| 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, April 8, 2008. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: 1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, April 8, 2008 3 7:00 p.m. 4 - - - - - - 5 6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right. It's 7 7:00. Let's go ahead and get started with 8 the City of Novi Zoning Board of Appeals 9 meeting. 10 Ms. Working, could you please call the 11 roll. 12 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 14 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Here. 16 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer? 17 MEMBER SHROYER: Present. 18 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 19 CHAIRPERSON FISHER: Present. 20 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam? 21 MEMBER GHANNAM: Present. 22 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Here. 24 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?
4 1 MEMBER WROBEL: Present. 2 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 3 MEMBER IBE: Present. 4 MS. WORKING: All present, Mr. Chair. 5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, Ms. 6 Working. 7 And I will now ask our Secretary to 8 lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. 9 BOARD MEMBERS: I pledge allegiance to 10 the flag of the United States of America and 11 to the Republic for which it stands once 12 nation under God indivisible with liberty 13 and justice for all. 14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this time it 15 would be a good reminder for everyone to go 16 ahead and turn off all your cell phones and 17 pagers. And for all of the rules and 18 meeting format for the Zoning of Appeals 19 there is a hard copy in the back. Feel free 20 to take a copy and review that at your 21 leisure. 22 At this point I'll ask for an appeal 23 of the agenda or any changes. 24 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, I would like
5 1 to bring to your attention that case number: 2 08-017, number 10 on the agenda has 3 requested to be postponed to the May meeting 4 for health reasons. There is a memo in your 5 meeting file this evening. 6 And I would also like to bring to your 7 attention that under other matters, item 8 three, the Board will be considering ZBA 9 07-065, the Novi Corporate Campus. And, 10 Number four, 07-028, 1411 West Lake. And as 11 item number five, a discussion about Article 12 31 Section 3107 of the Zoning Ordinance. 13 You received updated agendas this evening 14 and the audience also has updated agendas. 15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 16 changes to the agenda? Is there an 17 approval? 18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: So moved. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All in favor say 21 aye? 22 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We have an 24 agenda.
6 1 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a 2 hearing board empowered by the Novi City 3 Charter to hear appeals seeking variances 4 from the application of the Novi Zoning 5 Ordinance. 6 It takes a vote of at least four 7 members to approve a variance request and a 8 vote of the majority present to deny a 9 request. Tonight we do have a full board of 10 seven and our alternate, so any decisions 11 made tonight will be final. 12 We do have the approval of the Minutes 13 from February 12th and March 10th. Are 14 there any changes? We'll start with 15 February 12th. 16 Member Shroyer? 17 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you Member -- 18 or, Chairman Fischer, I'm sorry. 19 On page 34 of the minutes line 11 it 20 says, "Vice-Chairman Shroyer." It should 21 say Vice-Chairperson Sanghvi. So, I would 22 like to get that changed, please. 23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. Does 24 anyone else see any changes?
7 1 MS. KUDLA: I have one change on page 2 42 of the March 10th Minutes, page 42, line 3 four: "I have gotten information that the 4 lessor had been approved," 5 changed to, AT&T to act as Applicant 6 for the, instead of, "Applicant 7 (unintelligible)." 8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, that's the 9 March 10th Minutes on page 42 and we're 10 changing, one more time instead of 11 unintelligible? 12 MS. KUDLA: Crossing out the 13 "Applicant (unintelligible)," and changed 14 to, AT&T to act as Applicant for the, and 15 then, "meeting proposal." 16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. Any other 17 changes to either of the sets of minutes? 18 Is there an approval? 19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I make a 20 motion to approve the amended minutes. 21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: For March 10th 22 and February 12th? 23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there a
8 1 second? 2 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All in favor say 4 aye? 5 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: They are 7 approved as amended. 8 At this point we'll move onto the 9 public remarks portion of the meeting. 10 Is there anyone in the audience that 11 wishes to make a comment to the Board on 12 anything not relating to a case tonight? 13 Please come forward. 14 Seeing none, we'll close the public 15 remarks and move to our first case. 16 Member Wrobel? 17 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 18 Based on the opinion of our City Attorney 19 since I also serve on the Planning 20 Commission and have dealt with the Best Buy 21 site plan, I would like to recuse myself 22 from this discussion. 23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'll move to 24 approve the recusal of Member Wrobel. Is
9 1 there a second? 2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Second. 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All in favor say 4 aye? 5 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right, you 7 will be recused and if Member Ghannam would 8 sit in with us we'd appreciate it. 9 10 We'll go ahead and call case 11 number: 08-007 filed by Steven Sorenson, PE 12 of Professional Engineering Associates for 13 27772 Novi Road. 14 Is the Applicant here today? Please 15 come forward. 16 The Applicant is requesting six 17 variances for the construction of a proposed 18 Best Buy Store store to be located at said 19 address. The Applicant is requesting two 20 building setback variances, one off-street 21 loading and unloading location variance, one 22 dumpster location variance and two dumpster 23 setback variances. 24 The property is zoned RC and is
10 1 located south of Twelve Mile Road and east 2 of Novi Road. 3 Are you an attorney? 4 MS. GARCINO (Ph): No. 5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Would you please 6 raise your hand and be sworn in by our 7 Secretary. 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Do you swear or 9 affirm in case number: 08-007 that you will 10 tell the truth in this case? 11 MS. GARCINO: Yes. 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you can state 13 your name and address and proceed with the 14 case we'd appreciate it. 15 MS. GARCINO: My name is Jayma 16 Garcino. I am with Maxwell, Johansen, Maher 17 Architects. We are in Nashville, Tennessee. 18 We are here tonight to -- I have got a site 19 plan just for your reference. For the 20 variances described. We have a 30,000 21 square foot store that is being developed on 22 what is currently two parcels in the ring 23 road, off the ring road at Twelve Oaks Mall. 24 The lower parcel, the southern parcel
11 1 currently occupied by the closed bank and 2 the northern parcel is a furniture store. 3 The setbacks, the current setbacks on 4 these two separate parcels that we are 5 combining as you know are a hundred feet. 6 In the north and south access, the 100 foot 7 setbacks for these the two separate parcels 8 would render them un-developable. They do 9 overlap as separate parcels. 10 So, you can sort of see what the 11 challenge is in developing these with the 12 100 foot setback. We have combined the two 13 and we have worked with staff to come up 14 with a site placement that we feel best 15 responds to the constraints of the site, but 16 we were unable to meet the 100 foot setbacks 17 based on the size of the site. 18 As far as the compactor location and 19 the truck well location for which we are 20 also requesting a variance, as you can see, 21 this is Novi Road which is on the west side 22 of the site. You have the ring road on the 23 southern side of the site and the ring road 24 also on the eastern side of the site. The
12 1 northern portion of the site is adjacent to 2 the next site. So, effectively we have 3 three visible sides to the site. 4 And Taubman, who controls the mall, I 5 am sure you are aware, also had a 6 restriction that they didn't want to look 7 into the service areas. By that I mean, had 8 they been oriented on the north side of the 9 site from the mall you would be looking into 10 the truck well or into the compactor area, 11 and that was not allowed by them. 12 So, as a result we located the 13 compactor and truck well on the eastern side 14 of the site, as you can see, but they are 15 both fully screened by brick walls. The 16 height of the compactor wall is eight feet 17 and the compactor itself is about four and a 18 half feet tall. 19 The height of the screen wall for the 20 truck well is about 14 feet and it is the 21 full length of the truck. So, both the 22 compactor and the truck should be fully 23 screened behind the masonry wall with the 24 materials that match the building.
