look like a church. It looks like an office 9 complex, so they would drive by. 10 And so we are looking to see 11 if we can better label our building, to make 12 it more convenient from M-5 for people to 13 locate Brightmoor Christian Church when they 14 come. We also offer a lot of community 15 programs: Such as, grief share during the 16 week, which enables people from the 17 community to come to our campus that have 18 lost maybe a spouse or a child, and they can 19 come and have professional help. 20 We offer a celebrate recovery 21 group to the community where people who have 22 addictions -- whatever that would be -- are 23 allowed to come to our campus and also seek 24 help through our celebrate recovery. And so
34
1 we are looking to see if we can get a sign 2 on our wall that faces M-5 that would help 3 label us better for the community; and also 4 for people who are attempting to come to our 5 campus. 6 The reason why we're asking 7 for the size of the sign is we are 8 approximately 300 yards from M-5. The speed 9 on M-5 is 55 miles an hour. We do own all 10 of the property from our building to M-5, so 11 there's no other person or business that 12 owns any of that property in that capacity 13 there. 14 So, in essence of that, that 15 kind of sums it up, but we're looking for a 16 variance from the Novi Board in that 17 capacity. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: You're done? 19 MR. KJOS: I'm done. If 20 there's any questions, I'll be glad to 21 answer them. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Is there anyone 23 in the audience that wishes to address the Board 24 regarding this case?
35
1 Seeing none, I'll inform the 2 Board that 218 notices were mailed; zero 3 approvals, two objections. 4 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chair, we 5 have two objections. One was filed by David 6 Havalero and Julie Navera, and it simply is 7 stated that they objected. There were no 8 clarifying comments. 9 The second objection was filed 10 by Robert L. Blokman, and it states. I am 11 an owner of a condo in the Lenox Park 12 Development. And I reviewed the plans for 13 the proposed sign (unintelligible) 14 Brightmoor Christian Church. I oppose the 15 issuance of a variance for the following 16 reasons. 17 When we recently purchased our 18 property, we did so based on the tasteful 19 appearance of the church next door. Large 20 lettering on the side of the building is 21 clearly not in keeping with that tasteful 22 appearance nor the character of the area. 23 We would have second thoughts 24 about our purchase, had the proposed
36
1 lettering been present; and can only believe 2 some percentage of perspective purchasers 3 (unintelligible) in the future will have 4 similar hesitations. The second paragraph 5 states the church invested in the property 6 understanding the zoning regulations. I 7 have been informed that the church now 8 argues those relations should not apply to 9 it because it is difficult for some people 10 to locate the building when driving on M-5. 11 However, since the address of 12 the church is Thirteen Mile Road and since 13 Thirteen Mile Road is well marked on M-5, it 14 is hard to imagine that there is any undue 15 burden at all on finding the building. 16 Further, there exist -- there already exists 17 a sign on Thirteen Mile, and the large 18 structure, itself, has certain other design 19 elements, i.e., crosses, to show it is a 20 church. 21 I respectfully request this 22 variance be denied. 23 That ends the correspondence. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.
37
1 Building Department? 2 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment. 3 MR. SAVEN: Nothing, sir. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good. 5 Yes, Mr. Fischer? 6 MEMBER FISCHER: I guess my 7 first question now that you're a Michigander, do 8 you prefer Michigan State or Michigan? That's a 9 big one for me. 10 MR. KJOS: You know, in 11 pastoring the church, I've found that that's 12 the trick question. And so I say to them 13 I'm an LSU fan, since I attended the 14 Louisiana State University. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Where Nick 16 (unintelligible.) 17 MR. KJOS: Yes. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Gotcha. Took 19 him from us. 20 I guess my next question would 21 be, you did state that you do own everything 22 to the corner? 23 MR. KJOS: That is correct. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay.
38
1 My question to the Building 2 Department, given that it's on corner; 3 (unintelligible) two different parcels, why 4 are they not allowed two sign, because they 5 front two different streets? 6 MR. AMOLSCH: (Unintelligible) 7 a ground sign (unintelligible) that's the 8 only sign they get. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl 10 e) ground sign. 11 MR. AMOLSCH: Ground sign. 12 (Unintelligible) facing each thoroughfare. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 14 Given that, I prefer the 15 ground sign on Thirteen Mile. 16 Now is this to scale, to the 17 best of your knowledge? 18 MR. KJOS: Yes, that is, to 19 the best of our knowledge. 20 Member Fischer: Okay. 21 Given the comments by the 22 Building Department, I would like to note a 23 couple things. First of all, the speed on 24 M-5 is 55 miles per hour. Drove by this
39
1 site. The site is tremendous. You have a 2 school involved as well as -- 3 MR. KJOS: Yes, we do have a 4 school that has approximately 275 students. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 6 So it's a large campus; plenty 7 of greenspace if you plan on doing 8 anything -- do you plan on doing anything 9 (unintelligible) that greenspace or is it 10 protected? 11 MR. KJOS: We do have 12 wetlands, I do know. I mean, we have a 13 master plan that ultimately might include a 14 sanctuary, but it's not in the near future 15 at all. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 17 MR. KJOS: I do know we have 18 protected wetlands on our site. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 20 Given the sketch that we also 21 see, I think that this is tasteful and it is 22 needed. Anything smaller would not be 23 useful at all. 24 So I would be willing to
40
1 approve this and be willing to make a 2 Motion, if there are any heads nodding. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 4 Anybody else? 5 Go ahead, Mr. Shroyer? 6 MEMBER SHROYER: I just have a 7 comment or two. 8 First of all, will you please 9 put one of these up on the overhead, so the 10 audience can see it; and so our viewing 11 audience at home can see it, as well. It 12 will come in focus, I believe. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: I think that's 14 in focus. 15 MEMBER SHROYER: One of the 16 comments I had, I did want to make sure the folks 17 the previous speaker spoke to, that you do own 18 all the property? 19 MR. KJOS: Yes, sir. 20 MEMBER SHROYER: From the corner 21 all the way to M-5. 22 MR. KJOS: That is correct. 23 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl 24 e) never be any future development between your
41
1 property and M-5. 2 I have been a proponent, ever 3 since I've been on the Board here of any 4 business -- and I'll call it a business even 5 though you're nonprofit -- it's a business. 6 MR. KJOS: Sure. 7 MEMBER SHROYER: -- that backs 8 up or is adjacent to a major thoroughfare, such 9 as M-5, 275, 96 -- be permitted to advertise 10 there location, as well. 11 So I'm in favor of this, as 12 well. 13 And that's all I have, 14 Mr. Chair. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 16 Yes, Mr. Fischer? 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Chair, I'd 18 like to move that in Case Number: 06-045, filed 19 by Jamie Kjos of Brightmoor Christian Church at 20 40800 West Thirteen Mile, that the Board grant 21 the variance as requested; given the fact that 22 the Petitioner has established a practical 23 difficulty, given the public safety concerns and 24 the speed on M-5 and the difficulty locating the
42
1 address; the size of the campus, given that they 2 also own the property to M-5; the type of 3 business, giving the weddings and funerals and 4 how many visitors they may have from out of town; 5 also given 300 foot setback they have from M-5; 6 and that the Petitioner's also established that 7 less is not possible, because it would not be 8 visible from M-5. 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 11 It's been seconded. 12 Any further comments? 13 I see none, Ms. Working, will 14 you please call the roll. 15 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 16 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 17 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 19 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 20 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 21 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 23 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 24 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
43
1 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 2 five to zero. 3 MR. KJOS: Thank you very 4 much. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. You 6 have a nice day. 7 MS. PERISIAN: May I ask a 8 question. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Ma'am -- 10 MS. PERISIAN: May I ask a 11 question? 12 In putting up these signs, are 13 they permitted to put up social or political 14 statements at all? 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Chair, 16 she's out of order. 17 MS. PERISIAN: We've got 18 signs, we've got signs, we've got signs. 19 Will they go on to that? 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Chair, 21 she's out of order (interposing) 22 (unintelligible.) 23 MS. PERISIAN: 24 (Unintelligible.)
44
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Point of order. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Excuse me. The 3 time for the public remarks section -- the time 4 for your comments was when I announced does 5 anybody have any comments to make. That time has 6 now passed. 7 MS. PERISIAN: Oh, I'm sorry. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: I'm sorry, 9 thank you. 10 RIGHT2: Okay. All right. 11 That was my concern. 12 Thank you. 13 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Moving 15 along. Case Number: 06-047, filed by Doug Necci 16 for 2117 West Lake Drive. 17 The applicant is here? 18 Okay. While he's setting up, 19 I will -- the applicant is requesting four 20 variances for the construction of a 21 landscaped stone wall to be located within 22 the front yard setback, interior and 23 exterior side yards, including an extension 24 of a curb with pedestals at the rear yard
45
1 seawall and interior/exterior side yard of 2 the property at 2117 West Lake Drive. 3 Very good. (Unintelligible) 4 Would you please identify yourself and -- 5 MR. NECCI: Yes, thank you. 6 My name is Doug Necci. I live 7 at 50850 Apple(unintelligible) in Novi. I'm 8 here representing Jan Rosenthal, the owner 9 of the home that's under construction and 10 the subject property. 11 The home is nearly complete 12 and we're here to talk about mainly some 13 landscaping and site issues. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Are you an 15 attorney? 16 MR. NECCI: No, I'm an 17 architect. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 19 e) sworn in by our secretary. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or 21 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case: 06-047? 22 MR. NECCI: I do. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay.
