| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting REGULAR MEETING - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, Tuesday, June 5, 2007. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: 1 Novi, 2 Michigan 3 Tuesday, June 4 5, 2007 5 7:30 p.m. 6 - - - - - - 7 8 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Good 9 evening everyone. It's about 7:30 so I 10 would like to call the Tuesday, June 5th, 11 2007 City of Novi Zoning Board of Appeals 12 meeting to order. 13 Robin, could you please call the 14 roll. 15 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 16 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 17 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 18 MEMBER CANUP: Here. 19 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer? 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Present. 21 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 22 MEMBER GATT: Here. 23 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: Here.
5 1 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. 3 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 4 All members present with exception to 5 Chairman Shroyer. 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Given 7 that, I will be acting as Chairperson 8 tonight and I will ask Member Gatt to serve 9 as Vice-Chair and Secretary. We DO have a 10 full Board tonight. Member Krieger will be 11 serving not as the alternate but as a full 12 voting member. So, let us start with the 13 Pledge of Allegiance. 14 Would everyone please stand up. 15 BOARD MEMBERS: I pledge allegiance to 16 the flag of the United States of America and 17 to the Republic for which it stands, one 18 nation under God indivisible with liberty 19 and justice for all. 20 Secretary Gatt, would you please 21 summarize the rules and public hearing 22 format for us, I would appreciate it. 23 MEMBER GATT: Yes, sir. The full 24 rules are in the yellow packet that's at the
6 1 back of the room. Please turn off all of 2 your pagers and cell phones during the 3 meeting. 4 Applicants will be allowed 5 five minutes to address the Board and 6 present their case. Extension of time may 7 be granted by the Chairperson at his or her 8 discretion. Anyone in the audience who 9 wishes to address the Board regarding a 10 current case will be asked by the 11 Chairperson to raise their hands to be 12 recognized. Once recognized the audience 13 member addressing the Board will be sworn in 14 and given three minutes to speak as an 15 individual or 10 minutes to speak 16 representing a group. 17 Members of the audience will be allowed to 18 address the Board once unless directly 19 questioned by a Board Member or a 20 Chairperson. 21 The Secretary will read the number of 22 public hearing notices mailed pertaining to 23 the current case. Objection and approval 24 responses will be entered into the record at
7 1 this time. 2 The Chairperson will ask for the input 3 from the Community Development Department 4 Liaison, the Ordinance Enforcement Officer 5 and the Planning Department and the City 6 Attorney. 7 The Chairperson will turn the case 8 over to the Board for discussion, 9 clarification and entertain a Motion when 10 appropriate. 11 And a roll call vote will be taken to 12 approve or deny the Motion on the table and 13 the next case will be called. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you 15 very much, Secretary Gatt. 16 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a 17 Hearing Board empowered by the Novi City 18 Charter to hear appeals seeking variances 19 from the application of the Novi Zoning 20 Ordinances. 21 It takes a vote of at least four 22 members to approve a variance and a vote of 23 the majority present to deny a request. As 24 mentioned the Board consists of six members
8 1 and one alternate member. The alternate 2 member has the right to participate tonight 3 and vote. And, therefore, we do have a full 4 Board. 5 Let's move along with the agenda to 6 the approval of the agenda. At this time 7 under other matters I would like to add the 8 discussion of a subcommittee as number two. 9 If there is no other -- are there any 10 changes? 11 MS. WORKING: I would like to add to 12 the agenda the approval of the April 3rd 13 Minutes that the Board received last week. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Can you 15 remind me about March? Did we already do 16 March or are we doing March and April 17 tonight? 18 MS. WORKING: We can do March and 19 April tonight. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I just 21 wasn't sure if we had done March yet, I'm 22 sorry. 23 Any other changes? If not, I will 24 entertain a Motion to approve as amended?
9 1 MEMBER BAUER: So moved. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All in 4 favor say aye. 5 Any opposed? Seeing none, we have an 6 agenda. 7 Next we will move to the approval of 8 the Minutes. We can lump them together. 9 Are there any changes to March 3rd first? 10 MS. WORKING: March 6th. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'm 12 sorry, March 6th Minutes. Are there any 13 changes to April 3rd? Is there a Motion to 14 approve? 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: I make a Motion to 16 approve both. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is 19 a Motion and a second to approve as 20 submitted. All in favor say aye. 21 Any opposed? Seeing none, we have 22 approved the Minutes. 23 At this point I would like move to the 24 public remarks section of the meeting.
10 1 Is there anyone in the audience that 2 would like to speak to the Board on any 3 matter other than an agenda item please come 4 forward. 5 Seeing none, I will close the public 6 remarks section of the Board and move to our 7 first case. 8 9 I would like to call Case number: 10 07-016 filed by David Tremonti of 11 Oliver-Hatcher Construction for Novi 12 Promenade Outlot #1. 13 Is the Applicant present? 14 MR. DIFFIN: Yes. 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do you 16 want to come forward? The Applicant is 17 requesting two variances for the 18 construction of a 13,300 square foot retail 19 development comprising eight attached units. 20 Applicant is requesting one loading 21 variance to allow loading and unloading in 22 the interior side yard and one eight foot 23 setback variance from the required ten foot 24 setback for the location of an accessory
11 1 structure. This property is zoned B-3 and 2 located south of Grand River and east of 3 Wixom Road. 4 If you could please raise your hand 5 and be sworn in by our Secretary. 6 MEMBER GATT: Do you swear to tell the 7 truth regarding Case number: 07-016? 8 MR. DIFFIN: Yes, I do. 9 MEMBER GATT: Thank you. 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And 11 proceed with your case. 12 MR. DIFFIN: I'm Matt Diffin with 13 Diffin Development & Consultants Civil 14 Engineering. 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Can we 16 have your address too, I'm sorry. 17 MR. DIFFIN: 22660 Trillium Drive, 18 Novi. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And if he 20 will speaking if you want to -- 21 MR. FURRA (ph): Yes, I'm Doug Furra, 22 Eagle Eye Real Estate Advisors, 3778 Divers, 23 Commerce Township, Michigan. 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you
12 1 very much. Proceed. 2 MR. DIFFIN: The first exhibit -- is 3 this on? 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It will 5 come on in a minute. 6 MR. DIFFIN: This is just to kind of 7 orientate you to the site. Our project 8 would be here in this small strip center 9 next to the Sam's Club. This would the 10 Varsity Lincoln Mercury which would be the 11 southeast corner of Grand River and Wixom 12 Road. And Target down here is the south end 13 of the overall Novi Promenade site. 14 We are basically asking for two 15 variances. One for the unloading area which 16 would be to the rear of the building located 17 here. But it would be the side yard of the 18 actual lot because it's a long narrow lot 19 coming off of Wixom Road, so the unloading 20 area would be at the rear of the building, 21 which would make sense. All our receiving 22 doors to the building are along the rear. 23 So it makes it convenient for all the 24 tenants in the building.
13 1 We provided screening along the 2 property line. And there is also an 3 existing six-foot block wall. Not only 4 along all of Varsity Lincoln's frontage 5 along Wixom Road, but also along the rear of 6 their property that abut ours. 7 And then we are also asking for a 8 variance to put the dumpster within the side 9 yard setback too. Again, it's screened not 10 only by the wall on the adjacent property 11 but also by the additional pine trees and 12 other landscaping that we propose in that 13 area. 14 MR. FURRA: Our original configuration 15 that was submitted to the Planning 16 Commission had the dumpster at a slightly 17 different location. The Planning Commission 18 asked for a few changes to be made in the 19 site plan. We met all codes and Ordinances 20 at the time. In order to make the changes 21 to accommodate the Planning Commission we 22 had to relocate the dumpster into this area. 23 Hence, we are here for the variance. 24 MR. DIFFIN: Having both dumpster and
14 1 the unloading area at the rear of the 2 building keeps it from conflicting with the 3 traffic circulation throughout the site. 4 If there are any questions we would be 5 more than happy to answer them at this time. 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Perfect. 7 Thank you very much. 8 Is there anyone in the audience that 9 wishes to make comment on this case? 10 Seeing none, I would declare the 11 Public Hearing section of this case closed. 12 And ask the Secretary to read any 13 correspondence. 14 MEMBER GATT: There were two sets of 15 correspondence mailed out. One on 5-15 and 16 another previously on 4-17. There were zero 17 approvals and zero objections. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 19 you, Mr. Secretary. 20 Anyone from the Building Department 21 wish to make to comments? 22 MR. FOX: We have no comment. 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Anyone 24 else from our professional arena over there?
15 1 All right, then I will open it up at 2 this time for a Board discussion. Any 3 questions? 4 Member Sanghvi? 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: I just had a question 6 for Counselor. How is the consent judgment 7 involved in this particular situation? 8 MS. OZGA: Through the Chair. There 9 is a consent judgment involving the use of 10 the particular property. However, it does 11 not have any affect on the Board's ability 12 to grant a variance because development 13 still has to proceed in accordance with the 14 Zoning Ordinance. So this Board has the 15 ability to grant any request for variances. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: I would just like to 17 state that I don't have any problem with 18 this request. A lot of these things have 19 come about because of the orientation of the 20 lot and the requirement by the Planning 21 Commission and the safety situation. Thank 22 you. 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 24 you, Member Sanghvi.
16 1 Member Krieger? 2 MEMBER KRIEGER: I have no objections 3 either. 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 5 you, Member Krieger. 6 Member Bauer? 7 MEMBER BAUER: What's my name? Seeing 8 that the Planning Commission has moved them 9 around a little bit, I can't see that we 10 have any problem with it at all. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member 12 Canup? 13 MEMBER CANUP: Seeing that no one 14 including myself has any problems with it, I 15 would make a Motion in Case number: 07-016 16 that we grant the variances as requested due 17 to the practical hardship in dealing with 18 the site. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There has 21 been a Motion and second. And if I could 22 ask the Motion maker at this time if we 23 could amend it to say practical difficulty. 24 And also given that there is a consent
17 1 judgment regarding this case, I would like 2 hopefully one or two findings regarding our 3 Motion. And if the attorney would like to 4 suggest them? Or if not, the Motion maker 5 would. 6 MEMBER CANUP: I think the Motion 7 maker said there was a practical hardship. 8 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And the 9 findings? 10 MEMBER CANUP: The findings I think 11 the attorney stated that it had no impact on 12 this development; is that correct? 13 MS. OZGA: I'm sorry? 14 MEMBER CANUP: The consent judgment 15 has no impact on this; is that correct? 16 MS. OZGA: It doesn't affect the 17 ability of this Board. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The 19 ability of the Board. However, I still 20 would like to present in our Motion the 21 reason for our approval. 22 If Member Sanghvi might want to -- 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: May I suggest a 24 friendly amendment to the Motion to also
18 1 include that practical hardship demonstrated 2 before the orientation of the parcel and it 3 also have to include the circulation of the 4 site and the additional space for the 5 loading zone. 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Practical 7 difficulty? 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 9 MEMBER CANUP: Okay, as the maker of 10 the Motion I would accept that. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Does the 12 secondary agree? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All 15 right, thank you everyone. 16 Ms. Working, would you please call the 17 roll. 18 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 19 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 20 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 21 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 22 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 24 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
19 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 2 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 4 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 5 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 6 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 5-0. 7 MR. DIFFIN: Thank you very much. 8 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Six. 9 MS. WORKING: I'm sorry, 6-0. 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you 11 and good luck. 12 MR. DIFFIN: Thank you. 13 MR. FURRA: Thank you. 14 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Next I 16 would like to go ahead and call Case Number: 17 07-030 filed by Mark Kassab of PT Commerce, 18 LLC for Lenox Park Condominiums at 40812 19 West 13 Mile. 20 It appears the Petitioner is here. The 21 Petitioner is requesting two sign variances 22 for Lenox Park Condominiums. The Applicant 23 is requesting one 57 square foot sign 24 variance and a seven foot six inch height
20 1 variance for the continued placement of a 2 real estate marketing sign previously 3 granted two years ago in Case number: 4 ZBA05-020. This property is zone RM-1 and 5 is located north of Thirteen Mile and west 6 of M-5. 7 If you could please be sworn in by our 8 Secretary. 9 MEMBER GATT: Would you raise your 10 right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth 11 regarding Case number: 07-030? 12 MR. KASSAB: I do. 13 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Please 14 state your name and address and proceed with 15 your case. 16 MR. KASSAB: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 17 Mark Kassab, 31550 Northwestern Highway 18 representing PT Commerce LLC. As you know 19 as and as you stated, Mr. Chairman, we were 20 in front of this Board in April of '05 for a 21 sign variance regarding the duplex 22 condominiums located at Thirteen and M-5. 23 The site is a unique parcel in the 24 sense where it has one access point with an
21 1 identification sign on Thirteen Mile as you 2 can see on the board. That's actually 3 shared with Brightmoor Christian Church. 4 They have about a third of a mile frontage 5 on M-5. And in conversation with our sales 6 associate at Lenox Park there is a lot of 7 confusion on how to access this park whether 8 it's from Fourteen Mile or Thirteen Mile, 9 Erickson Development. Many people actually 10 think we are a retirement facility. 11 And what we found is that the sign 12 that has been placed on the M-5 freeway is 13 approximately, has helped us tremendously 14 over the past few years. Unfortunately we 15 have been hindered with the market and the 16 market conditions. We are asking this Board 17 for an additional 2-year variance for the 18 sign that is currently in place. 19 The reason for the size of the sign is 20 because the setback that is off of the M-5 21 Freeway as many of you know travelling on 22 M-5 there is approximately a 60-foot setback 23 from the road. So it's setback quite a bit, 24 hence the size of the sign. It's not
22 1 impacting any natural features and it 2 shouldn't be impacting any residences. 3 And with that being said I would be 4 more than happy to entertain any questions. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 6 you, sir. 7 MR. KASSAB: Thank you. 8 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there 9 anyone in the audience that wishes to make a 10 comment on this case? 11 Seeing none, I well declare the Public 12 Hearing portion of this case closed and ask 13 the Secretary to notify the Board of any 14 correspondence. 15 MEMBER GATT: There were 200 notices 16 mailed on 5-15. One approval by Norm 17 Frechette at Brightmoor Christian Church on 18 Thirteen Mile Road. There were no comments. 19 One objection by Catherine Devalt (ph) 20 on Lenox Park Drive. Her comments are: The 21 existing sign is large enough enabling 22 passersby to see and respond to it. 23 That's all. Thank you. 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank
23 1 you, Mr. Secretary. Any comments from the 2 Building Department? 3 MR. AMOLSCH: We have no comment, sir. 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I will 5 open it up for Board discussion. You guys 6 sure are talkative when Chairman Shroyer is 7 here, I will tell you that much. 8 Member Gatt? 9 MEMBER GATT: What is your current 10 residency? What is your current 11 occupation -- 12 MR. KASSAB: Occupancy? 13 MEMBER GATT: Occupancy? 14 MR. KASSAB: You know, I was just 15 trying to think of that for an exact number. 16 And if I could ask Ms. Working because I 17 sent her a list of all the residents in the 18 development. 19 MS. WORKING: It's in the file. 20 MR. KASSAB: I don't want to misquote 21 you. I handle a few projects. 22 MS. WORKING: It should be all the way 23 behind your public hearing notification 24 letters on the left-hand side of the file.
24 1 MEMBER GATT: I'll get back to it. 2 MR. KASSAB: If I had to guess I would 3 say it's approximately 55 to 60 units out of 4 196. 5 MEMBER GATT: How about in the last 6 year how many units have you sold? 7 MR. KASSAB: Probably about 8 realistically probably about 20 to 25. That 9 project was slated from a performa basis to 10 sell approximately four per month. And 11 that's not an uncommon performa for a 12 developer these days. So back two years ago 13 or a year and a half ago. And it's going 14 quite good actually all things considered as 15 compared to all the other projects. 16 MJC has approximately 22 sites in 17 various cities and counties and that's 18 probably one of our better sites for a 19 number of reasons. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay, 21 thank you. 22 MR. KASSAB: And if I may just as a 23 comment to that one objection. We are not 24 looking to enlarge the current sign, just to
25 1 continue the use of that sign. Thank you. 2 MEMBER GATT: Thank you. 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member 4 Sanghvi? 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 6 I don't have any objection in renewing his 7 sign. The times are bad. The economy is 8 bad. It's hard to sell anything in 9 realistic business and I think renewing the 10 sign for the couple more years might help 11 them to unload some of the units and maybe 12 make them more salable. Thank you. 13 If nobody has any other comment, I 14 don't mind making a Motion. That in Case 15 number: 07-030, we approve the request for 16 renewal of the current sign as it exist 17 because of the difficult economic times. 18 Thank you. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is 21 a Motion and a second. And just clarify, 22 you are going with the two years that they 23 have requested, correct? 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
26 1 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I am all 2 set with that as well. Any other comments? 3 Seeing none, Ms. Working, will you 4 please call the roll. 5 6 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 8 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 9 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 10 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 11 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 12 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 13 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 14 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 16 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 17 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 18 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 6-0. 19 MR. KASSAB: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Good luck 21 to you guys. 22 MR. KASSAB: Thanks so much. 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Hopefully 24 we won't have to see you in two more years.
27 1 MR. KASSAB: Hopefully not. Thanks so 2 much. 3 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this 5 time I would like to call Case number: 6 07-031 filed by William McKeever of 7 Certified Management Company located at 8 41180 Bridge Street. Petitioner here? All 9 right. 10 The Petitioner is requesting two sign 11 variances for the commercial property 12 located at said address. The Applicant is 13 requesting one 47-square foot sign variance 14 and one 2-foot height variance for a real 15 estate marketing sign. This property is 16 zoned I-1 and is located north of Eleven 17 Mile and east of Meadowbrook Road. 18 If you could please raise your hand 19 and be sworn in by our Secretary. 20 MEMBER GATT: Do you swear to tell the 21 truth regarding Case number: 07-031? 22 MR. McKEEVER: I do. 23 MEMBER GATT: Thank you. 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: You will
28 1 state your name and address and proceed with 2 your case. 3 MR. McKEEVER: William McKeever, 5570 4 Carol Lake Road, Commerce Township. 5 And the variance I am requesting is 6 due to the placement of the building within 7 the condominium park. It has no road 8 frontage other than the freeway. There is a 9 mock sign that was placed on the site. It's 10 supposed to come on? 11 MEMBER BAUER: It will. 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It's 13 magic. 14 MR. McKEEVER: The plywood is the 15 proposed sign. The sign that is existing is 16 my neighbor's sign in front of a 17 build-to-suit site that is under 18 construction. My sign is shown. The 19 building with the gray stripe is the sign 20 that is for lease. 21 I might have another picture that 22 would show. That's the front of our 23 building with the Toyota Boshoku sign on it. 24 But given the speed on the freeway and the
29 1 height of the vegetation in front is why we 2 are seeking the size variance and the height 3 variance. 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 5 comments? 6 MR. McKEEVER: All set. 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right. 8 Is there anyone in the audience that wishes 9 to make a comment on this case? 10 Seeing none, I well declare the Public 11 Hearing section of this case closed and ask 12 the Secretary to report on any 13 correspondence. 14 MEMBER GATT: There were 13 notices 15 mailed on March 23rd. Zero approvals. Zero 16 objections. 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Building 18 Department? 19 MR. AMOLSCH: No comments, sir. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'm 21 sorry? 22 MS. WORKING: The mailing date didn't 23 sound right. 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: 3-25. Was
30 1 this originally slated for the April 2 meeting? 3 MS. WORKING: No. So it would have 4 been mailed in April. The cutoff date was 5 in April. I will put the sticker in the 6 file. They were all mailed out on the same 7 day so if you could see what the date was on 8 the other file. They all go out on the same 9 day. 10 MR. McKEEVER: The Application was 11 submitted on the 19th, 4-19. 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'm 13 sorry, give us one second. This was the 14 previous. 15 MS. WORKING: That was the old case. 16 There you go, okay. 17 MEMBER GATT: All right. Trying this 18 again. There were 16 notices mailed in 19 April. Zero approvals. Zero objections. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 21 you. 22 Any comments from the Building Department? 23 I'm sorry. 24 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir.
31 1 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All 2 right. Then I will open it up for the Board 3 discussion. 4 Member Sanghvi? 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 6 This is an isolated place located in a very 7 unusual place with only the signage facing 8 I-96 with fast moving traffic. And I can 9 support the Applicant's request. Thank you. 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member 11 Krieger? 12 MEMBER KRIEGER: I also have no 13 objections. And if there aren't any other I 14 can make a Motion. 15 In Case number: 07-031 filed by 16 William McKeever of Certified Management 17 Company located at 41180 Bridge Street, I 18 move to approve the Applicant's request in 19 that it is on an isolated area and it is 20 next to the freeway. And it is for this 21 property. 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Would you 23 like to put a time limit as well? 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: About two years.