13 1 We appreciate your consideration. 2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. 3 MR. AMAN (ph): I am going to jump in 4 as well. I am Brian Aman. I am an attorney 5 on behalf of Best Buy. Just briefly. You 6 have seen the substance of the facts of the 7 assertion. I don't need to essentially 8 restate the law, but under the Michigan 9 Zoning Enabling Act we think this 10 application meets all requirements in terms 11 of essentially justice being substantially 12 done and public safety concerns being met 13 and essentially because of carefulness of 14 the property requiring this because it would 15 otherwise as she stated be un-developable. 16 For that we want for the purposes of 17 the record to request your approval and 18 consideration. Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there anyone 20 in the audience that wishes to make a 21 comment on this case? Seeing none, Madam 22 Secretary, will you please read the 23 correspondence. 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: In this case we have
14 1 one approval with Dan Rifky (ph) of Sterling 2 Jewelers. No comment. He is on Canton Road 3 in Akron, Ohio. 4 We have another one from Donald 5 Delrose: "Dear Ms. Working, I am writing to 6 you regarding the Best Buy project that has 7 been approved at 27772 Novi Road. I wanted 8 to let you know that I have no objections to 9 the proposed side yard setbacks to the north 10 adjacent with our property line. 11 I do, however, have a concern 12 regarding the landscaping that runs along 13 that side. On the plan it shows that there 14 are existing red Cedar trees planted along 15 the property line. It is not red Cedar 16 trees that are planted over there, but 17 rather they are Arborvitaes that are 18 overgrown and scraggly and they should be 19 replaced. If possible I would like to see 20 some bushes or smaller trees to replace the 21 existing Arborvitaes. As it is, the 22 Arborvitaes tend to lose a lot of debris 23 which causes the green belt to look unkept 24 and requires a lot of maintenance to get it
15 1 looking good. I believe that if these were 2 to be replaced with a different type of tree 3 we could greatly improve that area." 4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That appears to 5 be it? 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: That appears to be 7 it. 8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, Madam 9 Secretary. 10 That will close the public hearing 11 portion of the case and we'll move to the 12 Building Department. 13 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, if I could to 14 enter into the record the number of 15 notifications, please. 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: For this case 549
17 notices were mailed. Two approvals. Zero 18 objections. 19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. 20 Anyone else from the Building Department or 21 Counsel? 22 MS. KUDLA: No. 23 MR. BOULARD: Nothing to add. 24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'm sorry?
16 1 MR. BOULARD: Nothing to add. 2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this point I 3 will go ahead and open it up for Board 4 discussion. 5 Member Sanghvi? 6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you, 7 sir. Question. Do we need a letter from 8 the owners of the Twelve Oaks Mall for them 9 to do this? 10 MS. KUDLA: No. As far as the 11 restriction, is that what you are asking? 12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Do we need 13 written permission from the owners of this 14 property for them to go ahead and build on 15 it? 16 MS. KUDLA: No. 17 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Not from 18 the Twelve Oaks Mall people? 19 MS. KUDLA: No, we wouldn't need to do 20 a title opinion. 21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: We don't? 22 MS. KUDLA: I believe at some point we 23 do want to see that there is ownership of 24 the property, but not as part of the Zoning
17 1 Board case, that's part of the Planning 2 Commission and other documents that come 3 through easements and whatnot. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, thank you. Did 5 you say something? 6 MR. AMAN: I would be glad to respond. 7 She is correct absolutely in everything that 8 she said. We do know that we were approved 9 by the City Council last night and the 10 representatives of Twelve Oaks Mall were 11 there with a letter approving the project as 12 presented. 13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, thank 14 you. 15 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, I just wanted 16 to add also if any members of the Board had 17 any questions Kirsten Kapelanski from the 18 Planning Division is here this evening and 19 would be happy to address any of your 20 questions from a planning standpoint. 21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. 22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I have no 23 problem. I just wanted to make sure we are 24 doing everything the right way.
18 1 (Unintelligible). It doesn't need to vacant 2 anyway and doing nothing. It's lot better 3 to have something that is a flourishing 4 business. I'm all for it. Thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Shroyer? 6 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 7 A quick question since the attorney 8 brought it up to the City. What exactly was 9 approved by City Council last night? 10 MS. KUDLA: The site plan subject to 11 the ZBA variances is what I understand. I 12 was not there, but that's what I was told. 13 MEMBER SHROYER: So even though this 14 went through the Planning Commission because 15 of the zoning on it, it had been through 16 City Council as well? 17 MS. KUDLA: I'm not certain why it 18 went to City Council. You might want to ask 19 the Planning Department. 20 MEMBER SHROYER: Come on up. 21 MS. KAPELANSKI: Hi. To answer your 22 question, Member Shroyer. I had to go to 23 City Council for site plan approval on this 24 case because all freestanding businesses in
19 1 the RC District are subject to approval by 2 City Council. 3 MEMBER SHROYER: So, this is all the 4 RC Zoning requirement? 5 MS. KAPELANSKI: It's the zoning and 6 it's the particular use in this case as 7 well. 8 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. I don't 9 have any objections at all. In fact, I 10 thank Best Buy for doing such a good job 11 with shielding the truck well and the trash 12 compactor. I think that's the only place 13 that it could actually be located and to go 14 to 14 foot height on the truck well which 15 would hide the entire truck and trailer. 16 And the 8 foot on the trash compactor even 17 though it won't hide the trash truck picking 18 it up, it's a good move. 19 I do, though, in continuing to look at 20 the site plan. It provides for 165 foot 21 southern building setback which would only 22 require, and you are requesting a 54-foot 23 variance which actually nets of 9 foot to 24 the good in calculations that I was doing.
20 1 And a 112 foot western building 2 setback with a requirement of 37 foot 3 variance which nets 26 feet to the back. 4 It's on the other side. 5 So, I do have to respectfully disagree 6 with your statement and also the statement 7 in the application that the site is 8 un-buildable. The way I view it, the site 9 is un-buildable for a building this size or 10 the lot is too small for a building this 11 size. If the building was made smaller it 12 would fit and it would be able to meet all 13 the setback requirements. 14 What is your comments regarding that? 15 MR. AMAN: If I may respond to the 16 Chairman. We actually came in with a larger 17 building and worked with Planning and got 18 down to a smaller building. Essentially the 19 location of the building is ultimately a 20 function of the concerns about traffic as it 21 relates to getting in and out of the site. 22 And, really, the setback variance we kind 23 of jokingly talked about how because of the 24 100 foot setback surrounding this site, this
21 1 is effectively a peninsula between the ring 2 road and Novi Road literally create a 3 situation where you could almost have maybe 4 a coffee kiosk in the middle and that would 5 be about all that it would comply with with 6 all the setback requirements. 7 So, once we knew we were going to have 8 to some kind of variance, then the question 9 became and really in conjunction with 10 working with planning staff and all the 11 consultants including the traffic 12 consultants, and also including Taubman's 13 consultants which was a stringent a process 14 I may say in the least, was that now that we 15 know we have to have variances in various 16 sites, the question is how to make the site 17 function its best? 18 So, absolutely you are right, we could 19 have adjusted it one way or another in given 20 spots. It came to the conclusion between 21 the traffic consultant as to the 22 relationship and position of curb cuts and 23 the ability to conceal the truck well as you 24 had discussed.
22 1 And also, by the way, in quick 2 response we had the letter about the red 3 Cedars. We are aware of that and we are 4 glad to fix that in this process. But in 5 that it also became a question that 6 realizing we need to have variances either 7 way, how can we make the site itself 8 function the best and least impactful so 9 that the variances were of the least impact 10 as for the neighbors? So you are right, we 11 could adjust one way or other. 12 It came to the conclusion that this is
13 essentially the most efficient way to have 14 the site set and literally is the smallest 15 footprint Best Buy does. 16 Part of this, the City Council heard 17 this last night, is the attempt to relieve 18 pressure from the Eight Mile and Haggerty 19 store because that intersection is legendary 20 as well as that corridor. So we are hopeful 21 that this will do that. So there were some 22 accommodations made. 23 In the end, though, you are correct, 24 we could have adjusted either way, but the
23 1 adjustments were based on a desire to have 2 it ultimately, knowing we need adjustments 3 we had to cross that threshold, variances 4 had to be requested. Not only do we have to 5 have variances, one absolutely from 6 everybody from the professional's opinion, 7 traffic consultants, everybody, what works 8 best and this is the design that it 9 ultimately came down to what works best. 10 And this is the design that it ultimately 11 came down to. You are respectfully correct. 12 We got to that point as well and we said, 13 okay, well, now what do we do? And this was 14 a product of that. 15 MEMBER SHROYER: So, you don't feel 16 that Novi needs another coffee location?
