| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting REGULAR MEETING - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, Tuesday, December 5, 2006. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: Novi, Michigan
5 MEMBER SANGHVI: I'd like to 6 call to order the December 2006 meeting of the 7 City of Novi Zoning Board of Appeals. 8 Will you please all rise and 9 join me in the pledge of allegiance. Thank 10 you. 11 BOARD MEMBERS: I pledge 12 allegiance to the flag of the United States 13 of America. And to the Republic for which 14 it stands, one nation, under God, 15 indivisible, with liberty and justice for 16 all. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 18 Ms. Working, will you please 19 call the roll. 20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 21 MEMBER CANUP: Here. 22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Present. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 3 1 Member Bauer? 2 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 6 MEMBER SHROYER: Present. 7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger. 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: 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 rules of conduct. You can find them all in 13 the agenda that's already placed in front of 14 you. Just a reminder, please turn off all 15 your cell phones and pagers. Individual 16 applicant may take five minutes; groups may 17 take up to ten minutes to address the Board. 18 The Zoning Board of Appeals is 19 a Hearing Board empowered by the Novi City 20 Charter to hear appeals seeking variances 21 from the application of the Novi Zoning 22 Ordinances. It takes a vote of at least 23 four members to approve a variance request, 24 and a vote of the majority of the members 4 1 present to deny a variance. 2 And tonight, we have a full 3 Board, so all decisions made will be final. 4 Let's look at the agenda. 5 Are there any changes to the 6 agenda, Miss Working? 7 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chairman, we 8 will not be approving November minutes. Luzod is 9 still preparing them for your approval. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, thank 11 you. 12 The Chair would entertain a 13 Motion to accept Minutes and -- the agenda, 14 as amended. 15 MEMBER BAUER: So moved. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Second. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. The 18 agenda has been moved and seconded. 19 All right. We get that part 20 of the agenda and get on with it. 21 All those in favor of 22 approving the agenda, please signify by 23 saying aye. 24 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 5 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Those opposed, 2 same sign. We have an agenda. 3 Now we'll we move on. 4 Now at this point, the meeting 5 is open for the public remarks section. If 6 anybody wants to address the Board regarding 7 any issue other than what the cases are on 8 the agenda tonight, then they may do so now. 9 I don't see anybody here and 10 we'll keep moving. 11 This brings us to the first 12 case on the agenda. 13 14 The Case Number, 06-092, filed 15 by Mr. Pham of Taubman Company for Twelve 16 Oaks Mall, located at 27500 Novi road. 17 Are you here? 18 MR. PHAM: Here. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. Come on 20 in, Mr. Pham. 21 Identify yourself, state your 22 name and address, and be sworn in by our 23 secretary. 24 MR. PHAM: Khanh Pham for the 6 1 Taubman company, 200 East Long Lake, 2 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, 48103. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or 4 affirm to tell the truth regarding, Case: 5 06-092? 6 MR. PHAM: I do. 7 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please proceed. 9 MR. PHAM: We were asked by 10 Staff to quickly do a Powerpoint 11 presentation, just talking about the 12 uniqueness of the site. We will try to make 13 this brief and not go over stuff that's 14 already submitted to you. Tonight, as well, 15 we have our design team here, in case you 16 have questions. Mike Falco, 17 (unintelligible) and Dan Jones, who's also 18 from Twelve Oaks Mall. 19 As you can see, the screen -- 20 it's not very bright but -- here's the site 21 plan of our project. This site plan is what 22 you all have in your packet. What we want 23 to show is that Twelve Oaks Mall is a unique 24 use within the City. It's a regional Mall, 7 1 the only regional mall in the City of Novi. 2 Where we're located, at certain points on 3 Novi road at Twelve Mile, we are about ten 4 or twelve feet below grade at the road, so 5 we're in like a basin by those two roads. 6 The first set up, I want to 7 point out that first star is where we took 8 the picture showing people what you would 9 see, because of how low we are 10 (unintelligible) see up from the road into 11 the mall. And here, it was on a cloudy day. 12 We didn't do that on purposes. You can 13 barely see the mall. And what you do see, 14 more closer, the roof line and any units on 15 top of the roof. And it's kind of blocked 16 by the landscaping. 17 But again, we knew that when 18 we built this mall that way again 19 (unintelligible) unique properties of the 20 small; and this is from Novi Road. In this 21 view, we want to demonstrate again how low 22 we are from Twelve Mile. We took a picture 23 right by that star over by Twelve Mile Road 24 there. And over there, we're about six feet 8 1 lower that's Twelve Mile Road, and about 2 1100 hundred feet away from the nearest 3 point of the mall. 4 And here with the distance -- 5 and maybe this picture is not as clear -- 6 you really don't see much; especially when 7 you're traveling at 45 miles per hour on 8 Twelve Mile Road, (unintelligible) what you 9 see of the mall. 10 We are here tonight, because 11 as you know Twelve Oaks Mall -- even though 12 we you have that zoning district in your 13 sign Ordinance, everything we do -- from our 14 entrance signs to our department store signs 15 requires ZBA variance. Your Ordinance does 16 not really reflect our use. I mean, you do 17 have it, but for the unique use of Twelve 18 Oaks Mall, everything that we do from the -- 19 what we first opened to our improvements to 20 now, we will always require a ZBA variance. 21 So it's not that we can't live within the 22 Ordinance; it's like the Ordinance was 23 written at the direction of our forefathers 24 in 1977, never really addressed this 9 1 particular use of a mall. So we accept 2 that, and we always do come before you we 3 have an expansion or a department store 4 expansion. 5 This here is the expansion 6 entrance that was approved last year. As 7 you know, we are going through an expansion. 8 And it's very exciting for us. When we 9 looked at our expansion, we realized we 10 can't have one part of the mall new and the 11 rest old. So we immediately went ahead and 12 went into a renovation of the existing four 13 entrances. So that when we open September 14 2007, this expansion entrance will look that 15 way with all the other entrances, and will 16 look as fresh as this expansion entrance. 17 This is our existing entrance 18 now. We want to kind of remind you what it 19 looks likes. The sign's a little low. And 20 before you in the corner is just a front 21 elevation of what that elevation looks like, 22 the sign right above the door. 23 In one of our variance 24 requests -- and Staff has asked us to do 10 1 this -- is what would the sign look like, 2 the existing sign, on our expanded entrance 3 with the higher facade and wider elevation, 4 comparable to our expansion. That sign 5 right there is two feet high by 16 feet 6 long. It worked when we originally put in 7 the other entrances. But on this elevation, 8 it just seems out of place in that 9 proportion to the expanded entrance. 10 If you contrast that to what 11 it will look like now with our new sign -- 12 which is only eight inches higher than the 13 old entrance sign -- we're asking for two 14 feet eight, (unintelligible) two feet 15 because of the font we use, and the we use 16 capital letters, it's stretched out to 17 kind -- in proportion to our entrance. It 18 is eight feet longer; and therefore, that's 19 why our variance is 32 square feet greater 20 than what was granted before. And once it's 21 done, our -- all four entrances -- all three 22 entrances will have the same look as the 23 expanded entrance. 24 In addition to what we are 11 1 trying to do with our elevation, the one 2 thing that's unique about Twelve Oaks Mall, 3 we do have ring proceed concept. And when 4 you are driving from the ring road, you're 5 going at a posted 25 miles per hour. People 6 drive faster than that, and that's why we 7 think that the correct size signage, whether 8 it's a department store or an entry way or 9 any way find signs, needs to be the 10 appropriate size and height for the safety 11 of our customers, and proper way finding for 12 today's customers and tomorrow's customers, 13 as well. 14 And the rest of the 15 information you already have, so I'm not 16 going to repeat. 17 Any questions, I'm available. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Are you done? 19 Thank you. 20 51 notices were mailed; and 21 one approval, zero objections. 22 Okay. Building Department, 23 any comment? 24 MR. SAVEN: Well, I guess I got 12 1 several comments I'd like to make. 2 Number one, certain facts when 3 the addition of the mall took place -- 4 sorry. When the addition of the mall took 5 place, they recognized the fact that they 6 needed to do something with their entrance 7 ways, (unintelligible) one of the things 8 which was very much a promising issue for 9 the City of Novi. Just from the fact 10 they're going to be changing the facade from 11 the Building Code standpoint of view, we 12 will take care of -- that's basically 13 another issue, but couple things was 14 mentioned (unintelligible) number one. The 15 project is located in a dish or a bowl, 16 first of all. 17 The second thing is, this ring 18 road issue -- because we even enhanced the 19 ring road, the ring road is not the same 20 ring road. I mean it's (unintelligible) 21 ring road. You got to keep your eyes on 22 when you're going basically (unintelligible) 23 of your vision. And, those things have very 24 important (unintelligible) of public safety, 13 1 as well as the senior complex which is 2 located very close in that particular area. 3 Of course, public safety, 4 everybody knows from Taubman is very 5 paramount in my eyes to ensure that people 6 are going to get where there are going, to 7 their destination without a problem. That 8 particular issue in itself, and the fact 9 (unintelligible) in a dish, the fact 10 (unintelligible) going through an enhanced 11 facade -- in other words, that facade or 12 entrance will be much taller and wider than 13 what the initial (unintelligible) look at 14 the present time. So that's one of the 15 things we looked at (unintelligible) to try 16 to make it proportional. 