32 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay, 3 there is a Motion and a second. 4 MS. OZGA: Are you saying that those 5 elements establish the practical difficulty 6 under the sign Ordinance? 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: A little 8 clarification on the Motion. Agreed? 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 12 comments? I'm sorry. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Is this just until it's 14 sold or is it to the two years? 15 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So we are 17 looking at two years or sold, whichever 18 comes first? 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Correct. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Motion 21 seconded? 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: I agree. 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Seeing no 24 other comments, Ms. Working, would you
33 1 please call the roll. 2 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 4 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 6 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 7 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 8 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 9 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 10 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 12 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 14 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 6-0. 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Best of 16 luck to you. 17 MR. McKEEVER: Thank you. Have a good 18 evening. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: You do 20 the same. 21 22 At this time I would like to call Case 23 number: 07-032 filed by A. J. Bartoletto of 24 Temperform Corporation located at 25425
34 1 Trans-X Road. 2 Petitioner is requesting one 30-foot 3 front yard setback variance for the 4 construction of an 11,000 square foot 5 addition to an existing structure located at 6 said address. This property is zoned I-2 7 and is located south of Grand River, east of 8 Novi Road. 9 Will you both be speaking today? 10 Raise your hand and be sworn in by our 11 Secretary. 12 MEMBER GATT: Do you swear to tell the 13 truth regarding Case number: 07-032? 14 MR. THOMAS: I do. 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 16 you. 17 MR. THOMAS: Okay, we are requesting 18 -- 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Please 20 state your name and address. 21 MR. THOMAS: George Thomas. We're at 22 25425 Trans-X Road here in Novi. 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All 24 right.
35 1 MR. THOMAS: Temperform is in a 2 process of trying to expand their warehouse 3 space due to our needs in both raw material 4 storage and in product storage. In doing 5 the warehouse expansion we originally 6 submitted the plans to the Planning 7 Commission showing the 100-foot setback. 8 When it was going through its review the 9 fire marshal had an objection due to the 10 fact that there was no longer a circular 11 pathway around the entire property. And 12 many discussions with him in terms of trying 13 to come up with a way that he could have 14 access to all the property. We could show 15 with that 100-foot setback that we could 16 give him access, but it would not allow him 17 to circulate. 18 In that discussion we then said if we 19 move the warehouse up even with the existing 20 warehouse. You can see Trans-X Road. This 21 is our property right here. This is the 22 existing warehouse. The 100 setback would 23 have set the warehouse back here and then 24 back into this area. What we are requesting
36 1 is that we maintain this frontage right 2 here. The rest of the properties along this 3 Trans-X Road are at a 40-foot setback which 4 our main office is at a 40-foot setback. 5 We submitted this to the Planning 6 Commission and to the fire marshal. He 7 liked the plan and gave us a letter of 8 support. The Planning Commission also 9 supported this. 10 So we respectfully request that you 11 grant the 70 foot. 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Would you 13 do me one more favor and put this aerial 14 photo up by chance? 15 MR. THOMAS: Yeah, that's the sign. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you 17 very much. If you could point it out one 18 more time for us as well. 19 MR. THOMAS: You see here this is 20 the property right here. This is the main 21 office space and the warehouse is this large 22 right here. And what we are requesting is 23 we are going to add the extension of the 24 warehouse along that same line. In fact, it
37 1 would match that. Thank you. 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you 3 very much. 4 Any other comments? Is there anyone 5 in the audience that wishes to make comment 6 on this case? Seeing none, 7 I will declare the Public Hearing section of 8 this case closed and ask the Secretary to 9 report on any correspondence. 10 MEMBER GATT: There were 20 notices 11 mailed. One approval. Zero objections. 12 The approval is from Tony Angelo 13 Cement Construction Company on Grand River 14 Avenue in Novi. There are no comments. 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 16 you, Mr. Secretary. 17 Building Department, any comments? 18 MR. FOX: We have no comment. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I will 20 open it up for Board discussion. 21 Member Canup? 22 MEMBER CANUP: Temperform has been in 23 Novi for quite a while. 24 MR. THOMAS: 30 plus years, about 35,
38 1 36 years. 2 MEMBER CANUP: I know from my own 3 experience driving by over the years going 4 back in that area I have seen it grow from a 5 very small business to something that's been 6 a benefit for the community and an asset. 7 They take good care of their property. The 8 place looks very presentable and for that I 9 would support any Motion to approve the 10 variance as requested. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 12 comments? 13 Member Sanghvi? 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 15 I visited this place actually this afternoon 16 and saw the area. And these people have 17 practical difficulty not created by 18 themselves, but the requirement by the fire 19 marshal for safety purposes, and I have no 20 difficulty in supporting it. 21 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All set? 22 MEMBER BAUER: No problem. 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member 24 Krieger?
39 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Same. 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I agree 3 especially given the letter and difficulties 4 you have accommodating the Fire Department, 5 I would agree. I will turn the floor back 6 over for a Motion. 7 Member Sanghvi? 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, sir. I 9 would like to make a Motion that in Case 10 number: 07-032 filed by A.J. Bartoletto of 11 Temperform Corporation located at 25425 12 Trans-X Road we approve the request of the 13 Applicant because of the practical 14 difficulty as demonstrated in the 15 application and also for safety concern. 16 Thank you. 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is 19 a Motion and a second on the table. Any 20 further discussion? 21 Seeing none, Ms. Working, will you 22 please call the roll. 23 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
40 1 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 3 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 4 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 5 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 6 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 7 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 8 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 11 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 6-0. 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: 13 Congratulations, your variance was granted. 14 Best of luck to you guys in the future. 15 MR. THOMAS: Thank you very much. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I hope 17 you will continue growing. 18 19 At this time I would like to call 20 Case number: 07-033 filed by Gateway 21 Village of Novi, LLC for Gateway Village of 22 Novi Development located at 25642 Grand 23 River Avenue. 24 Hello, Petitioner.
41 1 MR. SHOCKER: Hello. 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The 3 Petitioner is requesting one sign variance 4 for the continued use of an original 5 identification sign previously granted in 6 ZBA 04-010 for one year and then again by 7 the ZBA in 2005, that was in ZBA 05-021. 8 The variance was granted for two years or 90 9 percent of the sale. The sign is located on 10 the north side of Grand River Avenue near 11 Portico Lane and the property is zoned NCC 12 and located north of Grand River Avenue and 13 west of Meadowbrook Road. 14 If you will raise your hand and be 15 sworn in by our Secretary. 16 MEMBER GATT: Do you swear to tell the 17 truth regarding Case number: 07-033? 18 MR. SHOCKER: I do. 19 MEMBER GATT: Thank you. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you 21 would state your name and address and be -- 22 MR. SHOCKER: Michael Shocker on 23 behalf of Triangle Development, Gateway 24 Village of Novi, LLC, 30403 West Thirteen
42 1 Mile, Farmington Hills. 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 3 you. 4 MR. SHOCKER: We are requesting to 5 have an extension for our permit for our 6 construction real state sign. As you 7 mentioned it's on the corner of Grand River 8 and Portico Lane. On the east side of our 9 main entrance into the residential portions 10 of our community. 11 Currently we're at 89 out of 184 sold, 12 so we are just under that 50 percent mark 13 right now. The majority of our traffic and 14 sales has been from drive by traffic and 15 from signage and on-site signage. With the 16 current market conditions that we have, the 17 way that they are, the ability of the market 18 from that sign is imperative for us to 19 continue sales and the completion of the 20 project. 21 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you 22 very much. 23 Any other comments? 24 MR. SHOCKER: No.
43 1 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there 2 anyone in the audience that wishes to make a 3 comment on this case? 4 Seeing none, I will close the Public 5 Hearing section of this case and ask the 6 Secretary to report on any correspondence. 7 MEMBER GATT: There were 236 notices 8 mailed. Zero approvals. Zero objections. 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 10 you, Mr. Secretary. 11 Building Department any comments? 12 MR. AMOLSCH: No comments, sir. 13 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: My 14 question would be who licks all those stamps 15 and envelopes for you? It's not fun. 16 Board Members, I will open it up for 17 your comments and discussions. 18 Member Canup? 19 Can I ask one favor if the Petitioner 20 could put a picture up for us as well. 21 Sorry to interrupt. 22 MEMBER CANUP: This sign that's in the 23 packet, this was the sign that was approved 24 originally?
44 1 MR. AMOLSCH: No, they changed the 2 sign over the course of a couple of years 3 they were there with the permit. So that's 4 the current sign now. 5 MEMBER CANUP: This is what we 6 approved? 7 MR. AMOLSCH: No, it's not what you 8 approved. 9 MEMBER CANUP: What was approved then? 10 MR. AMOLSCH: It was the same square 11 footage, it was just changed. 12 MEMBER CANUP: I'm sorry, I didn't 13 hear you. 14 MR. AMOLSCH: It was the same square 15 footage, it was just changed. This was the 16 sign that was approved the last time, I 17 belive the last time they were here, two 18 years ago. 19 MEMBER CANUP: Was this sign approved? 20 The sign that we see here in the 21 presentation? All the -- 22 MR. AMOLSCH: No, this part here was 23 not approved. The additions that they have 24 done.
45 1 MEMBER CANUP: That was my question 2 then. 3 MR. AMOLSCH: That sign would all be 4 recent additions to it. 5 MEMBER CANUP: But if you took the 6 sign and figured the square footage on it 7 based on the way the square footage is 8 figured it would be somewhat bigger. 9 MR. AMOLSCH: Those were not approved, 10 all those little additions on there. 11 MEMBER CANUP: So -- 12 MR. AMOLSCH: That would increase the 13 size of the sign. 14 MEMBER CANUP: That would increase the 15 size of the sign. I guess my reasoning is 16 that this is not an approved sign that is 17 there and we are asked to approve the sign, 18 is that what I am hearing? 19 MS. WORKING: May I clarify through 20 the Chair? 21 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes. 22 MS. WORKING: The black and white 23 photograph is what the Applicant submitted 24 with their application for the Board, that
46 1 is correct. The color photograph is what is 2 existing out front of the property 3 currently. It was taken about two weeks 4 ago, Chris? 5 MR. FOX: Yes. 6 MEMBER CANUP: I guess I have a 7 problem with this sign being that we were 8 shown one thing, in reality it was something 9 somewhat different. 10 MR. SHOCKER: You know, I apologize. 11 Somebody within my office would have 12 submitted the application package with 13 whatever rendering you might have in there. 14 What you see on the sign on the board in 15 front of you is what is in front of the 16 condo community right there. And to be 17 quite frank with you, I don't even know -- 18 MR. BAUER: That's what was submitted. 19 MR. SHOCKER: The numbers are 20 different, the pricing is different because 21 we changed the models, so it is a little bit 22 different than what you have in your 23 package. 24 MEMBER CANUP: I guess I don't have a
47 1 problem with the sign personally of being 2 what is shown as this exhibit. I do have a 3 problem with a sign that looks like you are 4 advertising a circus or something. 5 There was quite a bit more on it than what 6 you have even asked for. 7 MR. SHOCKER: I understand. Obviously 8 we do different promotions during the sales 9 and marketing period. Some of those signs 10 reflects some of those promotions. 11 MEMBER CANUP: Yeah, but you don't ask 12 for one thing and have something else 13 already standing. When you submitted, when 14 your company submitted your application this 15 is what they submitted. This is what is 16 standing at the time. 17 MR. SHOCKER: I understand that and I 18 apologize. 19 MEMBER CANUP: I don't have a problem 20 with approving this sign. I have a problem 21 with that. My opinion would be that we 22 approve this sign as shown. We ask the City 23 Enforcement people to enforce this sign as 24 shown.
48 1 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Quick 2 question for clarification in order for our 3 attorney. 4 Since it would, in fact, if we took the 5 square footage per the recommendation of the 6 City for this size it would then be larger 7 than the 64 that was noticed. So, our 8 option right now is to table it if we 9 continue looking at this or approve as it 10 was submitted like Mr. Canup suggested; is 11 that correct? 12 MS. OZGA: Correct. You can approve 13 it as it was submitted requesting that all 14 the additions be taken off so that it is 15 what was previously approved. But if you 16 wanted to look at the increased square 17 footage sign it would have to be renoticed. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you 19 very much. 20 I'm sorry, Member Gatt. 21 MEMBER GATT: My question was actually 22 answered. I want to know if we included 23 these yellow dots, if it would have gone 24 over the original?
49 1 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes, it would. 2 MEMBER GATT: Okay, thank you. 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would 4 like to put some comments as well. 5 I am going to echo what Mr. Canup 6 said. I would prefer to grant it as 7 submitted. And I understand the intent and 8 the need for different advertising and 9 marketing plans. But I think that if that 10 was necessary they could work within the 11 64 square feet that we are allowing as the 12 variance. So, I would echo Member Canup and 13 vote for the sign that was submitted with 14 the packet. 15 Any other Board Members? Member Gatt? 16 MEMBER GATT: I agree. I think that 17 if they wanted these new additions to the 18 sign they could easily fit within the 19 64 feet just do a little bit retooling and 20 shrink them up a little bit. So, I would 21 have no problem supporting a Motion to 22 approve the original request. But I would 23 not approve any additional square footage to 24 the sign. Thank you.
50 1 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 2 Board Members? 3 Member Canup? 4 MEMBER CANUP: I would be willing to 5 make a Motion in Case number: 07:033 as 6 filed by Gateway Village with the sign in 7 question and the sign that we are 8 referencing is the sign as submitted by 9 them -- 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: As part 11 of the packet. 12 MEMBER CANUP: As part of the packet. 13 I am trying to look for it to see if that is 14 what I am making a Motion to approve. And 15 the reason that I am doing that is because 16 of the practical hardship with the economy 17 as it is and these people struggling trying 18 to get as much attention as possible. And 19 the fact that it has been there for some 20 time. And the fact that it is not really 21 what was represented and in my Motion I 22 would like to ask the City Enforcement 23 people to see to it that the sign is as 24 approved.
51 1 MR. SHOCKER: Can I ask a quick 2 question? 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Sir, 4 there is a Motion on the table. Not at this 5 time. I'm sorry. 6 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: He second it by Mr. 8 Bauer. 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is 10 a Motion and second. 11 Was there a time limit that you had 12 set for an occupancy -- 13 MEMBER CANUP: One year. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Amendment 15 to the Motion and does the seconder agree? 16 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this 18 time -- 19 MS. OZGA: Just to clarify. I believe 20 the Motion was for a practical difficulty 21 and it was to approve the sign that was 22 submitted that was previously approved by 23 the Board. Are you also putting in the 24 Motion that the extra square footage would
52 1 have to be removed? 2 MEMBER CANUP: No. The way that I 3 worded it and I thought this is what we were 4 approving. And the wording contained the 5 verbiage that it would be for the City 6 Enforcement to enforce the sign to see to it 7 that it was this sign. 8 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Does that 9 answer all your questions and concerns? 10 MS. OZGA: Yes. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member 12 Gatt? 13 MEMBER GATT: With regard to the 14 Motion on the table, I am not against them 15 changing any layout or style of the sign as 16 long as it stays within the minimum square 17 footage -- or the maximum square footage, 18 excuse me, we granted them previously which 19 I believe is 64 square feet and not less 20 than the required setback nor higher than 21 15 feet. If they want to change the style, 22 lettering, price, anything like that 23 regarding the sign, if they want to add 24 yellow bubbles or do whatever they want to
53 1 do as long as it's within our maximum 64 2 square footage I would much rather be 3 displaying that rather than just the 4 approval of a specific design of the sign. 5 MEMBER CANUP: That was the intent of 6 the Motion to work within the framework of 7 the outside dimensions of the sign which I 8 think are eight by five. 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Eight by 10 eight. 11 MEMBER CANUP: Anyway, to stay within 12 the framework of sign as shown. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: We are voting on the 14 dimensions and not on the working, that is 15 what the issue is here? 16 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Does that 19 answer your concerns? Because I tend to 20 agree with 21 you -- 22 MEMBER GATT: As long as we are voting 23 on the dimensions of the sign and not the 24 verbiage or anything in particular.
54 1 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Seconder 2 agrees, Motioner agrees. 3 Any other comments from Counsel? 4 Seeing none, Ms. Working, will you please 5 call the roll. 6 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 7 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 8 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer. 9 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 10 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 11 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 12 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 13 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 14 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 16 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Aye. 18 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 6-0. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The 20 variance has been granted with some 21 limitations. Thank you. 22 23 We're all set. All right, 24 at this time I would like to call Case
55 1 number: 07-034 filed by Richard Castanos of 2 Varsity Lincoln Mercury located at 49251 3 Grand River Avenue. 4 The Petitioner is requesting one 140 5 square foot sign variance for the continued 6 use of an existing sign erected without 7 permit at the Quick Lane Service Center 8 located at said address. 9 The property is zoned B-3 and is 10 located on the southeast corner of Grand 11 River and Wixom Road. As 12 Board Members may be aware, I am an employee 13 of Ford Motor Company, but reviewing the 14 conflict of interest packet given by our 15 attorney, feel that I can rule in this case 16 without bias as I do not have any financial, 17 political, personal or association or 18 organization interest. 19 So, if there is no objection by Board 20 Members, I would like to sit in on the case. 21 MEMBER BAUER: No problem. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: No objection. 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Seeing no 24 objections.
56 1 Sir, if you will please raise your 2 hand and be sworn in by or Secretary. 3 MEMBER GATT: Do you swear to tell the 4 truth regarding Case number: 07-034? 5 MR. CASTANOS: Yes, we do. 6 MR. BURROWS (ph): We do. 7 MEMBER GATT: Thank you. 8 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you 9 will state your name and address and proceed 10 with your case. 11 MR. CASTANOS: Yep, my name is Rick 12 Castanos. I am the service director at 13 Varsity Lincoln Mercury at 49251 Grand River 14 Avenue. 15 MR. BURROWS: Scott Burrows. I am 16 Quick Lane manager at 49251 Grand River. 17 MR. CASTANOS: Thank you guys for 18 seeing us tonight. I submitted the original 19 paperwork to you because I didn't want to 20 hide anything from anyone. I want to make 21 sure you guys are aware of what happened 22 with us. 23 I apologize for bringing this 24 back up again. What had happened was, when
57 1 we proceeded with the Quick Lane Tire and 2 Auto Center, the banner that we are 3 requesting for a variance for approval on is 4 something that they put on the stand alone 5 Quality Quick Lane Centers currently. It's 6 not something that they put on an existing 7 dealership that has an in-house Quick Lane 8 Tire and Auto Center. 9 We decided that because you don't 10 see the lettering, you don't see that banner 11 from the street, we had an option, we 12 decided not to do that at the time when we 13 were doing this project. And you granted us 14 the Quick Lane lettering on the bay shift as 15 well as the pylon. 16 We have a letter, what happened what 17 was, I guess, Ford Motor Company had stated 18 and stipulated that because we are a 19 separate identity from the dealership they 20 wanted to see an identification difference 21 between the stand alone dealer and Quick 22 Lane Tire and Auto. 23 So, If I may I have something 24 from Ford Motor Company that they had
58 1 presented to our dealer principals on a 2 requirement that they requested. 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: You have 4 one copy? 5 MR. CASTANOS: There is enough for 6 everybody, yes. 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Assuming 8 it's okay with Counsel? 9 MS. OZGA: If you want to take it, 10 sure. 11 MR. CASTANOS: Due to the cost of 12 adding the banner and the fact that we don't 13 see it from Grand River or Wixom, there was 14 really no reason to put the sign on at the 15 time, so we chose not to do it. 16 The products were actually 17 manufactured in Canada which were delivered 18 to our contractor, and, of course the 19 contractor, Omni Plant is contracted through 20 Ford Motor Company who then sent their 21 project and signs to our contractor who 22 installed the entire kit which included that 23 banner. And that's why we are here asking 24 for a request for the approval of the
59 1 banner. 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 3 comments? 4 MR. BURROWS: No. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Seeing 6 none, is there anyone in the audience that 7 wishes to make a comment on this case? 8 Seeing none, I will close the Public 9 Hearing section of this case and move to 10 hear the correspondence per our Secretary. 11 MEMBER GATT: There were 26 notices 12 mailed. Zero approval. Zero objections. 13 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 14 you, Mr. Secretary. Any comments from our 15 Building Department? 16 MR. AMOLSCH: We have no comment, sir. 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And I 18 will open it up for any Board discussion. 19 Member Gatt? 20 MEMBER GATT: I don't know if it was 21 just my eyes, I had my glasses on, but I 22 couldn't see that banner driving on any of 23 the roads until I pulled right into that 24 place. I don't -- I understand that the
60 1 situation called for that banner to be put 2 up, I don't prefer that the route that you 3 guys took was taken where it was put up and 4 then come to us first, however, to be honest 5 with you in this particular situation I 6 can't even consider this a sign. 7 By the letter of the law I guess it 8 is, but you can't see it. If you can't see 9 something from the road how is it a sign? I 10 guess that would be my actual question to 11 our City Attorney. If you can't see 12 something, how is it actually a sign? Is 13 there any comments to that? 14 MS. OZGA: If I may through the Chair. 15 There is a definition under the sign 16 Ordinance for a sign, and it does state a 17 sign means a name identification, bla-bla 18 blah, in a manner so as to be visible from 19 any public street, sidewalk, alley, park or 20 other property that advertises, publicizes 21 or directs attention to a service, product, 22 activity, person, institution, organization 23 or a business and then it lists the type of 24 sign. So there could be a question here as
61 1 to whether this is actually a sign or not. 2 That could be an ambiguity that can be used 3 as a practical difficulty. Because before 4 this I believe the sign right above this 5 banner were approved as signs. 6 So, that could be an element of 7 practical difficulty if the Board saw that. 8 Because the Petitioner felt that it wasn't a 9 sign and under Ordinance if you feel you 10 cannot see it from the street, there is a 11 question whether it is, in fact, a sign. So 12 that could be used as a practical difficulty 13 in this case. 14 MEMBER GATT: Thank you. Well, with 15 that description in mind, I can use that as 16 a practical difficulty, and I would support 17 a Motion granting the Applicant's request. 18 I will wait to hear everyone else's comments 19 before I fully endorse everything. 20 With that in mind, I can't understand 21 how this would be any type of burden or any 22 situation where there would be any kind of 23 public safety issue or anything like that 24 considering it might not actually even
62 1 technically be a sign. And it's definitely 2 not advertising anything. 3 So, I will wait to hear everyone 4 else's comments before I speak further. 5 Thank you. 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 7 you, Member Gatt. 8 I have a quick request. Do you have 9 the sign with you? 10 MR. CASTANOS: That photo, yes, I have 11 that here. 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you 13 could throw that up? 14 MR. CASTANOS: Sure. 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you 16 could just point at the banner that we're 17 looking at. 18 MR. CASTANOS: We're looking at the 19 banner that's right across the lower brim of 20 the facia there going across the front here 21 of the bay doors. 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Just for 23 anyone else that might be watching. 24 MR. CASTANOS: Sure.