17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It might need 18 another Best Buy. 19 MR. AMAN: My wife would disagree 20 about the coffee location. 21 MEMBER SHROYER: Out of curiosity, in 22 reducing the building size, what went away? 23 In other words, was it the storage and with 24 the storage gone away was that going to
24 1 require additional traffic of the truck to 2 come in and unload? 3 MR. AMAN: No, we literally, they 4 effectively shrink everything a little bit. 5 The inventory is the key process because I 6 don't know about you and your household, 7 when the advertisements come out on Saturday 8 and Sunday and people decide that they are 9 going to get either the Apple or the Ipod or 10 whatever, we know, and Best Buy is a Fortune 11 100 company. They built an international 12 tradition, dedication and financial network 13 based on being able to deliver a product, so 14 we know we had to have the proper inventory 15 in place. 16 So, we appropriately, kind of 17 relatively shrink everything to a proper 18 level, but knowing that we can do this. The 19 has essentially parking underneath the store 20 level, a fairly permanent kind of design 21 trying to accommodate all those needs. So 22 there is substantial expense. 23 This building design cost has 24 easily doubled what Best Buy would normally
25 1 spend on a site, but certainly the value is 2 recognized. So, we relatively shrunk 3 everything trying to accommodate everything. 4 When you are a Fortune 100 company you try 5 to do that. 6 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you very much. 7 With the approval of the Planning Commission 8 on the record. The approval of the City 9 Council on the record and the applicant's 10 statement that he will address the Red Cedar 11 Spice Arborvitaes concerns, I have no 12 objections to this going forward. 13 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 15 Member Shroyer. Other Board Members? 16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Looks like 17 we are coming to an end of the discussion. 18 So maybe I should make a motion. That in 19 case number: 08-007 we approve the request 20 for the variance as stated in the 21 application. The reasons for the variances 22 have been very well described and the 23 practical difficulties described by the 24 application and in the discussion. Thank
26 1 you. 2 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It's a motion 4 and a second on the table. Is there further 5 discussion? Member Shroyer? 6 MEMBER SHROYER: I would like to ask 7 our attorney if I may. Since it was part of 8 the discussion and I believe Member Sanghvi 9 is including the discussion as part of the 10 motion, are we okay with the motion the way 11 it reads, or do we have to verbally repeat 12 that the applicant will address the issues 13 concerning the Red Cedars? 14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Shroyer, 15 I'm not sure that I really want to go there 16 because I don't see the -- 17 MEMBER SHROYER: It's not in our 18 purview. 19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It's not in our 20 purview as far as I'm concerned. 21 MR. AMAN: Let the record reflect that 22 we stipulate to it. No problem. 23 MEMBER SHROYER: It's part of the 24 record because you made the statements
27 1 anyway. But it doesn't have to be part of 2 the motion. I was just verifying that. 3 MS. KUDLA: The ZBA isn't requiring it 4 as part of the motion, but they are 5 stipulating to it as more of a contractual 6 type nature. 7 MEMBER SHROYER: So, we're all right 8 on the motion because we discussed the 9 traffic patterns. We discussed the safety 10 concerns. 11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Are you 12 comfortable with the finding of fact being 13 part of the discussion as opposed to part of 14 the motion? 15 MEMBER SHROYER: That's a better way 16 to phrase it. 17 MS. KUDLA: We're fine with it, though 18 we would prefer more detail in general, but 19 I don't think you are causing any kind of 20 legal problem by not adding to it. 21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We're not 22 causing any legal problems. There is a 23 motion on the table, a motion and a second 24 on the table. Any further discussion?
28 1 Seeing none, Ms. Working, would you 2 please call the roll. 3 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 4 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 5 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 6 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 7 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer? 8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam? 10 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 11 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 12 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 13 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 15 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer? 16 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 17 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0. 18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Congratulations. 19 Best of luck to you guys. I look forward to 20 the interesting design. Like you said, it's 21 that urban appeal. It reminds me of when I 22 was in Washington, D.C., I think it is 23 similar to some stores out there. 24 Welcome to Novi. Again, best of luck.
29 1 MR. AMAN: It would be the parking 2 without (unintelligible). 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And snow. 4 MR. AMAN: That's right. That's a 5 four letter word we don't use in this month. 6 Thank you. 7 8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this time 9 let's go ahead and move on to our second 10 case on the agenda which is case number: 11 08-009 filed by Vince Nona of Market Village 12 located at 41430 Grand River Avenue, Suite 13 D. The Petitioner is here. 14 The Petitioner is requesting one sign 15 variance for an additional wall sign on the 16 Meadowbrook Road elevation of the Gateway 17 Village Market. Applicant is requesting one 18 42 square foot wall sign to be located at 19 said address. The property is zoned NCC and 20 is located west of Meadowbrook Road and 21 north of Grand River Avenue. 22 Are you an attorney by chance? 23 MR. NONA: No. 24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right. If
30 1 you could raise your hand and be sworn in by 2 our Secretary. 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number: 4 08-009 that you would swear and affirm to 5 tell the truth in this case? 6 MR. NONA: I do. 7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Please state your 8 name and address. 9 MR. NONA: My name is Vincent Nona of 10 Market Village, 41430 Grand River Avenue, 11 Suite D. And we are requesting a second 12 sign for our market. The building is 13 located on a prominent corner at Grand River 14 and Meadowbrook. We have two main 15 entrances. 16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Can you do me 17 one favor and put -- do you have a copy of 18 the sign? 19 MR. NONA: I don't. 20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right. Does 21 anyone else have a copy so we can put it up 22 on the overhead? 23 MR. NONA: The building has two main 24 entrances. One off Grand River and one off
31 1 Meadowbrook. It's a prominent tower. It 2 would look bare without having this sign 3 there from driving up the road. So, that's 4 the reason for the request and also that it 5 is -- this is what the sign looks like on 6 the Grand River side. And the sign that we 7 are going for on the Meadowbrook side is 8 identical. 9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 10 comments? No other comments? 11 MR. NONA: No, nothing else. 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there anyone 13 else in the audience that wishes to make 14 comments regarding this case? 15 Seeing none, I will ask the Secretary 16 to read any correspondence in this case. 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case: 08-009, 107 18 notices were mailed. One approval. Zero 19 objections. The approval 20 is from Gary Wood of Hummer of Novi: "Being 21 a corner lot, Market Village deserves 22 additional signage so as to have visibility 23 to both Grand River and Meadowbrook. 24 Adequate visibility is also important to the
32 1 community so that accidents do not occur in 2 this intersection." 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, Madam 4 Secretary. 5 That will conclude the public hearing 6 portion of this case. Does the Building 7 Department or Counsel have any comments to 8 make? 9 MS. KUDLA: No. 10 MR. AMOLSCH: No. 11 MR. BOULARD: Nothing to add. 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this time I 13 will open it up for the Board for 14 discussion. Member Bauer? 15 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. Going by it on 16 Meadowbrook a number of times you pass and 17 see the sign after your entrance off 18 Meadowbrook. That can cause a real safety 19 problem. I just wanted to put that out, 20 first of all. 21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 22 comments, Member Bauer? 23 MEMBER BAUER: No. 24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right.