17 At the previous meeting, I 18 informed the Board that in the mockup 19 (unintelligible) whether everybody has had a 20 opportunity to take a look at the mockup 21 sign (unintelligible) all over the place in 22 that particular area as indicated where they 23 were going to be (unintelligible) very good 24 proportion to what they are (unintelligible) 14 1 at the time. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 3 Before I go any further, I 4 want to check something. And I need to ask 5 the audience if anybody has to make any 6 comments about this particular case. If you 7 have -- is there anybody in the audience 8 that would like to make any comments about 9 this particular case? About this case, 10 please do it right now. 11 I don't know see anybody, so 12 we'll move on. I'm sorry. I had my thing 13 off. I don't know (unintelligible) 14 microphone. And indicate, (unintelligible.) 15 All right. Moving on to the 16 Building Department. 17 And I'll open it to the Board. 18 Yes, Mr. Canup? 19 MEMBER CANUP: I have a great 20 deal of difficulty trying to understanding what 21 people would get that close to the mall and don't 22 know it's a mall; don't know that it's Twelve 23 Oaks Mall. If there's a need for 24 (unintelligible) possibly over those doors. 15 1 (Unintelligible) mall entrance, but to advertise 2 that it's a mall, everybody (unintelligible) 3 enough to get that far would probably recognize 4 that. 5 So, information there is some 6 kind of hardship here, demonstrated 7 hardship, I'd have difficulty wanting to 8 approve these signs in the present state. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 10 Mr. Fischer? 11 MEMBER FISCHER: I'll go next. 12 I drove by there several times 13 today, almost (unintelligible) around that 14 ring road constantly. But anyway, couple of 15 comments regarding the directional signs. 16 If you (unintelligible) again 17 for me. On the sign that we are looking at 18 in the packet that we received, it looks -- 19 that you're asking for additional square 20 footage, but you have (unintelligible.) 21 MR. PHAM: Yes. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl 23 e) looking at? 24 MR. PHAM: Yeah, we have. You 16 1 know, we are adding Nordstrom on the 2 (unintelligible) sign, but we also have two 3 additional uses (unintelligible) restaurant 4 in the back, in the back entry. That 5 (unintelligible) restaurant are 6 destinations, and we'd like to 7 (unintelligible) for dining possibly after 8 hours. The reason (unintelligible) to get 9 to those restaurants much right now. We are 10 not at liberty to say who they are, that's 11 why we have to be -- that's why we have 12 asked for the additional area for those 13 tenants. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 15 MR. PHAM: And those would be 16 restaurants that are not within the mall. 17 They would be separate entities or 18 (unintelligible.) 19 MEMBER FISCHER: That would be 20 (unintelligible.) 21 MR. PHAM: Yes. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 23 I take a little bit of issue 24 with that. We're looking at directional 17 1 signs. We are looking at signs in general. 2 We always have to look for less. I think 3 that asking for additional square footage 4 (unintelligible) looking to put two 5 (unintelligible) on signs is a little much. 6 I think that you have valet. We have food 7 court. (Unintelligible) that would be 8 enough, and therefore we could then bring 9 (unintelligible) square footage down. 10 That's an issue I take with the directional 11 signs. 12 Looking at the entrance signs, 13 I have never been a proponent of telling 14 people what to put on their signs within a 15 certain amount of (unintelligible.) 16 I'd like to direct this up to 17 the Petitioner, and what better way to 18 signify entrances than to show the name of 19 the mall. So I have no issue with what they 20 want to put on top of (unintelligible) 21 transactions. 22 The square footage, I was very 23 critical at first, to be quite honest. I 24 thought that the current size they have now 18 1 are fine, but given -- I didn't no the 2 facade was going to change the nature of all 3 of them. Given public safety 4 (unintelligible) given new rules that we are 5 to go by, by the new Ordinance passed by 6 City Counsel, that hardship isn't 7 necessarily the strict burden of proof that 8 the Petitioner must show anymore. I can say 9 that given the (unintelligible) at what 10 (unintelligible) ring road, the public 11 safety factor and (unintelligible) factors 12 to the facade, I can be in support of those 13 other signs. 14 But like I said on 15 directionals, I'd like to (unintelligible) 16 other extra two stores be eliminated. 17 One quick question for you, 18 Allen, (unintelligible) signs 19 (unintelligible) Twelve Oaks sign; is that 20 correct? That's going from 32 to 64? 21 MR. AMOLSCH: The wall sign? 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. 23 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes, sir. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. Those 19 1 are my comments. 2 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thanks you, 4 Mr. Fischer. 5 Yes, Mr. Gatt. 6 MEMBER GATT: I am in favor of 7 all of the variances that you've requested. 8 I think that a lot of times we forget that 9 because we are residents of this City 10 (unintelligible) not be very familiar with 11 Twelve Oaks, would (unintelligible) might be 12 very familiar with the area and the ring 13 road itself. But a person from a different 14 area might not feel the same way. 15 I like the update that you 16 guys are going to be doing with the 17 entrances. I like that style that you 18 showed us. The (unintelligible) of the sign 19 that you guys are requesting makes it seem 20 like it make sense to double size the sign 21 with the new facade or going to be put up. 22 I also agree with the variance 23 of the directional signs, if you're going to 24 be putting in an after hours type restaurant 20 1 where that would be the sole purpose for a 2 person's visit to Twelve Oaks Mall; and in 3 going from one entrance near Novi road or 4 Twelve Mile Road entrance, they are going to 5 the other sides of the mall, that might be 6 confusing to a certain person. 7 So I am in favor of all of the 8 variances requested. 9 Thank you. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 11 Mr. Gatt. 12 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, 13 Mr. Chair. 14 Couple quick (unintelligible.) 15 The -- walk me through again the valet 16 signs. 17 I know we have separate ones, 18 and it is going to be located where? 19 MR. PHAM: Okay. I would 20 (unintelligible) do that. Maybe it will be 21 helpful if we can get on the projector. 22 What we are proposing right 23 here -- this is the new expansion area, this 24 is the Nordstrom right here, just to give 21 1 you bearing; and J.C. Penny and Lord and 2 Taylor is right here. And over here would 3 be the lake, just so people can get their 4 bearing. 5 What we're proposing is that in 6 order to keep it, you know safe, so people can 7 see where valet is, there's a valet sign located 8 here. So that if you're traveling, you could see 9 the valet -- you could take this around and get 10 over to here. There's a small -- in our 11 opinion -- sign just to give additional way 12 finding reasons for people to get to valet. As 13 noted in our letter, it's an important issue for 14 us for people with disabilities to use valet; 15 elderly who use valet; or during bad weather to 16 use valet. And it's an important function of the 17 mall to have proper signage to get to a very 18 important part of our mall use. 19 And that's where that valet sign 20 is being requested. 21 MEMBER SHROYER: And it's also 22 going to be included on all the ring roads. 23 MR. PHAM: Some of the ring 24 roads already have valet directional signs 22 1 on already. We have valet use before, but 2 now with the expansion of our mall, we want 3 to catch people as they get (unintelligible) 4 ring road to come back, if that's what 5 they're looking for, before they get beyond 6 it. Because once you go beyond that point, 7 you keep going. 8 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay, thank 9 you. 10 And I have a question for the 11 City. 12 The new entry way, the large 13 entry way they are putting together now -- 14 who do I address it to, probably Mr. Amolsch 15 -- the large entry way that Mr. Pham showed 16 us with the extended overhang. On the end 17 of that overhang is the word valet. 18 Do we have to look at that as 19 an additional variance? I believe we had 20 approved the valet sign once before for the 21 area, but I notice the application does not 22 included that. 23 MR. AMOLSCH: Actually, number 24 five, I think it does. 23 1 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. I may 2 have missed that on back. 3 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes. 4 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. It does 5 say valet there, good. 6 Okay, thank you. 7 I basically agree with the two 8 previous speakers. The -- I did have a 9 little bit of a concern about increasing 10 road signs, but I don't think it's being 11 increased too much; and I do agree with Mr. 12 Gatt or Member Gatt here talking after 13 hours, it may make it a lot easier to find 14 those locations. Also, I was very concerned 15 about the doubling of signs at Twelve Oaks. 16 (Unintelligible) questions I 17 had for you, Mr. Pham, are they standard 18 sized signs? In other words, do he go 19 from -- the one that's eight foot longer all 20 the way down to the one that's the current 21 size; or is there something in between? 22 MR. PHAM: The size that we're 23 proposing -- I mean if you look at it as the 24 Twelve Oaks sign, the font that's facing 24 1 makes it longer; so that it's proportional 2 to the width of the entry way. 3 MEMBER SHROYER: It's only eight 4 inches higher. 5 MR. PHAM: It's only eight 6 inches higher. 7 MEMBER SHROYER: I understand 8 that. 9 MR. PHAM: And -- but we felt 10 it was important to be proportional and not 11 have it skruntched(sic) (ph) together for 12 readability purposes. We have found through 13 past practice, that as you put more letters 14 together and during bad weather, it's harder 15 to read. Unless you're Lord and Taylor 16 (unintelligible) script, and they know what 17 it is anyway, because it's Lord and Taylor. 18 But to actually read it, you 19 have to have the letters a little farther 20 apart for readability purposes. 21 MEMBER SHROYER: The question 22 I'm asking, quite often in purchasing signs, 23 purchasing letters, there is only stock sign 24 letters available -- 25 1 MR. PHAM: No, sir. These are 2 designed for two feet, eight inches. 