63 1 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Open it 2 up to Board Members. Member Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. Thank 4 you, Mr. Chair. I would like to accept his 5 explanation in good faith that they didn't 6 plan to put this on in spite of what was 7 recommended at last ZBA Hearing for this 8 particular sign. And personally I agree 9 with Member Gatt, that unless you are 10 driving and keep looking for it, it is such 11 an insignificant size lettering that you 12 wouldn't even notice it from any distance. 13 And it does distinguish them from a Quick 14 Lube place as they are trying to do. 15 And I have no difficulty in supporting 16 their application. 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I will go 18 ahead and ask my couple questions while 19 other the Board Members might think of 20 questions. 21 Last time we talked, we talked about 22 the distinction between the dealership and 23 the Quick Lane. Can you walk us through 24 that one more time.
64 1 MR. CASTANOS: Well, what happens is 2 when Quick Lane and Tire Auto was being put 3 together, they were trying to separate -- 4 most of them were all, majority of them were 5 all stand alone facilities. 6 We are one of a few facilities that 7 are actually within the dealership, I think 8 we are one of three or four in the State of 9 Michigan from what I know. So, what they 10 were trying to do is they were trying to 11 separate, as a customer when you come in and 12 you drive into the lot, that you know where 13 you are going for the Quick Lane Tire and 14 Auto Center and you know what is being 15 offered at the Quick Lane Tire and Auto 16 Center. 17 And also Ford sees it as you are not a 18 Jiffy Lube because Jiffy Lube can't do 19 brakes, they can't do shocks. They want to 20 make sure they definitely separate from what 21 Quick Lane Tire and Auto is as a Goodyear 22 and Firestone versus just a lube oil change 23 facility. 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: When we
65 1 were looking at it the last time we also 2 kind of determined that it was a separate 3 entity as well. 4 MR. CASTANOS: Yes, that it was a 5 separate entity from the dealership, 6 correct. 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would 8 echo a lot of the comments that were made. 9 Once, again, it's obviously not the way we 10 would like to see things come forward, but 11 as Member Sanghvi noted, I would take it in 12 good faith as well, especially with the 13 additional letter that you presented today. 14 The bureaucracy that goes along with this 15 being a franchisee of a large corporation, I 16 can understand that. 17 So, I will also take it in good faith 18 that the mistake was made as a mistake and 19 not as a -- and I would agree looking at the 20 standards that Counsel set forth regarding 21 practical difficulty for signs, I do believe 22 they meet them all in the sense that this is 23 very exceptional, it's the interior of the 24 lot that this is actually facing. It's not
66 1 facing the road. And the other findings 2 that Counsel set forth for us, they do meet 3 those elements of practical difficulty. 4 So, those are my comments and I will 5 open it up to the Board again. 6 Member Bauer? 7 MEMBER BAUER: Yeah, I think it looks 8 great it's offsetting what is in the 9 building itself. 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The left 11 hand guys, any comments over here? 12 MEMBER KRIEGER: I had a question. 13 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. 14 (Interposing) (Unintelligible) 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member 16 Gatt? 17 MEMBER GATT: I would like to propose 18 a Motion in this case. I move that in Case 19 number: 07-034 filed by Richard Castanos of 20 Varsity Lincoln Mercury located at 49251 21 Grand River Avenue, we grant the Applicant's 22 request due to the fact that the Petitioner 23 has established a practical difficulty 24 because the Petitioner has established that
67 1 the proposed use will not be a detriment to 2 the public safety and welfare of the area. 3 Due to the lettering of the particular sign 4 being so small, there would not be any type 5 of public safety issues with the drivers in 6 that area. 7 The Petitioner has established that 8 the proposed use will not unreasonably 9 impair or diminish established property 10 values within the surrounding area and the 11 Petitioner has established the grant of the 12 variance will not impair the intent or 13 purpose of the Ordinance. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is 16 a Motion and a second. 17 Any further discussion? 18 Seeing none, Ms. Working, will you 19 please call the roll. 20 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 21 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 22 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 24 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?
68 1 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 2 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 4 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 5 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 6 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 8 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 6-0. 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The 10 variance has been granted. Good luck to 11 you. 12 MR. CASTANOS: Thank you. 13 MR. BURROWS: Thank you. 14 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At 16 this time I would like to call case number 17 07-035 filed by Joan Mingo of 29085 Eastman 18 Trail in Tollgate Ravines. 19 The Applicant is requesting a 4-foot 20 rear yard setback variance for the 21 construction of a deck with screened in 22 porch on the property located at said 23 address. Property is zoned RA and located 24 north of Twelve Mile Road and west of
69 1 Meadowbrook Road. 2 You are the Petitioner? 3 MS. MINGO: Yes. 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Would you 5 raise your hand and be sworn in by our 6 Secretary. 7 MEMBER GATT: Do you swear to tell the 8 truth regarding Case: 07-035? 9 MS. MINGO: Yes, I do. 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 11 you. If you will state your name and 12 address and proceed with your comments. 13 MS. MINGO: My name is Joan Mingo. I 14 live at 29085 Eastman Trail in Novi in the 15 Tollgate Ravines. I live in the -- they're 16 detached site condos. And I am contracting 17 to have the deck enclosed because the rear 18 of my home faces west which we get nothing 19 but sun all afternoon and until the sun sets 20 and then the mosquitos comes out, and I have 21 two grand children I have to watch while 22 they play in the back. 23 Then we were informed that the 26-foot 24 deck that we have was not enough to enclose,
70 1 therefore, I am requesting a 4-foot variance 2 in the rear. The property abuts four 3 different other properties, so it's kind of 4 set in an unusual shape and I guess I 5 understand that we need four feet to 6 complete the deck to enclose it. Thank you. 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you 8 very much. 9 Is there anyone in the audience that 10 wishes to make a comment on this case? 11 All right, at this time I will declare 12 the public hearing section of this case 13 closed and ask the Secretary to report on 14 any correspondence. 15 MEMBER GATT: There were 40 16 notices mailed. Three approvals. Zero 17 objections. The approvals are as follows: 18 David Garrett of Eastman Trails in Novi 19 says: That trim of deck and porch must 20 match house trim color. 21 The Delcovich (ph) residents on 22 Eastman Trail. Approval, no comments. 23 Elizabeth Herbert of Eastman Trail, 24 approval no comments.
71 1 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And might 2 we also comment that the association has 3 sent in an approval letter as well with some 4 concerns about the color as well, but in 5 general they agree as well. And that is 6 Kramer Triage Management Group for Tollgate 7 Ravines Condominium Association. Lynn 8 Millatello (ph) was the actual person. 9 Does the Building Department have any 10 comments on this case? 11 MR. FOX: If it please the Board I 12 would like to clarify a little bit. The 13 reason the existing deck per our Ordinance 14 allows it to encroach in the rear yard 15 setback an additional 18 feet. By enclosing 16 this they are basically turning it into an 17 addition to the house which has to meet all 18 the setback requirements which is why the 19 existing deck at 26 feet is requiring a 20 variance. They are not actually encroaching 21 any father than is already there. It's just 22 the change of the use is what's causing the 23 encroachment issue. 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you
72 1 very much. I appreciate that clarification. 2 Any other comments? 3 Seeing none, I will open it up for our 4 Board for discussion. 5 Member Gatt? 6 MEMBER GATT: First of all, let me 7 start by saying that's a beautiful home and 8 I really do enjoy what you have proposed 9 here. I grew up in a house with a screened 10 in deck and I enjoyed it, so I think that 11 your grandchildren will enjoy it as well. 12 I really don't see a problem with 13 this. To screen in a deck really isn't I 14 don't think a big deal. I know the law says 15 that it's changing the use, but I don't 16 think in this situation there would be any 17 hardship that will be coming down on any 18 neighbors or existing areas of land or 19 anything like that. 20 I will wait to hear everyone else's 21 comments, of course, but I would definitely 22 support a Motion to approve the variance 23 requested. Thank you. 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank
73 1 you, Member Gatt. 2 Any other comments? Member Krieger? 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: I also approve of the 4 Applicant's request. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 6 you, Member Krieger. 7 I will make one quick comment too. 8 When you look at practical difficulty, 9 that's an odd shaped lot that you have 10 there. And I think that that definitely 11 plays right into some of the definition of 12 elements of practical difficulty that we 13 look at. So I would appreciate any Motion 14 to include the odd configuration of the lot. 15 Member Krieger? 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: In that case, I would 17 like to make a Motion in Case number: 18 07-035 filed Joan Mingo at 29085 Eastman 19 Trail in Tollgate Ravines that I move to 20 approve the 4-foot rear yard setback 21 variance for the construction of deck with a 22 screened in porch on the property located 23 29085 Eastman Trail in the Tollgate Ravines 24 Subdivision. And because of the odd shape
74 1 of the rear lot which is not self inflicted 2 and also she had received the approval 3 letter from her homeowner's association. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Actually 6 I did have one question for our attorney. 7 Given some of the comments regarding the 8 stain and the color from the Homeowners 9 Association do we have any concern as the 10 City or as this Board regarding those? They 11 kind of give approval, but they say 12 contingent upon the color. 13 MS. OZGA: As the Board knows that is 14 just comments by the Homeowners Association. 15 You do not have to abide by or follow them. 16 You can ask the Petitioner to make sure it 17 does conform to the rest of the house and 18 the rest of the neighborhood. Which I am 19 sure the Petitioner would probably want to 20 do. But with the Board the Board can place 21 their own conditions, but it doesn't have to 22 be what is being requested by the Homeowners 23 Association. 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay.
75 1 Any comments? Seeing none, we will go 2 with the Motion as was put out there. 3 Ms. Working, will you please call the 4 roll for us. 5 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 7 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 8 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 11 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 12 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 13 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 14 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 15 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 17 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 6-0. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The 19 variance has been granted. Hopefully it 20 will get a little warmer so you can enjoy it 21 once it's built. 22 MS. MINGO: Thank you very much. 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We can't 24 do that as a Board, sorry. Best of luck,
76 1 enjoy. 2 MS. MINGO: Thank you very much. 3 4 MEMBER CHAIRPERSON: At this time I 5 would like to call Case number: 07-036 filed 6 by Dick Rosenberger for ACO Hardware located 7 at 41800 West Ten Mile Road in the Novi Ten 8 Shopping Center. 9 The Applicant is requesting a variance 10 to allow expansion of an outdoor seasonal 11 sales enclosure located at the Aco Hardware 12 Store at said address. The property is 13 zoned B-3 and located north of Ten Mile and 14 West of Meadowbrook Road. 15 If you will please raise your hand and 16 be sworn in by our Secretary. 17 MEMBER GATT: Do you swear to tell the 18 truth regarding Case number: 07-036? 19 MR. ROSENBERGER: Yes, I do. 20 My name is Dick Rosenberger. I live 21 at 9030 East Monroe, Clarkston, Michigan. 22 And I am here tonight to petition a variance 23 for our outside selling area. We came in 24 for our annual seasonal outdoor selling
77 1 variance to put product like topsoil and 2 stuff on the front sidewalk and were 3 informed that they were no longer being 4 issued. So that kind of put a real quick 5 stop to that. So our only alternative since 6 seasonal sales are extremely important to 7 ACO is to ask you for a variance to put up a 8 screened in, a screened seasonal selling 9 area on the north side of our building 35 by 10 100 feet. 11 We would like to have it 12 constructed with a poured stamped masonry 13 wall 6 feet high 8 inches thick. It would 14 be brick stamped so that it would blend in 15 with the existing shopping center. Then we 16 would in turn paint that to match the rest 17 of the center. So cosmetically it would 18 blend in perfectly with the center. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All 20 right. Is there anyone in the audience that 21 wishes to make a comment on this case? 22 Seeing none, I will ask the Secretary 23 to report on any correspondence. 24 MEMBER GATT: 37 notices were mailed.
78 1 Two approvals. Zero objections. 2 First approval is from Jennifer Roth 3 on Quincy Drive. She has an approval with 4 no comments. 5 The second approval is from Sunoco 6 Service Center on 10 Mile Road, approval 7 with no comments. That's all. 8 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 9 you. And I'm not sure if I did, but at this 10 time the Public Hearing section of this case 11 is closed, and I will turn it over to the 12 Building Department. 13 MR. SPENCER: I guess we didn't 14 rehearse this one enough to know who was 15 going to say something. The Planning staff 16 recognizes this is kind of a unique site to 17 be reworked and to extend the life of the 18 site that this type of business need some 19 provisions for selling these finds of 20 materials. 21 The function of the screened wall 22 would act similar to having an enclosed 23 building except for not having a roof on it. 24 Probably our only concern would be that the
79 1 materials not exceed the height of the wall 2 itself. 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you 4 very much for those comments and 5 recommendations from the Planning 6 Department. Always appreciate it from you 7 guys. Now at this time I will 8 open it up for Board discussion. 9 Member Bauer? 10 MEMBER BAUER: I go in there quite 11 often. 12 I think that would be much nicer. It's been 13 real good for you. 14 MR. ROSENBERGER: I think it will 15 works real well, yes. 16 17 MEMBER BAUER: I am for it. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member 19 Krieger? 20 MEMBER KRIEGER: I had a 21 question. Ludwig & Sealey they own that 22 whole area at Novi Ten? 23 MR. ROSENBERGER: Yes. 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is that
80 1 part of the notice, Mr. Secretary? Or do we 2 have their approval somewhere else in here? 3 MR. ROSENBERGER: There should be 4 letters. 5 MS. WORKING: There should be a letter 6 in there. 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It was 8 not part of this. I remember seeing it, 9 now, I just can't find it. I do have it. 10 Okay. 11 MS. WORKING: There it is. 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Just put 13 that on the record that we do have the 14 endorsement and approval from the owner of 15 the building. 16 Thank you for that clarification and 17 reminder, Member Krieger. 18 Any other comments, Member Krieger? 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: No, not at this time. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member 21 Sanghvi? 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: I just had a 23 question. You are going to set up a teller 24 and selling it right outside or do you still
81 1 have to go inside to buy it? 2 MR. ROSENBERGER: You still have to go 3 inside to buy it, but there will be a 4 sliding door that you can go in and out. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, thank you. I 6 have no difficulty in supporting this. We 7 both have been frequenting this for quarter 8 of a century and it's very useful to have 9 it. Thank you. 10 If there no further discussion I would 11 like to make a Motion, Mr. Chair. 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That 13 would be fine. May I make one last 14 suggestion before a Motion is made? 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Since we 17 just did complete such a great training 18 session, oftentimes in these cases we look 19 at tying it into a business. But we have 20 been listing as many uses that this will be 21 used for and we were advised it would be 22 better to discuss tying it to the use as 23 opposed to the actual occupant at this time. 24 Does that make sense to the Board?
82 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. Thank you. 2 That in Case number: 07-036 filed by 3 Dick Rosenberger for ACO Hardware we approve 4 the Applicant's request because they have 5 demonstrated practical difficulty in selling 6 hardware during different times of the year. 7 By doing this they would be making it easier 8 for customers to buy their goods and also 9 loading and unloading their carts which I 10 have found very hard at times. That is off 11 the record. 12 MS. WORKING: You don't want that in 13 the Motion? 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this 17 time might I suggest that the addition match 18 the rest of the building, the material be no 19 higher than the wall itself and the material 20 be according to the letter as submitted in 21 the packets. If those three conditions 22 could be part of the Motion I would 23 appreciate it. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: I accept your
83 1 recommendation, Mr. Chair. 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 3 you, Member Sanghvi. 4 Seconder agrees? 5 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 7 comments by the Board? 8 Seeing none, please call the roll. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 11 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 12 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 13 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 15 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 17 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 18 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 19 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 20 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 21 MS. WORKING: 6-0 the Motion passes. 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The 23 variance has been granted with those 24 conditions. Best of luck. We will look
84 1 forward to seeing that addition. I think it 2 will be a great one. 3 MR. ROSENBERGER: Thank you. Look 4 forward to seeing you shopping with us. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this 6 time I would like to call a quick recess of 7 ten minutes. We will reconvene at 8:57. 8 (A recess was held.) 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The time 10 is 8:57. I would like to call the Zoning 11 Board of Appeals back into order. 12 13 And at this time I would like to 14 call -- make sure I don't skip over anyone. 15 Case number: 07-037 filed by Gardner Signs 16 for Toyota Boshoku located at 28000 West 17 Park Drive. 18 The Petitioner is requesting one 73 19 square foot wall sign and one 26 and one 20 half square foot ground sign for the 21 business located at said address. The 22 Applicant is requesting an eight square foot 23 wall sign variance for the south elevation 24 of the building and one 26.5 square foot
85 1 ground sign variance. The property is zoned 2 I-1 and located north of Twelve Mile and 3 east of Beck road. 4 If you will raise your hand and 5 be sworn in by our Secretary. 6 MEMBER GATT: Do you swear to 7 tell the truth regarding Case number: 8 07-037? 9 MR. AFFLICK: Yes. 10 MEMBER GATT: Thank you. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And if you 12 will state your name and address and proceed 13 with your comments. 14 MR. AFFLICK (ph): Steve Afflick of 15 Toyota Boshoku of America, 41180 Bridge 16 Street, same address as case number 3 and 17 the reason why he is here today 18 (unintelligible) location in Novi. 19 Why I am here before you today is that 20 in our new facility which will be at Twelve 21 Mile and West Park Drive. Twelve Mile is 22 down here on the bottom of the site map. 23 West Park Drive running north and south 24 here. And the two signs that we are asking
86 1 for, the smaller sign, the monument sign 2 will be up towards the actual entrance of 3 the building and the wall sign will be back 4 over in this back corner over the loading 5 docks. 6 The reason that we are asking for the 7 sign here towards the entrance is that when 8 you are coming down south on West Park Drive 9 we want to make sure that our customers and 10 our suppliers are able to identify the 11 building prior to going past this entrance 12 here which will actually have the visitor 13 parking and the sidewalk that goes into the 14 entrance of the building. 15 When you are coming on 12 Mile Road 16 this wall sign here will be very visible and 17 will allow the people coming up north on 18 West Park Drive identify the building and be 19 able to come up to the parking. 20 The reason that we are asking for the 21 sign on this site here is that even though 22 we are not on, we don't have any frontage on 23 Twelve Mile Road it would be visible for 24 Twelve Mile Road so that people that would
87 1 be coming from the east side traveling west 2 on Twelve Mile could very easily identify 3 the building and be able to turn up into the 4 West Park Drive and can see the facility. 5 The monument sign that we are 6 proposing, the size is indicated on the 7 drawing here. The package that you do have 8 is showing it incorrectly. It's showing it 9 going parallel with the building and 10 actually the sign is perpendicular to the 11 building. So it would be both visible from 12 West Park Drive north and southbound. 13 The sign will be constructed with a 14 masonry face on it, we will probably upgrade 15 it somewhat, put in some nicer brick or 16 stone on it to make it look very classy for 17 the area and it will be exterior illuminated 18 with two spotlights coming up on either side 19 to illuminate it. 20 I don't know if this will actually 21 fit. This is the rendering of the elevation 22 views showing the two signs. The actual new 23 sign that we are wanting to put on this 24 particular area which falls within the
88 1 zoning size, the reason that this sign is a 2 little bit larger is what we are doing is we 3 are taking the current sign on our current 4 building at 41180 Bridge Street and just 5 moving it over. So, that's the current size 6 of the sign and, of course, it's a little 7 bit larger than the Ordinance allows that's 8 the reason why it's just a little bit 9 larger. The new one would fit within the 10 zoning size there. 11 Open to any questions you may have? 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All 13 right. Is there anyone in the audience that 14 wishes to make a comment on this case? 15 Seeing none, I will declare the Public 16 Hearing section of this case closed. And ask 17 the Secretary for any correspondence. 18 MEMBER GATT: There were 16 notices 19 mailed. Zero approvals. Zero objections. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All 21 right. Building Department? 22 MR. AMOLSCH: We have no comment, sir. 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Open it up 24 for Board discussion.