33 1 Member Wrobel? We have more people on the 2 Board. I'm forgetting people's names. 3 That's what happens when you get my age. 4 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 5 MEMBER WROBEL: I drive by this 6 intersection everyday. There is definitely 7 an identity problem if you are driving south 8 on Meadowbrook or you are driving west on 9 Grand River. I will support this as long as 10 the sign is the same size and design as the 11 other sign. 12 MR. NONA: It's identical. 13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That was my 14 question as well, Member Wrobel. Identical 15 size, identical 16 fonts -- 17 MR. NONA: Identical font. Identical 18 -- 19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Colors? 20 MR. NONA: Colors, everything. It's 21 going to be the exact same sign. 22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Looking at the 23 reasons that we should approve appeals, I 24 feel that this sign that is unique. This
34
1 property is unique and it is exceptional 2 because of the corner that it is on. That 3 it's on a corner in general. And I believe 4 that this use and this variance would not be 5 incompatible with the surrounding areas. 6 So, I would be inclined to approve this as 7 well. 8 Any other Board members? Member 9 Krieger? 10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Out of curiosity. 11 Coming south on Meadowbrook you have no 12 visibility until you are right on the 13 intersection. Do you foresee any need for 14 the other tower that doesn't have anything 15 on it? 16 MR. NONA: If it's allowed, then, yes. 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: So, for additional 18 signage? 19 MR. NONA: For additional, yes. 20 MEMBER KRIEGER: That's all. Thank 21 you. 22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Shroyer? 23 Thank you, Member -- Mr. Chair. I always 24 want to say Member.
35 1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Call me 2 whatever. 3 MEMBER SHROYER: Question on this
4 similar to the last case. Do we need to 5 have written documentation on file from the 6 building owner for an additional sign to be 7 put up? 8 MS. KUDLA: No. 9 MEMBER SHROYER: We do not. Okay, 10 thank you. 11 I think this is pretty straightforward 12 and I can go ahead and make a motion if you 13 like. In case number: 08-009 filed by 14 Vince Nona of Market Village located a the 15 41430 Grand River Avenue, Suite D, I move to 16 approve the request for a variance to allow 17 for additional wall sign for the east 18 elevation as indicated in our packet 19 provided the sign shall be of the same 20 design, color, look and size of the existing 21 wall sign on the south elevation -- 22 MEMBER WROBEL: Second. 23 MEMBER SHROYER: Due to the fact that 24 this business -- I'm not quite done -- has a
36 1 corner location with frontage on both Grand 2 River Avenue and Meadowbrook Road and that 3 allowing this variance would provide for a 4 safer entryway for the customers that need 5 to cross over lanes on both roads and 6 showing that the sign would maintain with 7 the compatibility with the surrounding 8 buildings and area.
9 MEMBER WROBEL: Second. 10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is a 11 motion by Member Shroyer and a second by 12 Member Wrobel. Any other comments? 13 Seeing none, Ms. Working, would you 14 please call the roll. 15 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer? 16 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 17 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 18 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 19 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 20 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 21 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 23 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 24 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
37 1 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer? 2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 3 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 4 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 5 MS. WORKING: Motion is passed 7-0. 6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Congratulations, 7 the motion was granted. Best of luck to you 8 guys as well. 9 MR. NONA: Thank you. 10 11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this time we 12 will move to case number three on the 13 agenda. Case number: 08-010 filed by Ray 14 Cousineau of Park Place Estates for 50740 15 Berwick Court. The Petitioner is requesting 16 one ten foot front yard setback variance for 17 lot 27 at said address in an effort to 18 preserve a wetland buffer in the rear yard 19 and allow the lot to be buildable. 20 The property is zoned RA and is 21 located off Garfield Road -- west of 22 Garfield Road and south of Nine Mile Road. 23 It appears that the Petitioner is 24 here.
38 1 MR. COUSINEAU: Yes, I am. 2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Are you an 3 attorney, sir? 4 MR. COUSINEAU: No, sir, I am not. 5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you could 6 raise your hand and be sworn in. 7 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number: 8 08-010 filed by Ray Cousineau of Park Place 9 Estates, Inc., do you swear and affirm to 10 tell the truth in this case? 11 MR. COUSINEAU: Yes, I do. 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Please state 13 your name and address and proceed. 14 MR. COUSINEAU: My name is Ray 15 Cousineau. I am representing Park Place 16 Estates, Inc., the original developer of the 17 subdivision. And we are located in Wixom, 18 Michigan. 19 Should I make a brief statement 20 regarding our proposal or the reason that we 21 are here? 22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Proceed with all 23 your case, all your facts. 24 MR. COUSINEAU: Okay. Before you on
39 1 the screen is lot 27 of the Park Place 2 Estates. It's one of the last two lots that 3 we as the developer still own that we have 4 not sold of the 99 lots. It's problematic 5 for us from a marketability standpoint 6 because for the last five or six years we 7 have had no less than a half dozen 8 purchasers look at this particular lot. And 9 because of the encroachment of the wetland 10 or the wetland buffer area, every 11 perspective buyer that has investigated or 12 done their due diligence on this lot has 13 determined that by the time they build a 14 home that is comparable to the existing 15 homes within Park Place, that they will 16 probably end up with virtually no useable 17 backyard because their home will simply abut 18 the wetland buffer area which is an area 19 designated to remain in its natural state 20 and not be maintained, mowed or landscaped 21 or used in any way actively or passively by 22 the residents. 23 So, it's become a major problem for 24 us. We met the City staff and the
40 1 consultants looking at all types of options. 2 We proposed relocating the buffer or 3 modifying the buffer area itself, relocating 4 the buffer or even providing additional 5 wetland mitigation in lieu of the buffer 6 area. Again, to try to create some type of 7 a useable backyard. 8 The City staff and their consultant 9 indicated that it was not an acceptable 10 proposal. At the city staff request or 11 suggestion they said go to the ZBA and see 12 if the ZBA might consider a temporary waiver 13 of the front yard setback. And I say 14 temporary, for a period of six months which 15 would allow us to market this lot with that 16 variance in place and demonstrate to 17 perspective purchasers that we could move 18 the building envelope forward that ten feet 19 and create some usable backyard. 20 And that's the reason that we are here 21 this evening. Again, it's been a real issue 22 for us. One of the problems that we have is 23 that if you look at trying to locate a 24 comparable house, when I say comparable
41 1 house, it would be comparable to the 2 existing homes that are built within Park 3 Place which range in size from 3,500 to 4 4,000 square feet with an attached three-car 5 garage. It's estate-type homes on the lot, 6 three-quarter acre lots. 7 Again, if you took a look at the 8 schematic that I have, we have shown you how 9 an almost 3,400 square foot home would be 10 configured on this lot observing the 11 existing setback as is. And you can see 12 that the rear envelope or the rear elevation 13 just abuts directly up to the wetland buffer 14 creating a situation where, again, you have 15 no useable rear yard. 16 So, at this point I'm looking at any 17 relief that we can get, again, to improve 18 the marketability of this lot. Again, if 19 it's the Board's pleasure to grant us a 20 variance, that would give us the option to 21 market the lot, meet with perspective 22 purchasers. Have them put together their 23 building plans. Take those plans to the 24 City for final review and approval. If we
42 1 are unsuccessful in doing that in six 2 months, then we could ask for an extension 3 of the variance or nothing at all and we 4 would have to look at other alternatives. I 5 guess our only other alternative would be to 6 try to build a much smaller home to squeeze 7 that building envelope down and compress the 8 home and move that envelope towards the 9 front lot to try to create a more usable 10 backyard. 11 But then, again, we may have a problem 12 with homeowners restrictions. To do that we 13 may end up with a home that may not meet 14 their square footage requirements or some of 15 their dimensional requirements and we may 16 require a variance from them. So, again, 17 it's very problematic for us. We are just 18 looking for a way to try to resolve this 19 issue and make it more marketable. Thank 20 you. 21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there anyone 22 in the audience that wishes to make a 23 comment on this case? Seeing none, I'll ask 24 the Secretary to read any correspondence.