46
1 MR. NECCI: Thank you. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please go ahead 3 and make your presentation. 4 MR. NECCI: We've been before 5 you on previous occasions for setback and 6 lot coverage variances, which were granted; 7 and then most recently we were here to get 8 variances on the decorative stone wall that 9 surrounds this house. That was requested on 10 the west and south side of the house. 11 Today, we're here asking that 12 that same wall be completed on the third 13 side of the house on the northside, what 14 they call the interior side yard. The wall 15 will be the same as those that were 16 previously approved. There's a sample that 17 you see in front of me here. It's a stone 18 wall, but this type of stone requires a 19 permanent concrete foundation; therefore, 20 it's considered an accessory structure. 21 So, this is a two foot eight 22 inch high wall, with pedestals or piers that 23 are about three and a half feet high. All 24 of it has a limestone top on it. So, the
47
1 issue that came up as we discussed this with 2 the City Building Department, is the sight 3 lines that obviously may effect the neighbor 4 to the north. 5 So what we've done on the plan 6 there, you'll see that the eastern 50 feet 7 of the proposed wall is a smaller dimension 8 on the plan. It's also much lower. That's 9 actually not a wall, but rather just a curb. 10 That's only eight inches high and the 11 pedestals are only six inches high. It's 12 really just a landscape feature, and that 13 will not have a permanent foundation. So, 14 that is really not even considered an 15 accessory structure, if I'm correct. 16 Now together with this, we are 17 also requesting that a generator be put in 18 the front yard. There's -- this owner, I 19 think as you know from past conversations 20 that we've had, has some very severe health 21 issues. It's a barrier-free house. He's 22 expected to eventually be wheelchair bound; 23 and so, there's some medical equipment in 24 the home that will require standby
48
1 generator, full automatic transfer type 2 generator. 3 So this generator 4 (unintelligible) power up most of this 5 equipment. And what we've done, we've put 6 another stone wall around that generator. 7 You'll see a circle there. It's just kind 8 of round affair, just to make it look nice. 9 Again, that wall is about two foot eight 10 inches high. The generator is about 40 11 inches high, so we've also depressed the 12 generator. You will not see the generator 13 at all. 14 And we feel that this stone 15 wall will also contain any of the noise that 16 might come from that generator. Now, 17 (unintelligible) the generator is in the 18 sound-proof weather-proof housing of its 19 own, so we're kind of doing a double 20 acoustical treatment of the generator. We 21 feel that there will be almost no noise at 22 all from the generator. The -- as I said, 23 these walls were approved before, so really 24 what we're doing is, completing the third
49
1 side and modifying the design a little bit. 2 We've also moved our gate, our 3 entrance gate. It used to be on South Lake 4 -- or West Lake Drive; now, we've moved that 5 around the corner to South Lake Court. The 6 reason for the wall on the north is that 7 since we were here originally, another home 8 was approved to the north. And the design 9 of that home has a front door on side. So 10 what it does, it pulls everybody coming in 11 and out of that house around to the side of 12 the house. So my client has really decided 13 he needs a little more privacy; thus, this 14 north wall. 15 Again, it's no different than 16 the walls that are on the sides of the home. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 18 You're done? 19 MR. NECCI: That's it. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 21 Does anyone in the audience 22 wish to address this matter? 23 Please come forward. 24 Please state your name and
50
1 address. 2 MR. GUDIATIS: My name is Matt 3 Gudiatis. I'm the property owner at 2115 4 West Lake Drive, just to the north of this 5 property. And I got this notice. I took a 6 look at the drawings today, and I guess I 7 have a couple of concerns. 8 One I guess with this wall, 9 when I look at it from the variances, it 10 says (unintelligible) is requesting a six 11 feet variance to bring it to -- four foot to 12 the property line. When I look at the 13 drawing, it looks like it's much closer than 14 that. There was no dimensions on it when I 15 looked at the print out here. I would've 16 liked to have a print from the neighbor so I 17 could have studied it little closer. 18 But when I took a look at it, 19 it looks like it's fairly close to the 20 property line; much closer than the four 21 feet. Also when it goes down to that curb; 22 looks like it was three inches away from the 23 property line. 24 MEMBER BAUER: I think you have
51
1 the wrong case. 2 Okay. 3 MR. GUDIATIS: So -- I know 4 they said there's not a variance because 5 there's not a foundation on that, but I 6 guess I question how can you maintain 7 something that's three inches to the side of 8 the property. When I looked at it, I 9 thought it was 24 inches along that side, 10 not three inches when I looked at the 11 cross-sections that are in there. So that's 12 not just a small little stone -- even if it 13 is, how do you maintain it. 14 The other question is, what's 15 the noise on the generator being in that 16 side in the front in the corner of the -- 17 the north corner of the property, seeing 18 there is another side of the property that's 19 over by the wetlands -- I mean, I haven't 20 studied this or looked at it 21 (unintelligible), but it seems like there 22 may be a possibility to move it over there. 23 It would not interfere with the noise for 24 the neighborhood. Especially, me,
52
1 obviously, (unintelligible.) 2 So these are a couple -- you 3 know, some of my concerns that I have on 4 this. 5 Thank you for listening to me. 6 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you very 8 much, indeed. 9 Thank you. 10 I inform the Board that there 11 were 29 notices were mailed; one approval 12 and zero objections. 13 Would you like to read the -- 14 ROBIN WORKING: I will. 15 In Case: 06-047, for 2117 West 16 Lake, Laurie and Nick Malas sent in an 17 approval with no additional language. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 19 ROBIN WORKING: And that ends 20 the correspondence. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 22 Building Department? 23 MR. SAVEN: Just a couple 24 issues to help clarify several items. Number
53
1 one, I believe this meeting he talked about the 2 placement of the accessory structure within the 3 side yard, the interior side yard. 4 First and foremost 5 (unintelligible) everybody is aware of the 6 fact that generators now are really 7 prevalent throughout the City, and we treat 8 them very much in line with what we would 9 treat an air conditioning unit as an 10 accessory structure and how that's located 11 with the 60 decibel readings. 12 (Unintelligible) these particular units fall 13 in within these requirements. 14 There's a (unintelligible 15 effect here. There is a wall that already 16 is acting as a buffer wall to reduce sound. 17 And not only from the wall itself, but from 18 the circumference that's immediately 19 adjacent to the -- the circle immediately 20 adjacent (unintelligible.) Plus, the fact 21 that we do have a approval for a right of 22 way permit for the relocation of drive; 23 which has been from the west property line 24 to the south property line.
54
1 (Unintelligible) some issues 2 that I had very much a concern with, and we 3 did get a approval for the right of way 4 permit for this particular location. The 5 fact that the wall has changed in location, 6 yeah, it's still within purview of the 7 property and for the location 8 (unintelligible) requested the variance for. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 10 Open up for the Board Members? 11 All right. Go on, 12 Mr. Fischer? 13 Mr. Shroyer? 14 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, 15 Chairman Sanghvi. 16 First thing I guess, let's get 17 some clarification on the exact distance 18 between the wall and the property line on 19 the north side. 20 MR. NECCI: Yes, thank you. 21 I wanted to clarify that. 22 MEMBER SHROYER: Thought you 23 might. 24 MR. NECCI: The proposal is to
55
1 keep the wall off of the property line by 2 six inches; and that's really just a safety 3 factor. Frankly, we don't want to be 4 accidentally encroaching on the property 5 line, so good practice is to keep it off the 6 property line by six inches. This is an 7 area where actually the property lines 8 are -- the irons and the surveying monuments 9 are sometimes not as accurate as they could 10 be. So that's just my way of making sure 11 there's no issue with the property line. 12 Now, there is a pedestal 13 that's a little wider than the wall by about 14 four inches. So, at the pedestal, it would 15 be two inches off the property line. These 16 pedestals are about eight feet on center, so 17 at that point, there would be little bit 18 less dimension. But six inches, we thought 19 would be a good number. Obviously, we would 20 really make that whatever is it appropriate. 21 The other issue about the four 22 feet versus eight feet, that's on the 23 westside. Originally, we were approved for 24 the wall along West Lake Drive at eight
56
1 feet. And what we're asking now is that 2 that be move to four feet. And frankly, 3 it's just to fit the generator in. You can 4 see there the generator has certain 5 clearances for maintenance and, you know, 6 just access (unintelligible) whatever around 7 the generator. So if you add that all up, 8 it pushed that wall out a little bit by 9 about four feet. 10 So that's -- the reference to 11 the four foot difference is that. 12 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 13 I also noted, you show pavers 14 going around the wall that's around the 15 generator and it also says mulch. 16 Is there any landscaping 17 that's going to be around the generator? 18 MR. NECCI: I think the mulch 19 is just a bad note that -- it used to be 20 mulch and we might have forgot to erase that 21 one word, mulch -- but it's all pavers. 22 MEMBER SHROYER: So there's no 23 landscaping that's going to go around 24 (unintelligible.) That says mulch.