89 1 Member Sanghvi? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 3 I was there at that site and looked at those 4 things and they looked pretty elegant and 5 quite in good taste. The long sign on the 6 top of the building is barely visible from 7 Twelve Mile Road and it does tell me where 8 to turn and where to go. So I think it is 9 certainly useful for purposes as described 10 by the Applicant and I have no difficulty in 11 supporting their application. Thank you. 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 13 you, Member Sanghvi. 14 Do you occupy the entire building? 15 MR. AFFLICK: Yes. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And do you 17 plan to continue to do so? 18 MR. AFFLICK: Yes. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If I can 20 ask the Building Department. Go back to 21 your map, the plans for development, I 22 believe it would be south basically 23 underneath the building. What is the plan 24 for anything going on around there?
90 1 MR. SPENCER: I will answer that for 2 the Planning Department. There is a piece of 3 property due south of the loading dock that 4 is currently not owned by Aims & Deems (ph), 5 they have tried to acquire it. I don't know 6 what the status is of acquiring that. The 7 property is zoned I-1 industrial and it's 8 large enough to support another industrial 9 building. So, if something is built there 10 it could obstruct the view of any sign at 11 this location. 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay, 13 thank you very much. 14 Other Board members? Member 15 Krieger? 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: I also have no 17 objections to the signs as requested. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: 19 Thank you. Is there anything else? 20 Member Canup? 21 MEMBER CANUP: It seems that everybody 22 is in approval of it and I too would be in 23 approval of it due to the size of the 24 building, et cetera, and the location it
91 1 seems like it fits and balances itself well. 2 Anyway, if there is no further 3 discussion on it, I would like to make a 4 Motion that in Case: 07-037 we grant the 5 request as stated, again, due to the reasons 6 as previously stated by me in this case. 7 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 8 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is 9 a Motion and a second. Any further 10 discussion? 11 Would you please assist Robin and 12 re-determining some of the comments you made 13 just to help her for the Motion making. 14 MEMBER CANUP: Due to the fact that 15 the size of the building, the location of 16 the building in conjunction with the roads 17 and et cetera, the size of the building, the 18 signs seem to balance themselves fairly well 19 and are needed in this particular case. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All 21 right. There is a Motion and a second. 22 Everyone is nodding their heads, so why 23 don't we go ahead. Who did second it? 24 Member Bauer.
92 1 MEMBER CANUP: Member Bauer. 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Please 3 call the roll. 4 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 5 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 6 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 7 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 8 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 10 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 11 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 12 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 13 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 14 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 15 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 16 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 6-0. 17 MR. AFFLICK: Thank you. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The 19 variance has been granted. Best of luck to 20 you guys. 21 MR. AFFLICK: Thank you. 22 23 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this
93 1 time we move to Case number: 07-038 filed 2 by Carl Helwig for parcel #50-22-11-101-102 3 located on the Southwest corner of Thirteen 4 Mile at Martin Street. 5 The Applicant is requesting to minimum 6 lot size variances for said parcel located 7 on the southwest corner of Thirteen Mile and 8 Martin in the Howell's Walled Lake 9 subdivision. The property consist of eight 10 20 by 100 foot lots to be combined and split 11 into the two 8,000 square foot parcels. The 12 property is zoned R-4 and is located south 13 of Thirteen Mile and west of Martin Street. 14 MEMBER GATT: Would you raise 15 your right hand. Do you swear to tell the 16 truth regarding Case: 07-038? 17 MR. HELWIG: Yes, I do. 18 MEMBER GATT: Thank you. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Please 20 state your name and address and proceed with 21 your comments. 22 MR. HELWIG: My name is Carl Helwig. 23 I live at 22755 Indian Wood Drive, South 24 Lyons, Michigan. That
94 1 parcel there, I have been trying to sell it 2 for a few years as a parcel to just build 3 one home on it and that wouldn't conform 4 with all the other construction to the south 5 of me. As it show on this plan here, my 6 property is this corner right here. And the 7 homes in there that have been built 8 previously, the corner homes are on 80-foot 9 lots and the inside homes are on 60-foot. 10 At the present time I have got a gentleman 11 that is interested in the parcel if he can 12 put two homes on it. 13 I have shown him the size that he 14 could build which are adequate. One would 15 be over 1,400 square feet on the main level, 16 so you could double that to 2,800. And on 17 the other inside lot you could put over 18 1,900 feet square on the main level. And 19 both of these would be adequate for him. 20 That's the reason that I am asking to split 21 it. 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you 23 very much. Is there anyone in the audience 24 that wishes to make a comment on this case?
95 1 Seeing none, I will declare the Public 2 Hearing closed for this case and ask for any 3 correspondence. 4 MEMBER GATT: 34 notices were mailed. 5 Zero approvals. Zero objections. 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All 7 right. Building Department? 8 MR. FOX: We have no comment. 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. I 10 will open it up for Board discussion. 11 I will actually start off then with a 12 question for our attorney. Get our money's 13 worth tonight. 14 Can you talk about, kind of explain to 15 us in this situation if we were to find 16 affirmatively for the Petitioner, given the 17 sizes that he recommended, said that he 18 could build on those split lots, but it 19 sounds like they could do it, but all of a 20 sudden if the guy who buys them or the woman 21 who buys them would like to then come back 22 before us, how does that fall as far as the 23 sub is created? Would we as a Board be able 24 to go back and say you knew this coming in?
96 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, you can always 2 say that. 3 MS. OZGA: You as a Board would be 4 granting a variance only for the lot area. 5 That would not guarantee any variances for 6 anything else. So, if they needed setback 7 variances or something like that they would 8 have to come back knowing that they needed 9 those variances. 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: How 11 dependable would it be if we were then to 12 say, well, it was self created as our 13 finding for a possible denial down the road? 14 MS. OZGA: One of the factors is 15 whether it is self created, and that would 16 be one factor that you could look at and say 17 that something was self created down the 18 line knowing all this happened. But there 19 are three other factors as well to look at 20 which we will be addressing that later on. 21 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay, 22 thank you. I just wanted to -- 23 MS. OZGA: If that answers -- 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes, it
97 1 does help. I just didn't want to allow this 2 and then by virtue of that allow someone to 3 come back at us and say now I want all these 4 setback variances. I was just making sure 5 that we have the ability to have them come 6 before us and present their case. 7 MS. OZGA: Yeah, before you is this 8 one lot area variance, so they would be 9 required to come back and show the practical 10 difficulty standard. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you 12 very much for your advice. 13 Member Bauer? 14 MEMBER BAUER: In our notice it says 15 Applicant is requesting two lot size 16 variances in order to split a single parcel 17 into two new parcels. First of all, we are 18 not lot splitters. That will be done when 19 it goes to the City. We are only making out 20 these eight lots. 21 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. 22 Other Board members? 23 MS. OZGA: Through the Chair, just to 24 clarify. It's the Assessing Department that
98 1 looks at the actual lot split. What you are 2 looking at is simply the variances and those 3 variances would be needed. 4 But the other factors are looked at by 5 the Assessing Department in determining 6 whether a lot split is allowed. 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member 8 Sanghvi? 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 10 I think this is a good idea. 11 (Unintelligible) which are so small to do 12 anything worthwhile, and dividing them and 13 making something worthwhile out of it is a 14 very good idea, and I have no difficulty -- 15 MR. HELWIG: Can I make a comment? I 16 have owned that property for about 33 years 17 now and I own a piece next to the bar there 18 around the corner also. And I have been 19 paying taxes and I thought that if you got 20 two home sites out of it it would be more 21 money for the city. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Apart from that it 23 makes no sense to (unintelligible). 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I think
99 1 on top of that, just having one large as 2 opposed to having two would fit in with the 3 neighborhood, so I think that would be a 4 finding as well if there was to be a Motion. 5 I am in support of what's being 6 requested here per your comments and the one 7 I just made. I think it will fit in nicely 8 if you were to do it this way as opposed to 9 do anything else. 10 Maybe you should consider a job in the 11 finance department here. 12 MR. HELWIG: I'm retired. 13 MR. FOX: If it pleases the Board, I 14 would like to make a clarification. You 15 were just talking about the parcel as eight 16 separate parcels. It is currently combined 17 as one parcel. It is just one parcel at 18 this time. They are asking for the variance 19 so that they may be able to split it into 20 two. Just for clarification. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you 23 very much for that clarification. 24 MEMBER CANUP: I get a feeling that we
100 1 are in agreement with this that this makes 2 sense to do this, to make it a marketable 3 piece of property that is otherwise just 4 going to sit there for a long time without 5 anything happening. 6 So if there is no further discussion I 7 would make a Motion in Case: 07-038 filed by 8 Carl Helwig that we grant the variance as 9 requested due to the non-marketability of 10 the property as it is presently divided or 11 presently -- what would be the right word 12 for that? Plotted. As it is presently 13 plotted. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is 16 a Motion and a second. 17 MS. WORKING: Who seconded it? 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member 19 Sanghvi seconded it. Did you have any 20 questions? I will get to her if you had any 21 questions. Counsel? 22 MS. OZGA: Just for clarification, if 23 you are addressing the practical difficulty 24 standard in saying that this would do
101 1 substantial injustice to the Petitioner as 2 well as the surrounding property owners, 3 would not be detrimental to any of the other 4 property owners, this may be a unique 5 situation, things of that nature. 6 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I think 8 those would be very good amendments. 9 MEMBER CANUP: It could be included in 10 the Motion and we will accept those as a 11 friendly amendment. 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member 13 Sanghvi, do you concur? 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: I accept that. 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any 16 further discussion? 17 Seeing none, Ms. Working, will you 18 please call the roll. 19 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 20 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 21 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 23 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
102 1 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 3 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 4 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 5 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 6 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 7 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 6-0. 8 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The 9 variance has been granted. Best of luck to 10 you. If you can think of any other great 11 financing ideas let us know. 12 MR. HELWIG: Thank you for your time 13 tonight. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 15 you. Maybe he should come work at Ford Motor 16 Company. 17 18 Moving on to Case Number: 07-039 filed 19 by Jeffrey Jones of Automotive Techniques 20 located at 40500 Grand River Avenue, Suite 21 J. The Petitioner is requesting a variance 22 for the requirement for submitting a noise 23 analysis for the mechanical repair shop in a 24 pre-existing industrial building located at
103 1 40500 Grand River Avenue, Suite J. The 2 property is zone I-1 and is located north of 3 Grand River Avenue and west of Haggerty 4 Road. 5 Would you please raise your hand and 6 be sworn in by our Secretary. 7 MEMBER GATT: Are both of you going to 8 speak? Would you please both raise your 9 right hands. Do you swear to tell the truth 10 regarding Case number: 07-039? 11 MR. JONES: I do. 12 MR. STEWART: I do. 13 MEMBER GATT: Thank you. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you 15 will both state your names and addresses and 16 then proceed with your comments. 17 MR. JONES: My name is Jeff Jones 18 of Automotive Techniques. My is shop is now 19 in Farmington Hills. I am trying to move it 20 to Novi. I live in Novi. I don't know what 21 address you want. 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Business 23 address is fine. 24 MR. JONES: 24744 Crestview Court in
104 1 Farmington Hills. 2 MR. STEWART: My name is Jim Stewart, 3 senior sales rep at Division 9 Products in 4 Farmington Hills. My address is 22410 5 Chenlot Drive, Farmington Hills, Michigan. 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Perfect, 7 thank you very much. 8 MR. JONES: We submitted a sound 9 analysis that's not actually done by the 10 certification that's required in the City 11 Ordinance. The sound analysis was 12 underneath with all ambient noises and all 13 the echos I have in the particular place 14 that I am at. My big thing is the sound 15 analysis was done and it was done accurately 16 for the requirements that were done by the 17 City Ordinance. 18 The certification that is required, I 19 got two pages of a list I got from the 20 Planning Committee I think about people that 21 are actually certified in this State. I 22 think like 16. I just got the list and 23 called everyone and everyone is either 24 messages or wrong numbers or busy or they
105 1 are on the third coast, Grand Rapids area. 2 The only people I can get ahold of wanting 3 to do an open-end study to superimpose one 4 from the next which is way over the 5 requirement of what the City needed to do. 6 They wanted to do 27 other studies on 7 something. 8 I run a really small shop and I don't 9 like noise as much as anybody else. This is 10 kind of where I stand on that. 11 MR. STEWART: The City Ordinance 12 states that the sound engineer had an INCE 13 rating. I have been in the acoustical 14 business for eight years. I have worked on 15 equipment everything from noisy pipes in 16 residences up to multi ton part separators. 17 I have dozens and dozens of contacts from 18 David Clark, a senior designer over at 19 Alpines North American Research and Design 20 Facility to Mark Samoney (ph) who owns a 21 multi-million dollar acoustical company in 22 Saginaw, Michigan. John Mallot who holds a 23 Ph.D. in electrical engineering who design 24 speakers at Ann Arbor Audio in Brighton.
106 1 None of these people have an INCE 2 certification. I actually was unable to 3 find anyone in my business contacts with an 4 INCE certification. 5 The testing that Jeff described is a 6 27-hour test billable by the hour at 7 multiple hundreds of dollars per hour for 8 what is basically a person standing behind a 9 tripod with a sound meter and a pad of 10 paper. This is not a complicated test. I 11 have performed said tests meeting all the 12 specifications laid out in your City 13 Ordinance. 14 And Jeff meets those decibel 15 requirements at his current location. I 16 understand that this test is designed for 17 people living and doing business in the City 18 of Novi to protect the people that live in 19 the city of Novi and people that do business 20 in the City of Novi from undue noise. 21 I don't believe that Jeff would 22 at his new location go over the allowable 23 decibel limits of the City of Novi. I also 24 believe he has gone above and beyond with
107 1 the exception of spending a very large sum 2 of money for what is ultimately a very small 3 amount of work. 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 5 comments? Stay there for any questions. 6 Is there anyone in the audience that 7 wishes to make a comment on this case? 8 Seeing none, I will close the Public 9 Hearing section of the meeting and ask the 10 Secretary to read any correspondence for the 11 Board. 12 MEMBER GATT: 32 notices were mailed. 13 Zero approvals. Zero objections. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 15 you, Mr. Secretary. 16 Building Department, any comments? 17 MR. AMOLSCH: I would just be happy to 18 answer any questions you have about the 19 Ordinance requirements. Besides that I have 20 no comments. 21 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Board 22 members? Member Krieger? 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: I had a question. For 24 a Division 9 Custom Architectural Products,
108 1 was James Stewart the person that -- does he 2 have a certified noise engineer? 3 MR. STEWART: No, I am not a certified 4 noise engineer. 5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Were you involved in 6 72 dbas? 7 MR. STEWART: Um-hum. 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: And the City as I 9 understand it is 75? 10 MR. SPENCER: Correct. The daytime 11 maximum is 75 decibels. 12 MR. STEWART: If I may. There is 13 actually no such thing as a certified 14 acoustical technician. There is an INCE 15 certification. There are actually multiple 16 certifications. But as an acoustical 17 technician it's not like a doctor or a 18 lawyer or a dentist. You either get a 19 degree in electrical engineering, mechanical 20 engineering. And then you go out and do the 21 work. There is no such thing as a certified 22 acoustician per se, you can't go to school 23 for it, I guess is what I am trying to say. 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. In regards to
109 1 the paperwork that we received from the 2 Planning Commission then I would not have 3 really difficulty in granting variance as 4 long as -- I know that I have called the 5 police department because of a noise being 6 too loud and they would listen and determine 7 if it's too loud. So that if there was such 8 a case that somebody was complaining that it 9 was too loud that they would be brought back 10 to us in regards to that. And that's what I 11 recommend. 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Other 13 Board members? 14 Member Canup? 15 MEMBER CANUP: Seventy-two decibels is 16 really not loud. 17 MR. STEWART: We're hearing it right 18 now. 19 MEMBER CANUP: I am in a business 20 where I have to deal with this frequently 21 and you can stand next to an expressway and 22 the decibels might be 75 or 80 standing by 23 the expressway or more. So, if you do it by 24 our Ordinance are expressways are too noisy.