43 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number: 2 08-010, eleven notices were mailed. Zero 3 approvals. Three objections. 4 The first one is from Doug and Amy 5 Nolan of Berwick Court. They object: "With 6 a house pushed forward that much it will 7 change the view from both from our house and 8 from the street significantly. It may even 9 completely block our home from the view 10 coming down the cul-de-sac. We purchased 11 our lot with the setbacks established. We 12 do not want the house next door pulled 13 forward. It will not only change our view, 14 but level of privacy, et cetera. 15 The next one is from Leon and Jean Gus 16 on Berwick court. They object. No 17 comments. No, they had a letter: "Comments 18 relating to this case. The proposed plan 19 provided by the Park Place Estate, Inc., 20 fails to indicate the presence of protected 21 woodlands on lot 27. If a house were to be 22 constructed as indicated on their proposed 23 lot plan, part of the protected woodlands 24 would have to be destroyed. Attached is a
44 1 plot plan of lot 27 and the adjoining lot 2 which identifies the protected woodland 3 boundaries. The red circle indicates a 4 healthy oak tree with a twelve inch trunk 5 which is located within the protected 6 woodlands. 7 The tree stands approximately 65 feet 8 from the street and 22 feet from the lot 9 line along lot 28. If a home were built as 10 proposed, this tree along with other 11 protected woodlands would have to be 12 removed. This tree along with the rest of 13 the protected woodlands block the view from 14 our home with the electric tower located 15 next to lot 26. If part of the previously 16 set aside protected woodlands were to be 17 removed, it likely would affect the value of 18 our home. 19 When we purchased lot 28, it was our 20 understanding that the protected woodlands 21 on lot 27 would remain intact. It was 22 established when the subdivision was 23 developed. The reason we purchased lot 28 24 and the reason we paid a premium for the lot
45 1 compared to other lots within the 2 subdivision were because of the protected 3 woodlands on our lot and the surrounding 4 area which includes lot 27. 5 Park Place Estates, Inc., knew the 6 size restrictions on lot 27 when they 7 developed the subdivision. If they wanted 8 to propose changes to alter the protected 9 woodland such changes should have been 10 proposed prior to selling the adjoining lots 11 not after the adjoining lot owners were 12 under the impression that protected 13 woodlands are protected and would not be 14 removed and/or destroyed. Based on the 15 above facts and circumstances we ask the 16 Zoning Board of Appeals to deny the variance 17 request. From Ann and Gene Jude." 18 And the last one from Raymond T. 19 Stonousch (ph), To City of Novi Zoning Board 20 of Appeals. Subject, regarding the proposed 21 request for a variance on lot 27 at Park 22 Place Subdivisions: "Greetings. As the 23 owner of lot 29 I strongly oppose the 24 granting of this variance for the following
46 1 reasons: One, I believe it would conflict 2 with the existing setback requirements 3 established in the subdivision. 4 Two, it would disrupt the continuity 5 established in the subdivision. Three, it 6 would degrade the aesthetics and appeal in 7 the subdivision. Four, it would adversely 8 impact the value of my property. Please rule 9 to decline this request for variance." 10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, Madam 11 Secretary. That will conclude the public 12 remarks section of the meeting. And we will 13 ask the Building Department if they have any 14 comments or the City? 15 MR. FOX: Yes, I have some comments. 16 We did meet with Mr. Cousineau on this 17 project with our wetland consultant and the 18 Planning Department and myself and some of 19 the staff in the Building Department. We 20 went over a lot of different options as the 21 applicant stated and this did seem to be the 22 best of the options that we could come up 23 without disturbing the wetland. Everybody 24 was in agreement that that would be the
47 1 least desirable thing to do is to go into 2 that wetland and start tearing up the 3 wetland buffer or the wetland itself to 4 increase this buildable area. 5 Due to the nature of the shape of this 6 particular lot being in the cul-de-sac the 7 way it is, by reducing the setback in the 8 front by 10 feet, you are still not going to 9 adversely affect the line of houses. This 10 would not put this house out in front of all 11 the other houses on the street because of 12 the curvature of the setbacks around that 13 cul-de-sac which was one of the reasons we 14 were in agreement with this. 15 Also, the fact that he would get an 16 increase or a decrease in the setback 17 requirements for the front yard. He would 18 still need to meet all the woodland and 19 wetland requirements for the project. That 20 doesn't make all that go away. So, he would 21 still have to go through whatever via the 22 wetland review as far as any trees would go 23 in the protected woodland areas for any 24 homes that are proposed to be built in that
48 1 area. Thank you. 2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. Any 3 other comments? 4 MS. KUDLA: It appears that with those 5 protected woodland areas shown on the plat 6 and it does appear that the building 7 envelope is outside the protected woodland 8 area. 9 MR. COUSINEAU: Could I have a 10 response to that one letter regarding the 11 woodland? 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Not at this 13 time. If one of the Board Members wishes to 14 bring it up or question you on it, that's 15 their prerogative. But at this time we are 16 on to a later portion of the hearing. 17 So, if the Building Department has no 18 other comments I'll open it up for Board 19 discussion. Member Wrobel? 20 MEMBER WROBEL: Since no one else will 21 start, I'll start. It appears and the staff 22 has confirmed that the wetlands and the 23 wetland buffer will not be affected by this 24 request. That is one of our main concerns
49 1 trying to keep the wetlands intact and the 2 wetland buffers. The other residents who 3 bought land winding the wetlands there, they 4 will not be damaged with this request. 5 The other fact is, the Applicant, as 6 you said he could put a smaller house there. 7 I believe that that would be more of a 8 deterrent to the housing values in that 9 subdivision having a smaller home than the 10 existing size homes then a 10 foot request 11 setback variance on a cul-de-sac, which I 12 live on a cul-de-sac and the homes have 13 various setbacks and you don't even notice 14 it. 15 So, given the fact that the wetlands 16 are protected, the house will be comparable 17 to the other size homes, I have no problem 18 supporting this. 19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 20 Member Wrobel. 21 Other Board Members? Member Ibe? 22 MEMBER IBE: The only question I 23 really have, sir, is in reference to the 24 objection that was raised by Leon and Jean
50 1 Gus. Now, please help me to understand. 2 When they purchased your lot, meaning lot 3 28, the allegation they make in their 4 letter, is that true that they were led to 5 believe that the protected wetlands will 6 remain intact as established? 7 MR. COUSINEAU: That is correct, sir. 8 First of all, the wetlands are governed by a 9 conservation easement that is on the 10 recorded plat. So that identifies a 11 preservation area. The wetland buffer is 12 not a part of that conservation easement. 13 That's an additional area that the City of 14 Novi retains jurisdiction over. 15 With respect to the woodlands, I got 16 it on the screen right how. This is lot 27, 17 our lot. This is 28 which is Mr. Gus' lot. 18 You can see through here, this is the 19 woodland and the wetland or the silk fence 20 boundary lines that were originally approved 21 prior to development. Anything within this 22 area including all these trees in through 23 here are still part of the protected 24 woodland and they are not intended to be
51 1 disturbed. 2 So, the lots, even though I don't know 3 specifically what tree Mr. Gus is talking 4 about, but if there is an existing tree on 5 lot 27 right now, we do not intend to remove 6 that as a part of that proposal. We intend 7 to keep the trees identified for protection 8 continue to be protected. Does that answer 9 your question, sir? 10 MR. IBE: It does, but I do have a 11 follow-up. I really do want to address the 12 allegation raised by the parties Leon and 13 Jean Gus. 14 Now, the price they paid for their 15 lot, they make the allegation that they paid 16 a premium price compared to the rest of the 17 lots particularly because of the woodlands. 18 Is that also a true statement? 19 MR. COUSINEAU: Yes, sir. They have a 20 fairly heavily wooded lot and I don't know 21 if that was necessarily part of the premium 22 consideration, but the majority of the 23 premium is the location of the lot on the 24 cul-de-sac. Where there is no through
52 1 traffic at the extreme end of the 2 subdivision. So, it was primarily a 3 location premium, but they did pay a premium 4 for their lot. 5 Lot 27 that we still own was 6 originally marketed with the same premium 7 the Gus paid. However, we have realized 8 that because of the economy and because of 9 the problems that we have with this 10 particular lot that we are going to have to 11 reduce the price and we have reduced it 12 significantly to try to move it. 13 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chairman, if you 14 don't mind? 15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Absolutely. 16 MEMBER IBE: You know, based on your 17 statement that they did pay a premium price 18 for lot 28, did anyone from your company 19 make any representation to the Gus that 20 perhaps lot 27, the one in question right 21 now will remain as is and there will be no 22 development on that property? Was that made 23 at the time they purchased lot 28? 24 MR. COUSINEAU: I know that Mr. Gus
53 1 looked at this same plan that's on the board 2 right now that shows a typical building 3 envelope and how a home could be built on 4 that particular lot. So, as far as making a 5 representation that it was not buildable, 6 no, that was not the case. He always knew 7 that a home could be constructed there. But 8 Mr. Gus had to deal with some wetland and 9 wetland buffer issues when he constructed 10 the home on his lot. They weren't as severe 11 because the wetland areas were off to the 12 side of his lot. So, he was familiar with 13 the requirements associated with the wetland 14 and the wetland buffer. 15 I don't know if I have answered your 16 question, but we did not make any improper 17 representations to Mr. Gus. I think his 18 primary concern is that he doesn't want 19 trees to come down when a home is built over 20 here. Right now that's not part of our 21 proposal. We're just looking for a way to 22 try to create a more useable rear yard 23 without removing any additional trees on our 24 lot and preserving his view or the