57
1 MR. NECCI: That's a revision 2 bubble. 3 The clouded area 4 (unintelligible.) 5 MEMBER SHROYER: The revision 6 bubble. 7 MR. NECCI: Yeah. 8 There's a clouded area which 9 highlights parts of the plan that were 10 revised to what was approved last -- 11 MEMBER SHROYER: For the 12 audience, would you put a copy of this on the 13 overhead, please, and point out to them what area 14 you're discussing. And it's obvious to us 15 because it's in red, but other people -- and 16 while you're pointing out that area -- 17 MR. NECCI: The question 18 referenced this area here. This green item 19 is mulch or planted area; the final planting 20 design is not exactly done yet. But 21 frankly, this site will have very little 22 plant materials; almost entirely pavers and 23 hearts. It's kind of a low maintenance 24 design, if you will.
58
1 MEMBER SHROYER: That actually 2 reflects sound, but as long as the City has 3 identified that you're going to be below 60 4 (unintelligible) as long as you fall within the 5 requirements that's -- (unintelligible) nothing 6 we -- we don't have a say about that. 7 Help us out. How do you plan 8 on maintaining the four inches and the six 9 inches on the north side of your wall? 10 MR. NECCI: Well, that area 11 will be -- it's shown as green, but it will 12 not be plantings. It will be a stone or 13 mulch-type material, but it won't have to be 14 maintained really. It will be a permanent 15 weed barrier and crushed stone or some type 16 of material that won't need to be mowed, so 17 to speak. Actually, much of what I've 18 shown as green will be that kind of 19 material. There's not really any lawn, per 20 se, on the entire site. It's mulch with 21 plants. So the color green is kind of a 22 misnomer. I guess I should have used a 23 different color. 24 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
59
1 I'm always concerned when we 2 have something close to the property line. 3 MR. NECCI: Yes. 4 MEMBER SHROYER: Because if it 5 does need any kind of maintenance, you're 6 encroaching upon the neighbor's property to 7 maintain it. (Unintelligible) wall or something 8 needs (unintelligible) assume everything's stone; 9 nothing needs to be painted. Are the little 10 items on the top of wall, the eight inch wall, 11 are those lights? 12 MR. NECCI: Yes. Those are 13 landscape lights, low voltage landscape 14 lights. 15 MEMBER SHROYER: Downward 16 (unintelligible?) 17 MR. NECCI: Yes, absolutely. 18 Just meant to illuminate the walking 19 surfaces nearby to that. 20 MEMBER SHROYER: To the City. 21 Is there anything in the 22 Ordinance that talks about lighting and 23 distance from property? 24 MR. SAVEN: There's the issue
60
1 regarding glare (unintelligible) commercial 2 buildings, there is a lighting issue. 3 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 4 Okay, Mr. Chair, I believe 5 those are all the questions I have. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good. 7 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, 9 Mr. Fischer? 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Where else have 11 you tried to put the generator, and why can't it 12 fit there? 13 MR. NECCI: Well, I'm not sure 14 where the neighbor was mentioning. A lot of 15 the backyard -- these areas of the site -- I 16 guess (unintelligible.) All of these areas 17 are either in wetlands or flood planes or 18 have environmental limitations to them. 19 This area on the side yard here is much too 20 narrow; and this is just not big enough here 21 either to actually contain the generator. 22 This pad here is for a 23 condensing unit. There's two air 24 conditioning condensing units on this pad
61
1 and two on this pad. So frankly, it just 2 won't fit anywhere else. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: What wetland 4 area are you aware of in the southeast corner, 5 Mr. Saven? 6 MR. SAVEN: Pardon? 7 MEMBER FISCHER: What wetland 8 area are you aware of in the southeast corner? I 9 mean, I see a path going through there. How can 10 it be -- how can it be a wetland area that a path 11 can go through, but an accessory building 12 couldn't sit in? 13 MR. NECCI: It's a wetland 14 buffer. I used the wrong terminology. It's 15 actually not a wetland. The wetland is the 16 shoreline of the lake, but there's a 35 foot 17 buffer to the wetland. And in that area we 18 can't -- it's also flood plane. In that 19 area, we make improvements, I understand, 20 but we cannot raise the elevation at all. 21 We can't change the flood volume. 22 (Unintelligible) structure is raised above 23 the original grade. So everything you see 24 that's proposed there is at or below the
62
1 original grade. There are pavers, but 2 they'll be placed at or below the grade that 3 was there originally. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. What 5 about the southwest corner? Is there a Ordinance 6 that mandates that that driveway be to that 7 extent in the corner there? 8 MR. NECCI: I'm not sure what 9 you mean. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: The southwest 11 corner of the parking lot or of the -- well, the 12 driveway. Does Ordinance mandate that that be 13 that large, or could that be placed there? 14 MR. NECCI: Well, the driveway 15 is 12 feet wide. It's actually a rather 16 narrow driveway. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 18 MR. NECCI: I'm not sure what 19 you mean, sir, I'm sorry. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Have you looked 21 at putting it there, other than the width of the 22 driveway, is there another issue with that? 23 Okay. If you mean move the 24 driveway so that we could put the generator
63
1 there, frankly, I think that would be a 2 rather intrusive visual element right smack 3 in the middle of the corner of that 4 intersection. I think there might be 5 esthetic issues with that, frankly. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 7 Was the Petitioner given a 8 south yard setback variance for the actual 9 house? 10 MR. SAVEN: A south? I do not 11 believe so. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 13 Looking at the red portion of 14 the wall now, have you looked at shifting 15 everything to the south a little bit to get 16 a little more room, buffer area for that 17 wall in regards to the lot line? 18 MR. NECCI: Well, we have -- 19 the house is about ten feet off the property 20 line, and we've -- 21 MEMBER FISCHER: On the south? 22 MR. NECCI: On the south, I'm 23 sorry. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm talking
64
1 about moving the house south, so everything can 2 stay in proportion -- 3 MR. NECCI: The house is 4 built. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: There you go 6 then. 7 MR. NECCI: It's almost up. I 8 mean -- 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. I just 10 want to establish that everything has been 11 looked at, and that's what we need to do -- 12 MR. NECCI: Understand. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: -- in order to 14 establish practical difficulty, and that's why I 15 have to ask those questions. Obviously, not 16 having a house moved after it's built. 17 That's all, Mr. Chair. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 19 Anybody else? 20 Seeing none, anybody want to 21 make a Motion? 22 The silence is deafening. 23 MEMBER SHROYER: I'll make 24 another comment.
65
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Go 2 ahead. 3 MEMBER SHROYER: The reason I'm 4 not coming forth with the Motion -- even though I 5 would support one if it was made -- is because I 6 would not have been in favor of building a wall 7 in the first place. And so I feel I'm 8 compromising my position in that doing that. 9 Thank you. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 11 Well, on general principal, I 12 hate to make a Motion from the Chair and -- 13 because I don't believe it's appropriate to 14 do that; but I don't see any other 15 alternative here. 16 So I'm going to make a Motion 17 in Case Number: 06-047, filed by Doug Necci 18 for 2117 West Lake Drive, we grant the 19 variances requested because of all the 20 different aspects of the issues have been 21 discussed and brought forward in open; and 22 that there are very few other alternatives 23 available under the circumstances. 24 Thank you.
66
1 Is there a second to the 2 Motion? 3 MEMBER SHROYER: I'll support 4 the Motion. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 6 Motion has been made and 7 seconded. 8 Any further discussion? 9 Seeing none, Mr. Schultz, any 10 comments? 11 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. 12 I guess if I may, along the 13 lines of the other Motions today have taken 14 an idea of practical difficulty. And if the 15 Motion maker might explain the reason for 16 the variances beyond -- I mean, the terms of 17 practical difficulty. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah. 19 Practical difficulty have 20 already been discussed during the discussion 21 part, and can be incorporated into the 22 Motion. 23 MR. SCHULTZ: Comments from the 24 Petitioner?
67
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Comments from 2 the Petitioner, as well as from the Board. 3 MR. SCHULTZ: And Mr. Saven? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: And Mr. Saven. 5 MEMBER SHROYER: Support. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. 7 No further discussion, let's 8 call the roll, see where we go. 9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 10 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 13 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 15 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 17 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 18 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 20 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 21 five to zero. 22 MR. NECCI: Thank you very 23 much. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.
68 5 6 Okay. Next Case Number: 7 06-048, filed by Dennis Radloff for Dick's 8 Sporting Goods at 44225 12 Mile Road. 9 Is the Petitioner here? 10 MR. RADLOFF: Yes. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please identify 12 yourself and give your address and be sworn in by 13 our secretary, please. 14 MR. RADLOFF: Dennis Radloff, 15 11550, Michael Drive, Washington Township. 16 MEMBER BAUER: Would you raise 17 your right hand. 18 Do you solemnly swear or 19 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 20 06-048? 21 MR. RADLOFF: I do. 22 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 23 MR. RADLOFF: I'm the manager 24 of Dick's Sporting Goods at Fountain Walk at
69
1 12 Mile, and we're looking for permission to 2 use a tent for a clearance event from June 3 22nd through July 10th. 4 I'm going to keep it short and 5 sweet. It is an annual event. We have used 6 it in the past. I realize that we have to 7 seek that annually, though. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 9 That's it? 10 MR. RADLOFF: That's it. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good. 12 Is there anyone in the 13 audience that wishes to address the Board 14 regarding this case? 15 Seeing none, I will inform the 16 Board that -- zero approvals, zero 17 objections. (Unintelligible.) 18 How about the Building 19 Department? 20 MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Not comment 22 from the Building Department. 23 Open it up to the Board? 24 Yes, Mr. Fischer?