110 1 But anyway, I don't think that there is 2 going to be a problem with noise coming out 3 of this facility and I see no reason not to 4 grant a variance as requested in this 5 particular case with the practical hardship. 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member 7 Sanghvi? 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 9 I just have a question for you. How 10 many employees do you have. 11 MR. JONES: Three. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Three? 13 MR. JONES: That's correct. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: And all of you have 15 had a hearing test done before you started 16 over there? 17 MR. JONES: Yes. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: This is a very 19 pertinent question because you open up 20 yourself to workman's comp liability because 21 of the noise in your building. 22 MR. JONES: I understand. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: And we also have a 24 similar situation here. Before we talk
111 1 about granting you a variance, what kind of 2 precautions are you taking as an employer to 3 safeguard the hearing of your employees? 4 MR. JONES: Any equipment that does 5 make noise is actually acoustically sealed. 6 Division 9 did that for me. All my air 7 compressors are all in fiberglass sound 8 deadening areas. 9 I have been in this business for 10 a very long time and been in places that are 11 very loud that should have had a problem and 12 I don't like the noise more than anybody 13 else. All of my stuff is contained. My air 14 compressors are soundproofed. You can 15 barely hear it. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: For the 18 record I believe you were here last month; 19 is that correct? You like us that much? 20 MR. JONES: Yes. 21 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It's 22 really entertaining, isn't it? 23 Can you tell us again just a 24 quick summary of what you do within your
112 1 business again? 2 MR. JONES: I work on high-end cars, 3 high-end luxury European cars. I have an 4 average car count of six cars. I don't do a 5 lot of high volume of anything. 6 Also, I don't do -- 7 MR. STEWART: Speed shop work; is that 8 where you are going? 9 MR. JONES: Yeah, I am not into speed 10 shop work or things like that, anything 11 loud. I don't run dynamometers. I just do 12 basic repair. I do don't any paint work, no 13 body work, no branding noises. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Three 15 employees, six cars. 16 MR. JONES: A week. It's not a big 17 volume. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I am 19 having a little trouble tying the whole case 20 together here. The Ordinance says submit a 21 noise analysis and it should be completed by 22 a certified sound engineer competent to 23 evaluate noise emissions which agrees with 24 the letter that we received from the
113 1 Petitioner. 2 Then you were informed by the 3 City that it has to be an INCE board 4 certified. Is that the determination that 5 someone made of what the Ordinance means? 6 MR. SPENCER: The Planning Department 7 has had a longstanding policy of that being 8 the only certified agency that they are 9 aware of that certifies people. And it's an 10 organization and the certification is, you 11 know, through the organization. It's not a 12 degree program, per se. 13 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So that's 14 how this is determined? Okay. I just 15 wanted to see how we jumped to that. 16 Have you ever had any other issues 17 where there was difficulty finding or cost 18 prohibitive to get this? 19 MR. SPENCER: Well, cost prohibitive 20 is the relationship of the percentage of the 21 value of the business, I guess. Whether a 22 small business would have to pay the same 23 amount as a big business to get the analysis 24 may be true. They may have to do that. The
114 1 list that we provided the Applicant is quite 2 dated. It dates from 2001. 3 We typically don't maintain a 4 list of any vendors for any of the services 5 required. If you came in and asked for a 6 list of architects, we don't have a list of 7 architects available. 8 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do you 9 have a list of home inspectors? 10 MR. SPENCER: Only if they are 11 registered to do business in Novi. 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All 13 right. That kind of sums up my questions. 14 Member Gatt? 15 MEMBER GATT: I agree with what 16 everyone else has been saying. I don't 17 think that 72 decibels is loud enough to 18 make the kind of concern for the area and 19 the people living in that area. 20 And going forward I would like to 21 propose a Motion. 22 My Motion is to grant the request 23 that the Applicant has submitted in Case 24 number: 07-039 due to the fact that the
115 1 Petitioner has established a practical 2 difficulty. They have established that 3 compliance with the strict letter of the 4 restrictions of the Ordinance would 5 unreasonably prevent the use of the 6 property. 7 They have established that the 8 Petitioner has established that the proposed 9 use will not be a detriment to the public 10 safety and welfare of the community due to 11 the fact that they have done their own sound 12 evaluation and the noises have not exceeded 13 the emission standards. 14 The Petitioner has established that 15 the proposed use will not unreasonably 16 impair or diminish the established property 17 value surrounding the area. And the 18 Petitioner has established that the grant of 19 the variance will not impair the intent or 20 purpose of the Ordinance. 21 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is 23 a Motion and a second. 24 Any further comments by the Board
116 1 or Departments? 2 MEMBER BAUER: Sharon is looking at 3 something. 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I know. 5 I am giving her some time in case she wants 6 to come up with something. 7 MS. OZGA: I'm sorry, I am looking at 8 the next. 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Reading 10 the paper. 11 With no further comments, Ms. Working, 12 will you please call the roll. 13 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 14 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 15 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 16 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 17 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 19 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 20 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 21 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 23 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
117 1 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 6-0. 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Your 3 variance has been granted. 4 MR. JONES: Thank you. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Best of 6 luck to you. 7 MR. STEWART: I will be INCE certified 8 in about three months. 9 MEMBER BAUER: We will remember you. 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I still 11 think this is the guy that kind of laughed 12 at my Fusion when I wanted to bring it in 13 for some -- 14 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 15 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this 17 time let's go ahead and call Case number: 18 07-040 filed by Bill Stanton of Toll 19 Brothers, for Island Lakes located at 25622 20 Napier Road. The Petitioner is requesting 21 multiple sign variances for nine oversized 22 real estate signs and twelve directional 23 signs for the Island Lake Community 24 Development. The property is zoned RA and
118 1 located south of Grand River and north of 2 Ten Mile and east of Napier west of Wixom 3 Road. A large development there. 4 Mr. Secretary, would you please swear 5 in the Petitioner. 6 MEMBER GATT: Do you swear to tell the 7 truth regarding Case number: 07-040? 8 MR. EDDIE (ph): I do. 9 MEMBER GATT: Thank you. 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: You will 11 state your name and address proceed with 12 your case. 13 MR. EDDIE: My name is Steve Eddie. I 14 am I representing Toll Brothers at 25622 15 Napier Road in Novi. 16 Island Lake is a large site. We 17 have multiple entrances there. It's hard 18 to -- most entrances of a homeowner or 19 prospect drives in there it looks like the 20 project could be done there. So that we 21 would like signs giving phone numbers they 22 could call to help them find the models. 23 The directional signs are also if 24 they turn into the wrong -- I don't want to
119 1 say the wrong entrance, but if they turn 2 into an entrance that is not near our model, 3 we have directional signs to try to guide 4 them through the site and help them find the 5 model so we can talk to them. 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All set? 7 MR. EDDIE: Yes. 8 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there 9 anyone in the audience that wishes to make a 10 comment on this case? 11 Seeing none, I will close the Public 12 Hearing section and ask the Petitioner for 13 any correspondence -- I'm sorry, ask the 14 Secretary for any correspondence. 15 MEMBER GATT: There were 556 16 notices mailed. One approval. Eleven 17 objections. 18 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I 19 had an audience member submit one more input 20 and couldn't stay for the hearing. If you 21 would be willing to accept it this evening? 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: 23 Absolutely. 24 MEMBER GATT: Okay. They are as
120 1 follows: This is from Arbin Cobodian (ph) 2 on Reed Point Drive in the South Arbor 3 Villas. This is an approval. His comments 4 are: As a 3-year resident of Island Lakes 5 in Novi, I would like to add my support for 6 the Toll Brothers' request for a sign 7 variance for several reasons, including one, 8 signage is an important factor to help sell 9 new homes and the sooner Toll completes the 10 development, the sooner our subdivision is 11 free of construction. 12 And, two, the success of Toll will 13 help maintain the value of our homes. 14 This is from Dan Martin on 15 Samerick Court. 16 Comments are: Signs are big enough. This 17 is -- that was an objection. 18 This is from George Dedloff (ph) on 19 Island Lake. This is an objection. The 20 comments are: No real state signs. This 21 thing should be placed through the real 22 state company. 23 This is from Elaine Depp (ph) on 24 Timber Trail. This is an objection with no
121 1 comments. 2 Ray Beadmey(ph) on Reed Pointe. It's 3 an objection. Comments are: Toll Brothers 4 should follow the same rules as the rest of 5 us. Also Wixom Road, Drake Bay Drive 6 location is part of the South Arbor 7 Association which does not allow for any for 8 sale signs. 9 This is from John Spryes (ph) and 10 Catherine Spryes on Fieldstone. It's an 11 objection. The comments are: Thirty-one 12 oversized real state signs. The area will 13 look like the day before an election. Why 14 can't Toll Brothers follow their own rules 15 and plans? The master association has ruled 16 on signs and their duration. Why should 17 Toll Brothers be an exception? I hope the 18 Zoning Board denies their request. 19 This is from Edward Pye on Napier. 20 It's an objection. Comment: Eye sore. 21 This is from Richard and Karen Amerose 22 (ph) on Island Lakes Drive. It's an 23 objection with the following comments: With 24 the exception of a few unsold lots in the
122 1 subdivision on Wixom Road between Island 2 Lakes Drive and Timber Trail where Toll has 3 placed large signs on each lot, the east 4 side of Island Lakes of Novi community has 5 been completely built out. Other than those 6 signs there isn't any observable need for 7 additional signage on the east side of the 8 lake. Any signage let alone larger signage 9 along the streets will only detract from the 10 ambiance of the community and the beauty of 11 the natural setting which was the prime 12 reason we moved in the community. 13 Therefore, we consider it 14 objectionable to not only consider 15 increasing the size of the signs but also to 16 continue with the current signage on the 17 street on the east side of the lake. The 18 variances number 4, number 17, number 20 and 19 number 21 should be denied. 20 This is from Judith Eberhart on Timber 21 Trail. It's an objection with the following 22 comments: Size of signs per Ordinance is 23 large enough. 24 This is from Kurt Hess on Reed Point
123 1 Drive. It's an objection with the following 2 comments: I object to the request for 3 signage variance. The Zoning rules were 4 established for a good reason. There should 5 not be any reason to change those rules for 6 a specific builder. 7 This is from Jane Hess on Fieldstone 8 Drive. It's an objection with the following 9 comments: Oversized signs are obtrusive. 10 The Zoning Board should stick with its 11 original rule. 12 This is from John and Carol 13 Sponakowski (ph) on Island Lake. It's an 14 objection with the following comments: 15 Homeowners are limited to size of real 16 estate for sale signs. Toll Brothers should 17 not be granted a variance for real state for 18 sale as it would junk up the subdivision. 19 If you approve this can I expect a variance 20 if I decide to sell? 21 This is from Robert and Rosemary 22 Silver on Island Lake Drive. It's an 23 approval with the following comments: This 24 beautiful community has our approval to
124 1 continue to grow with the designed signage 2 they request. All their signs are in good 3 taste to this day. Let them continue to 4 help Novi grow. 5 Those are all. 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That's 7 all? 8 MEMBER GATT: That's all. 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All 10 right. At this time -- thank you, Mr. 11 Secretary. 12 I would ask the Building Department, 13 any comments? 14 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir. 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All 16 right, then I will open it up for Board 17 discussion. 18 Member Krieger? 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: You go first. 20 MEMBER CANUP: Go ahead, ladies first. 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Most of these signs 22 to me are internal, so as our previous 23 discretion meant that -- well, each case we 24 would see uniquely, that as the areas where
125 1 the homes are built that the signs were 2 taken down as those areas were built and 3 then the same with the directional signs, 4 follow this way for models. My only other 5 question would be if the boat house is a 6 sign, but it also tells you about the boat 7 house. So, do you have that to stay there 8 permanently? 9 MR. EDDIE: I believe it was planned to 10 stay there permanently. If the Board would 11 like that one out, that's not a problem, 12 but, yeah, I believe that was planned to 13 stay there permanently for the residents 14 too. 15 MEMBER KRIEGER: That's it. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Other 17 Board members? Member Canup, I believe you 18 were. 19 MEMBER CANUP: This has got to be some 20 kind of a record I don't think I have ever 21 seen a sign case or any case with this many 22 variances requested. I guess one thing 23 that's on my mind is what percentage are you 24 built out or sold out?
126 1 MR. EDDIE: We have 764 homes going in 2 there. We have about 600 in that area sold 3 right now. 4 MEMBER CANUP: Somewhere in the area 5 of 75 percent were sold? 6 MR. EDDIE: Yes. 7 MEMBER CANUP: How did you sell all 8 those without these signs? 9 MR. EDDIE: Well, we had variances in 10 the past for the signs for some of them. 11 Some of them have been added, the 12 directional signs mainly have been added to 13 guide people through the site. Most of the 14 signs at the entrances have had variances in 15 the past for those. 16 MEMBER CANUP: Well, one thing the 17 signs are very tasteful. They are very 18 aesthetically pleasing signs, and I think 19 you have done a very good job. 20 I am concerned about the numbers of 21 the signs and possibly if the signs were 22 within the interior of the project I 23 probably wouldn't have a problem with it. 24 Something on the exterior roads I would
127 1 probably not want to pollute the rest of the 2 community with signage of this type. 3 Again, it's very tasteful, it's just 4 that it's kind of overwhelming the numbers 5 that you have asked for here. 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Other 7 Board members? 8 Member Sanghvi? 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 10 This is a beautiful development but the 11 whole place, the way you are requesting all 12 these real estate signs we are going to 13 cluttered and peppered with too many signs 14 which are too big. I don't know why you 15 can't live within the Ordinance and do 16 whatever is needed according to the 17 Ordinance. Thank you. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member 19 Bauer? 20 MEMBER BAUER: When they first came in 21 on the signs, I believe they had a set of 22 maybe a 100, they maybe had 200, we cut them 23 down quite a bit. I think they could be cut 24 down quite a bit more. It is one thing when
128 1 you get in some of these areas, these 2 directional signs really lets you get out. 3 So, I can only say leave the directional 4 signs alone. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 6 you, Member Bauer. 7 Any other comments. Member Gatt? 8 MEMBER GATT: Well, the thing that I 9 noticed when first saw this before I went 10 and saw it I said, oh, my goodness, this has 11 got to be a record. 12 In getting there, this is a big place. I got 13 confused with signs. I can understand, 14 actually I can understand more now that they 15 are almost sold out, they are reaching their 16 end goal, why they need this more than I 17 would if it was a bunch of empty lots 18 because it got confusing. 19 I think that there is some way to 20 compromise the request and the clutter and 21 everything, we can come up with some kind of 22 mixture here where it's going to be most 23 beneficial for all parties involved 24 including the residents in the area that
129 1 would have to be dealing with these signs. 2 But also keeping in mind that selling all of 3 their homes in that neighborhood would 4 increase property values and things like 5 that and bring money to the city of Novi 6 with taxes and so on and so forth, so I 7 think there has got to be some kind of 8 middle ground that we can come to to figure 9 that everyone would be able to safely drive 10 around the neighborhood without running into 11 somebody's house looking for a model home 12 and seeing the homes that are available and 13 also get everything to the point where it's 14 not obtrusive to any of the residents. I 15 don't know exactly how we are going to do 16 that, but I think there is something we can 17 do to kind of meet the middle on that 18 situation. Thank you. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I think 20 if someone hits someone's house looking for 21 a model, we will have bigger problems than 22 signs. 23 Member Canup? 24 MEMBER CANUP: You know, I can see
130 1 there is a lot of discussion about this and 2 there is a lot of unknown if we want to say 3 that. I know we have had this in our packet 4 for a week and with all respects to you 5 people being here and being very patient, my 6 suggestion would be that we table this case 7 until our next meeting and put these people 8 at the front of the agenda at the next 9 meeting and every one of us go out and look 10 at every one of these one by one and grade 11 them as to what you think they should be. 12 I think if I were to vote on this 13 right now, if you got to have a decision 14 today my decision would be no. And I don't 15 think that's the total right decision. So, 16 anyway, that's my suggestion. If the 17 Petitioners are open to it and if the Board 18 is open to it, fine, if not, we will vote on 19 it. 20 But it is overwhelming to see this 21 many signs. A lot of times you go out and 22 look at it and say maybe they do need those 23 signs or maybe they don't need them. I think 24 we could make a lot better informed
131 1 decisions if we all physically went and took 2 a look at them. 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would 4 agree with that as well. But I would also 5 look for some additional input from the 6 Petitioner. They have got to have some type 7 of ranking of which signs they would require 8 too. 9 So, I would actually send them 10 back as well to submit more information as 11 to do they truly believe they need every one 12 because as you have stated, my comment 13 tonight would be absolutely not. They would 14 have to have some type of prioritization and 15 go forward from there. And like you said, 16 get a better overall idea of the site plan 17 as well. 18 Any comments? 19 MR. EDDIE: We can make a list of 20 which ones we really want and which ones 21 aren't as important to us. 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Other 23 Board members? 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: I have been there. I
132 1 have driven around there, so I know, and 2 believe me, there are too many and too 3 obtrusive. 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Exactly 5 and I think we all agree. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: I don't think it's a 7 surprise. To go out there a second time is 8 not going to make any difference. 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I 10 agree. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Unless they come up 12 with something different. 13 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I agree. 14 And what I am saying is to that point, that 15 we have been out there. I would like to see 16 a prioritization from them and see if we as 17 a Board concur with their prioritization and 18 say here is the line of the same, here is 19 the ones that you should have, we agree with 20 these signs because this is way too much at 21 this time. That is my recommendation. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 23 MEMBER CANUP: Would it be right to 24 make a Motion to table the case until the
133 1 next meeting based on the comments? 2 MS. WORKING: I'm sorry? 3 MEMBER CANUP: I will make a Motion 4 that we table the case until our next 5 regular scheduled meeting, give the 6 Petitioner a chance to go back and review 7 their request and give the Board members an 8 opportunity to maybe go through and figure 9 out what they would like and don't like. 10 MS. KRIEGER: Second. 11 MEMBER CANUP: Figure out what they 12 like and don't like. 13 MR. EDDIE: Okay, prioritize. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: The Motion and 15 seconded. 16 Any further comments? Seeing none, go ahead 17 and call the roll. 18 MS. WORKING: I do have one request. 19 If we are going to change the location or 20 the number of the signs requested, and I 21 know it won't be greater, I need to confer 22 with our Attorney's office, it might be 23 necessary to renotice this case in which 24 case your deadline to me, your deadline is
134 1 Monday. 2 MEMBER CANUP: Excuse me, that's not 3 the case. 4 All we're doing is looking at 5 what's here. We're not looking at moving 6 any signs or adding any signs, we are just 7 looking at what the Petitioner has asked 8 for. 9 MS. WORKING: You didn't give the 10 Petitioner the option to remove some of 11 those signs to come back to you for an 12 alternate? 13 MEMBER CANUP: We have. We have given 14 him the opportunity, he is going to 15 prioritize the signage that he would like. 16 MS. WORKING: Right, so he might have 17 to renotice that -- 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If we 19 remove it it's a lesser request so we -- 20 MS. WORKING: If he moves the 21 locations of the sign -- 22 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We're not 23 giving him the opportunity to -- 24 MS. WORKING: Okay, thank you.
135 1 MEMBER BAUER: One additional thing. 2 Will we get a listing of where he would like 3 the signs? I mean he is going to make a 4 list, he said. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Of these 6 signs which are the most important. That's 7 what I am looking for. 8 MR. EDDIE: Would you like a 9 prioritized list before the next meeting or 10 at the next meeting? 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: No, it 12 would be before. 13 MEMBER CANUP: We have a Motion on the 14 floor and I think the discussion on the 15 Motion should be -- and my comment would be 16 for you to go back, if this the Board 17 approves, go back, prioritize your sign, see 18 to it that they get to us as Board members 19 within one week from today. That gives us 20 plenty of time to go through and look at 21 what you prioritized and look at the other 22 signs maybe that you haven't and act on them 23 in a way that would be beneficial to 24 everyone.
136 1 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The issue 2 we got there what we need to check is to 3 make sure that it doesn't have -- whether or 4 not it has to be in before the deadline in a 5 packet would have to be. 6 MEMBER CANUP: Well, we're not asking 7 for any changes. We are just asking him to 8 prioritize the signs on this list that he 9 would like to see as priority signs. We are 10 not adding anything or taking anything away 11 at this time. We are just asking you to 12 prioritize. 13 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Give us 14 additional information. 15 MEMBER CANUP: We're not moving any 16 either. Same locations, same sign, just you 17 want this one worse than the other one type 18 of thing. 19 MS. OZGA: Through the Chair. From 20 what I am hearing the Board would like to 21 give the Petitioner the opportunity to kind 22 of rank and see based on your comments that 23 you are not finding a practical difficulty 24 for all of these variances, he can go back
137 1 and kind of decipher which ones are most 2 important and may, in fact, decrease the 3 number of variances, but will not be 4 increasing or changing. If any of the 5 locations were changed there is a question 6 of whether it has to be renoticed. But if 7 they are only being decreased or removed 8 then it would not have to be. 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That's 10 all we're doing. 11 MEMBER CANUP: That's what we said. 12 MS. WORKING: Who second the Motion? 13 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: My other 14 question, are we going for the week to get 15 this information to us? Is that okay? I 16 don't have a problem with a week as long as 17 we're okay. 18 MEMBER CANUP: It's not an official 19 information -- 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It's not 21 official documents. 22 MEMBER CANUP: That's right. It's a 23 record. It's what they find as they 24 prioritize their signs.
138 1 (Interposing) (Unintelligible). 2 MEMBER CANUP: And if you don't give 3 us that we will just make our own decisions, 4 just put it that way. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Let's go 6 ahead and call the roll. 7 MEMBER CANUP: Yeah, the reason why I 8 said a week is that way it gives us plenty 9 of time to go through and look at them 10 before our next meeting. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is that 12 okay, Ms. Working? 13 MS. WORKING: Yes. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Good. 15 Everybody is happy. 16 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 17 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 18 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 20 MS. WORKING Member Fischer? 21 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye? 22 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 23 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 24 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
139 1 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 2 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 4 MS. WORKING: Motion to table passes. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We will 6 see you in -- Yes, sir? 7 MR. EDDIE: Mr. Chair, is that to Ms. 8 Working within a week? 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes. 10 MR. EDDIE: Thank you. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That 12 should be fine. She knows where to find us, 13 hunt us down and yell at us. She does that 14 quite well. 15 16 At this time I would like to call 17 Case number: 07-041 filed by Charles Sexton 18 of Grace Immanuel Bible Church for 21900 and 19 21950 Meadowbrook Road. Petitioner is 20 requesting four variances for the permitted 21 uses subject to special conditions in an R 22 District located at stated address. 23 The Applicant is requesting a variance 24 from the requirement that a church be on a
140 1 site that is at least three acres in size, a 2 variance from the minimum building setback 3 of 75 feet, a variance from the minimum 4 parking lot setback of 35 feet adjacent to a 5 residential property and a variance from the 6 requirement that there be no parking in the 7 front yard. 8 The property is currently zoned R-3 9 and located east of Meadowbrook north of 10 Eight Mile Road. 11 Are you the Petitioners? If you 12 would go ahead and raise your hand. Will 13 both of you be speaking? Raise your hand and 14 be sworn in by our Secretary. 15 MEMBER GATT: Are you an attorney? 16 MR. SEXTON: No, I'm a pastor. 17 MEMBER GATT: Do you swear to tell the 18 truth regarding case: 07-041? 19 MR. SEXTON: I do. 20 MEMBER GATT: Thank you. 21 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Go ahead 22 and state your name and address and proceed 23 with your case. 24 MR. SEXTON: Charles Sexton, 14204
141 1 Arden in Livonia. 2 We are a church seeking to relocate 3 from Detroit to this location. We have been 4 a church for 60 years. Our parishioners are 5 very much looking forward to doing this. 6 The sale of property is contingent upon our 7 getting the variances. And we look forward 8 to being a good part of the community. 9 Any questions and so forth I would be 10 glad to answer. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there 12 anyone in the audience that wishes to make a 13 comment on this case? You want to go ahead 14 and come down? If there is anyone else that 15 wishes to, please go ahead and start filing 16 down the side. 17 If you raise your hand and be sworn in 18 by our Secretary and state your address and 19 proceed with your comments. 20 MEMBER GATT: Do you swear to tell the 21 truth regarding Case: 07-041? 22 MR. KERBELSKY (ph): I do. 23 MEMBER GATT: Thank you. 24 MR. KERBELSKY: My name is Gary
142 1 Kerbelsky. I live at 21701 Seagull Drive, 2 that's Novi, Michigan. My property is 3 directly east of said property. 4 If any of you were around back in the 5 '80s with this piece of property, it was a 6 sour note to begin with. And there was a 7 lot of discussion on it, but that's history. 8 At that time it was required that the church 9 that was existing, that came in at that 10 time, it was required that there be no less 11 than three acres for that church to be 12 there. At that time it was said that there 13 was 2.85 acres. 14 Now I see that we are down -- 15 they were granted a variance. Now, I see 16 we're down to 2.45 acres. And they're 17 requesting a variance of .55 acres. Well, 18 if you tend to look at this, and this is a 19 tight piece of property surrounded by 20 residential homes. And if we look at those 21 numbers, we are looking at about one-fifth 22 to 22 percent that they are looking for in 23 that variance on there. 24 We have no problem, I or my wife, to
143 1 the church, that is not the point. It's 2 just that we feel that these Ordinances that 3 the City has set up should be attuned to, 4 especially in this piece of property. 5 Because it's just so tight in its 6 surroundings. 7 Also, the setback for 75 feet, 8 now here, they are only asking for one foot 9 to the variance, but I don't know if you 10 take each case individually, but if we allow 11 a variance to the 75-foot and they add on to 12 this church. And I don't know how much thy 13 can add on by size of property, we are 14 looking at something here, again, let's 15 protect everybody's interest in this and 16 let's not start looking for variances that 17 encroach upon these residential properties. 18 I am the original owner, that original 19 property was owned by a Novi police officer 20 and then that property was sold. I have 21 lived through all the nightmares that 22 existed on that property and we won't go 23 into that right now, but if you would like 24 to ask those questions I am free to answer
144 1 them. 2 In regards to the variance and you say 3 south property line only, but I am directly 4 east behind that berm and we are looking for 5 a 15-foot variance when we should normally 6 have a 35-foot variance based on the way the 7 property abuts a residential lot. Well, if 8 we look at that, we are looking at 42 9 percent variance. 10 Now, if the church gets larger 11 and they decide to put a parking back there 12 I am looking at 15 feet from my property 13 line, not 35 feet. I am looking now at 15 14 feet. And I just don't feel that 42 15 percent, it's just too large. If any of you 16 have looked at that piece of property, you 17 see how tight knit that it is. 18 Again, I have no problem with the 19 church. I think they are wonderful people. I 20 think they are in the best interest, but I 21 also feel these Ordinances that the City has 22 put together should be enforced, especially 23 when we are talking about a piece of 24 property that is this tight.