54 1 screening, if you will. 2 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 3 MR. COUSINEAU: Thank you. 4 MEMBER IBE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 6 Member Ibe. Any other Board Members? 7 I have a quick question. In any of 8 your discussions with the City did you talk 9 about lesser variances being requested? And 10 if so, why couldn't that work? And the 11 reason I am asking, it appears that with 12 your request you are going to be able to 13 build a little over 4,000 square-foot house. 14 As the ordinance is written you would be 15 allowed a little under 3,400 square feet. 16 And the normal or average according to the 17 documents we were given is a 3,700 18 square-foot home. It almost seems to me 19 that it would be possible to get by with a 20 lesser variance. 21 MR. COUSINEAU: Good point. There is 22 a schematic when we showed a 4,000 square 23 foot house that could be built with the 24 front yard variance granted. We showed
55 1 4,000 square feet because we wanted to show 2 the difference in the buildable envelope 3 that was created by the additional 10 foot 4 going from just over 3,000 square feet to 5 over 4,000 square feet. So, it's fairly 6 significant. But both homes still show a 7 building envelope line that would be very 8 close to the buffer area. 9 It would be our intent to market this 10 lot, pull this rear envelope line back 11 forward, if you would, probably something in 12 this area here. Reduce the square footage 13 of the home, but then you create a useable 14 rear yard area. So, again, we're not 15 intending, we don't have a proposal to build 16 a 4,000. 17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Four thousand 18 would be a maximum. We kind of comment 19 there the actual building footprint could 20 vary and it would likely be a smaller and 21 more compatible with the average square 22 foot. 23 MR. COUSINEAU: Yeah, I think 24 realistically we need to build something
56 1 around 3,500 square foot maximum, again, 2 trying to create more of that useable area 3 in the rear yard. 4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would also 5 tend to support this request since the main 6 goal as stated before is to protect the 7 wetlands, so I would be willing to support 8 as well. 9 Member Shroyer? 10 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 11 When I first looked at this I basically 12 wrote down, as long as the neighbors are 13 okay with it and then I'm okay with it. 14 Then we get the objection letters of the 15 three closest neighbors. And so I had to go 16 back and take a relook and I did something 17 very similar to the Chair, looking at the 18 average square footage of 3,712, finding out 19 that the smallest house built over there was 20 2,756 square feet and the proposed 3,374 21 would meet the ordinance requirements. The 22 4,044 square feet would meet it with the 23 variance request. The house is basically -- 24 meeting the ordinance of the house would be
57 1 338 square foot smaller than the average, 2 yet 1,618 square feet larger than the 3 smallest. 4 MR. COUSINEAU: You are referring to 5 3,374 building envelope? 6 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 7 MR. COUSINEAU: Again, that could be 8 constructed but there is no useable 9 backyard. That's our dilemma. 10 MEMBER SHROYER: So, the requested 11 house is 332 square feet larger than the 12 average. Now, I understand in lowering the 13 price of the lot if you build a bigger house 14 you chart it by the square foot quite often 15 in building and construction so you can make 16 up some of the difference. 17 MR. COUSINEAU: We're not the builder 18 here. We're just the developer. So, we're 19 selling the lots. 20 MEMBER SHROYER: By you I am not 21 referring to you personally. So I was 22 trying to look back and trying to think of 23 what was fair all around. And I would be 24 more inclined to compromise than approve a
58 1 five foot variance. So, I would like to 2 field that out for the Board's thought and 3 consideration. That would put a little more 4 control. It may appease some of the 5 concerns of the neighbors, not that that 6 needs to be taken into account in our 7 decision and our deliberation, but, maybe 8 that's something that we can look at as 9 opposed to the full 10 foot variance 10 request. 11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If I may, that's 12 where I was going with it as well. But my 13 understanding now is that if we push it back 14 five feet that just means that they are go 15 going to have five foot less of useable 16 backyard. Is that a correct interpretation 17 by me? 18 MR. COUSINEAU: That's what our 19 preference is. We would like to push the 20 building forward and create much of the -- 21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I was totally on 22 board with you because of that useable 23 backyard. Just to clarify what you had said. 24 MEMBER SHROYER: I would like to make
59 1 other statement. 2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Absolutely. 3 MEMBER SHROYER: The oak tree that the 4 one letter was referring to does fall within 5 the woodland protected area. So I am pretty 6 sure we're okay there as long as no roots 7 are destroyed during construction. That oak 8 tree could be protected. Thank you, Mr. 9 Chair. 10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Sanghvi? 11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you, 12 Mr. Chair. I just had a question for you, 13 sir. What do you think is the size of the 14 functional area of your lot? 15 MR. COUSINEAU: What do I see? 16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The 17 functional which you can really use because 18 of the woodlands and the wetlands and 19 everything else there? 20 MR. COUSINEAU: Of the overall lot? 21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 22 MR. COUSINEAU: Mike, do you have any 23 idea what the square foot is? I know these 24 lots are a minimum three-quarter acre. Most
60 1 of them are closer to an acre. I am not 2 sure of the exact square footage of this 3 particular lot. We are talking about a 4 3,300 to 3,500 square foot home. 5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: So, you are 6 talking about 3,500 square foot home not a 7 4,000 square foot home? 8 MR. COUSINEAU: No. If I tried to 9 build a -- first of all, I couldn't build a 10 4,000 square foot home on this lot as it 11 exist today with the current setback. The 12 one schematic that we showed showed a 4,000 13 house, but that doesn't give us what we 14 need. That does not give us a useable 15 backyard. That does not give us a usable 16 backyard. It's not an attempt to market this 17 as a 4,000 square foot home. 18 I think we are talking again about a 19 3,500 square foot home is the way that we 20 would present this to perspective purchaser 21 and say then that creates some level of 22 usable backyard outside of the buffer area. 23 Because we're finding a lot of the 24 homeowners in Park Place are active young to
61 1 middle aged professionals. They have 2 families. They have children. They need 3 some type of a rear yard. 4 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: My second 5 question was, can you draw me the front line 6 here on lot 28 where the current building is 7 standing? 8 MR. COUSINEAU: This is the original 9 subdivision as approved. This is lot 27 10 which is us and that's the existing front 11 yard setback. This is 28 which is Mr. Gus 12 and I know that his house does meet the -- 13 or come to the front yard setback. It 14 doesn't necessarily fit within this generic 15 box. That would be roughly the front of his 16 elevation in comparison to the front of the 17 elevation of our home on 27. 18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The one on 19 27 you are showing is the one on the 20 variance you are requesting? 21 MR. COUSINEAU: I'm sorry, what was 22 the question? 23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: If you had 24 the variance request where would that house
62
1 sit in comparison to this? 2 MR. COUSINEAU: That house would 3 probably come up into some area here. 4 Roughly 10 feet. 5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 6 MR. COUSINEAU: Regardless of what 7 happens here this evening, we would have to 8 come back with a building plan obviously if 9 we are successful in selling the lot. But 10 beyond that, we still have to submit our 11 building plans and our plot plans to the 12 subdivision association for their 13 architectural approval. So they are going 14 to see everything that's done on this lot 15 and they are going to have a right of 16 review. 17 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I have one 18 more question. What did you mean by a 19 six-month temporary variance? 20 MR. COUSINEAU: I was told by City 21 staff that if we are successful in receiving 22 a variance this evening, that that would be 23 a variance for a period of six months only, 24 which would allow us to sell the lot and
63 1 have the purchaser come in with building 2 permit plans and if the plans were 3 subsequently approved within that six-month 4 period, then the variance would remain 5 permanent. But if there is no action taken 6 let's say by an applicant or by a purchaser 7 with respect to submitting a building 8 permit, then after six months that variance 9 goes away. 10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Does the 11 Building Department wish to clarify for the 12 Board? 13 MS. WORKING: Through the Chair. One 14 of the discussion items at the end of your 15 agenda is the article and the section number 16 that provides for the requirement for 17 someone who is granted a variance to pull a 18 building permit within 90 days. Often a 19 developer will realize that may not be 20 possible. I may not move this lot in 90 21 days and they will come to you asking for 22 additional time and that is what Mr. 23 Cousineau will be doing this evening based 24 on the City's recommendation that he do so.