70
1 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl 2 e) end of July to the 26th? Will this interfere 3 with the '50's festival that we know of? 4 MR. RADLOFF: I'm not sure. I 5 believe the majority of the events are held 6 on the side that will be (unintelligible.) 7 It shouldn't be any kind of traffic 8 (unintelligible.) 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Do you have 10 your map with you? 11 MR. RADLOFF: Yes. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: I have it 13 somewhere here. Where the tent is, that's a 14 regular parking aisleway, correct? 15 MR. RADLOFF: Correct. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Are you going 17 to block that off with anything? 18 MR. RADLOFF: There's parking 19 accessible to the -- it would be east of it. 20 But the stakes that are set in -- 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Right. 22 MR. RADLOFF: -- will have to 23 be (unintelligible) off, but that's the only 24 blocking. I don't believe that we can block
71
1 that main thoroughfare. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm not talking 3 about the main thoroughfare. I'm talking about 4 the actual -- the one aisle where the tent is 5 actually at. 6 MR. RADLOFF: Right. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 8 Should we look to approve this 9 Motion -- if the Board was going that way -- 10 do we need to state in the Motion that, you 11 know, that we wouldn't be involved in any 12 dispute between Fountain Walk, if they 13 wanted to revoke the agreement they have? 14 If we do, we should note that Fountain Walk 15 has agreed to allow the tent; just to keep 16 the City away from any -- do you see where 17 I'm going with that or -- 18 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may through 19 the Chair. 20 If you grant the variance, 21 it's entirely (unintelligible) decision 22 whether they follow through on it; actually 23 put the tents up, take them down early, 24 doesn't matter.
72
1 MEMBER FISCHER: But what I'm 2 saying is what if Fountain Walk decides to pull 3 their approval of it mid-way through it, they 4 don't like it. 5 MR. SCHULTZ: That the tenant 6 (unintelligible) 7 MEMBER FISCHER: We're fine. 8 MR. SCHULTZ: We're fine. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 10 Given that, and as long as 11 we've taken into consideration some of the 12 safety notes mentioned in the letter to the 13 Petitioner last year -- such as fire lane, 14 maintaining those; providing two exits; kept 15 clean, etc., I would be willing to support. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good. 17 Anything else? 18 Yes, Mr. Shroyer? 19 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. 20 I do have a question. 21 All of the documents that I 22 have in front of me, I'm reading, they all 23 state it's to be put in the south parking 24 lot. I don't understand that, because the
73
1 lot's north of Dick's Sporting Goods. 2 MR. RADLOFF: Correct. From 3 the reference from Fountain Walk itself, 4 they refer to it as the south parking lot, 5 being that it's south of 12 mile. I didn't 6 really understand it either, but it is on 7 the northside of that strip center. It 8 confused me, too. I figured they knew more 9 than me, so I didn't challenge it. 10 MEMBER SHROYER: I was looking 11 at it more from when you make a Motion or 12 whatever how it's going to read. 13 MR. RADLOFF: Right. 14 MEMBER SHROYER: And people are 15 going to be looking for it (unintelligible) '50's 16 festival in the south parking lot. 17 I'll go ahead and make a 18 Motion. I think it's pretty straight 19 forward. 20 I move in Case Number: 21 06-048, filed by Dennis Radloff for Dick's 22 Sporting Goods at 44225 12 Mile Road, to 23 grant the permit authorizing a temporary 24 special (unintelligible) for a parking lot
74
1 tent sales event from June 22nd, 2006, to 2 July 10th, 2006; noting that the applicant 3 has provided (unintelligible) number one, 4 authorization from the property owner; 5 number two, liability insurance; number 6 three, flame resistant tent certification; 7 and number four, provisions for traffic and 8 parking management to help ensure the safety 9 and welfare of pedestrians. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Second. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been 12 made and seconded. 13 Any further discussion? 14 Speaking none, will you please 15 call the roll, Ms. Working? 16 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 17 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 18 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?
75
1 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 2 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 3 five to zero. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good. 5 MR. RADLOFF: Thank you for 6 your time. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 8 e.) 9 10 11 12 Moving right along. Case 13 Number: 06-049, filed by Mark Kassab for 14 Lenox Park at 40812 West Thirteen Mile Road. 15 The applicant is here. I see 16 that. 17 The applicant is requesting a 18 variance to allow the accessory structure in 19 a residentially zoned district; and a 20 variance to allow the accessory structure to 21 be placed in a required front yard or in any 22 required exterior side yard. Property is 23 zoned RM-1, and located east of Meadowbrook 24 Road and north of Thirteen Mile Road.
76
1 Go ahead. Identify yourself; 2 state your name and address. And if you're 3 not an attorney, be sworn in by our 4 secretary, please. 5 MR. KASSAB: I'm Mark Kassab, 6 31550 Northwestern Highway, Farmington 7 Hills, Michigan. 8 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or 9 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case: 06-049? 10 MR. KASSAB: I do. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 12 MR. KASSAB: Thank you. 13 Good evening, Mr. Chair, 14 Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. 15 (Unintelligible) familiar 16 faces. it's been a long time coming. We're 17 glad we're -- developments are well 18 underway. One of the items that I wanted 19 (unintelligible) left off when we went to 20 the site plan stage, was a mailbox 21 structure. 22 In working with the church, we 23 have agreed to acquire the portion where the 24 sales -- the temporary sales trailer was
77
1 located and place the mailbox structure that 2 we have. And we have feel it's best 3 location for a couple reasons. One, it is 4 in the front yard of the development. And 5 as Ordinance reads, there cannot be an 6 accessory structure in the front yard of the 7 development. 8 Unfortunately, this is their 9 only entrance into the development, and we 10 see that as a hardship. And another 11 hardship that we have with this particular 12 site, as you may recall, there's a lot of 13 natural features and wetlands and woodlands 14 to the site. And the majority of if not all 15 of them are enclosed within a wetland and 16 woodland conservation easement. 17 The next item for the ZBA is 18 an accessory structure. The Post Office 19 won't do curb-side delivery, so we have one 20 or two options. We either have a row of 190 21 mailboxes along Lenox Park Drive, or have a 22 mailbox structure as you see down here. 23 The mailbox structure would be 24 the same brick; same shingles. It would be
78
1 maintained by the association and it would 2 be incorporated within the condo community. 3 Thank you. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 5 Is there anybody in the 6 audience that would like to address the 7 Board regarding this case? 8 MR: SHOFNER: I would. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please come. 10 Please identify yourself, state your name and 11 address. 12 MR. SHOFNER: My name is Steve 13 Shofner. I live at 40802 Lenox Park Drive, 14 in this condo development. And essentially, 15 I have a question about the location of the 16 structure. 17 So -- this is the first time 18 I've been able to see a photograph of it, so 19 (unintelligible) I'd like to just get a 20 clear idea (unintelligible) plan to put the 21 structure, because I wasn't clear in the 22 language in the letter that was sent where 23 it was going to go. 24 MR. KASSAB: If I can
79
1 (unintelligible.) 2 MR. SHOFNER: Can you assist 3 me? 4 MR. KASSAB: Sure. 5 (Unintelligible) parking lot's currently 6 paved. Right there where the sales center, 7 the temporary sales center used to be, the 8 shaded out portion there is where the mail 9 structure is actually going to be. 10 MR. SHOFNER: This is not the 11 parking lot of the current model? 12 MR. KASSAB: (Unintelligible.) 13 MR. SHOFNER: Okay. The model 14 -- okay. So it would be right there. 15 MR. KASSAB: Correct. 16 MR. SHOFNER: I have no 17 objection to the placement. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, sir. 19 Okay. I'd like to inform the 20 Board that 248 notices were mailed; one 21 approval and zero objections. 22 Please read the 23 correspondence, please. 24 ROBIN WORKING: In Case Number:
80
1 06-049, for Lenox Park, we have one approval from 2 David Calvaro and Angela Malafa, with no 3 additional comments. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 5 Building Department? 6 MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: No comments. 8 Thank you. 9 All right. I'll open it to 10 the Board for further discussion. 11 I will make a comment. I was 12 there. I saw the site. (Unintelligible) 13 trailer there and at the (unintelligible) at 14 the site. Didn't look like there should be 15 any problem about sanctioning this request. 16 (Unintelligible) to support 17 this. 18 Thank you. 19 Yes, Member Fischer? 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Can you give 21 me a little more explanation as to what this 22 will be made of exactly, as well as the 23 landscaping, looking at the -- in 24 conjunction with the rest of the area.