145 1 Also, I have a question, if you 2 can answer it, maybe it's a little out. We 3 were also told that, okay, here is the 4 variances, you people are either going to 5 pass it or not pass it. But I haven't seen 6 a landscape design yet. And according to 7 the last Planning Commission, they were 8 asking for certain requirements, and one of 9 those requirements, the Grace Immanuel 10 Church was to provide additional plannings 11 on the east side to meet capacity 12 requirements. 13 I don't see anything as far as a 14 variance to that. Are they looking for a 15 variance on that? Because if we go back to 16 day one when I said this has been a bad 17 piece of parcel, only in the sense of the 18 landscaping that is supposed to be from the 19 former occupants on this never came to be. 20 There were plans that were put in, but 21 nobody ever looked at them afterwards. 22 Many of them have died and many 23 of them never took in the first place. 24 Consequently none of them were replaced at
146 1 that time and things have been just stayed 2 status quo. 3 I know there was a problem with 4 maintenance with the former owners. I cut 5 that property back to that berm for many 6 many years. I am in my 60s now, I can't cut 7 that piece of property anymore. 8 But that has nothing to do with these fine 9 folks. 10 They have assured me that their best 11 interest is they are going to be a good 12 neighbor. The only objections that I have 13 is I think that the variances that they are 14 asking for are a little too much, and if 15 they intend to build and enlarge this 16 church, how this affect said properties that 17 surround it because it's such a tight piece 18 of property. Thank you. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 20 you, sir, for coming forward. 21 And as the next person comes up 22 and make comment, I will want to state that 23 some of the landscaping issues that were 24 brought up can't really be looked at by this
147 1 Board. 2 So just everyone knows, the comments 3 that you make tonight must pertain to the 4 variances that we are looking at because 5 beyond that it's beyond our scope and it's 6 not something that this Board can look at. 7 But thank you very much for bringing it all 8 to us. 9 And if you want to procedure with your 10 comments after being sworn in by our 11 Secretary, I would appreciate it. 12 MEMBER GATT: Do you swear to tell the 13 truth regarding Case: 07-0410? 14 MS. SCHLESKY: Yes, I do. 15 MEMBER GATT: Thank you. 16 MS. SCHLESKY: My name is Linda 17 Schlesky. I live at 41320 Marks Drive in 18 Novi. This is south of the Grace Immanuel 19 Bible Church and our house is the second lot 20 on Marks Drive and we abut the parking lot, 21 we're the second house in. 22 In 1983 several variances were granted 23 that Gary mentioned to allow a church to be 24 built in this same site. One of those
148 1 variances was to allow only a 20-foot 2 setback to the south side to 35 feet in the 3 waiver of a berm. 4 Instead several evergreen trees 5 were planted in a swale. You would think 6 that after 24 years that we would have very 7 effective screening. However, that is not 8 the case and many of the trees are dead and 9 dying. We have lived in our home since 10 1982. And, again, this whole site has been 11 a long-standing problem that we have had to 12 put up with. And part of this is very 13 sensitive and important to us. 14 I have some pictures here to show what 15 I see. This is from our lot. You can see 16 where there isn't really not much screening 17 left. This is from my backyard looking at 18 what's the daycare right now that will 19 become the church. And this is from inside 20 our dining room, and from like our patio. 21 This picture just shows, this is looking at 22 our house from their parking lot. You can 23 see a lot of the dead trees right here, they 24 are dead all the way up. There are a number
149 1 of trees this is the needles. 2 We believe the proper setbacks have 3 been enforced in 1983. If there was a berm 4 that had been constructed with plantings on 5 top we would not have this issue today. 6 It's our understanding that this will be 7 addressed and that proper screening would be 8 provided along for 90 percent summer and 80 9 percent winter capacity. However, we have 10 the following concerns. 11 At this time the plans are to use the 12 same building with minor changes so it make 13 sense to approve the existing variances for 14 similar use. However, Grace Immanuel has 15 indicated a desire to build a congregation, 16 build an 8,000 to 9,000 square foot addition 17 in a couple of years. That would 18 dramatically intensify the use of this 19 property. 20 As mentioned in the minutes of 21 the Planning Commission on May 9, 2007 and I 22 quote, "The future building plans would have 23 to comply with every section of the 24 Ordinance including berming the south
150 1 property line or providing a substitute that 2 would yield the same function." 3 So our question is why wait until 4 then to comply with the Ordinances when it 5 can be done now? And a berm could be 6 installed if you would just eliminate one 7 row of parking on the south side. Also as 8 Gary mentioned, we had a lot of problems 9 with this landscaping and I was wondering 10 after things are in, what recourse do 11 residents have if the plantings are not 12 sufficient? And how long do we have to wait 13 for the screening to fill in? And how can 14 anything grow planted among the roots of 15 these existing evergreens? 16 Our concern is that we will have the 17 same problem in the future that we have 18 today. The plan also calls for the 19 installation of lights on the perimeter of 20 the parking lot and one of those lights is 21 to be located directly behind our home. If 22 any futures plans would require a berm or 23 different screen wouldn't the lights need to 24 be moved as well? And if a plan without a
151 1 berm is approved today and the lights are 2 put in place, then what's the real 3 likelihood down the road that they would be 4 required to moved to accommodate a future 5 berm or other landscape requirements at that 6 time because lighting seems rather 7 permanent. 8 So that's why I feel it's really 9 imperative to carefully consider the 10 long-term use of this property when 11 considering this variance request. The 12 Zoning Ordinances are to protect the privacy 13 of the residents and provide the proper 14 aesthetics when a land use abuts a 15 residential property. 16 Granted variances of these Ordinances 17 years ago did not work. Now is the time to 18 rectify the situation and assure that they 19 are now enforced. 20 The residents and neighbors of this property 21 deserve to have the privacy and property 22 values protected now. 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 24 you.
152 1 MEMBER GATT: Please raise your right 2 hand. Do you swear to tell the truth 3 regarding case: 07-041? 4 MR. SCHLESKY: Yes. 5 MEMBER GATT: Thank you. 6 MR. SCHLESKY: My name is Brian 7 Schlesky, I live at 41320 Marks Drive. 8 Basically I support my wife, we kind of put 9 that together. She is a better speaker than 10 I am. 11 One of the things I wanted to 12 bring up was that here we are again. This is 13 the third use of this property. We have had 14 a church, we had a daycare and now it's 15 going back to a church again. We are going 16 through the same list of variance requests 17 again. 18 And each time it seems that it's 19 a request for a variance, the Ordinances 20 will say, well, it's for this use, this 21 time, but they seem to be getting a sense of 22 permanency. Specifically on one of the 23 variance requests for the three acre parcel, 24 it's really being treated as two separate
153 1 pieces. There is the rental home on the 2 north section and the church on the south 3 section. So really the concentration of 4 this church is on half the property, one and 5 a quarter of it. 6 We had variances and we'll say 7 intentions at best. But we haven't had much 8 follow through to make sure our privacy has 9 been protected. 10 One thing I would like to know 11 specifically which wasn't on the list was, 12 what requirements are there for a borough? 13 And is that a ZBA request that has to be 14 filed? 15 I guess that's it, thank you. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you 17 very much. Anyone else in the audience that 18 wishes to make a comment regarding this 19 case? 20 Seeing none, I will close the Public 21 Hearing section and ask the Secretary to 22 report to the Board any correspondence. 23 MEMBER GATT: Yes. Ms. Working, it 24 says that there were three objections, but I
154 1 have four in my packet. Could that just be 2 a typo? 3 MS. WORKING: Could I have the packet? 4 That is correct. One must have not been in 5 the file and got replaced in the file. I 6 can see that it's not -- 7 MEMBER GATT: It was loose in the 8 file, yes. 9 MS. WORKING: Exactly. So when 10 we were counting today it obviously wasn't 11 included. 12 MEMBER GATT: There were 51 notices 13 mailed. Zero approvals. Four objections. 14 The objections are as follows: This 15 one is Debra Yale on Singh Road. Comments 16 or as follows: Number one, too small for 17 use and parking. Number two, parking in 18 front will detract from appearance and 19 affect negative property values in the area. 20 It will look terrible. I also disagree with 21 use of land as church as earlier noted. 22 Case number two is from Mary Finetrust 23 on Romanza (ph) Road. I'm sorry, it is 24 regarding Todd Lane address in Novi. The
155 1 comments, this is an objection, the comments 2 are as follows: This project is too big for 3 the parcel of land that it is proposed to be 4 built on. None of these variances should be 5 approved. I object to this project being 6 built in this location in any manner or 7 form. The Ordinances are in place for a 8 reason. This is an excellent time to 9 enforce the Ordinances as written. 10 The following is from E. Granholm on Marks 11 Drive. It is an objection. The comments are 12 as follows: We already have two churches on 13 Meadowbrook between Eight Mile and Nine 14 Mile. That's enough. 15 This is from Diane and Gary Grelewsky 16 (ph). The comments are as follows: Number 17 one, require lot area variances three acres 18 verus 2.45 acres. This is an objection. 19 Novi Ordinance Article 4 Section 402A 20 states: Church shall be subject to minimum 21 site size of 3 acres. If the minimum lot 22 area is 3 acres, anything less is 23 unacceptable. The variance request is more 24 than one-sixteenth of the total area and
156 1 more than one-half acre in variance. This 2 is too large of a variance. 3 Number two, proposed parking lot 4 setback south property line only. This is an 5 objection. Novi Code Ordinance Article 4 6 section 402 E states there should be no 7 parking closer to 35 feet where parking 8 abuts to a residential lot which proposed 9 request is for a 20-foot setback 10 substantially less than the 35-foot. 11 Homeowners do not want a parking lot 20 feet 12 from their property. 13 The City set a minimum requirement of 14 35 feet, you should enforce this Code. The 15 variance request will create a setback equal 16 to half of the City's minimum setback 17 requirement. What is the point of having a 18 minimum setback code if the City does not 19 adhere to it? This is too large of a 20 variance. 21 In summary, it's stated it is our 22 opinion the City allowed over ambitious in 23 its variances in 1983 with the previous 24 church. Homeowners do not wish this
157 1 precedent to continue. Too many variances 2 are infringing on residential property 3 lines. This property is too small for the 4 current plans. 5 We are not opposed to building a 6 church, however, we are requesting to the 7 scale the church to fall within the City's 8 minimum requirements without numerous 9 setback variances. 10 These are all the written objections. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 12 you, Mr. Secretary. 13 Move to the Building Department for 14 any comments? 15 MR. SPENCER: The Planning 16 Department will comment a little bit on 17 this. You did get copies of our reviews 18 that were sent to the Planning Commission 19 originally and you probably should have in 20 there also the action that they took in 21 regard to the landscape issues they are not 22 on your agenda tonight. 23 But the Planning Commission just for 24 your information did include in their
158 1 conditions of approval which they felt was 2 substantial increases in the amount of 3 landscaping to adequately screen the parking 4 lot facilities from the neighboring 5 properties. If that is of any informational 6 benefit. 7 There was an issue raised on the size 8 of the property. The original property 9 description that was used for the first 10 variance included right-of-way calculations 11 so that was a discrepancy in the area of 12 calculations. 13 Overall, staff has supported this 14 use of the property and these variances as 15 did the Planning Commission in granting 16 their approval subject to getting the 17 variances since this was an existing site 18 previously approved for this use. And most 19 of all, these setbacks are consistent with 20 what other non-residential uses would be 21 permitted on this parcel. 22 So, this keeps it in the spirit of the 23 Ordinance with other uses. 24 As mentioned to the Applicant,
159 1 the Planning staff related to the Applicant 2 that any new construction that we would feel 3 that that would entail on the site would 4 probably be a total remodel of the site and 5 we would be looking at asking the Applicant 6 to comply with all of our current Ordinance 7 standards at the time any new construction 8 took place. 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 10 comments? Do you have a question for, Mr. 11 Spencer? Let me make sure, let's go through 12 the whole Board then we'll have another 13 discussion if you want to ask him questions 14 at that time I think that would be 15 appropriate. 16 Were there any other comments from the 17 Building Department or Counsel? 18 MS. OZGA: Just a few things for the 19 Board to remember. The Planning Commission 20 has already determined that a special land 21 use for the church is appropriate. As the 22 Planner has stated, many of the landscape 23 requirements and things like that went 24 through the Planning Commission, the site
160 1 plan, so that's not something that is before 2 the Board at this time. It's strictly these 3 variances which are pretty minimal 4 variances. 5 At this point any future variances for 6 future development would have to come back 7 to the Board. So it is only these variances 8 that are being requested today. I am open 9 for questions. 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Now, at 11 this time if there are no other comments 12 from the Building Department, I will open it 13 up to the Board. 14 Member Gatt? 15 MEMBER GATT: I'm sorry, Mr. Spencer, 16 can you just state again, you guys have 17 already discussed screening issues with the 18 current property owners? 19 MR. SPENCER: Yes, several of these 20 same property owners were in before the 21 Planning Commission when the Planning 22 Commission held a public hearing on special 23 use permit. As part of the conditions of 24 approval they have been required to provide
161 1 80 percent winter capacity and 90 percent 2 summer capacity along the south property 3 line, which means providing supplemental 4 plantings throughout the existing evergreen 5 trees. 6 Evergreen trees are often used as a 7 landscape screen plant material. 8 Unfortunately as the evergreens mature, the 9 bottom branches start to die out. 10 Eventually in urban conditions all of the 11 bottom branches will either fall off or be 12 trimmed up. Oftentimes we see in many areas 13 that supplemental plantings are added and 14 oftentimes supplemental plantings are added 15 on the opposite property, on the neighboring 16 properties if they desire additional 17 screening. 18 So we see screening supplementing the 19 required screening oftentimes over the 20 years. Remember this site was developed 21 over 20 years ago and there was some 22 problems with the landscaping all long. 23 There was enforcement problems and 24 enforcement issues with the original
162 1 Applicant, so, it has left an unpleasant 2 taste in the neighborhood because of some of 3 those issues and the fact that the 4 landscaping has not been maintained. 5 But, again, those are issues 6 addressed by the Planning Commission. The 7 Planning Commission felt they accurately 8 addressed them. The Applicant is still 9 required to submit a final site plan to show 10 the specific details of how they plan on 11 meeting those requirements. And it will be 12 subject to review by our landscape architect 13 who will insure that those requirements are 14 met. 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this 16 time I would actually request if you could 17 kind of talk to the Board a little bit about 18 the correspondence from Mr. -- who was it 19 from -- Mr. Schultz, about the laws that 20 regulate how we can look at this. As 21 opposed to this isn't a normal case that's 22 my understanding from reviewing this letter? 23 MS. OZGA: Yes, you are correct. 24 State of the law with regard to religious
163 1 land use has changed somewhat in the past 2 few years. There is a law called Ralupa. I 3 think everyone is familiar with that. Under 4 Ralupa the law and the courts are a little 5 more sympathetic with religious land uses. 6 So the burden is somewhat shifted. 7 It can't be found that the 8 church or the religious land use is being 9 substantially burdened. So, essentially 10 this is not the same kind of variance case 11 that you would be looking at because this is 12 a church requesting these variances. If 13 they are found to be substantially burdened, 14 the courts look at that and the courts are a 15 little more sympathetic to the religious 16 land use. 17 So as we stated, the Planning 18 Commission has already found there to be a 19 special land use here. 20 What you are looking at is some minimal 21 variances that are being requested. Your 22 burden in justifying, denying variances when 23 it comes to religious land use is a little 24 bit higher in the court. So, it is a
164 1 different situation and standard and the 2 burden for the Petitioner is different in 3 this case than it would be in an ordinary 4 case and that is dictated by the law which I 5 believe came into effect around 2000, 2002. 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So the 7 law was not in effect the last time the 8 variances were reviewed? Obviously if it 9 was 20 years -- 10 MS. OZGA: If it was 20 years ago, 11 right, Ralupa came into effect just around 12 2000. There were other laws in effect at 13 that time. Ralupa came around in about 14 2000, 2002, so the wording is a little bit 15 different here as you know. And as I think 16 you have been informed prior to this that 17 their burden is a little bit different, so. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Can you 19 explain a little more on the findings that 20 we have to look at, I guess. 21 MS. OZGA: You're still looking at 22 these as variances, but if the religious 23 land use or the church was being burdened by 24 you not granting a variance, if it could not
165 1 exist, then they would have a case in court 2 against the City, the City would have a hard 3 time defending something. If there were 4 greater variances or something of that 5 nature, you would be able to defend it a 6 little bit more, but minimal variances are 7 harder to defend in court. 8 As I said, the courts, there is 9 not a lot of cases out on this statute 10 because it is relatively new, but the court 11 so far has generally found in favor of the 12 religious land use. It's not as difficult 13 to find a substantial burden on the 14 religious land use. Let's all. 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: 16 Thank you for your clarifications, and, Mr. 17 Spencer, you as well. 18 Still having the floor, Mr. Gatt, 19 continue. 20 MEMBER GATT: Well, with that in mind, 21 I was in favor of this from the beginning, 22 considering there was already something 23 there, that is basically that that was my 24 look at things in the beginning. However,
166 1 there were some issues brought up by 2 residents in the area. I know that things 3 have not been ideal for a lot of people 4 discussing this today. Discussing this 5 today, discussing this with Mr. Spencer and 6 our City attorney, I think that a lot of the 7 issues that people are worried about are 8 being looked into and they are being fixed. 9 They are at least being appeased to a point 10 where I think there could be a happy 11 relationship between everyone involved. 12 With this substantial burden situation, I 13 feel that because of that I would have to be 14 in favor of a Motion to grant these 15 variances as requested. Thank you. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 17 you, Mr. Gatt. 18 Member Canup? 19 MEMBER CANUP: It goes back a long 20 time, 20 years. Mr. Bauer and I remember 21 it. And Mr. Bauer and I were both part of 22 what happened there, at least the variances 23 that happened in order it to be used as a 24 piece of property for a church.
167 1 I heard a comment that there was some 2 time or another that there would be a plan 3 in motion to expand the church that is there 4 today. I don't know who in the audience 5 made that, but I heard 8,000 square feet. 6 Where my wife and I attend church, we just 7 went through a building expansion. We have 8 five acres of land. We spent over three 9 million dollars to expand. I guess the 10 reason that I am saying this is because if a 11 problem is there now, if they want to expand 12 in the future it's only going to get worse. 13 And it's just not enough property in 14 there to expand to the 8,000, 9,000 square 15 feet of church. Churches do one of two 16 things, they either grow or go. And you 17 people have been a church for quite a while 18 in Southfield; is that correct? And I am 19 glad you're moving into this area and plan 20 on growing. And my concern is that the 21 property that is here, it's just not enough 22 property to build or to expand a church that 23 would accommodate 8,000 square feet. And 24 not only do you have the footprint of the
168 1 building, you now have a parking problem to 2 go with it. The church that I go to we're 3 done. We have got five acres and we're 4 finished. We have no room to park. So I 5 really having to struggle with what to do 6 with this. My inclination is to nip it in 7 the bud at this point and turn it down. 8 However, I hate to have to say that, 9 but looking back at what this has gone 10 through. It went through a church 11 originally. It has been a non-success story 12 since it started. And probably the only 13 thing that's been successful there, and I 14 don't know if it's that successful is the 15 daycare center that's there. And I don't 16 know that it is or is not successful. 17 Those are my comments and I am afraid 18 that if we grant these variances we are only 19 going to see this continue to be a problem 20 some time in the near future. 21 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 22 you, Member Canup. 23 Member Krieger? 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. Two questions.