64 1 MR. COUSINEAU: So, I am actually 2 asking for the six months? Okay. 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Well, at that 4 time -- 5 MS. WORKING: The Ordinance requires 6 90 days and then we send the Applicant a 7 letter reminding them that your variance 8 will expire unless you request an extension. 9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I understand 10 that. But if this Board decides this case 11 and finds finding of facts to grant a 12 variance under the law, then what recourse 13 would this Board have to deny it after 90 14 days? 15 MS. WORKING: You wouldn't. If you 16 granted the six months you would have six 17 months. I mean the Petitioner would have six 18 months. 19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: For six months. 20 MS. WORKING: Correct. 21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What recourse 22 would we have at that point? To deny -- 23 MS. WORKING: The variance would 24 expire. He would have to re-petition for a
65
1 new variance. 2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And bring the 3 same finding of facts, though. 4 MS. WORKING: He would be a brand new 5 case coming before you. It may be the same 6 request, we won't know that, but I am just 7 saying that it will expire and it will no 8 longer be valid. Whatever you approve and 9 grant would no longer be valid after that 10 six-month period should you choose to make 11 that decision. 12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: If I 13 understand correctly what you are saying is, 14 the permit will expire in six months, not 15 necessarily the once granted variance would 16 expire? 17 MS. KUDLA: The variance would expire. 18 Right now you are allowed 90 days to pull a 19 building permit under the variance granted. 20 What would be considered right now is 21 sending that provision to the Ordinance 22 Review Committee to expand that 90-day 23 period to six months given the current state 24 of the actual time being realized so that
66 1 you are going to be able to pull a building 2 permit in 90 days. So, I believe what's 3 going on is that rather than waiting to have 4 that ordinance amended, the Building 5 Department just recommended that the 6 Applicant ask for that additional 90 days 7 based on what has been going on in the 8 current market place and the likelihood that 9 the City is going to seek an amendment on 10 the 90 days. 11 MEMBER KRIEGER: So, in six months if 12 he has not found a buyer and then in eight 13 months he finds a buyer he has got to come 14 back? 15 MS. KUDLA: Correct. 16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: But he would 17 come back with the same setback, the same 18 plot, everything would be the same, so our 19 decision would have to be the same because 20 we would use the same law to make the 21 decision. 22 MS. KUDLA: It wouldn't have to be the 23 same. 24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Board Members,
67 1 any other discussions or motions on this 2 case? 3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: He is 4 working to call it a temporary thing. 5 MR. BOULARD: If I may? 6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Please. 7 MR. BOULARD: I believe the reasoning 8 behind the time limit is so that, for 9 example, if you had someone who decided that 10 they wanted to purchase a lot, wanted to 11 build a certain type of house. They wanted 12 to build around a tree and the Board 13 approved that and then the house was never 14 built, the lot was sold. The variance 15 wouldn't remain there. It wouldn't remain 16 with the property if the construction was 17 not commenced. 18 An example, ten years down the road 19 when somebody else develops a property the 20 tree that everyone was trying to work around 21 may be long gone. Something like that. So, 22 I think that's the reasoning in putting a 23 time limit on commencing construction once a 24 variance has been made.
68 1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Bauer? 2 MEMBER BAUER: With that buffer in the 3 back you are going to the larger sized home. 4 You are talking four feet. In the back 5 that's not too much of a backyard. It 6 doesn't give him much. 7 MR. COUSINEAU: Are you talking about 8 the 4,000 square foot envelope again? 9 MEMBER BAUER: Um-hum. 10 MR. COUSINEAU: Yeah, we can't 11 practically build that and do what I want to 12 do which is to create a useable backyard. 13 So, there is no way that we are going to 14 market this lot that we want you to build a 15 4,000 square foot home. We want to build 16 roughly about a 3,500 square foot home. And 17 as I indicated that would probably create a 18 backyard building envelope somewhere in this 19 area which gives us some usable rear yard. 20 This lot will not accommodate a 4,000 21 square foot home even with the variance. 22 But if I can get something this evening then 23 I can begin to market this and if we are 24 lucky or very fortunate we are going find a
69 1 buyer and we are going to have to work with 2 them in putting together a plan to submit to 3 the City so that we don't lose the six-month 4 envelope or whatever we have. 5 But if we do lose it, at least even if 6 you gave me six months if I lost the six 7 months and let's say eight months from now a 8 purchaser comes forward, I could 9 realistically say we went in front of the 10 ZBA. They granted us a six-month envelope. 11 We didn't meet the time line, but we can go 12 back to the ZBA with a brand new application 13 with your specific house on that plan so we 14 could show exactly what you intend to build. 15 If I got something this evening at least I 16 could begin marketing with so more 17 creativity and flexibility than I have now 18 because I don't have a lot to work with. 19 MEMBER BAUER: You didn't answer my 20 question, but that's all right. 21 MS. KUDLA: Mr. Chair, if there is any 22 confusion about the Ordinance and the 90-day 23 requirement it's in your packet. And we can 24 put it up on the screen and talk about it or
70 1 schedule to talk about it at the end of the 2 meeting. If it would help everybody we 3 could take a look at it now. 4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What I am 5 understanding is they have 90 days per the 6 Ordinance. We would tonight request, or 7 part of our motion would be to extend it to 8 six months? 9 MS. KUDLA: Correct. 10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That's fine. 11 All I'm saying is if that six months or the 12 90 days or whatever amount of time expires, 13 we really don't have recourse under the same 14 circumstances to then reverse our own 15 decision because we make it based off of the 16 practical difficulty being shown. 17 MS. KUDLA: You wouldn't have to 18 reverse because it would expire. If they 19 wanted to renew it they would have to come
20 back in front of the Board. 21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I know, but 22 it would be a renewal of the variance 23 already granted. 24 MS. WORKING: They can do that, they
71 1 can file for an extension. 2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: But you are 3 not talking about reviewing the decision of 4 the variance. That is the fundamental 5 problem. 6 MS. KUDLA: It will depend in what 7 time frame they will request it because you 8 have a limited time frame to request a 9 renewal. If it expires outside that time 10 frame, then they are coming in front of the 11 Board again with a whole new request. 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We'll discuss 13 that later. 14 If it were to up me if I could make a 15 recommendation to the Board, I would move to 16 approve the request with the six months, 17 that's fine. But asking the attorney, is it 18 possible to review, bring back any plans 19 back before the Zoning Board anyway because 20 one of the major findings of fact is that 21 they are trying to create a useable 22 backyard. If we grant the variance and we 23 say go ahead and then they build a 4,000 24 square foot home, what recourse do we have
72 1 at that point? 2 MS. KUDLA: So, you are asking that a 3 condition of the variance on it being used 4 for a useable backyard rather than square 5 footage of the home? 6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct. 7 MS. KUDLA: I think that you would 8 have to make it that condition. 9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would 10 recommend doing that, Board Members. 11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: We make a 12 stipulation for the size of the square foot 13 of the house on the lot? 14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I don't know if 15 I would want to hinder their creativity in 16 that manner. I just want to make sure that 17 -- 18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: We are 19 limiting the size of the house that goes on 20 the lot. We are not limiting any creativity 21 on what kind of or how to create that house 22 there. Because otherwise you have a 23 variance and there is nothing to stop them 24 from building a 4,000 square foot house.