81
1 MR. KASSAB: We've gotten a 2 number of comments from existing residents 3 and our neighbors, including the Brightmoor 4 (unintelligible) developments of our 5 landscaping (unintelligible) a number of 6 pines in excess of 15 to 20 feet, to the 7 benefit of both of us and the church; and 8 Fox Run to our -- our west neighbor. 9 (Unintelligible) we would have pines, 10 similar to what we have along 11 (unintelligible) drive as you're driving 12 down (unintelligible.) 13 The mail structure would be 14 (unintelligible) right there, 15 (unintelligible) rear of the parking lot, 16 with the additional -- (unintelligible) we 17 have some spruce plants over here and some 18 existing trees and existing brush. 19 (Unintelligible) sales center 20 (unintelligible) had a chance to visit, but 21 I can assure you we'll exceed 22 (unintelligible.) 23 MEMBER FISCHER: It's a nice 24 area around (unintelligible) general neighborhood
82
1 conditions. 2 MR. KASSAB: Absolutely. 3 (Unintelligible) as far as 4 material, it would be the same color brick 5 that we have on the units and the shingles 6 would be the same color shingles as we have 7 on the units (unintelligible.) 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Perfect. 9 MEMBER SHROYER: I have one more 10 question and (unintelligible) willing to move on 11 with the Motion. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead, 13 Mr. Shroyer. 14 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl 15 e) put it up so everybody can see it, please? 16 You can take mine. 17 I'd like you to show us how a 18 mail truck come in and delivers the mail to 19 the mailbox structure. 20 MR. KASSAB: Sure. 21 This is the existing drive 22 that comes into -- I don't know the name for 23 that through drive (unintelligible.) This 24 is Lenox Park Drive (unintelligible) of our
83
1 development. (Unintelligible) existing 2 driveway that (unintelligible) sale center 3 that was previously there. 4 One of the items that we 5 (unintelligible) while we developed this 6 site was the temporary sales center, was 7 the amount of traffic that's coming in off 8 of New Life Drive (unintelligible) buses and 9 moms and dads were picking up kids. So we 10 agreed to relocate the entrance way off of 11 New Life Drive over here, so 12 (unintelligible) come in, come in, park it 13 take there baskets (unintelligible) as far 14 as servicing the mailbox (unintelligible.) 15 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl 16 e) metal doors? 17 MR. KASSAB: (Unintelligible) 18 gang box to insert envelopes. The residents 19 would access their specific (unintelligible) 20 with a key, and a mail person would open up 21 a large box (unintelligible) box that would 22 open up 40 gangboxes, if you will, 23 (unintelligible) 190 different little 24 mailboxes.
84
1 MEMBER SHROYER: How long do you 2 anticipate it would take a mail carrier to load 3 190 (unintelligible?) 4 MR. KASSAB: I never watched 5 them but, I would imagine they'd prefer this 6 as opposed to driving around the 7 development. Unfortunately, they just 8 won't. The U.S. Post Office will not do 9 curb side mail in condo developments such as 10 this. 11 MEMBER SHROYER: I understand. 12 I would just make sure 13 (unintelligible) that the mailbox -- mail 14 truck does park in one of those designated 15 spots (unintelligible) pull in front and 16 impede it, because it's a shorter walk 17 (unintelligible) unloading (unintelligible) 18 go all the way around to the back. 19 MR. KASSAB: We'll put that in 20 his Christmas card. 21 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl 22 e) I don't have a problem, and I can go ahead and 23 make a Motion. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please, go
85
1 ahead. (Unintelligible) his feelings won't be 2 hurt. 3 MEMBER SHROYER: In Case Number: 4 06-049, filed by Mark Kassab for Lenox Park at 5 40812 Thirteen Mile Road, (unintelligible) move 6 to permit construction of a mail center building 7 (unintelligible) included, one, that location is 8 needed for (unintelligible) delivery of mail. 9 Two, the selected location minimizes the impact 10 (unintelligible) wetland and woodland located in 11 the conservation easement; and three, due to path 12 access (unintelligible) relative to the building 13 (unintelligible.) 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Friendly 15 amendment? 16 MEMBER SHROYER: Sure. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl 18 e) self-created (unintelligible) 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 21 e) Motion has been seconded. 22 Yes, Ms. Krieger? 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: I apologize. I 24 have a question.
86
1 In the wintertime, who would 2 clean up the snow from the area? 3 MR. KASSAB: Good question. 4 This structure is part of our 5 (unintelligible.) This would be maintained 6 (unintelligible) landscaping 7 (unintelligible) by association 8 (unintelligible) association dues to clean 9 the roads and this would be alongside with 10 it. 11 (Unintelligible) to Member 12 Fischer's comments, one thing I have to 13 maybe put some no parking signs on this 14 structure and try to prevent mail box -- 15 mail carriers from stopping in front 16 (unintelligible) make every effort. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl 18 e) opinion comment (unintelligible.) 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 20 Any further questions? 21 Seeing none, Ms. Working, 22 please call the roll. 23 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 24 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
87
1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 8 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 9 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 10 five to zero. 11 MR. KASSAB: Thank you for 12 your continued support. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 14 15 Okay. Next one is Case 16 Number: 06-050 filed by Autumn Park, LLC, 17 for Autumn Park III on the northeast corner 18 of Beck Road and White Plains Drive. They 19 are asking for the continuation of a sign. 20 Will you please identified 21 yourself? 22 MR. CULLEN: Good evening, 23 Members of the Board. 24 My name is Chuck Cullen. I
88
1 represent Autumn Park, LLC, 32600 Telegraph 2 Road Birmingham, Michigan. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly 4 swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding 5 Case: 06-050? 6 MR. CULLEN: Yes, sir. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 8 Please make your presentation. 9 Thank you. 10 MR. CULLEN: Good evening. 11 Thank you for your time this 12 evening. 13 Our request tonight is to 14 request to be able to maintain our current 15 construction identification sign on Beck 16 Road. We currently are maintaining two 17 sales models in the community; with 12 sites 18 remaining in the community. Most of our 19 traffic of potential sales comes from 20 drive-by traffic, and we're asking for an 21 extension of time to keep the sign up, due 22 to the fact that we're taking every effort 23 to wrap up sales in this community on a 24 timely basis; and without the sign, the
89
1 ability to sell would take a much longer 2 time, than with the sign. 3 Basically, that is my request. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 5 Does anyone in the audience 6 wish to address the Board regarding this 7 case? 8 Seeing none, we had 13 notices 9 mailed; zero approvals, zero objections. 10 Building Department? 11 MR. AMOLSCH: For a point of 12 clarification. (Unintelligible) subdivision 13 business sign construction identification 14 sign. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 16 All right. 17 Open it to the Board now. 18 Go ahead, Mr. Fischer? 19 MEMBER FISCHER: 12 sites are 20 left? 21 MR. CULLEN: Yes. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: What percent is 23 that (interposing) (unintelligible?) 24 MR. CULLEN: There are three
90
1 phases in this community. The entire 2 community is 136 sites. I don't know 3 exactly what the percentage is. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: 136 in the 5 whole -- 6 MR. CULLEN: That's correct. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: What about the 8 last phase? 9 MR. CULLEN: The last phase, I 10 believe, was 46 -- 45 sites. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Where are the 12 remaining 12 sites? Are they all in phase three 13 or are they throughout? 14 MR. CULLEN: Ten of the 12 15 sites are in phase three. The additional 16 two sites are in phase -- one of them is in 17 phase one and one of them is in phase two. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: So there's ten 19 homes left out of 45 in phase three -- that's 20 kind of the math I'm going through in my head, 21 which is less than 80 percent. 22 How long are you anticipating 23 to sell these? 24 MR. CULLEN: Well, average
91
1 sale is one per month, approximately a year 2 or less. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: A year? 4 MR. CULLEN: Yes. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 6 MR. CULLEN: We would hope 7 less than a year, but the way the economy's 8 been going, it's been taking a little longer 9 than we had anticipated. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Right. 11 Is there a sign inside the 12 community, too? 13 MR. CULLEN: There is a small 14 directional sign on the corner of Sunnybrook 15 (unintelligible) corner of Argonal street 16 that's just a directional for our models. 17 Our models are at lots 104 and and105. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 19 I drive by there and I thought 20 I'd seen something small to that effect 21 within there. Drive by there too much. 22 Given the percentage -- it is 23 encroaching what we normally would say to 24 pull a sign down. That's kind of what I'm
92
1 looking at. I'm not sure. Borderline of 2 whether I feel that there's practical 3 difficulty there. 4 Therefore, I would be willing 5 to support this, but for a lower amount, 6 possibly six months at a time. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 8 Anybody else? Any other 9 comments? 10 Yes, Ms. Krieger? 11 MEMBER KRIEGER: I agree. 12 Thank you. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. 14 (Unintelligible) to make a 15 Motion? 16 Go ahead. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: I would like 18 to make a Motion in Case Number 06-050, 19 filed by Autumn Park, LLC, for Autumn Park, 20 northeast corner of Beck Road and White 21 Plains Drive, that the Petitioner is granted 22 a six month extension of the current sign, 23 unless they are completely sold out prior to 24 that -- I'll be very optimistic.
93
1 MR. CULLEN: Thank you. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: -- given 3 they've established that less than 80 4 percent of the lots have been sold in their 5 phase three development; and given also 6 public concern as far as Beck Road being a 7 major thoroughfare and the speeds along 8 there. 9 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been 11 made and seconded. 12 Any further discussion? 13 Seeing none, will you please 14 call the roll. 15 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 16 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 17 ROBIN WORKING: Member 18 Fischer? 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?