3 MEMBER SHROYER: So we could, if 4 the Board preferred, we could limit it to a four 5 inch higher sign, that wouldn't make it quite as 6 large. 7 MR. PHAM: To be frank with 8 you, the increase is more to the width, not 9 the height. I mean, you know, if you go to 10 four inches, I don't think -- in my 11 opinion -- if we drove around 12 (unintelligible) inches or eight inches, 13 (unintelligible) that noticeably different. 14 It's different (unintelligible) the width of 15 the sign, because we want to meet the front 16 facade of our entry. So, if you say four 17 inches, we're not going to be happy with it. 18 That's not what we want to be proportional 19 to this. 20 I mean, if you do the math, 21 four inches is not going to make that much 22 difference to the overall area. 23 MEMBER SHROYER: I understand. 24 I was just asking about standard stock sign 26 1 letters. 2 The other question I have is 3 on lighting. Everything is backlit; is that 4 correct? 5 MR. PHAM: That's correct. 6 MEMBER SHROYER: And how long 7 are those lights on, is it 24/7? 8 MR. PHAM: Yes, they are. 9 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl 10 e) Twelve Oaks and for the ring road 11 (interposing) (unintelligible.) 12 MR. PHAM: (Interposing) 13 (unintelligible) ring road (unintelligible) 14 on 24/7. This is a hundred acre site. 15 (Unintelligible) in that basin that 16 Mr. Saven mentioned, and we have residents 17 also in senior housing that use that ring 18 road. We are obligated to keep our lights 19 on 24/7, so that we don't have issues in the 20 road or in our parking lots. 21 MEMBER SHROYER: All right. 22 Okay. That's all the 23 questions I have. 24 Thank you Mr. Chair. 27 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes Mr. Bauer? 2 MEMBER BAUER: I don't think 3 there is anybody in the State of Michigan 4 that does not know that that's Twelve Oaks. 5 The bigger the sign is not always the best. 6 I don't think you need the size that you're 7 asking for. People know where it is. It is 8 a destination, I might add. This is a 9 (unintelligible.) I don't think you need 10 the extra square footage. 11 Thank you. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 13 I'd like to put on record my 14 comments. 15 And number one, I am glad you 16 are modernizing all the signs and not only 17 the new part of the mall. Number two, I 18 also like the idea of placing well lit 19 (unintelligible) isn't easily negotiable for 20 everybody who goes local like me, who has 21 known Twelve Oaks Mall ever since it was 22 started 16, 18 years ago; or more than that? 23 My God, I'm losing track of time. 24 And so we know where it is. 28 1 That's okay for us. But for people coming 2 from outside -- and if you believe it, we 3 must believe this is a regional shopping 4 center, and not just a local shopping center 5 for people of Novi and surrounding areas. 6 The place has to be adequately sign posted 7 and visible. 8 That brings us to the question 9 of what is adequate. And I know we have had 10 old signs, and I know a lot of people who 11 really recognize Novi by virtue of the fact 12 that the Twelve Oaks Mall is in Novi. And I 13 remember the days before the mall was here, 14 and you say where do you live, in Novi, 15 where's that. I don't have to do that 16 anymore. Well everybody knows where Novi 17 is, thanks to Twelve Oaks Mall -- but that's 18 another story. 19 The point I want to make is 20 yes, you need adequate signs, modern signs 21 at a modern mall, and I don't have a mere 22 problem with the size of the letters, 23 because the older I get, the better letters 24 I like to read. And I think that's a 29 1 fundamental fact of vision, what happens to 2 people. And so I have no problem with that 3 also. 4 So all and all, I can support 5 a Motion to grant your variances, if anybody 6 is willing to make a Motion at this point in 7 time. 8 MEMBER BAUER: The reason why 9 I think the signs are just great the way 10 they are is because we have them on Novi 11 Road. We have them on Twelve Mile to get 12 in. They can't miss it. I shouldn't say a 13 blind man would find it, but they would. 14 Thank you. 15 MR. PHAM: Not to be 16 argumentative, Member Bauer, can I make one 17 clarification, please? 18 MEMBER BAUER: Sure. 19 MR. PHAM: You are a hundred 20 percent correct, that people coming to 21 Twelve Oaks know that are at Twelve Oaks. 22 Our signage is not for people knowing about 23 the location. Our signage is about as 24 you're traveling around the ring road, going 30 1 to and from, whether you want to park at a 2 department store; you want to park in an 3 entrance, that's the purpose, it's not to 4 signify that you're at the Twelve Oaks Mall. 5 You're absolutely right. 6 Our water tower, our signs on 7 the road does that, and our reputation. We 8 are very happy about that. But again, the 9 signage that we are proposing is to reflect 10 the changes that we're making, and also for 11 the safety of what we think -- as we raise 12 the elevation to be proportional for the 13 people traversing to and from within the 14 mall to go to what entrance; whether they're 15 at a department store entrance or at a mall 16 entrance. 17 MEMBER BAUER: I understand. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 19 Mr. Bauer. 20 Yes, Mr. Fischer? 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Personally, I'm 22 half tempted to just take one of these signs off 23 so only I know it's an entrance and I can get in 24 and out quickly; but I don't think 31 1 (unintelligible) would let me. And I want to one 2 more time reiterate, it's not always 3 identification to I really like, and what's 4 shocking to me is the esthetics of it, the facade 5 that's going in. That's why (unintelligible) 6 some minor questions I have and some minor 7 reservations, I'll go ahead and make a Motion, if 8 it's appropriate, Mr. Chair. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Uh-huh, please. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: I would move 11 that in Case Number: 06-092, filed by Khanh Pham 12 of Taubman Company for Twelve Oaks Mall located 13 at 27500 Novi Road, that we grant the variances 14 as requested due to the fact that the Board has 15 found that the Petitioner has established 16 practical difficulty in the fact of the 17 uniqueness of the whole site; the line of vision 18 from the road surrounding the site, the ring road 19 that people travel on, and the speed of the 20 people traveling on that said ring road, this is 21 for public safety issues regarding the size, as 22 well as to keep it in proportion with the 23 building, the site, and substantial justice to 24 this Petitioner, as well as others in the 32 1 surrounding area. 2 MEMBER GATT: Second. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: A Motion has 4 been made and seconded. 5 Any further comments? 6 Seeing none -- yes, Ms. Ozga? 7 MS. OZGA: I just had a 8 question. 9 Was that for all five of the 10 separate variances, or are you going one at 11 a time? 12 MEMBER FISCHER: I move to 13 approve everything on it. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Total. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Unless you'd 16 like (unintelligible) 17 MS. OZGA: No, I guess that's 18 fine. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you 21 very much. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: So, will you 23 please call the roll. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 33 1 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 2 ROBIN WORKING: I had a question 3 for you, before I call the roll. 4 You made the Motion for 5 approval for all signs as requested? 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. 7 ROBIN WORKING: That is correct. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: To approve this 9 case as requested. 10 ROBIN WORKING: One through 11 five. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Variances one 13 through five, the entire sheet, as requested, 14 whole thing. 15 ROBIN WORKING: Thank you. 16 Member Fischer? 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Both times, 18 aye. 19 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 20 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 21 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 22 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 23 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 34 1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 2 MEMBER BAUER: No. 3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 4 MEMBER CANUP: No. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Need four to 6 pass. 7 Motion passes four to two. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 9 MR. PHAM: Thank you so much. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Good luck. 11 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. 13 Moving on to the next case. Case number 06-091, 14 filed by Brad Wilson of Callison Architecture for 15 27640 Novi Road, Nordstrom located at Twelve Oaks 16 Mall. 17 Will you please identify 18 yourself and state your name and address, 19 and be -- are you an attorney? 20 MR. WILSON: Excuse me? 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Are you an 22 attorney? 23 MR. WILSON: Attorney, no. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Then 35 1 please be sworn in by other secretary here. 2 MR. WILSON: Brad Wilson with 3 Callison Architecture at 1420 Fifth Avenue, 4 Suite 2400, Seattle, Washington, here to 5 speak on behalf of Nordstrom and the sign 6 variance. 7 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or 8 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case: 9 06-091? 10 MR. WILSON: Yes. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please go ahead 13 and make your presentation. 14 MR. WILSON: As you're aware, 15 we're here to request a variance for three 16 exterior illuminated pin mounted exterior 17 signs; and the square footage requested is 18 217 and a half square feet total. And our 19 appeal is based upon the following 20 appeals -- or excuse me, practical 21 difficulties and uniqueness of Twelve Oaks 22 Mall. 23 Again, as you're aware, 24 Nordstrom will be an anchor store at the 36 1 Twelve Oaks Mall, and we'll be -- and it's 2 part of the regional center district -- and 3 pardon me for a moment -- proposed allowable 4 building area (unintelligible) asked us to 5 provide (unintelligible) building. 6 We're here mostly to say that 7 it's a way finding sign. It is imperative 8 that we make sure our customers, the 9 citizens of Novi, and those travelling from 10 outside of the region be able to find their 11 way to entrances, both pedestrian and 12 vehicular (unintelligible) primary concern. 