169 1 The first one in regards to the case and the 2 variances that we are looking at. These are 3 in regards to a building that already exist 4 that we are granting the variance according 5 to the laws that have been developed? 6 MR. SPENCER: That's correct, this is 7 an existing building and existing parking 8 spaces. 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: So there is no 10 building, it's the variance according to 11 what's already there? 12 MR. SPENCER: Correct. 13 MEMBER KRIEGER: The second one is for 14 the Pastor. How many parishioners are there 15 and what do you intend to do with that? 16 MR. SPENCER: We are currently a 17 relatively small congregation of 60. Our 18 plans if the Lord allows is to put a 19 structure up. My philosophy as far as the 20 ministry goes is that the auditorium would 21 seat about 200, 225. Anything beyond that 22 as far as I am concerned as a pastor, if you 23 at that point -- the Lord has graced us in 24 the past to rear up ministry. And if we got
170 1 to 200, we would probably start another 2 church and send some of the congregation 3 with them. We would not go beyond that 4 portion. 5 That's just the way we operate. 6 Because I don't believe you can effectively, 7 my philosophy, I don't think you can 8 effectively pastor a congregation over 200 9 people. You don't know their children, you 10 don't know them. You become more of an 11 administrator than a pastor. And I am a 12 very hands on type pastor. 8,000 to 9,000 13 square feet would include a fellowship hall 14 and so forth, so it wouldn't be a 9,000 15 square foot auditorium. It fits well within 16 the 75-foot setback of the property. The 17 footprint as you mentioned doesn't even, in 18 fact, stretch across the whole 75 foot to 75 19 foot, it wouldn't encroach on all of that. 20 And the house and so forth that is 21 there, they had mentioned. It's actually 22 two parcels. It's just one and we are going 23 to keep it one. It is, in fact, without the 24 right-of-ways, in fact, 2.86 acres, we
171 1 just -- the proposed right-of-way is 2 60 feet, so we just list it as being 2.45 3 with, assuming the right-of-way is going to 4 happen eventually. 5 So, the reality is, as far as parking 6 goes and so forth, any new parking and so 7 forth would be at the 35-foot setback. We 8 can berm and so forth whatever we need to do 9 along the east -- along a large portion of 10 the east border now. Probably only now are 11 several evergreen trees not white pines, 12 they are pretty much down to the ground. 13 They mask pretty much back there already. 14 As far as whatever in the future when we do 15 build and, you know, again, the Lord knows 16 when, he provides the money and the people 17 and so forth, we would comply to whatever 18 the particular Ordinances are at that time. 19 The Ordinances have charged over the 20 years. My understanding is that when they 21 first went in there the parking Ordinance 22 was 20 feet. So what we are asking for is 23 just that since it is existing, for that 24 variance to just remain existing.
172 1 Thank you. Are there any other 2 questions? 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: If he is saying that 4 he is going to stay within that building I 5 would have no objection to them getting the 6 variance considering what information we 7 have. 8 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you 9 very much. Any other comments? 10 MEMBER BAUER: I can only picture any 11 building, any building with curtailed more 12 variances than we have showing right now. 13 It is going to be closer to both north and 14 south and to the neighbors' back and to the 15 street. I cannot see placing the City in a 16 position where they are the cause of a 17 variance, so I would have to vote no. 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Counsel 19 first. 20 MS. OZGA: I just wanted to 21 reiterate that the variances before you are 22 the only ones that you are looking at. The 23 Petitioner would have to come back before 24 the Board for future variances if they did
173 1 want to expand. 2 And our review of this, we see very 3 little basis to deny occupancy of this 4 building. And the City would be hard 5 pressed to deny occupancy of this building 6 under the current statutes and the current 7 state of the law. 8 So, again, you are just looking at the 9 variances that are being requested here 10 under the current state of the law. And the 11 Petitioners would have to come back before 12 the Board or the City to request future 13 variances. But the Planning Commission has 14 deemed this special land use appropriate and 15 these variances that are now before the 16 Board are very minimal. 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member 18 Sanghvi? 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 20 This was a church once, then it became a 21 daycare center. And now you are trying to, 22 they are before us because they want to make 23 a church again on the same site. And they 24 already had when the church was there, they
174 1 already had these variances to build to 2 start with. 3 Now, if this is not a use variance and 4 we are considering it as a dimensional 5 variance, then are we considering this as a 6 new construction? That is the main issue 7 here if this is not a use variance, it's a 8 dimensional variance, what are we 9 considering then? (Unintelligible) We 10 already had a dimensional problem to start 11 with. That's my question to you, Counsel? 12 MS. OZGA: These are non-use variances 13 so it is the lower standard. 14 All the Petitioner is trying to 15 do is to go back to a church which was a 16 previous use. It's a special land use 17 approval that was already deemed 18 appropriate. These are non-dimensional 19 variances. These are not use variances that 20 are before the Board. 21 These are minimal non-use variances 22 right now before the Board. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: But they already have 24 a structure there with the variances already
175 1 in existence, right? 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr. 3 Spencer? 4 MR. SPENCER: Our Counsel could 5 correct me if I am wrong on this. The 6 Planning staff reviewed this because there 7 was a change of use and it was a different 8 set of standards for this particular use 9 versus the existing use, that it would have 10 to meet the requirements of the Ordinance 11 for this use or obtain a variance for the 12 use. 13 There is a dimensional lot area 14 requirement as an example and setback 15 requirements that apply specifically to 16 church uses in our Ordinances and not to the 17 other uses that are permitted that are 18 non-residential in the district. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 20 you. Any other comments from you? 21 MS. OZGA: I don't have anything 22 further. 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr. 24 Sanghvi, do you have any other comments?
176 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: No. 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member 3 Gatt? 4 MEMBER GATT: I still think that going 5 back to everything, this is already here, 6 this is already done. I understand this is 7 already here, so taking the residents into 8 consideration, I mean, what's the 9 difference? There is a daycare or there is 10 a church. I mean, people coming in and out 11 of both of them. Probably more coming in 12 and out of the daycare on a 9 to 5 basis 13 Monday through Friday, than at a church. I 14 would imagine, I don't know, I don't know 15 the numbers, they are not building, they are 16 not going to build a brand new 50,000 square 17 foot church. It's not like we are going to 18 put a brand new building there. And due to 19 the new laws that are under consideration, I 20 can't believe that we could be hard pressed 21 to determine this is something that is 22 allowable. 23 It is definitely a substantial burden 24 for them for us to not let them come in.
177 1 That's a burden. That's what a court would 2 say, yeah, you're right, come on in. So, 3 it's not like we're building a new building, 4 we're just trying to get back to the way it 5 was. They are not going to be building new 6 parking lots. They got to come back to us if 7 they want to do that. And that might be 8 something that we can look a little bit more 9 into detail about and say, listen, this is 10 something that's a weird shape, you're going 11 to be dealing with stuff. 12 Right now they just got to come back 13 in. And with the laws the way they are 14 there is really no way around it. We have 15 got to do it or they are going to go to 16 court and they are going to say that this is 17 a substantial burden for you to not live 18 there or not be there and they are going to 19 overturn it anyway. 20 That's my feeling about this. 21 Personally this is about as cut and dry as 22 you can get. There is really no way around 23 this. 24 There is nothing there. There is
178 1 nothing that they are going to be building 2 or moving or doing anything. It's going to 3 be there. They are just coming in. That's 4 all I have to say. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 6 you, Member Gatt. 7 Before we go around for a second takes 8 with all the Board Members, let me go ahead 9 and put my first round on the record. 10 This is a very difficult situation. 11 Given that we have 20 years of history. We 12 have unmaintained landscapes, uneffective 13 berms. And now we are taking all that and 14 combining it with what could potentially 15 happen in the future and that's a lot to 16 take in for the Board, but what we need to 17 remember here in this situation, I think, is 18 that we are looking at the variances that 19 are listed on the agenda. The variances that 20 are listed in our packet, and that's it. We 21 are not City Counsel, we are not the 22 Planning Commission. We do not do berms, we 23 do not do landscaping. We are looking at 24 these variances and applying our normal
179 1 elements of difficulty and the law that is 2 passed by a much higher body, Congress, the 3 United States Congress. 4 So, saying that, I can take the berm 5 and landscaping piece out because that will 6 be addressed by Planning Commission per our 7 Planner, and it well should be, I understand 8 your concerns. 9 Any additional in addition to the 10 piece of property will be reviewed as well 11 and go through the same set of Ordinances. 12 So, the Ordinances that are before us while 13 looking at them in a percentage perspective 14 like some of the residents did, may seem 15 very large in the aspect of the entire lot, 16 the 42 percent setback is relatively minimal 17 as the attorney has stated. 18 And I go back to the law that has 19 passed. And as Member Gatt had stated, the 20 property owner once they establish a 21 substantial burden, which not being allowed 22 to occupy would be a substantial burden. We 23 then as the Zoning Board must basically 24 prove that there is a compelling government
180 1 interest in not allowing these variances. 2 And the City attorney has stated that a 3 compelling government interest is the 4 serious issue of public health, safety and 5 welfare. And I cannot apply that to the 6 variances being asked today. 7 Now, in the future maybe 20 years from 8 now some other Zoning Board may feel that is 9 an addition maybe, but the variances that we 10 are looking at today in my eyes apply. And 11 it should be approved in accordance with the 12 laws passed by the United States Congress 13 regarding religious land uses. I think in 14 that sense tying it altogether in that 15 sense, I think that it's kind of cut and dry 16 as Member Gatt said. 17 That's all I have to say. And we are 18 missing half our panel. 19 Member Sanghvi? 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 21 I don't want to double guess what the court 22 is going to say, I am going to go by the 23 common sense and that tells me that it's 24 time to make a Motion.
181 1 That in Case number: 07 -- 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'm sorry 3 -- 4 MEMBER CANUP: Hold on for the 5 secretary. 6 MS. OZGA: You might want to wait one 7 minute until Robin gets back so she can 8 record. 9 MEMBER CANUP: Can we have some more 10 discussion? 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If Member 12 Sanghvi allows more discussion than he has 13 by having the floor if he wants to make a 14 Motion he is more than welcome to. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead. 16 MEMBER CANUP: That's fine. 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member 18 Canup? 19 MEMBER CANUP: Go ahead. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: That in Case number: 21 07-041 filed by Charles Sexton of Grace 22 Immanuel Bible Church for 21900/21950 23 Meadowbrook Road we grant the request for 24 the variances as proposed by the Applicant.
182 1 Taking note of the fact that 2 this is already an existing building and 3 some of these lot size cannot be increased 4 even though the requirement is three, three 5 acres and the proposed area is 2.45 acres. 6 And also taking into consideration that the 7 building require setback of 74 foot which is 8 being proposed a variance of only one foot. 9 And particular setback is making an 10 accommodation for the church and probably 11 partly requirement in the front yard of two 12 spaces probably will be used I think for the 13 handicap people. Thank you. 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a Motion and 16 a second on the floor. Any further 17 discussion? 18 Seeing none, Ms. Working, will you 19 please call the roll. 20 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 22 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 24 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?
183 1 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 2 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 3 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 4 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 6 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 7 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 8 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 6-0. 9 MR Sexton: Thank you very much. 10 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Your 11 variance has been granted. 12 13 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We 14 can't find your file so we are probably just 15 going to say no. 16 MR. LUTZ: Mr. Fischer, I'm a resident 17 after all this time. I'm a resident now 18 after this length of time. 19 (Interposing) (Unintelligible) 20 MS. WORKING: Don't worry about it, we 21 will add onto it. The application is there, 22 right? It's at the bottom? 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes. 24 MS. WORKING: Okay. I thought you were
184 1 saying you couldn't find the file and I was 2 panicking. 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: This is a 4 different -- I'm not used to seeing you with 5 these guys. I am used to seeing you in the 6 other one. 7 MR. LUTZ: (Unintelligible). 8 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would 10 like to call Case number: 07-042 filed by 11 William Lutz of Sign Graphix for Cooper 12 Standard located at 39550 Orchard Hill 13 Place. 14 The Petitioner is requesting one 70 15 square foot ground sign the business located 16 at said address. And the Applicant is 17 requesting one two-foot six inch height 18 variance and one 30 square foot area 19 variance. The property is zoned OSC and is 20 located north of Eight Mile and west of 21 Haggerty Road. 22 If you could go ahead and be 23 sworn in by our Secretary. 24 MEMBER GATT: Are you an attorney?
185 1 MR. LUTZ: No, I'm not. 2 MEMBER GATT: Do you swear to tell the 3 truth regarding Case Number 07-042? 4 MR. LUTZ: I do. 5 MEMBER GATT: Thank you. 6 MR. LUTZ: I don't see I have a signal 7 for Power point here, so we might have to go 8 to plan B. There we go, how about that. 9 Technology it's a great thing. 10 Let me show you the lay of the land 11 here first. Orchard Hill Place is a link 12 road that goes back into a commercial 13 development which is almost entirely office 14 from Baseline Road or Eight Mile proceeding 15 north takes a sharp right turn and then 16 connects with Haggerty slightly to the east. 17 The property in discussion here is at that 18 right turn right on the turn. 19 So it creates some issues visibility 20 wise because you never see the sign at its 21 full face. You always see that sign at an 22 angle, so you don't get the full square 23 footage visually that you would normally 24 because it's only a double sided sign.
186 1 Cooper Standard has gone through an 2 entire rebranding. You may or may not know, 3 they were part of Cooper Tire at one time 4 and have changed their focus and they have a 5 whole new branding effort. And if you went 6 to the site and you saw the existing sign, 7 it's pretty dated. It was always a 8 visibility issue. 9 These properties only allowed us a 10 30-square foot sign which is really a 11 challenge to see it at any kind of speeds. 12 And if you been on this road during any kind 13 of rush hour these folks are flying. They 14 are not going at normal residential speeds. 15 So we got a little bit of some problem 16 issues here. 17 In the first photograph, and this is 18 as we are proceeding west or south depending 19 on how you would go from Haggerty at our 20 back towards Eight Mile, if you will, the 21 sign comes up right on the curb. The 22 proposed sign is taller than the Ordinance 23 allows. It's also larger than the Ordinance 24 allow. It's about twice the size of the
187 1 current Ordinance which is 30-square feet, 2 it's actually 70-square feet. A lot of that 3 is not very visible. If you look at the 4 footprint you kind of see the white area and 5 the rest of it kind of visually disappears, 6 even though it's graphically very pleasing. 7 The next photograph makes it kind of 8 interesting. If you'll look off to the far 9 left versus far right, you are going to see 10 a real difference in grade here. The sign 11 which advertises or announces, if you will, 12 the location of an office building to the 13 right, they are way up in the corner, if you 14 will, is about the size of the proposed 15 sign, it's about 70-square feet. 16 But if you were to take a line 17 and draw it above the grade line, it's 18 actually teller than the proposed sign 19 because it sits up on that berm. And that's 20 the way the lay of the land is. 21 So unfortunately this property 22 actually sits down hill. So we got a very 23 depressed situation. So a little old 24 30-square foot sign really visually gets
188 1 lost. This sign does not look very big. And 2 if you compare it visually right now to the 3 sign to the far right up on the hill, that 4 sign obviously looks a lot larger than the 5 proposed sign is. 6 Now, if you approach it a little 7 closer, you know, visually it gets a little 8 bit bigger, but you can see how the lay of 9 the land is, if you will, it almost sits in 10 a valley, it doesn't quite, it is a little 11 bit below grade level from the road, but 12 compared to the property to the right it's 13 considerably lower and has a lot less 14 dressing. And, again, given the angle that 15 the sign sits at, you never see the full 16 face of the sign. You see it at a 17 considerably acute angle. 18 So those are the practical 19 difficulties and the challenges this 20 property has. This is part of their 21 rebranding effort. We have about seven or 22 eight locations in the State of Michigan 23 alone. So, they are rolling out a whole new 24 corporate identity look. This is their
189 1 world headquarters. There is quite a lot of 2 visitor traffic in here. And if the 3 automotive ever gets going there will be a 4 lot more. 5 So I think that's the basis of the 6 request. 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you 8 very much. Is there anyone in the audience 9 who wishes to make a comment on this case? 10 Seeing none, I will go ahead and close 11 the Public Hearing regarding this case and 12 ask for any correspondence. 13 MEMBER GATT: There were 22 notices 14 mailed. Zero approvals. Zero objections. 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 16 you, Mr. Secretary. 17 Building Department? 18 MR. AMOLSCH: We have no comment, sir. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All 20 right. Then I will open it up for Board 21 discussion. 22 Member Bauer? 23 MEMBER BAUER: Sir, is this building 24 you are buying or leasing?
190 1 MR. LUTZ: I believe this is a leased 2 building? Isn't it, Mr. Kramer? 3 MR. KRAMER: Correct. 4 MR. LUTZ: It's a leased building. 5 They have been there for a number of years 6 now. 7 MEMBER BAUER: Pardon? 8 MR. LUTZ: They have been there for a 9 few years. It's a two-story building. It 10 sits back considerably from the road. In 11 fact, that's the only direction that you can 12 see the building. If you are coming from 13 another direction you won't even see the 14 building. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 17 Board members? 18 Member Canup? 19 MEMBER CANUP: Can we back this up a 20 bit to the very first one that we saw there. 21 MR. LUTZ: Sure. 22 MEMBER CANUP: The first one that we 23 saw there. Right there. I guess if I look 24 at that sign and I look at it in relation to
191 1 the car sitting next to it, the sign is 2 obese. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah, I saw that 4 because of the colors. The black color you 5 don't see on the other side. The car is 6 dark color. 7 MEMBER CANUP: If you look at 8 where the car sits there, the car is sitting 9 right adjacent to which appears that it is, 10 it's probably four to five fight taller than 11 the car. 12 MR. LUTZ: In its uppermost height 13 that sign is eight feet eight inches. It has 14 a sloping side if you will. So it's seven 15 feet on the other end. 16 MEMBER CANUP: Unfortunately the way 17 that our sign Ordinance reads, unless they 18 changed it. 19 It reads that the extremities of the sign 20 are the way of measuring the sign? 21 MR. AMOLSCH: In this case it's the 22 size of the box if you have that type sign. 23 You take the whole measure of the entire 24 size.
192 1 MEMBER CANUP: So, you don't get 2 credit it for the slope. Anyway, my comment 3 is I think the sign is too tall and it needs 4 to be trimmed substantially. Get it 5 somewhere closer to our Ordinance than what 6 it is. 7 By the way, I think it's a very 8 attractive sign, it's just too big. 9 MR. LUTZ: Sign design is always 10 difficult. You are always trying to show a 11 footprint that draws the eye without being 12 too obese, because we try not to do that. 13 But there is some proportionality here of 14 the logo and the number of letters in the 15 logo and the height of those letters being 16 readable that comes into play here. 17 Of course, there is also the 18 issue of trying to get it up out of the 19 winter snow and things like that and still 20 provide some landscaping. It has some 21 minimal landscaping around the base of it 22 right now. 23 I think the Ordinance if I may be 24 so bold is considerably stingy in terms of
193 1 the signage for these kinds of buildings. 2 When you get large two, three, four story 3 office buildings with 200 plus people in 4 them you got a lot of traffic and you got to 5 be able to see those signs. And if those 6 signs aren't large enough to be read, then 7 they really don't accomplish the goal of 8 identifying the property and now we just got 9 people that go by and have to turn around 10 and come back whether they be large truck 11 traffic or delivery traffic or visitor 12 traffic we are putting them back on to what 13 are very congested neighborhood roads, Eight 14 Mile and Haggerty Road. 15 MEMBER CANUP: In contrast if you will 16 go forward a bit. Look at this sign right 17 here. This is very tasteful sign. It's low 18 profile. It's about the height of that 19 automobile sitting next to it. I wouldn't 20 have a problem seeing that and I don't think 21 anybody in here would. 22 MR. LUTZ: But the footprint of that 23 sign, Mr. Canup, if I may, is about 70 24 square feet. That's a big sign. It's not
194 1 very tall. They spread it out. 2 MEMBER CANUP: Yes, and it's not very 3 tall, you're correct. The tallness -- 4 MR. LUTZ: It also sits up on about a 5 4-foot berm too. 6 MEMBER CANUP: I close my comments and 7 give it back to the Chairman. 8 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 9 you, Mr. Canup. 10 Any other Board members? Member 11 Gatt? 12 MEMBER GATT: I like the sign. 13 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It's 14 getting late, just the way you said that, I 15 don't know. 16 MEMBER CANUP: I like the sign too. I 17 don't mean to interrupt you. I agree with 18 you, it's a very attractive sign. 19 MEMBER GATT: I agree, it is a very 20 attractive sign. And I understand why you 21 want it so big, and I feel for you, but 22 that's huge. I mean, that's two times, I 23 mean, like that's big. And I think that we 24 can get it a little closer and still have
195 1 the whole situation where I know that you 2 got to Cooper standards and all the other 3 stuff. It's a long sentence to put on a 4 sign, but I think that we can do it. I 5 think that definitely we can figure out a 6 way where it's maybe a little closer and it 7 still got that same cool design and it's got 8 the same purpose but it's just a little 9 smaller, because a 70-square foot ground 10 sign is just massive, especially tall and 11 not wide. I understand that it's going to 12 be difficult, but I think that you can do 13 it. I think that it's possible. 14 So, right now, the way that it is 15 right now, I don't think I can, I don't 16 think that I can approve that big of a 17 ground sign the way it is right now unless 18 we can find a different way for it to be 19 laid out or something like that. A 20 70-square foot ground sign that tall and the 21 way that it is right now, I just can't do 22 it. 23 So, I will wait to hear what 24 everybody says before I throw a vote out.