94
1 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 2 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 3 five to -- 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) 5 (unintelligible) extended for six months. 6 MR. CULLEN: Thank you very 7 much for your time. 8 Thank you. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Good luck. 10 MR. CULLEN: Thank you very 11 much. 12 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Two more 14 to go. I thought we'd (uintelligible) without 15 any breaks. We do you think, okay? 16 All right. 17 18 Moving on to the next one, and 19 that's Case Number: 06-051, filed by Diane 20 Hersey of the Road Commission of Oakland 21 County for Michigan CAT at 24460, 24800 and 22 25000 Novi Road. 23 Is the applicant -- 24 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair,
95
1 (unintelligible) Mr. Saven was actually going to 2 introduce this, but I'll do my best. 3 (Unintelligible) the attorney for the Road 4 Commission is also here. This is kind of a 5 follow-up from the item that was on the Board's 6 agenda last month when we granted the variances 7 in connection with the road improvement project 8 for essentially existing parking and building 9 setbacks. 10 This is the -- as I said, the 11 second half of that in connection with that 12 road improvement project. It's obvious that 13 the signs that exist there on the property 14 there identified in Mr. Schmitz' report will 15 need to be relocated. What the Road 16 Commission did -- and if you want to hear 17 more, I'm sure you can be filled in on all 18 the discussion -- was contact the property 19 owner and confirm what the property owner 20 wants to do, in terms of moving that signage 21 and having essentially an equivalent signage 22 for the property after the Road Commission 23 project. 24 And if you remember from our
96
1 discussion last time and previous 2 correspondence, ultimately the variance is 3 about fixing the practical difficulty that's 4 being caused for the property owner by the 5 Road Commission road improvement project. 6 You have Mr. Schmitz' report. Essentially 7 what they're doing -- what they've agreed to 8 do is to just move the sign to different 9 locations, still outside -- just outside 10 (unintelligible) the new right of way and 11 new road improvement; still on the property, 12 same design, same general location. 13 And that's what the property 14 owner has requested, and that's frankly what 15 it's going to take in order for the property 16 owner not to argue that they have -- that 17 the value of their property is impacted any 18 further. I guess one issue I would point 19 out, the property owner has indicated that 20 they're concerned about whether or not this 21 is a temporary variance or a permanent 22 variance. 23 From our perspective, just 24 like any other variance that you grant --
97
1 unless you say otherwise -- these are 2 variance that will run with the land as long 3 as the property owner doesn't come in and 4 request the change. 5 So with that, if you have any 6 other questions for us, for Done or for the 7 Road Commission Attorney. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 9 At this point, is there 10 anybody in the audience that would like to 11 address the Board regarding this case? 12 Seeing none, we have -- had, 13 39 notices were mailed; zero approvals, zero 14 objections. 15 No point in asking the 16 Building Department. 17 MR. SAVEN: Do I dare say 18 anything? 19 No. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 21 I'll open to the Board for 22 discussion. 23 Yes, Member Fischer? 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Running with
98
1 the land, do you mean other businesses could also 2 come in -- 3 MR. SCHULTZ: For those signs 4 and those locations, yes. You're approving 5 location and the general shape and configuration 6 of the sign. The use changes, that sign stays. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl 8 e) verbiage, though, (unintelligible) have to 9 come before us again sometimes? 10 MR. SCHULTZ: Not unless you say 11 so. I don't think under these circumstances. 12 What we're talking about is future value of the 13 property. I don't think that the Board wants to 14 make that kind of a limitation -- which it might 15 do in another case. But for this case and for 16 the purposes requested and the fact that we've 17 got a property owner (unintelligible) done 18 involuntarily to them, I think that's not an 19 appropriate -- I shouldn't say that. It limits 20 the value of the variance (unintelligible) bring 21 it in front of the Board. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Do they have a 23 current variance for these signs? 24 MR. SCHULTZ: I do not --
99
1 MR. AMOLSCH: (Unintelligible) 2 one of the signs was a Board of Appeals case 3 (unintelligible) originally conforming sign 4 (unintelligible.) 5 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl 6 e) had any limitations placed on them? 7 MR. AMOLSCH: No. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Then I see no 9 reason to put a limitation on this one. If 10 the previous one did, then I don't think it 11 would effect the value anymore, personally, 12 however, given the comments, I'm in support. 13 And if there is 14 (unintelligible) turn it back to the Chair. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Anybody else? 16 Yes, Mr. Shroyer? 17 MEMBER SHROYER: Do you get 18 tired of saying that? 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: No problem. 20 (Unintelligible.) It's okay. 21 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. 22 To the City again, the -- I 23 want to make sure I understand this. If the 24 property becomes subdivided down the road --
100
1 because you're talking about a very large 2 piece of property -- Michigan CAT moves out. 3 They decide to (unintelligible) subdivide it 4 (unintelligible) lots. The lot is sold for 5 whatever (unintelligible) has this one very 6 large sign on it. 7 Am I hearing correctly that we 8 will not have a say as to bringing that sign 9 back into current Ordinance standards? 10 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair? 11 If the property comes in for a 12 revised site plan, then we have a different 13 issue. 14 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 15 MR. SCHULTZ: These buildings, 16 these signs, whatever the verbiage, are permitted 17 to be there, if used in the location, 18 configuration they're in. They want to move 19 them, if they want to redevelop the site, then 20 that's a different issue. 21 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 23 MEMBER SHROYER: I have no 24 problem with it either.
101
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good. 2 Yes, Ms. Krieger? 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: (Unintelligibl 4 e) as long as Michigan CAT owns this property, 5 it's just moving the sign that they currently 6 have, so that it makes it simpler for the road to 7 be taken care of by the Oakland County Road 8 Commission. And then because Michigan CAT has no 9 option in this (unintelligible) for them to 10 continue there business with the current sign, 11 unless in the future some time they move out; 12 then the sign would be then possibly 13 (unintelligible) issue. 14 MR. SCHULTZ: Again, through the 15 Chair. 16 (Unintelligible) require more 17 than moving out. I mean, it's not change of 18 ownership; change of use (unintelligible) 19 existing building is not going to do it. 20 Redevelopment, re-site planning their 21 property (unintelligible.) 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. 23 Thank you. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,
102
1 Mr. Schultz. 2 Okay. Go ahead, make a 3 Motion. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: If I may, 5 Mr. Chair, I would move that in Case Number: 6 06-051, filed by Diane Hersey of the Road 7 Commission of Oakland County for Michigan 8 CAT at 24460, 24800, and 25000 Novi Road, 9 that the Board grant the variances as 10 requested given that the Petitioner has 11 established practical difficulty in this 12 case; in saying that they have established 13 in the sense that the property 14 (unintelligible) would have a major hardship 15 to their business after the Novi Road 16 widening, if the signage is not permitted to 17 be relocated. 18 Visibility for the business 19 would be diminished and the amount of 20 signage currently permitted wouldn't be much 21 smaller than what is currently permitted. 22 Also I'd like to mention still going with 23 the practical difficulty that not granting 24 these variances would be a substantial
103
1 detriment to the overall public good, as the 2 Road Commission would have difficulty 3 acquiring the right of way necessary to 4 widen Novi Road, and would have to pay 5 substantially for it; a cost that would be 6 burdening to the taxpaying public. 7 Granting these variances will 8 not impair the intent of the Ordinance, as 9 non-conformity would not be expanded, and 10 the character of the area will not change as 11 the signage will simply be relocated to a 12 more suitable position. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 14 Mr. Fischer. 15 MEMBER SHROYER: Second. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: A Motion has 17 been made and seconded -- 18 Yes, Mr. Shroyer? 19 MEMBER SHROYER: May I consider 20 a friendly amendment to this? 21 And where I'm coming from is, 22 part of the documentation we received says 23 that some of the supporting structures may 24 have to be replaced. So, in case that
104
1 happens, I would like to see us limit the 2 height of the new sign location to be no 3 higher than the current height of the signs. 4 In other words, if they have to add new 5 structures, you done have new structures and 6 make them ten feet higher. 7 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair. 8 I see no problem with that. 9 (Unintelligible.) 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Can you just 11 (unintelligible) one more time? 12 MEMBER SHROYER: Sure. 13 In the supported documentation 14 (unintelligible) some of the supporting 15 structure may have to be replaced. What I 16 was asking that we add to the Motion was 17 that if the supporting structure does need 18 to be replaced, that the signs once 19 relocated be no higher than what they are 20 currently -- of the current height the way 21 they're currently existing. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 23 My question to that -- I 24 remember a case we had which triggers the
105
1 question -- on Grand River, where the 2 widening of the bridge ended up not allowing 3 a sign to be seen. If that would happen, 4 then I would question that that then would 5 diminish the value of the property. By 6 putting that limit, I just want to make sure 7 that we're not doing what we're trying not 8 to do. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, 10 Mr. Schultz? 11 MR. SCHULTZ: I think that's a 12 fair comment. On the other hand, I don't think 13 we have before us anything other than same signs, 14 same size, same location. If that turns out to 15 be a problem, I think (unintelligible) probably 16 end up coming back here and explaining that. So 17 at this point without knowing more, I think it's 18 fine. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: I accept that 20 friendly amendment. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 22 All right. So does the 23 seconder? 24 Any further discussion?