13 And then our secondary concern would be in 14 relationship to the size of those signs that 15 have been granted to the other four majors; 16 and that Nordstrom is a direct competitor 17 with those majors. And with the size signs 18 that have been granted for those majors, we 19 feel it would be unfair that anything less 20 be granted for the fifth major, and -- or 21 nothing more. We are asking for nothing 22 more than what has already been granted. 23 And if I may, I'd like to 24 share what I understand to be the sized 37 1 signs of the other four majors. Correct me 2 if I'm wrong. But the Macy's sign is 3 roughly around 192 square feet; the Sears 4 sign is roughly around 162 square feet; the 5 J.C. Penny sign is about 142 square feet; 6 the Lord and Taylor sign at 403 square feet, 7 and we feel that our sign is right in the 8 middle of all that. 9 Each one those signs being 10 five foot in height; and our sign, as well, 11 is five feet in height; and with the simple 12 fact that we're a longer sign just surely 13 based on the number of letters in our sign. 14 The other quality about the Nordstrom sign, 15 that if you're comparing to the other four 16 signs that are out there, is the very 17 simplistic nature of the sign and very 18 subtleness to the sign. It has a very 19 narrow font stroke. It is -- pardon me -- 20 it is -- while it is illuminated, it is has 21 brown plexiglass face to it, so there's no 22 white background. 23 It is to be a Nordstrom 24 bronze, as we call it; brownish in nature. 38 1 So you don't see a white plexiface, as you 2 might see. It doesn't stand out during the 3 day. It's only illuminated at night. I 4 guess I'd like to share a few other images 5 with you to reiterate this point. 6 This bottom right is -- little 7 here to the left bottom part of the sheet, 8 this is an existing store. It is the exact 9 same size that we are proposing here at 10 Twelve Oaks Mall. Five feet in height; 43 11 feet this length. Again, during the day 12 it's just brown, very subtle. And then at 13 night, you can see the very narrow stroke. 14 The last point I guess I'd 15 like to make, while you see this has 217 16 square feet, it is -- if you just took the 17 sheer value and face of letter, that -- the 18 217 feet is the outer rectangle; and if you 19 just took face value of the area of the 20 letters, this sign is less than 60 square 21 feet in nature. And so what you're also 22 seeing within that 217 square feet, a lot of 23 void and white space. These are all 24 individually pin mounted signs. 39 1 And I guess with that said, I 2 thank you for your time, and here to answer 3 any question you may have. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 5 Does anybody in the audience 6 wish to make any objections about this 7 particular case, this is the time to do so. 8 I don't see anyone coming in. 9 I would inform the Board that 10 196 notices were mailed, four approvals -- 11 four approvals and six objections. 12 Mr. Secretary, would you 13 kindly highlight the objections, please. 14 MEMBER BAUER: I have to 15 highlight them. It is unfair that Nordstom 16 has three signs that are larger than most 17 other business have, and they've been 18 complying with the existing rules. Why make 19 such a noticeable exception for Nordstroms. 20 Secondly, the fact of the signs are lit is 21 also a problem; especially if they remain on 22 24 hours a day. 23 We live across from the mall 24 and the light would be shining into our 40 1 windows continuously. We have already put 2 up with the year of noisy construction Jimmy 3 and Geraldine (unintelligible) Crescent 4 Oaks. I have no objections to the signage 5 factor, because we (unintelligible) you must 6 make your locations known, but I object to 7 the (unintelligible) size of the sign. I 8 object to the visual size and overall 9 dimensions of 217 point five feet. If you 10 reduce the sign considerably, I would have 11 no objection, thank you. I also have no 12 objections to having three signs, but please 13 reduce the signs, also, Joan and Sheldon 14 Applefield, Crescent Oaks. That's the 15 general of all six. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 17 (Unintelligible) objections 18 regarding size and also, I guess hours of 19 lighted signs on the premises. 20 Have you any idea how long 21 you're going to have these sign lit? 22 MR. WILSON: Presently, we are 23 proposing they're lit 24 hours. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Your proposal 41 1 is 24 hours. 2 All right. 3 Building Department? 4 MR. SAVEN: Just a couple of 5 comments. I want to just (unintelligible.) 6 Number one, it was normally our requirement that 7 we have banners put up to show what a sign looks 8 like. And one of the things that's very 9 outstanding, I think this gentleman indicated the 10 fact that the white background isn't out there in 11 your face. I just want to emphasize the fact 12 there is no white on the signs. It's strictly a 13 single letter -- single letter signs they are 14 proposing. 15 And that's backlit; is that 16 correct. 17 MR. WILSON: That is correct. 18 With the fact -- I guess what I mean by 19 backlit, they are each individually lit. 20 MR. SAVEN: I'm sorry 21 (unintelligible.) The second issue is that every 22 anchor store in that mall has three signs. If 23 you went around, you would see every single 24 (unintelligible) so he's not proposing anything 42 1 different in number (unintelligible.) 2 I just wanted to bring that to 3 your attention. 4 Thank you. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chair? 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 7 ROBIN WORKING: (Unintelligible) 8 digress for one moment. Is it necessary for the 9 Board to recognize that the Enclave Condominium 10 Association also submitted an objection to the 11 variance request? It was in your packet. It is 12 in the file. I would feel as if they weren't 13 being represented if their objection -- if it 14 wasn't mentioned. 15 MEMBER BAUER: It wasn't 16 mention because I didn't have it. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay 18 (unintelligible) that situation. 19 MEMBER BAUER: (Unintelligible) 20 Zoning Board of Appeals, management agent for 21 Enclave Condominium Association. On behalf of 22 the association, I'm writing in response to 23 public hearing relative to the applicant 24 requesting a variance (unintelligible) 43 1 illuminated wall signs, also requested a variance 2 to install three 217.5 square feet illuminated 3 wall signs. 4 First associates provides 5 (unintelligible) management services is 6 authorized to act as a management agent for 7 the condominium association (unintelligible) 8 condominium committee within the City of 9 Novi, and represents (unintelligible) who 10 live near the proposed store on Twelve Mile, 11 Twelve Oaks Mall. 12 (Unintelligible) association 13 is pleased to see commercial development and 14 (unintelligible) and residents have raised 15 some concerns, comments, and they are as 16 follows: One (unintelligible) support the 17 variances to allow three signs, and find it 18 satisfactory (unintelligible) granted by 19 ZBA. Presumably, one shall be placed over 20 each entrance, so customers can locate the 21 entrances, Nordstrom, easily. 22 They could be considered a 23 directional sign. They actually go involve 24 either practical difficulty or extenuating 44 1 circumstances, which what we believe ZBA is 2 to consider when considering variance 3 requests. Two, citizens we represent do not 4 support the requested size of 217.5 square 5 feet. 6 As you know, Ordinance Section 7 278-52B1A allows up to 65 square feet. It 8 is only reasonable that Nordstrom's store 9 signs be the same size as other tenants 10 located at the Twelve Oaks Mall. Therefore, 11 we do not see any hardship, practical 12 difficulty or extenuating circumstances to 13 allow Nordstrom a larger sign; not knowing 14 what other similar requests have either been 15 approved or denied, we cannot provide 16 specifics on what hardships, practical 17 difficulties, and/or extenuating 18 circumstances (unintelligible) may have 19 allowed similar requests to be granted. 20 Therefore, we find it is only 21 prudent that ZBA deny the request -- 22 requested square feet (unintelligible) 23 reduce it to what typical signs are at 24 Twelve Oaks Mall, Lord and Taylor. Three, 45 1 the citizens we represent also are concerned 2 about illumination of these three signs. We 3 ask that the three signs not be illuminated 4 after -- between midnight and dawn each day. 5 This way, we shall not cause excess lights 6 from Twelve Oaks Mall that would 7 (unintelligible) condominium association. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 9 Mr. Bauer. 10 Thank you very much for 11 pointing out that omission. 12 Going back. I'll open up to 13 the Board now. 14 Yes, Mr. Canup. 15 MEMBER CANUP: I don't think 16 it's question that they need to have additional 17 signage other than what's allowed by our 18 Ordinance. I think there is some concern. It 19 seems to be most of the letters that we received, 20 the comments were the size of the signs. They 21 are quite large. 217 square feet is a pretty 22 good sized sign. 23 And my personal opinion is, if 24 we get back to -- I think one of the letters 46 1 mention hundred square feet. Did I read 2 that somewhere in one of the letters? And I 3 think we probably need to stand back and 4 look at it from an objective standpoint. 5 Again, there is no doubt they need more 6 signage than what we allow. I think we need 7 to look at the size of that sign. I think 8 the lighting of the signs -- 9 realistically -- I don't think are going to 10 have an impact on the condos that are off to 11 the southeast. 12 My in-laws (unintelligible) 13 look directly at that sign. I don't think 14 I'm (unintelligible) on them from being in 15 there. So, I guess I would -- the lights in 16 the parking lot actually would be more of a 17 problem than what those lights are. I don't 18 think those are the kind of lights that are 19 beaming type lights. 20 So I guess I would not have a 21 problem with that. So I guess the only 22 thing I have is the size of the signs. And 23 my opinion would be to ask the Petitioner to 24 rethink the size of those signs and come up 47 1 with something better. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 3 Mr. Canup. 4 Yes, Mr. Shroyer. 5 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, 6 Mr. Chair. 7 Mr. Wilson, one of the 8 renderings that was provided to us in the 9 packet showed a Nordstrom sign that was 200 10 feet tall. What would be the square footage 11 of that sign, total square footage of that 12 sign? 13 MR. WILSON: I believe that is 14 what would be required, you know, the 65 15 square feet sign. 16 MEMBER SHROYER: So that would 17 take it all the way down to 65. 18 MR. WILSON: Uh-huh. 19 MEMBER SHROYER: I'll ask you 20 the same question that I asked the previous 21 applicant. 