196 1 But right now I can't see it happening. 2 Thank you. 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: 4 Thank you. 5 Member Sanghvi? 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. We all 7 agree it's a very nice looking sign but it's 8 too huge. What is the smallest size you can 9 live with, so we can get on with it and make 10 a decision on it? This is obviously not 11 going to fly the way you have presented. 12 MR. LUTZ: If I may through the Chair. 13 Is it the pleasure of the Board to think 14 more that the height is more of the issue? 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: What I mentioned 16 is the primary issue. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Square footage. 18 MR. LUTZ: Because if we change the 19 width, and I'm just thinking about graphic 20 elements here -- 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah, that's what I 22 want you to do -- 23 MR. LUTZ: If we change the width, 24 then we got to downsize the copy and it
197 1 starts to not function at all in terms of 2 readability. 3 Maybe it's possible, obviously we 4 would have to confer with the client to see 5 if this is possible, but maybe we could 6 lower the height a little bit if that's your 7 primary concern. So, I guess I need a 8 little direction from the Board as to what 9 their biggest objection is and how we might 10 be able to compromise as possible. 11 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair. 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr. 13 Sanghvi is still on the floor, so passing it 14 over to Mr. Bauer. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Let's start out first 16 of all with what is the required maximum for 17 the Ordinance and go up from there. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thirty square feet. 19 MR. LUTZ: Well, 30 square feet is 20 five feet by six feet. The graphics as it 21 was mentioned earlier and we have got an 22 awful lot of letters here, ladies and 23 gentleman. We have got a width of 24 eight feet. So to conform with the
198 1 Ordinance I got to have a sign that's below 2 the four feet height. Not less than 3 four feet high. That destroys the design 4 integrity that we all agree is very nice and 5 very pleasing. 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: No, no, 7 no. I am going to go back on this a little 8 bit, actually not back because I haven't 9 made any comments yet. That's what I don't 10 like about being the Chair, you always have 11 to wait until the end. 12 MEMBER CANUP: The Chairman 13 speaks when he wants. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I am 15 polite Chairman. Looking at the sign and 16 that's what I have been so distracted while 17 they were speaking. I am having a hard time 18 as you said finding the way -- I'm trying to 19 slice and dice this sign every way. I am 20 looking at maybe we can take a little purple 21 out and move the Orchard Hill Place address 22 up a little bit. I am looking at four inches 23 I might can get there. You really can't 24 bring it in much. I think that slicing and
199 1 dicing isn't really going to help this. And 2 I think the fact that it is two car lengths 3 high I don't like it per se, however, 4 looking at the grade as you stated, I think 5 actually does give way to the practical 6 difficulty element outlined by Counsel for 7 sign Ordinances. 8 Is this a unique situation to this 9 building as opposed to the general area and 10 the general conditions in the City? Yes, 11 absolutely. 12 This sign on the right-hand side for 13 Orchard Hill Place Center is nice, but they 14 also have an extra four feet just because 15 they're four feet higher. Coming around 16 that corner you can't see it because of the 17 fact of all of the landscape and the grade 18 on the right-hand side of the road. 19 And added to your comment about 20 the square footage of the building relative 21 to the sign, how big is the building? 22 MR. LUTZ: How many square feet? You 23 know, I don't know -- 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: How many
200 1 people do you have in there? 2 MR. LUTZ: Over 200. 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Over 200. 4 So it's got to be a couple thousand square 5 feet. Four or five thousand at least. 6 MR. LUTZ: Oh, more than that. It's 7 got to be a couple hundred thousand square 8 feet. 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yeah, it's 10 two stories. 11 MR. LUTZ: Yeah, it's two story. It's 12 a good sized facility. 13 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: 14 (Unintelligible) So given that. Given the 15 size of the building, given the grade, given 16 the contour of the road, I think they do 17 meet the elements as laid out by City 18 Counsel for the sign variance to be granted. 19 Mr. Canup? 20 MEMBER CANUP: Mr. Chair, I would make 21 a Motion and I came up with what I think is 22 acceptable. 23 I would make a Motion that we 24 grant a variance with the sign not to exceed
201 1 48 square feet with six feet in height. 2 That would give them a total of 8 feet in 3 length and 6 feet in height and we give him 4 a 48-square foot. That would take it down 5 to where it would not be obtrusive and it 6 would be somewhat closer to the height of 7 that automobile that's sitting next to it 8 rather than something looming in the air. 9 So, with that I would make a Motion 10 that we grant the variance as requested with 11 a limit of 6-foot by 8-foot sign not to 12 exceed 6 feet in height. That's a solution. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is 15 a Motion and a second with a discussion 16 there. You're looking at taking up height a 17 little bit. Is the landscaping around the 18 sign required? 19 MR. SPENCER: Without reviewing the 20 site plan, there is a possibility that there 21 was some approval landscaping adjacent to 22 the sign. 23 There is just a small amount of 24 bushes around it right now. They appear to
202 1 be very low trimmed, approximately a foot 2 tall. Pretty minor. 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is a 4 Motion and a second. 5 Any further discussion? Member 6 Gatt? 7 MEMBER GATT: I just want to know, I 8 like the idea, but I also go back to our 9 Chairperson's discussion where he sees a 10 practical difficulty in his request. 11 I want to know exactly what you could 12 do with 6 feet by 8 feet? I mean, off the 13 top of your head, if you need to wait until 14 next month for another design plan. 15 MR. LUTZ: May I through the Chair? 16 If the address weren't there -- see the 17 problem when you start messing, changing, 18 trying to change corporate standards you 19 really can't change the white area because 20 corporate standard dictate a certain amount 21 of white space around the logo. I mean Ford 22 would not let you change the shape of their 23 logo at all for anybody. We can't touch 24 that. So, the only thing we can do is maybe
203 1 play with the bottom. So, if we took the 2 address off which from a safety standpoint I 3 think is a horrible idea, it's something 4 that needs to be there, then you can shorten 5 the sign. But it does change the entire 6 look of the sign. So, that's a compromise 7 that I don't know that I can do. Yes could 8 we shorten it a foot? Sure, I think we can 9 eliminate a foot. But I would really 10 hesitate to take that address off there. 11 A lot of cities these days are 12 requiring addresses be on signs for safety 13 reasons. And this building address is only 14 visible from one direction which makes it a 15 bit of a safety issue in my opinion. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: 17 Counsel? 18 MS. OZGA: If I may through the Chair 19 make a suggestion. I know in the past the 20 Board has in these types of situations once 21 the Board has determined what might be a 22 responsible size, give the Applicant the 23 opportunity to table the matter to the next 24 meeting so that the Applicant can take a
204 1 look at, take into consideration all of your 2 thoughts to determine whether they believe 3 that would be something that is feasible. 4 That's another option for you. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I think 6 the Applicant has kind of given his take on 7 what he could not do with any less, I think 8 as a Board we could probably move on that. 9 Unless you felt discussing with the clients. 10 MR. LUTZ: I think 48-square feet 11 is not gonna fly. We just can't take that 12 much out of it. 13 Somewhere between that and where we are. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is 15 a Motion and a second. 16 Do you wish to proceed with the 17 Motion as the Motion maker? 18 MEMBER CANUP: Yes, I do. 19 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Please 20 call the roll. 21 MS. WORKING: Who seconded the Motion? 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: I did. 23 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 24 MEMBER CANUP: Yes.
205 1 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Turn it on. 4 MS. WORKING: It is on. 5 MEMBER BAUER: Can't hear it. 6 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 7 MEMBER GATT: No. 8 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: No. 10 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: No. 12 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 14 MS. WORKING: We have a tie, Mr. 15 Chairman. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That's 17 always fun, makes things interesting. 18 Member Gatt? 19 MEMBER GATT: I think that there is a 20 very happy medium here. He wants eight, we 21 want six. There is a seven right in the 22 middle there, giving him a 56-square foot 23 total sign if I can add. There is plenty of 24 space with a seven by eight foot square foot
206 1 sign for an address. He could keep his 2 Cooper Standard Automotive the way it is, 3 the white area of the sign the way it is. 4 Play around with that purple area on the 5 bottom of the sign. 6 A foot is a lot if you are looking at 7 the top of an SUV to take a foot of that 8 sign, now you are only talking not that big. 9 I think that's a fair thing. 10 I think that with him saying that the 11 amount of white space is a corporate 12 standard and that's not going to be able to 13 change, the practical difficulty that was 14 come up with by our Chairperson, and the 15 situation with the berm and the lay of the 16 land, I think all of that taken into 17 consideration maybe 7-foot is the answer. 18 I will wait for everybody else to 19 figure that out as well. Thank you. 20 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member 21 Krieger? 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: I just have a 23 question for Mr. Spencer. 24 In regard to addresses on signs,
207 1 do a lot of the buildings have the numbers 2 up on their buildings? 3 MR. SPENCER: That is correct, there 4 is a lot of places with addresses right on 5 the building. 6 MEMBER CANUP: By Ordinance they have 7 to --I'm sorry. By Ordinance they have to 8 have it -- 9 MR. AMOLSCH: They are required by 10 Ordinance to have it on the building. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Can they 12 cut those trees down so we can see it? 13 (Interposing) (Unintelligible). 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr. Lutz? 15 MR. LUTZ: Well, we believe that 16 probably 56-square feet and cutting the 17 height down to a maximum of 7 feet is 18 probably doable. It might change the 19 address a little bit and, yes, we would lose 20 some of the bottom of the sign, but at least 21 we can preserve the design integrity and 22 trademark. 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Cut some 24 trees? I mean, that's where I was actually
208 1 going with the question about the 2 landscaping. But if you are required to 3 have that landscaping, I would rather have 4 you have the landscaping than give you 5 square footage. 6 MR. LUTZ: You know, it's a well 7 maintained property. This is a next 8 section. I hate to start changing things 9 that like because I think it looks nice and 10 it presents well. 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Let me go 12 ahead and turn it back to Member Gatt who 13 has the floor for a Motion as you had 14 stated. 15 MEMBER GATT: Yes. I would like to 16 propose a Motion in Case number: 07-042 to 17 grant the Applicant's request for a sign 18 variance with the dimensions not exceeding 19 7 feet tall and 8 feet in length giving a 20 total square footage of 56-square foot. I 21 believe that the Petitioner has established 22 a practical difficulty due to the unique 23 circumstances of the property and the area 24 surrounding it. He has also established
209 1 that this will not, the proposed use will 2 not be a detriment to the public safety and 3 the welfare of the surrounding area. And it 4 would actually be a benefit due to the 5 automotives and the people that are driving 6 them, being able to see the building more 7 sufficiently. And the 8 Petitioner has established that grant of the 9 variance will not impair the intent or 10 purpose of the Ordinance. 11 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 12 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is 13 a Motion and a second. 14 Any further discussion? Seeing none, 15 Ms. Working, will you please call the roll. 16 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 17 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 18 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 20 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 22 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes. 24 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?
210 1 MEMBER CANUP: No. 2 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 3 MEMBER BAUER: No. 4 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 4-2. 5 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The 6 variance has been granted with those 7 limitations. 8 MR. LUTZ: Thank you very much, I 9 appreciate your time. 10 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Case 12 number: 07-043 filed by Paul Hedemark of 13 Mozart Homes for 25444 Danvas Way in Taft 14 Knolls II. 15 The Petitioner is requesting a 16 1.7-foot rear yard setback variance for the 17 construction of a new residence located at 18 said address. This property is zoned R4 and 19 located south of Eleven Mile Road and east 20 of Taft Road. 21 And let me also let you know that 22 don't forget we have received all the 23 materials in your packet and most likely 24 have reviewed it on the site, so --
211 1 MR. FELLOWS: You have or have not? 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Have. So 3 keep that in mind if you want, given the 4 time you can probably keep your comments to 5 whatever you feel necessary, but -- 6 MR. FELLOWS: About 10 seconds. 7 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you 8 will please be sworn in. 9 MEMBER GATT: Do you swear to tell the 10 truth regarding Case number: 07-043? 11 MR. FELLOWS: I do. 12 MEMBER GATT: Thank you. 13 MR. FELLOWS: I'm not Paul, I'm Mike 14 Fellows of -- what's our new address? 22612 15 Provincial Drive here in Novi. 16 MS. WORKING: Oh, you moved. 17 MR. FELLOWS: Yeah. As the Chairman 18 suggested this is a rather simple request. 19 Because of the shape of the back lot line, 20 the rear yard setback line has to follow it 21 and it is not straight. Actually there is 22 more backyard than if it were straight, so 23 we are just asking for as you know a 24 1.7 foot variance.
212 1 It's also been suggested that in order 2 to keep everything as far away from the 3 wetland and the wetland buffer as possible 4 that maybe we can get a 1.7 foot front yard 5 setback variance instead and just slide this 6 house a little bit to the front. Whichever 7 is your preference is okay with me, if any. 8 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 9 you. There no one in the audience to make 10 any comments, so I will declare the Public 11 Hearing closed. 12 Mr. Secretary, any comments? 13 MEMBER GATT: There were 19 notices 14 mailed. Zero approvals. Zero objections. 15 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Building 16 Department? 17 MR. SPENCER: The Planning Department 18 just have one small comment on that and 19 that's in regard to the wetland buffer in 20 the backyard. We would prefer if the setback 21 was given relief in the front yard setback 22 versus the rear yard setback. This house 23 sits a little bit onto the corner of the 24 curve and we know what the notice said and
213 1 we apologize if that probably wasn't brought 2 up in there. I mean, you guys can decide on 3 it because it's only 1.7 feet. I am just 4 saying that the Planning Department would 5 rather try to protect those wetland buffers 6 when we can. 7 The variance in front yard setback if 8 it was pursued in that angle would provide 9 some variety in the front yard setbacks. 10 Oftentimes, we see streets that if you look 11 down the street everything is a straight 12 line. Recent planning literature supports 13 having a variety of setbacks in front yards. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. Mr. 15 Canup? 16 MR. CANUP: I would make a suggestion 17 that we can't act on this with the front 18 yard setback because it's advertised as a 19 rear yard setback so we unfortunately have 20 to re-advertise it; is that correct? And I 21 would suggest that we table it and let it be 22 re-advertised. Is that a proper way to do 23 it, Counsel? Or should we turn it down and 24 let it come back?
214 1 MS. OZGA: If the Applicant would like 2 to modify to front yard setback you can 3 simply table it and renotice for a 1.7 foot 4 front yard setback. 5 MEMBER CANUP: Does anybody have a 6 problem with it here? 7 BOARD MEMBERS: No. 8 MEMBER CANUP: It's just a matter of 9 formality that we have to go through to keep 10 it legal. 11 MR. FELLOWS: I appreciate the 12 discussion. I would prefer to leave it the 13 way it is and not have to come back. I 14 would prefer to keep the request as a rear 15 yard setback variance. I only mentioned the 16 other alternative because it had been raised 17 to us and if that was your pleasure, that 18 would be okay with me, but really time is 19 more of the essence then whether it's front 20 or rear. 21 MEMBER CANUP: I guess, Mr. Spencer, 22 how big of an impact is that foot and a half 23 going to have on the wetlands? 24 MR. SPENCER: It's not going to
215 1 have any effect on the wetlands. It would 2 put a small effect onto the available rear 3 yard between the building and a wetland 4 buffer. So there's a possibility that they 5 could return asking for a variance for their 6 deck or something like that. For this small 7 a distance it's not going to be a 8 substantial difference. We're not talking a 9 substantial distance. 10 MR. CANUP: I personally don't have a 11 problem approving what's there. 12 With that I will make a Motion. I make 13 a Motion that in Case number: 07-043 filed 14 by Paul Hedemark that we grant the variance 15 as requested due to the practical difficulty 16 with the wetlands on the site. 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And the 18 odd shaped lot. 19 MEMBER CANUP: Yes, and the 20 non-conventional shaped lot. 21 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Second. 22 There is a Motion and a second on the table. 23 Any further discussion? 24 Seeing none, please call the roll.
216 1 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 2 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 3 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 4 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 5 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 7 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 10 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 11 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 12 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 13 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 6-0. 14 MR. FELLOWS: Thank you all. Good 15 night. 16 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank 17 you. Sorry you had to stay for so long. 18 MR. FELLOWS: Glad we made this 19 meeting. So, staying tonight is not a big 20 deal. 21 (Interposing) (Unintelligible). 22 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Moving 24 right along. We have another matter. ZBA
217 1 Case: 06-082 at Austin Drive. 2 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, this was a 3 previously granted variance, I believe, in 4 the month of April. The Petitioner, our 5 Petitioner's architect is a little bit 6 behind on the drawings to be able to submit 7 for a building permit within the 90-day 8 window that is required. 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: How long 10 are they late? 11 MS. WORKING: He is requesting a 12 second 90-day extension. 13 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Are there 14 any objections? 15 MEMBER CANUP: So moved. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: So moved, second. 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Ninety 18 days, can we get a date? So, 180 days from 19 the original approval date, that's the 20 Motion, correct, Mr. Canup? 21 MEMBER CANUP: Yes, 180 days from 90, 22 yeah. 23 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: 180 days 24 from the original approval.
218 1 MS. WORKING: Okay. 2 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Go ahead 3 and call the roll. 4 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 5 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 6 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 8 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 9 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 10 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 11 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes. 12 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 13 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 14 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 15 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 16 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 6-0. 17 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Number 19 two subcommittee per Tim Shroyer, Chairman 20 Shroyer. The Chair would like to note that 21 due to recent changes in the Michigan 22 legislature laws governing the Zoning Board 23 of Appeals that an Ad hoc committee be 24 formed of this body to review our bylaws and
219 1 present change recommendations back to this 2 Board hopefully he is hoping for the August 3 meeting. So he is hoping to form one 4 tonight. 5 At a minimum he would like to look at 6 the changes affecting membership including 7 the addition of the Planning Commission 8 member. Changes in duties of the alternate 9 member and meeting attendance requirements. 10 He would like to see the Vice-Chair chair 11 the committee. He would like to see a 12 veteran member which he had mentioned Mr. 13 Canup. And he would also like to see the 14 alternate member, Member Krieger be on the 15 committee, those three. 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yeah! 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, 18 checking with the attorney, we are not sure 19 about his power to appoint those certain 20 people, but if those three would be willing 21 to volunteer. 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Involuntary 23 volunteering? 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes. Mr.
220 1 Canup agrees. Member Krieger agrees. I 2 agree as well. 3 MEMBER BAUER: We all agree. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: We are all 5 acquainted. 6 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, we 7 will go ahead and I will set some time. 8 (Interposing)(Unintellgible). 9 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Let's go 10 ahead and take a roll call vote. Take a 11 vote in general. All in favor of forming 12 that subcommittee per his request say aye. 13 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 14 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any 15 opposed? Seeing none, we will meet at a 16 later determined date. 17 MEMBER CANUP: You will set that up? 18 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I will 19 set that up. 20 And with that I will entertain a 21 Motion to adjourn seeing no other business. 22 MR. CANUP: So moved. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: So moved, second. 24 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All in
221 1 favor say aye. 2 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 3 ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The 4 Zoning Board is hereby adjourned. 5 (The meeting was adjourned.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
222 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 I, Mona L. Talton, do hereby 4 certify that I have recorded 5 stenographically the proceedings had and 6 testimony taken in the above-entitled matter 7 at the time and place hereinbefore set 8 forth, and I do further certify that the 9 foregoing transcript, consisting of (185) 10 typewritten pages, is a true and correct 11 transcript of my said stenographic notes. 12 13 14 15 16 17 _____________________________ 18 Mona L. Talton, 19 Certified Shorthand Reporter 20 21 June 22, 2007 22 23 24
|