106
1 Okay. So there's an amended 2 Motion. Ms. Working, will you please call 3 the roll. 4 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 5 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 6 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 8 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 10 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 12 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 13 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 14 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 15 five to zero. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 20 Now, time to go back to number 21 one. (Unintelligible) and that is Case 22 Number: 06-040, filed by National Coney 23 Island at 31120 Beck Road. 24 MR. DOWNING: Thank you so
107
1 much for asking for number one again. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: And will you 3 please identify yourself and state your address 4 and be sworn in by our secretary, please. 5 MR. DOWNING: First name is 6 Dean; last name is Downing, D-o-w-n-i-n-g, 7 (unintelligible) Commercial Advertising. 8 And be sworn in. 9 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or 10 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case: 06-040? 11 MR. DOWNING: Absolutely. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 13 MR. DOWNING: I apologize for 14 my tardiness. It's 180 miles round trip for 15 me, and the last time I was ever late, I 16 think my hair was still black. So t's not 17 something that happens often, but 696 was 18 backed up to the parking lot. 19 The request that I have is for 20 second sign for National Coney Island. In 21 preparing myself to present this to the 22 Board, (unintelligible) observation was made 23 that within this shopping center -- it's an 24 L shaped shopping center -- that on the
108 1 (unintelligible) corner, there's a coffee 2 shop that was approved for two signs. I 3 pulled the Minutes from that meeting and I 4 couldn't make my argument any better than 5 those Minutes that were prepared before. 6 The lady who presented that 7 did an excellent job of saying that she's 8 located so far from the road, there's 9 difficulty reading from one direction, and 10 that view is somewhat blocked by, I believe, 11 CVS (unintelligible) corner. 12 I would say that our practical 13 difficulty equals that in the oppsing corner 14 of the shopping center. That is a setback. 15 The visual obstruction is not self-imposed. 16 And in reading her Minutes -- I didn't have 17 liberty to something that was referred to, 18 but I'd love to see this -- this is in 19 quotes now. 20 "In the case we received a 21 packet with more than enough information 22 (unintelligible) from similar stores, and 23 that the drops in sales due to this type of 24 practical difficulty." 109
1 I'm not trying to make any 2 real point there, but I'd love to see that 3 packet, if I could find it. That's 4 information I could use elsewhere. 5 I request this for a second 6 sign. It was voted unanimously on the 7 oppsing corner, and we're hoping to get the 8 same decision tonight. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 10 Is there anybody in the 11 audience that would like to address the 12 Board regarding this case? 13 Seeing none, (unintelligible) 14 13 notices were mailed; zero approvals, zero 15 objections. 16 Building Department? 17 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: No comments. 19 Open up discussion for the 20 Board, please. 21 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Take it away, 23 Tim. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay.
110
1 Yes, Mr. Shroyer? 2 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. 3 A bit of confusion in what's 4 written and in the visual that you provided 5 where it shows exist sign and proposed sign. 6 One thing states that it's 7 facing Pontiac Trail and the other one says 8 it's facing Beck Road. 9 For clarification purposes, I 10 want to make sure which sign is existing and 11 which sign is proposed. 12 MR. DOWNING: The existing 13 sign faces the parking lot, which is a north 14 wall on Pontiac Trail, way over on the east 15 side. So If I have these roads backwards -- 16 I believe that the existing sign does face 17 Pontiac Trail; that the proposed sign would 18 be on a west wall facing Beck Road. 19 MEMBER SHROYER: Correct. 20 Okay. That's how 21 (unintelligible) envisioned it when I drove 22 by. I just want to make sure everybody's on 23 the same page. One thing I need to ask 24 (unintelligible)
111
1 Do we need to seek permission 2 from the property owner? 3 MR. AMOLSCH: No. 4 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl 5 e) retail LLC, correct. 6 Now, I think your statement 7 was very good (unintelligible.) I drove by I 8 said to myself, (unintelligible) drove up 9 Beck Road and noticed that really a sign 10 should be there. 11 So I would be in full support 12 of this request. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 14 Anybody else? 15 No? Like to make a Motion? 16 Go ahead. 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: In Case Number: 18 06-040 filed by National Coney Island at 31120 19 Beck Road, that -- to grant the variance for an 20 additional sign facing Beck Road as the 21 additional sign; and the shopping center for 22 (unintelligible) retail, LLC, and which is 23 located south of Pontiac Trail and the east side 24 of Beck Road.
112
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 2 Go ahead, Mr. Shroyer? 3 MEMBER SHROYER: Can we add a 4 reason or two to for your Motion? 5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Establishing 6 the practical difficulty that they are far from 7 the road, and that as previously stated from the 8 coffee shop that they are -- it is hard to find 9 them (unintelligible) CVS. (Unintelligible) new 10 area and as you drive by, it's difficult to 11 (unintelligible.) 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Seconded it. 15 Any further discussion? 16 Seeing none, Ms. Working, will 17 you please call the roll. 18 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 19 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?
113
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 3 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 4 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 5 five to zero. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Your variance 7 has been (interposing) (unintelligible.) 8 MR. DOWNING: Thank you so 9 much. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: I think she got 11 it from corporate, the corporate (unintelligible) 12 office. (unintelligible.) 13 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Moving 15 on to the other matters. 16 The discussion of Case Number: 17 06-027, Sam's club. (Unintelligible) all 18 received information regarding this, and 19 it's a matter of changing (unintelligible) 20 with their members. And it's a matter of 21 changing -- substituting the word member to 22 customer. 23 Anybody have any problem, 24 Member Loading?
114
1 Any discussion? 2 Please? 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Do we have to 4 make a Motion or is this an informative thing? 5 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may through 6 the Chair. 7 And Don can correct me if I'm 8 wrong -- from my perspective it was an 9 informative thing. I don't think we want to 10 get that detailed into (unintelligible) 11 customer. The general idea that you wanted 12 to limit the size. The language was fine, 13 but between words, I think this was 14 informative. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: So we 16 acknowledge this fact. 17 Thank you. Number two is 1533 18 West Lake Drive, Don Saven. 19 MR. SAVEN: Thank you. 20 Members of the Board, 21 Mr. Chairman, one of the most difficult 22 issues that we deal with is the north end of 23 the lake as far as variances requested. In 24 several instances in (unintelligible) of
115
1 recall, there's always been some degree -- 2 Sorry. Wasn't turned on. 3 There's always been a degree 4 of difficulty in dealing with lots which are 5 minimal in nature or what-have-you. On this 6 particular case, he received four variances, 7 which basically by looking at the 8 supervisor's plat -- which is a recorded 9 plat liber's page, whole nine yards, the lot 10 shows itself as being 40 foot in width. 11 Likewise, in the GIS, also showed it 40 foot 12 in width, based upon all the information we 13 have. 14 When the gentleman got into 15 the seriosity(ph)(sic) of moving forward 16 in -- after the variances concerned, he had 17 his surveyor survey the property, and the 18 property is testify was off by a few inches 19 in the front, probably about five and a half 20 inches right to the point; which meant that 21 because it was skewed, a portion of that 22 house now is greater than the variance that 23 was granted, okay. 24 This is a problem in just
116
1 about every building we have down there. 2 This variance then becomes the difference of 3 three inches for that portion of the house. 4 I have -- at this particular 5 time because this was a Board of Appeals 6 action, and the fact that this is 7 inconclusive, I moon in terms of -- I can't 8 say inconclusive -- it says it's 40 foot in 9 width. I'm not going to argue with the 10 surveyor. Surveyors (unintelligible) 11 particular -- well, anyhow, this is becoming 12 a major problem because depending on where 13 they start the survey from, which benchmark 14 they use, (unintelligible) amount. 15 I don't think that this is a 16 major problem, but I wanted to bring it to 17 the Board to ask what's your pleasure and 18 what you'd like to do with this particular 19 case; do you wish to bring it back, do you 20 wish to go through this rehearing, notices 21 again, or you consider this a minor in 22 nature, would that be the correct 23 assumption? 24 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair.
117
1 I think the Board has two 2 options. As Don said you can renotice it, 3 if you think it's significant to your 4 original decision, hold a public hearing and 5 treat it as a new request; or if you think 6 it's sort of within the (unintelligible) of 7 what you were expecting -- since we're 8 talking about three inches -- you can either 9 make a Motion to amend your previous 10 approval or just a Motion that acknowledges 11 that it's within the calculation of the 12 original (unintelligible.) It is minor. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 14 Mr. Schultz. 15 As far as I'm concerned, I 16 don't think it makes any difference. 17 (Unintelligible) minor variation because of 18 the (unintelligible) measuring 19 (unintelligible) whatever it may be 20 (unintelligible) significant to do 21 everything all over again. And I think we 22 just recognize that this is what has 23 happened and leave things as they are. 24 That's my opinion.
118
1 Yes Mr. Fischer? 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Just a quick 3 question. 4 (Unintelligible) 5 proportionately, what we are looking at, was 6 it three inches compared to the foot that we 7 had granted? Do they now have a foot 8 instead of a foot three inches or do they 9 have 20 feet instead of (unintelligible?) 10 MR. SAVEN: They had requested a 11 six foot side yard setback. What it ends up 12 being is five foot -- 5.69 feet. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: If it was maybe 14 a foot, if that's what we were looking at, I'd be 15 concerned (interposing) (unintelligible.) 16 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl 17 e.) 18 MEMBER FISCHER: I would make a 19 Motion that we acknowledge the fact that the 20 error that was made was within the original 21 intent and contemplation of the Board; and that, 22 they've met the spirit of our variance that we 23 granted. 24 MEMBER BAUER: Second.