22 Are your signs standard in 23 size or are they all custom made? 24 MR. WILSON: Our standard 48 1 sized sign is usually a six foot sign, as 2 you may be familiar with. The one Nordstrom 3 store in the State of Michigan that's at 4 Somerset. The standard sign is six feet. 5 And five feet is based upon, if 6 (unintelligible) be able to get the neon 7 (unintelligible) tube (unintelligible) five 8 is like (unintelligible) building with the 9 proportion -- especially with this sized 10 building. And it's present (unintelligible) 11 put in the small sign would be 12 (unintelligible) difficult signage in there. 13 MEMBER SHROYER: That's based on 14 the florescent sized tubing, florescent lights. 15 It would be within -- 16 MR. WILSON: (Unintelligible) 17 (interposing.) 18 MEMBER SHROYER: Typical two 19 feet, four feet, (unintelligible) as opposed 20 to six feet? 21 MR. WILSON: Correct. 22 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 23 Also I wanted to ask -- well, 24 let's say it differently. I'm going to kind 49 1 of rule out Lord and Taylor's square 2 footage. Their signs are boxed, as opposed 3 to lineal signs. That's a big square. 4 And you mentioned the 403 5 square foot. They also have a 230 square 6 foot sign, maybe two of them. If you take 7 the other three (unintelligible) them 8 together, divide by three, looks like an 9 average of 167 square feet. So 217 is 10 substantially larger than 167 or the 11 (unintelligible) I do think that it would be 12 (unintelligible) ask you to come in 13 substantially lower than anybody else that 14 (unintelligible) out there. I am a little 15 concerned about 217. 16 One of the reasons I didn't 17 mention this is I believe some of the 18 citizens may be under the impression that 19 the Penny's and Sears and Macy's and Lord 20 and Taylor are 65 square feet, 21 (unintelligible) (interposing) maxed out the 22 City's maximum. 23 Another thing I'd look at 24 (unintelligible) 65 square footage max, and 50 1 basically (unintelligible) three times 2 bigger than anything we got in Novi anyway, 3 that's 109 square feet. 4 (Unintelligible) towards that 5 being basically the max we should be looking 6 at for any big box (unintelligible) store. 7 I have no objection at all, three signs. I 8 think it's good that we have three signs. I 9 don't know the people that you have with 10 you, but perhaps they could put their heads 11 together, as Mr. Canup mentioned, is there 12 (unintelligible) that would take your sign 13 (unintelligible) 217 feet perhaps down to 14 195 or closer to that area. 15 MR. WILSON: (Unintelligible) 16 as earlier I stated, I mean again, our 17 letters -- just (unintelligible) name is 18 nine letters (unintelligible) Nordstrom's 19 name versus that of Sears. And then so our 20 font, (unintelligible) why it being subtle 21 and very narrow and the script is little 22 more subtle than maybe what you see at Sears 23 or the (unintelligible) of Sears versus the 24 J.C. Penny's. 51 1 And so when you spread that 2 out over what their corporate brand name and 3 identity I mean, and the spacing of that, I 4 mean, you're starting to impact our 5 (unintelligible) as well. So Nordstrom 6 have very carefully looked at their font and 7 how they are presented and want their 8 branding to be imaged. 9 Why -- yeah, you could 10 probably take their same sized sign, squish 11 it down and get in into 195 square feet. 12 Again, you're kind of playing with their 13 branding and their identity. So I guess I 14 would reinvite the fact to go back and look 15 at the fact that it's a very narrow script 16 (unintelligible) upward stroke of somewhere 17 at maximum six to seven inches. And so you 18 see a lot of void and white space within 19 that 217 square feet; where again, only less 20 than 60 square feet of is that actual 21 signage. 22 MEMBER SHROYER: I understand. 23 What I'm trying to avoid is 24 (unintelligible) coming back in front of the 52 1 ZBA (unintelligible) you granted a 217 2 square foot sign to Nordstroms. We want 3 another 60/70 square foot sign on our 4 building. And so trying to be fair is 5 always difficult. 6 MR. WILSON: Uh-huh. 7 Member Shroyer: Just trying 8 no (unintelligible) all the angles. 9 That's all the questions I 10 have for now, sir. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 12 Yes, Mr. Canup and then 13 Mr. Fischer. 14 Thank you. 15 MEMBER CANUP: Looking at the 16 two renderings that you have. One is large -- 17 this particular rendering here -- is quite large, 18 and I would suspect those large ones represent 19 217 square feet. 20 MR. WILSON: Correct. And the 21 sign (interposing) (unintelligible.) 22 MEMBER CANUP: What's the small 23 one represent? 24 What size does the small one 53 1 represent? 2 MR. WILSON: I believe that's 3 65 square feet. 4 MEMBER CANUP: How many? 5 MR. WILSON: 65 square feet. 6 MEMBER CANUP: 65 square feet. 7 That's what's allowed by Ordinance. 8 MR. WILSON: Which only shows 9 the one image, correct. 10 MEMBER CANUP: That's just one 11 clarification. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 13 Yes, Mr. Fischer? 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Chair. 15 First I'd like to thank 16 Ms. Working and Mr. Amolsch for their work 17 in going back to the 1970's, and finding old 18 variances to find out the square footage of 19 the old cases and the other stores around 20 there. I heard you had to go in microfiche; 21 something I'm not familiar with. 22 Question, Mr. Amolsch, the way 23 that we took the square footage of this 24 sign, we basically boxed it out, correct? 54 1 That's how we handle every sign that we look 2 at in the City. 3 MR. AMOLSCH: That's correct. 4 Box (unintelligible.) 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. All 6 right. That's what I thought, but I just wanted 7 to make sure. 8 You know, background is 9 included. We're not treating this any 10 different than any other case we've had 11 before. 12 MR. AMOLSCH: That's correct. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 14 I definitely appreciated the 15 letter from the condominium associates. 16 Thanks again for bring that up, and I think 17 they hit a couple nails on the head. In 18 fact, the next time we look at ZBA members, 19 maybe we should give some of them a call. 20 Three signs is satisfactory to 21 me, as well. I think it's fair. It's 22 consistent to what's in the area; consistent 23 to what's going on with that entire site. 24 So I'm fine with the three signs, as well. 55 1 I echo the sentiments of Mr. Canup and 2 Mr. Shroyer regarding the size. I 3 definitely -- you took the words right out 4 of my mouth when you talked about Lord and 5 Taylor, it's script and everything. I think 6 it's unfair to look at that, because we need 7 to compare J.C. Penny, Sears and Macy's 8 because they're all in that box. They're 9 (interposing) (unintelligible) putting this 10 sign under scrutiny. 11 So, I definitely like your 12 (unintelligible) technique there. I think 13 that's fair. I understand the branding and 14 the image -- you know, working for a 15 relatively large company that likes to keep 16 all their signs similar, as well, I can 17 appreciate that. But I think it's unfair to 18 use that as a reason to be unfair to the 19 other customers that we have in that area 20 being, Macy's, J.C. Penny and Sears. 21 I definitely think we need to 22 find something square footage wise in the 23 realm of what we need (interposing) 24 (unintelligible) other applicants. And 56 1 lastly, I'd like to ask Mr. Saven or 2 Mr. Amolsch about their opinion on the 3 illumination. You know, I remember we had a 4 case regarding the lights in the parking 5 lot, and I kind of thought then that might 6 be an issue with the residents. And now it 7 seems to be coming up when the sign's in 8 front of us; which is farther away, and from 9 the pictures I've seen, appears to be less 10 light than those in the parking lot. 11 I'm not a lighting expert. 12 Can you provide any -- are you familiar with 13 the kind of lights that they're planning on 14 using? Does it gleen outwards? Is it a 15 bright light? 16 MR. SAVEN: I think I have to 17 agree with Mr. Canup. I don't think the 18 illumination is going to be that critical for 19 that type of a sign. You mentioned the parking 20 lot. (Unintelligible) parking lot lighting 21 Ordinance just says parking lot lights are going 22 to (unintelligible) down (unintelligible) 23 Any way. Long story short. 24 Basically the Ordinance states parking lot 57 1 lights should be directed down in a downward 2 fashion, not out and not towards 3 (unintelligible) whatever. So I don't see 4 that as a problem. 5 MR. AMOLSCH: The only possible 6 Ordinance was not dealing with shutting off 7 signs. We have no regulation on that in our 8 current Ordinance. The board could 9 (unintelligible) put that as part of the Motion. 10 Problem is enforcement, keeping an eye on it. 11 (unintelligible.) to the concern, but that 12 (unintelligible) that in the sign Ordinance. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 14 And I'll open it up if you 15 have any comments on illumination, as far as 16 brightness, whatnot. (Unintelligible) time 17 limits an issue. You're the expert on the 18 lighting. What type of lighting are you 19 using? 20 MR. WILSON: I'm not a 21 lighting expert either. But from what I 22 understand, the image (unintelligible) 23 projection that you will get from that is 24 very minimal. And it would be definitely 58 1 less than the parking lot lighting that's 2 out there. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 4 With those comments, with 5 Mr. Canup speaking on behalf of his in-laws, 6 I guess I'm fine with the lighting, as well. 7 But once again I'll reiterate that I would 8 like to see this is sign shrunk down 9 proportionally in the range of what the 10 other stores have. 11 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Gatt? 13 MEMBER GATT: First, I just 14 wanted to mirror what I said from the last 15 variance that we had in front of us. I'm 16 really excited about what's happening at 17 Twelve Oaks Mall. I'm really excited about 18 this store coming in. I am in favor of the 19 variances that you are requesting for 20 reasons that are -- I see everybody's point 21 on the Board, but I have to explain my 22 opinion. When you look at the sign, when 23 you look at the Nordstrom sign, I think the 24 point that was brought up where if you can 59 1 shrunk all the letters together and you made 2 it one big black of block, it would be 65 3 square feet. 4 If, you know, if Sears comes 5 back and says we want to change our name to 6 Sears and Roebuck, I think that would be a 7 different issue. Nordstrom is going to be 8 the longest name in Twelve Oaks Mall. 9 (Unintelligible) one of the five major 10 stores. And to just disregard the size of 11 the Lord and Taylor sign that's 400 some 12 square feet, I don't think that gives it 13 justice either. I mean, they needed to have 14 a specific sized sign to fit their lettering 15 in, and that was the -- the Ordinance that 16 was (unintelligible) when that variance -- 17 that Ordinance was given to them -- this is 18 a sign that needs to be this particular size 19 to keep with the branding of Nordstrom. 