119
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 2 Any other comments? 3 Seeing none, will you please 4 take the roll, please. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 6 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 13 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 14 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 15 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes. 16 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 18 Going on to Number three. 19 Update. Who's going to 20 update? 21 MR. SAVEN: I'd like to turn 22 this over to our City Attorney in regards to 23 Public Act (unintelligible) Public Act 110 of 24 2006. There's is some real critical issues here
120
1 for our Department, as far as notification, our 2 concern and maybe (unintelligible) on this. 3 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may through 4 the Chair. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please. 6 MR. SCHULTZ: Couple of initial 7 comments. Right now, at least until July 1st, we 8 have three -- what are called Zoning Enabling 9 Acts in Michigan. One for cities and villages; 10 one for townships; and one for counties. 11 In April, the Governor signed 12 what's being called Michigan Zoning Enabling 13 Act. And the main purpose of which is to 14 combine the three acts into one and treat 15 each of those units of Government, more or 16 less the same with some minor -- minor 17 deviations here and there. In addition to 18 doing that though, they did some things 19 that, as Don said, are -- I'm sorry. In 20 addition to doing that, they did some things 21 that really are going to be noticeable 22 changes; to say the least. In fact, unless 23 and until maybe we get some changes to the 24 Legislation, it might cause some real
121
1 administrative issues; not so much issues 2 for the Board here. 3 I guess what I'd like to do is 4 just kind of run through those so you have 5 general idea of what might change in the 6 process. And then let you know that we'll 7 probably be having to amend the Zoning 8 Ordinance from the Planning Commission to 9 the Council process in -- probably in this 10 month and July (unintelligible) some 11 correspondence so you can see what the 12 changes are. 13 Some of it will deal with the 14 Board, the Membership of the Board, notices. 15 And I think I'll run through that real 16 quickly here, since I think that's -- 17 MR. SAVEN: Fine. 18 MR. SCHULTZ: The first issue 19 which could be kind of interesting is under the 20 new legislation, there's supposed to be a Member 21 of the Planning Commission who is on the ZBA. I 22 guess you could look at it as a Member of the ZBA 23 on the Planning Commission (unintelligible) 24 either way, there's going to be one person who
122
1 sits on both the Board and Commission. 2 The Statute is a little bit 3 unclear as to when that has to happen, but 4 now is kind of a relevant time frame since 5 in July, City Council does (unintelligible) 6 Board of Commissions. So that could be a 7 fairly obvious change pretty quickly. 8 The other big issue in 9 addition to that is going to effect Don and 10 his administrative group a little more than 11 the Board, but it may have some effect on 12 the process here. And it has to do with 13 increasing the Notice time for Public 14 Hearings that are going to happen at the 15 ZBA; and the number of people who have to be 16 notified. What's changed, you've always 17 notified people within 300 feet. We've 18 always kind of cut that off at our property 19 line, since we only, know who those people 20 are from our assessing records. 21 The Statue's now been changed 22 to require us to go 300 feet regardless of 23 boundary lines for the City. And actually 24 goes a little further and says in addition
123
1 to property owners, we have to notify 2 occupants of multiple family structures. 3 Hopefully there aren't going to be that many 4 in the near future. 5 One of things that, in our 6 practice, we're talking about is maybe we 7 ought to be putting the onus to determine 8 who those occupants are outside of our 9 community on the applicants, which may make 10 a lot of sense (unintelligible) talking 11 about developers; (unintelligible) the 12 homeowners. We may have to think about 13 that. 14 That's one of the issues that 15 will have to be dealt with in the Ordinance. 16 Change in the -- this is the first time that 17 the Statue will allow for an alternate 18 member, but it may limit how often the 19 alternate member can serve and sit on the 20 Board. In our Bylaws, the alternate always 21 sits as long as the alternate wants to; 22 participation in discussion, and it's just 23 limited as to voting. It's not so clear how 24 they have authorized alternates, if that's 124
1 going to be -- still be permitted. 2 (Unintelligible) give an opinion on that as 3 part of the Ordinance amendments. 4 The -- we've got different 5 notice requirements for variances versus 6 interpretations. We've got to notify more 7 people for variances; fewer people for an 8 interpretation. It will be a different 9 thing, because on occasion we've decided to 10 do an interpretation instead of a variance 11 sitting here at the table, and we might want 12 to do the same thing (unintelligible) take 13 advantage of that (unintelligible) an issue. 14 The last thing is we now 15 have -- it looks like automatic Appeals from 16 the Circuit Court to the Court of Appeals. 17 Used to be the case years ago that if you're 18 a proponent, you didn't get the variance you 19 wanted; didn't get the interpretation you 20 want, you go automatically to the Circuit 21 Court and then automatically to the Court of 22 Appeals. That was changed, so that you have 23 to ask the Court of Appeals to hear your 24 case. Which is, normally good for the City,
125
1 but you know, had we lost in Circuit Court, 2 you know, that might be the end of it, if 3 the Court of Appeals didn't take the case. 4 Now, it's back again 5 (unintelligible) automatic appeal all the 6 way to the Court of Appeals. 7 (Unintelligible) change the language to who 8 can appeal from the grant or denial of a 9 variance from an affected party to an 10 aggrieved party. What that change means, 11 we're just going to have to find out. 12 But from the ZBA here, any 13 number of other changes that are going to 14 effect the Planning Commission and City 15 Council. (Unintelligible) they impose 16 specific requirements for findings on the 17 Planning Commission in certain instances, 18 but not on the ZBA, which was little bit 19 surprising. (Unintelligible) you actually 20 do more actual judicial fact finding. 21 But kind of a mixed reactions 22 for the Statute. A lot of people are kind 23 of looking forward to it, and it did some 24 things that maybe people didn't expect who
126
1 initially (unintelligible.) So that's the 2 update. 3 MR. SAVEN: Notification time. 4 MR. SCHULTZ: Oh, I'm sorry. 15 5 days instead of a reasonable time. We've always 6 kind of said, you know, five is a ballpark. It's 7 not going to effect the up coming agenda for 8 July, because it literally takes effect July 1. 9 Anything you've done up until that date, 10 (unintelligible) had a Hearing or scheduled for a 11 Hearing, is going to be fine. But for the August 12 agenda, it's going to be the 15 day requirement, 13 and that's going to be an initial hardship, at 14 least the first time around for people who were 15 counting on the five days. 16 MR. SAVEN: And I think that's 17 one of the things that we should keep in mind in 18 talking with people and (unintelligible) there 19 questioning about the Zoning Board of Appeals. 20 The 15 day, it seems like is the magic target 21 number. You've got to bear in mind that we have 22 to prepare the cases even prior to that. So, 23 there could be as much as 15 days that we have -- 24 need above and beyond.
127
1 So what we're looking at is 15 2 days prior to the next meeting, plus, at 3 least ten days ahead of that so we can 4 prepare the case. We have -- normally have 5 15 case load in heavy times (unintelligible) 6 cases (unintelligible) look at. You've got 7 to bear in mind that that notification time 8 has to be met, plus we have to meet that 15 9 days. We can't do that all in one day or 10 (unintelligible) comes in. We have to keep 11 that in mind, too. It's still a little 12 tough. 13 MR. SCHULTZ: The Board's agenda 14 in August might be pretty light. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Let's change 16 the cut-off for the rest of the agendas for 17 the year to the last day in June, so we're 18 still under the effect of the previous law. 19 MR. SAVEN: Okay. The last and 20 final item, I had an opportunity to be at a 21 recent meeting, and one of the things that's 22 coming up with City Council is the request for 23 input from Boards and Commissions as to the goals 24 and objectives of the City. A lot of times 128
1 people are coming before the Board, you know, 2 there's a lot of things that kind of would be 3 something that maybe you want to see done in the 4 planning stages, rather than coming back to ZBA 5 (unintelligible) decisions to be made 6 (unintelligible) because of the fact of the 7 expert testimony there or what-have-you; or, 8 certain things that have become repetitive in 9 nature that you want to try to see 10 (unintelligible) to try to address 11 (unintelligible) particular issue. 12 Other than that, any input 13 from this Board to City Council will be very 14 well received. Just give us the information 15 that we can give to City Council, and we 16 will address that and forward it to them. 17 Okay. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 19 Anything else? 20 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair, 21 I have one other thing (unintelligible) 22 (interposing) I'm not going to make her come to 23 the podium or anything like that, but Shannon 24 Ozga from my firm. I think you met her several
129
1 months ago. I kind of wanted to formally 2 introduce Shannon. She's been at our firm for 3 about year and a half or two years. 4 MS. OZGA: Two years. 5 MR. SCHULTZ: Two years. She 6 came to us from the Court of Appeals. She's got 7 a good Municipal pedigree. Her father was the 8 mayor of Roseville, I believe, for 30 years or 9 something like that. So she has a natural 10 affinity for this Municipal law stuff. 11 Because of the Court of 12 Appeals background, we're bringing Shannon 13 along -- and maybe earlier than some others. 14 What I plan to do is have her here for 15 several meetings. And then I'll be here for 16 several meetings (unintelligible) you know, 17 some filling in time. I think it's helpful 18 for our firm to have more and more people 19 who can cover meetings (unintelligible) for 20 you to get some different perspectives. 21 So I just wanted to let you 22 know you may see us rotate in and out over 23 the next several weeks, but I just wanted to 24 do that introduction.
130
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 2 welcome aboard. 3 MS. OZGA: Thank you. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, anything 5 else? 6 (Unintelligible) like to make 7 a Motion to adjourn? 8 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 10 e.) 11 The meeting is adjourned. 12 Thank you. 13 (The meeting was adjourned at 14 9:40 p.m.) 15 - - - - - - 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 (126) 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 7, 2006. (Date)
|