20 And their -- the fact that 21 their name has more letters in their title 22 than Sears and J.C. Penny is not the fault 23 of anyone. It's just that that's the case. 24 I like the way the sign looks. It's very 60 1 minimalistic. It's very (unintelligible.) 2 The lines are small. It's not too bright. 3 I don't think that the brightness of the 4 sign would be a problem at all. I think 5 that the 217 and a half square feet is on 6 the average. (Unintelligible) the same type 7 of sizing that we would give to any big 8 company that comes into Twelve Oaks; but the 9 amount that it's greater than the Sears and 10 J.C. Penny's is the fact that there's more 11 letters in the name of this particular 12 company. 13 So I am in favor of the 217 14 and a half square feet. I am in favor of 15 the illumination 24/7, and I am in favor of 16 the three signs. 17 Thank you. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, thank 19 you, Mr. Gatt. 20 Yes, Ms. Krieger? 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 22 Regarding the Nordstroms, the 23 I was (unintelligible) the lighting, turning 24 the lights off at night, but it 61 1 (unintelligible) it would increase the risk 2 of theft, and safety would become an issue. 3 So how do you figure that out? 4 (unintelligible.) I don't have any ideas. 5 But regarding the Nordstrom sign, itself, 6 the size -- it would be nice if it was 7 proportional with the others ones that were 8 similar. (Unintelligible) Lord and Taylor 9 has its own initial design, compared to the 10 straight letters of other three. 11 And then (unintelligible) I 12 thought also was interesting you 13 (unintelligible) and helpful, but on the 14 sign that you had up regarding the Nordstrom 15 illumination at night, the one that was on 16 the bottom, the left side, that was during 17 the day (unintelligible) would that be 18 accurate? 19 MR. WILSON: That is correct. 20 They're not of the same facade, but they're 21 on the same building and they are of the 22 same size. 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: (Unintelligibl 24 e) at night would not be an issue. 62 1 MR. WILSON: No. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Canup. 3 MEMBER CANUP: Mr. Shroyer, you 4 did some math here and came up with a number, an 5 average, of the other people that are -- got 6 signs. Was it 165 square feet, somewhere in that 7 neighborhood? 8 MEMBER SHROYER: 167 9 (unintelligible.) 10 MEMBER CANUP: I personally 11 think that's a good number to come up with, if 12 the Board saw fit to grant the variances as 13 requested. There's three signs -- request for 14 three signs that are requested for sizing. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 16 Well, Mr. Wilson, I think you 17 heard the direction with the Board is 18 thinking. Can you live with a little 19 smaller sign. They are recommending a sign 20 which is in keeping with the rest of the 21 stores. And if you can, we can proceed 22 further right now. 23 MR. WILSON: I guess with the 24 comment of reduction of size sign to 160, we 63 1 don't know what that means; it's impact to 2 the actual sign, what the lights maybe or 3 how it looks in relationship to the faced. 4 So, I guess we would ask, if the Motion is 5 to reduce the size of the sign to a certain 6 square footage, we'd ask that it be tabled, 7 and that more consideration and discussion 8 be given. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 10 Well, the applicant obviously 11 would have us table this now, and decide -- 12 MEMBER CANUP: May I comment? 13 We haven't decided anything 14 yet. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah, I know. 16 MEMBER CANUP: But (interposing) 17 (unintelligible) but if were all in -- if we all 18 feel the same way 165 is the number, I guess 19 (unintelligible) (interposing) the applicant. If 20 they voted on it and came back and said, well 200 21 is going to pass, you know, that's a different 22 animal. 23 I guess we need to give him 24 direction, that would be my point. 64 1 MEMBER BAUER: I agree with you. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl 3 e.) 4 MEMBER CANUP: Well, if we all 5 agree on that -- 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: I think the 7 first (unintelligible) request is too large. 8 There is no difficulty (unintelligible.) 9 Secondly, that we want to go over the average 10 size for the whole Twelve Oaks Mall, which come 11 to around 167, 170 square feet. And that 12 probably -- I think if you made that kind of 13 recommendation, it might fly. And that is why I 14 was trying to (unintelligible) applicant about 15 his request, whether they can live with something 16 of that size; and you heard the response. 17 And it's, of course, to decide 18 (unintelligible) request for a Motion to 19 table for him to figure out what it would 20 look like and how to go from there on, or 21 make a Motion regardless of what we think he 22 wants to do (unintelligible.) So 23 (unintelligible) choice at this point in 24 time. And just would like to know 65 1 (unintelligible.) 2 Yes, sir? 3 MEMBER FISCHER: I would agree 4 with tabling it, with the Petitioner not 5 being here to make that decision. 6 (Unintelligible) have conversation last 7 time, I would agree to table it. And also 8 just to point out that, you know, in my 9 philosophy, I'd like to see a proportionate 10 shrinking. I've done a couple numbers, too, 11 basically 85 percent of what they're asking 12 for is about 180 square feet. I might be 13 willing to support something around that 14 area, just to keep them proportionate with 15 the facade once again. 16 So that would be some 17 direction I would give, too, 18 (unintelligible) proportional bringing down 19 of the sign. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, 21 Mr. Shroyer? 22 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl 23 e) thought as well, proportional signage. The 24 167, although ideal to be right in the middle, I 66 1 would hate to say that would be the maximum. The 2 way I look at it is (unintelligible) 192 is kind 3 of the maximum that I see. I don't think it 4 would be fair to request somebody to come in 5 smaller than the largest lineal sign out there 6 currently; but something like a 85 percent 7 reduction 180 or so would be great. 8 So I'm in favor of tabling, as 9 well, if that would help the applicant. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, 11 Mr. Fischer? 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Maybe we could 13 give them a few minutes to come back after the 14 next case? 15 MEMBER CANUP: If we were all in 16 agreement that 180 square feet is the maximum 17 number we're going to allow, what else is there 18 to talk about? 19 MEMBER BAUER: Nothing. 20 MEMBER CANUP: We could very 21 simply make a Motion, say it's 180 square feet. 22 Live with it. 23 MEMBER GATT: I feel that the 24 largest Macy's sign, which is 192 -- 192 would be 67 1 a more appropriate number for them to work their 2 way into. 3 MEMBER CANUP: How many signs 4 does Macy's have? 5 MEMBER GATT: Three. 6 MEMBER BAUER: They have 7 three. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: What's the 9 applicant's pleasure? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, 11 Mr. Wilson? 12 MR. WILSON: I'm sorry. I 13 didn't -- 14 MEMBER FISCHER: What would be 15 your pleasure, what were you thinking? Do you 16 have time to do it now, would you like to come 17 back -- 18 MR. WILSON: Well -- 19 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl 20 e) construction of the sign. That's another 21 thing we have in take into consideration, that's 22 why I don't want to just throw out an arbitrary 23 number. 24 MEMBER CANUP: Sign people will 68 1 make anything you want. So, you know, the 2 constraints (unintelligible) can't do a four 3 foot, can only do a five foot, I don't believe 4 that. I bought a sign before, and they can make 5 anything you want. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl 7 e) very happy residents, if they can't fit the 8 correct lighting in to bring less lighting. So I 9 would like to see what he would say. 10 MR. WILSON: I guess our view 11 is if serious consideration would be given 12 to 195 square foot sign, no less than what 13 Macy's has been granted, I think we could 14 have further discussion; if we can make that 15 reduction work in proportion to the 16 building. But I guess we'd want to have 17 serious consideration be given to that. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Table it. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Canup. 20 MEMBER CANUP: 217 square feet 21 versus 195 square feet, there is not a person in 22 this room that could stand back 200 yards looking 23 at that sign and tell if it's 217 or 195. If 24 we're going to go to 195, I think it's ridiculous 69 1 to not go to 217. Either give it to them all, or 2 make it a reasonably sized sign. That's my 3 opinion. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 5 Anybody else? 6 All right. Well, then I would 7 entertain a Motion on what we propose, and 8 then we go from there. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: I move that 10 at the applicant's request we table this 11 case to the January 2007 meeting. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. The 13 Motion has been made. 14 Anybody seconding the Motion? 15 MEMBER GATT: Second. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been 17 made and seconded. 18 Any further discussion on 19 tabling the Motion? 20 Seeing none, will you please 21 call the roll. 22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 70 1 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 3 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 4 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 6 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 7 MEMBER BAUER: No. 8 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 9 MEMBER CANUP: No. 10 ROBIN WORKING: Motion to table 11 the case to January 9th ZBA date passes, five, 12 one. 13 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I 14 may -- I know you requested these people to table 15 to the next meeting, but are we going to give 16 them any type of direction, other than the fact 17 that you're not going to be able to see 217.5 18 (unintelligible) direction you're giving them. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: I think they've 20 heard what the discussion has been, and we have 21 (unintelligible) reasonable number of square 22 footage and our discussion, and I think they have 23 the direction. 24 MR. SAVEN: Okay. You got your 71 1 direction. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 3 4 Moving on to the next case, 5 Case Number: 06-093 filed by Jeffrey Sly of 6 BWI Contracting, Inc. for 225 Eubank Street. 7 Mr. Jeffrey Sly of BWI is 8 requesting six variances; is that correct, 9 Mr. Sly? 10 MR. SLY: That's correct. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Would you 12 please state your full name and address and be 13 sworn in by our secretary? 14 MR. SLY: Yes. My name is 15 Jeff Sly. I'm the owner of BWI Contracting, 16 at 327 (unintelligible) Park Drive, 17 Belleville, Michigan, 48111. 18 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right 19 hand, please. 20 Do you solemnly swear or 21 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case: 22 06-093? 23 MR. SLY: I will. 24 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 72 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please state 2 your case. 3 MR. SLY: The -- I'm 4 representing Mr. and Mrs. Keith Clark, who 5 are the current occupants and owners of the 6 property at 225 Eubank. They have 7 contracted us to provide them with a new 8 home on the existing site. And our plan, if 9 the variances are successfully approved, 10 would be to raze their existing home, to 11 destroy it, put in a new foundation and a 12 new home on the same lot. 13 As you're probably well aware 14 of, with the properties in that lake 15 vicinity -- when applying your current 16 zoning requirements to it, it pretty much 17 automatically requires several impact on the 18 variance -- on the City requirements. So as 19 it's listed there, we have requested six 20 areas of variance pertaining to the side 21 yard setback, the aggregate setback, and 22 also to the distance of a accessory 23 building; which would be Mr. Clark's garage 24 on adjacent property behind. 73 1 I've had Stantech prepare a 2 site plan, which you have in your packets 3 there, and you'll see that the property 4 currently owned by the Clarks is somewhat T 5 shaped, and it's existing residential 6 property on the 225 Eubank side, and also a 7 cross property behind it, which is also off 8 Eubank, which contains Mr. Clark's current 9 garage and driveway. 10 You'll notice in your packet, 11 the home that's being constructed is planned 12 to be a Cape Cod style (unintelligible) 13 style modular home, which will be installed 14 on a new foundation and have utilities and 15 everything will be replenished 16 (unintelligible) quite nice improvement for 17 both the neighborhood and the neighbors 18 there, as well as for the Clarks' home. 19 I could entertain any 20 questions you have on the (unintelligible.) 21 MEMBER SHROYER: Could you take 22 one of the site plans and put it up on the 23 overhead, so our audience at home can 24 (unintelligible) 74 1 MR. SLY: In the -- 2 (unintelligible) this is the existing 3 residential property currently occupied by 4 the Clarks' home, which will sit in 5 approximately the same location -- the 6 proposed home is approximately in the same 7 location as the existing home. Other than 8 the slight change in size and the impact to 9 the northeast area. This other parcel 10 behind here is also owned by Clarks. It's 11 used as their driveway; houses their garage 12 back here, (unintelligible) existing at this 13 time. There's no (unintelligible) change 14 for anything to do with the garage or entry. 15 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay, thank 16 you. 17 Is there anything from the 18 City. 19 MR. SAVEN: Just a couple of 20 things. 21 The uniqueness of the property 22 certainly is there. I think if you squared 23 up the property, try to keep it even on both 24 sides from the existing home, which I think 75 1 is (unintelligible.) A couple other things 2 (unintelligible) meet the front yard setback 3 requirement, which is good. The three 4 variances that are listed right from the 5 very beginning, deal with side yard setback, 6 which also deals (unintelligible) aggregate 7 total of both sides. 8 These are one of those 9 non-conforming lots down on the lake side 10 area. (unintelligible) we always have a 11 problem trying to put anything in. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 13 Is there anybody in the 14 audience who would like to make a comment 15 about this case, now is the time to do it. 16 Seeing none, open it up to the 17 Board. 18 Mr. Canup? 19 MEMBER CANUP: Looks to me like 20 it's a pretty simple case. The house's existing. 21 They -- 22 Don, (unintelligible) 23 understand in this letter that's in their 24 packet that there's two lots that have been 76 1 combined? 2 MR. SAVEN: That's correct. 3 MEMBER CANUP: (Unintelligible) 4 never be anything done with that. It's two 5 piece. 6 MR. SAVEN: That's correct. 7 MEMBER CANUP: All right. 8 Unless there's any further 9 discussion -- again, it's a very simple 10 case, and I would make a Motion, and we 11 could have discussion on the Motion, if 12 that's acceptable. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 14 e.) 15 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm sorry. 16 How many notices? 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: 142. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: 142 sent; six 19 approvals, one objection. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Six approvals, 21 one objection. 22 MEMBER BAUER: The objections 23 from (unintelligible) Meyers. I'm against this 24 variance (unintelligible) I don't believe the 77 1 standard should be set aside -- homes standard 2 should be set aside. (Unintelligible) and deck 3 that are too large for the property cannot be 4 built on that practical parcel of land. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Now I 6 open it up to Mr. Canup. 7 MEMBER CANUP: In response to 8 her comments there, there would be no houses 9 built on the lake area if they were all within 10 Ordinance. You'd have houses that were five feet 11 wide that being the case. It's just the nature 12 of the beast on the northend, (unintelligible) 13 those lots were platted back in the '40's, '50's, 14 (unintelligible) and my understanding was at one 15 time, Royal Oak Amusement Park would give away a 16 lot on Saturday nights. That was a door prize. 17 MR. SAVEN: Boy, you're showing 18 your age. 19 MEMBER CANUP: This is all 20 hearsay, Don. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Wall Lake, 22 what? What is that? 23 MEMBER CANUP: (Interposing) 24 (unintelligible.) 78 1 With no further discussion, 2 I'd make a Motion that in Case: 06-093, 3 that we grant the variances as requested, 4 due to previous statement of facts. 5 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: A Motion has 7 been made and seconded. 8 Any further discussion? 9 Yes, Ms. Ozga? 10 MS. OZGA: Just to clarify, 11 you're saying that your previous statements 12 established the Petitioner established a 13 practical difficulty. I believe you said due 14 (unintelligible) circumstances of the property. 15 MEMBER CANUP: Yes, that's 16 exactly what I said. 17 MS. OZGA: Thank you. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. 19 I don't see any further 20 discussion, so please call the roll, Ms. 21 Working. 22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 23 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 79 1 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 4 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 5 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 6 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 7 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 8 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 10 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 11 six, zero. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Get your 13 permit. Good luck. 14 MR. SLY: Thank you very much. 15 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 17 e) Case Number: 06-094, filed by Ron 18 Nuechterlein of Superior Diversified Services 19 Corporation for City Center Plaza, phase four, 20 located south of Grand River Avenue and west of 21 Novi Road. 22 Please identify yourself, 23 state your name and address and be sworn in 24 by our secretary. 80 1 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: My name is 2 Ron Nuechterlein of Superior Diversified 3 Services. We're construction managers, and 4 we are representing City Center Plaza, 5 (unintelligible) partnership here, who is 6 the entity that is proposing to develop City 7 Center Plaza phase four. 8 Want me to swear in? 9 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly 10 swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding, 11 Case: 06-094? 12 A. 13 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: I do. 14 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 15 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: As you can 16 see in your packets there -- rather than put this 17 on the overhead -- I'll just have this site plan 18 here. Given the design of the our site for City 19 Center Plaza phase four -- and I might want to 20 mention here that City Center Plaza phase four is 21 ultimately going to become an integral part of 22 City Center Plaza, City Center Plaza 23 (unintelligible) and City Center Plaza phase 24 three (unintelligible) old Antique Pine and 81 1 Design Store that is slated for demolition in the 2 next month or so. This particular location has 3 the Hank's Fly Fishing shop on it, the existing 4 building there. 5 In our design for this site, 6 we obviously have a very tight site. We 7 have less than a half an acre of ground to 8 work with. We're also bordered by being 9 right on the (unintelligible) way here. 10 That's why we couldn't utilize the small 11 portion of site here. 12 And what we're requesting is 13 -- we've achieved about 81 percent of the 14 required loading area for this site 15 development. This is about a 3600 square 16 foot building. It's intended use would 17 probably be one user. We don't anticipate 18 that we're going to have semi traffic in 19 here for loading and unloading; although, 20 the area that we have allocated here is 21 about 95 feet by 65 feet. Even if you did 22 have a semi, it still would be adequate to 23 park that truck there. 24 We -- as you can see on that 82 1 site, our designated loading area is -- 2 there's a portion that we didn't extend, 3 only because we had to attain a truck 4 turning radius at that point that we could 5 not carrying loading farther to the west. 6 So in view of our situation here, wee feel 7 we have a adequate loading area for this 8 sized building and this is the purpose for 9 requesting our variance here. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 11 Is there anybody in the 12 audience that would like to make any 13 comments about this case? 14 Seeing none, Building 15 Department? 16 MR. SAVEN: Just a couple of 17 comments. 18 First of all, I personally 19 want to thank Ron (unintelligible) weeding 20 out through the plans. This has been one of 21 the City's major concerns that we've had. 22 We've been before (unintelligible) right 23 now, and (unintelligible) this building and 24 getting it raised above the flood plan 83 1 elevation (unintelligible) construction. 2 Very difficult location. We were dealing 3 (unintelligible) some very tight situations. 4 Also in the plans, you will 5 notice that there's a detention basin which 6 is prohibiting him from really expanding any 7 type of loading area in that particular 8 area. As he's indicated, it's a tight site, 9 and there's (unintelligible) construction of 10 this building. And I think he's doing a 11 pretty good job taking care of the issues at 12 hand. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 14 Mr. Saven. 15 23 notices were mailed; and 16 zero approvals, zero objections. 17 Open it up to the Board. 18 Yes, Mr. Fischer? 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes, quick 20 question. 21 You said you anticipate a 22 single tenant in there. What would be your 23 ideal tenant, what type of business would be 24 your ideal tenant? 84 1 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: It's going to 2 have to be retail or office. Something of that 3 nature. That's -- you know, we're restricted by 4 the TC-1 district there as to what our specific 5 use is. What falls within the guidelines of 6 that. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 8 I didn't know if you had 9 (unintelligible) ideal tenants. Okay. That 10 makes sense. 11 And you mentioned some other 12 building was being demolished? 13 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Yes. 14 Adjacent to the Mobil Gas Station, there used to 15 be (unintelligible) Heating and Cooling, 16 (unintelligible) Lighting, and then it was 17 Antique Pine and Design. City Center Plaza 18 Limited Partnership owns that parcel, as well. 19 We are proceeding with construction drawings for 20 a new building at that location; and our 21 intentions are to demolish that building there; 22 along with the (unintelligible) Hank's Fly 23 Fishing Shop. 24 And there's a third parcel 85 1 involved which -- see, this building, City 2 Center Plaza here, this is phase three, this 3 is our subject phase four; and over here is 4 10,000 square foot of office on a parcel 5 west of Flint Street, immediately west of 6 the Sunoco Station. In fact, there's -- 7 this is right next to (unintelligible) right 8 adjacent to that. 9 So -- and even in our 10 consideration for all these buildings, we 11 had to oversize this detention facility here 12 to compensate here for fill within the flood 13 plane; which is called compensating cut for 14 the fill. So this all works in together as 15 far as one development here. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. I just 17 wasn't aware of the demolition. I was just 18 wondering, actually. 19 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Oh, it's an 20 eyesore. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. I don't 22 disagree with that. 23 Given the constraints that 24 have been mentioned by the Petitioner and 86 1 the Building Department; given the fact that 2 the Petitioner established that this loading 3 zone will be adequate and in line with the 4 spirit of the Ordinance, I would be willing 5 to support. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: And if there's 8 no further discussion, I would move to approve 9 Case Number: 06-094, filed by Ron Nuechterlein 10 for the parcel in question due to the fact he has 11 established a practical difficulty; given the 12 constraints of the property; and that he's proved 13 that adequate -- the loading zone would be 14 adequate for the planned business use. 15 MEMBER GATT: Second. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 17 Yes, Ms. Krieger? 18 MEMBER KRIEGER: I have a 19 question for Mr. Amolsch. 20 (Unintelligible) fire truck 21 will be able to go through there? 22 MR. AMOLSCH: Really don't know 23 the answer to that. 24 Don? 87 1 MR. SAVEN: I think the Planning 2 Commission took that into consideration 3 (interposing) (unintelligible.) 4 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: The routing 5 there has been approved by Fire Marshal Evans. 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. 7 Thank you. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Motion 9 has been made and seconded. 10 Any further discussion? 11 Seeing none, Ms. Working, will 12 you please call the roll. 13 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 14 MEMBER FISCHER: I have to say 15 yes, only? Aye. 16 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 17 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 18 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 19 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 21 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 23 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 88 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 2 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 3 six, zero. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well -- 5 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Thank you for 6 your consideration. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Good luck. 8 9 (Unintelligible) of our list 10 of cases. And other matters 11 (unintelligible) ZBA training sessions. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Sure. This is 13 something that I brought up last month, that I 14 feel that given the new law that went into effect 15 in July and given the fact that we haven't had 16 training in a little over a year, refresher 17 courses -- always a good thing after about a year 18 (unintelligible) being on this Board. So I had 19 asked City Staff and/or the attorney 20 (unintelligible) in agreement to maybe come up 21 with some dates (unintelligible.) Update on 22 that? 23 MR. SAVEN: We'll get that 24 update to you. 89 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: It will be 2 forthcoming. 3 MR. SAVEN: We had made mention 4 of what dates are available. You know, one of 5 the things that would probably be good, tell us 6 what dates are available for you guys, 7 (unintelligible) go back to what dates are 8 better, Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, 9 Fridays? 10 MEMBER FISCHER: I think last 11 year what we did is (unintelligible) threw out 12 three dates, and we all said, this is what we 13 think, this is (unintelligible) day I can go 14 (unintelligible) (interposing.) 15 MR. SAVEN: We'll leave it up to 16 our attorney. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Pick three or 18 four dates and we can just report back to 19 Ms. Working, one, two, three, or al those are 20 good for me. 21 MEMBER GATT: I would just ask 22 that they be given some time between the dates 23 suggested and -- (unintelligible) (interposing) 24 and even have time to (unintelligible) 90 1 MEMBER FISCHER: Maybe a month 2 or so -- 3 MEMBER GATT: Yeah. 4 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer, 5 was that training, required training 6 (unintelligible) alternate day of the week? 7 MEMBER FISCHER: It was the 8 Wednesday after election last year, I remember 9 that. 10 ROBIN WORKING: So it was not on 11 a ZBA night. 12 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Next 14 item number two. 15 Mr. Saven, ITC? 16 MR. SAVEN: Item two. 17 (Unintelligible) Basically, item three. Two 18 major projects that are going to be coming before 19 you is the ITC project (unintelligible) to ITC. 20 Their world headquarters (unintelligible) going 21 to be put here (unintelligible) location is just 22 north of -- just north of (unintelligible) Mobile 23 Home Park (unintelligible) Twelve Mile Road I 24 believe, yeah. And in that particular area, the 91 1 property is basically zoned for 2 woodlands/wetlands, things of that nature. And 3 there's some issue that maybe before you in 4 regard to this issue for setback requirements. 5 It's a relatively unique 6 project. It is a very, very hot project 7 because they have deadlines to make sure all 8 of their equipment and everything is online 9 within a certain amount of time. And what I 10 wanted to do is just -- as soon as I get 11 more information about this, I'll get this 12 before you. If we can do this prior to the 13 date, I'll get that information to you so 14 you have a general idea of what is going on. 15 Same thing with Main Street 16 phase one. They have loading reductions and 17 parking setbacks they're going to be dealing 18 with. The Main Street project is a very, 19 very unique project. I don't know whether 20 you had an opportunity to take a look at 21 what they're proposing. It is finally -- 22 we're finally going to have our Main Street 23 downtown. It's going to be a challenge. 24 It's going to be a very unique project. But 92 1 like anything else, there's certain 2 Ordinance requirements that have to be met 3 (unintelligible) those particular issues. 4 Any other information I get, I'll get it to 5 you, too. 6 ROBIN WORKING: I made a 7 (unintelligible) made to be January 9th, 8 (unintelligible) for you to consider in January. 9 MR. SAVEN: We'll have all 10 Minutes of meetings from the Planning Commission 11 available for you to review at that time. But 12 like I said, these two projects are probably 13 hotter (unintelligible) ITC one will 14 (unintelligible) deadline (unintelligible) I 15 think, whatever. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) 17 (unintelligible) 18 MR. SAVEN: May be. It may be. 19 I do know they're looking at -- if they obtain -- 20 if they obtain some property -- if they obtain 21 some property, they won't have a setback problem. 22 But it looks as though they may have a little 23 problem in that particular area. Some other 24 issues they have to take a look at 93 1 (unintelligible) starting the property and making 2 sure things move along the way they should. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 4 e.) 5 Okay. (Unintelligible) 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Motion to 7 adjourn. 8 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been 10 made and seconded. 11 All in favor, signify by 12 saying aye? 13 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: We're 15 adjourned. 16 17 (The meeting adjourned at 9:15 18 p.m.) 19 - - - - - 20 21 22 23 C E R T I F I C A T E 24 94 1 I, Machelle Billingslea-Moore, 2 do hereby certify that I have recorded 3 stenographically the proceedings had and testimony 4 taken in the above-entitled matter at the time and 5 place hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify 6 that the foregoing transcript, consisting of (90) 7 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript 8 of my said stenograph notes. 9 10 11 ___________________________ Machelle Billingslea-Moore, 12 Certified Shorthand Reporter 13 14 January 29, 2007. (Date)
|