73 1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Except bringing 2 it back to review for the useable backyard. 3 None of us are architects. How could we 4 come up with a square footage that would be 5 reasonable? If they could build something 6 that was 10,000 square foot but live within 7 the variance and setbacks, that's fine by 8 me. 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: They can go 10 up. 11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 12 recommendations by the Board Members?
13 MEMBER BAUER: I think you are 14 granting something that's not there. 15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: That's the 16 point. 17 MEMBER BAUER: I don't like to grant 18 something ahead of time that we don't know 19 what it is. He lives within this boundary, 20 yes, but we have no control over it. 21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Ibe? 22 MEMBER IBE: I think I will be also 23 inclined to approve because I think the 24 Applicant here has diligently and I think in
74 1 good faith answered the question that was 2 more important to my heart because of the 3 neighbors I wanted to make sure the 4 neighbors were okay with it. And also we 5 will allow the developer the opportunity, of 6 course, to market this particular lot. If 7 we fail to grant a variance tonight, it 8 impedes the ability, of course, to market 9 this particular property. 10 And in reality, I think that our goal 11 is not to prevent business owners from 12 moving forward in finding markets for their 13 product. In this case the product is the 14 land and the only way they can find a 15 potential buyer is to have this variance so 16 that when they present that to a potential 17 buyer the potential buyer knows what he or 18 she is looking at prior to buying it. How 19 else are they going to do that if we don't 20 grant them the leeway to at least seek to 21 find a buyer? 22 I think that if we want to set 23 conditions, say perhaps to alleviate the 24 concerns that some of the neighbors have,
75 1 that perhaps on the condition that any house 2 to be constructed should be less than X 3 amount of square footage, I think they can 4 live with that. He has already stated that 5 he will build something that was less than 6 4,000 square foot. 7 I think I assume that I should take 8 you for your words. 9 MR. COUSINEAU: Yes, sir. 10 MEMBER IBE: If that was the case, if
11 he were to do anything contrary to that, I 12 am sure we do have records of this 13 proceeding. And there are avenues, of 14 course, to litigate that matter. 15 I don't think that this developer want 16 to take that chance in going against what he 17 has already stated. That having been said, 18 (unintelligible) find a way to allow them 19 the opportunity to market this particular 20 property and let's grant them this variance 21 requested. Thank you. 22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do you wish to 23 make a motion to that effect or in that 24 case?
76
1 I'll make a motion that in case 2 number: 08-010 filed by Ray Cousineau of 3 Park Place Estates that we grant the 4 Petitioner's request due to the fact that 5 the Petitioner has established practical 6 difficulty given that the buildable area is 7 severely limited due to the wetlands and it 8 is his main goal to, A, preserve those 9 wetlands. And, B, build a usable backyard. 10 Granting this variance would also help the 11 house to become closer in characteristics 12 with the other houses in the subdivision. I 13 would also like to state that the house 14 being on a cul-de-sac in an irregular shape 15 lot also impeded the ability of this lot and 16 furthers the practical difficulty shown. 17 I would grant that the Petitioner 18 would have 60 days to pull the building 19 permit, six months to pull the building 20 permit. 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is a 23 motion and a second. 24 MS. WORKING: Through the Chair. This
77 1 Petitioner will more than likely not be 2 pulling the building permit. He is the 3 developer. 4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Indeed he is. 5 Given that the variance runs with the land, 6 the lot is granted the variance and the lot 7 has six months as well is my intention. 8 Thank you for that clarification. 9 That is correct. You are correct as usual. 10 There is a motion and a second on the 11 table by Member Fischer and Member Krieger. 12 Any other comments? Seeing none, Ms. 13 Working, would you please call the roll. 14 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer? 15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 16 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 18 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer? 19 MEMBER SHROYER: No. 20 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: No. 22 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 23 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 24 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
78 1 MEMBER BAUER: No. 2 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 3 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 4 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 4-3. 5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The variance has 6 been granted. You have six months or the 7 lot has six months to pull the permit. Best 8 of luck in marketing that property. 9 MR. COUSINEAU: Thank you for your 10 help and your consideration. We'll do the 11 best that we can. 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. 13 14 At this time I would like to call 15 case number four on the agenda which is Case 16 Number: 08-011 filed by Chuck Alawan for 17 Greek Isle Eatery located at 39777 Grand 18 River Avenue. The Petitioner is requesting a 19 variance for the requirement that outdoor 20 seating area shall be enclosed in instances 21 where there is wait staff service. The 22 proposed site is located in the Pheasant Run 23 Plaza and the property is zoned B-3 and is 24 located south of Grand River and west of
79 1 Haggerty Road. 2 Are you an attorney, sir? 3 MR. ALAWAN: No, sir. 4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you will go 5 ahead and raise your hand and be sworn in by 6 our Secretary. 7 MEMBER KRIEGER: In Case Number: 8 08-011 that you would swear or affirm that 9 you will tell the truth in this case? 10 MR. ALAWAN: Yes, I do. 11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If could you 12 state your name and address and proceed with 13 your case. 14 MR. ALAWAN: Yes, my name is Chuck 15 Alawan and I am representing Greek Isle 16 Eatery, 39777 Grand River, Novi. I am also 17 the property manager of Pheasant Run Plaza 18 and I have been working on this for quite a 19 while with other tenants who want outdoor 20 seating. 21 In this case, this particular tenant 22 and this will be their fourth year with 23 outdoor seating. They have a wait staff and 24 under the zoning laws the wait staff area
80 1 for outdoor seating requires an enclosure. 2 Like I said this is the fourth year and I 3 put up a little drawing up there. You may 4 have it already. But I would just point out 5 that they are right here. Next to them is 6 Jimmy Johns. Jimmy Johns is strictly 7 outdoor seating for carry out. 8 There is no wait staff. This area 9 that is under the dotted like in the various 10 columns you see, that is a walkway and it is 11 part of the original construction. The 12 building is kind of unique. It's not a 13 cloth canopy of any type. It's a structural 14 part of the building. I think probably many 15 of you have been there as the Greek Isle 16 Eatery is a substantial tenant and they have 17 been there for seven or eight years. 18 In the three years previous that we 19 have had outdoor seating we have not had a 20 problem. What we don't want to do is to 21 obstruct in the off season the ability to 22 walk underneath that canopy during inclement 23 weather. 24 We also have had a great run or had a
81 1 very friendly atmosphere sort of a cafe 2 atmosphere. We are 10 foot off the curb 3 from the north side and 25 foot from the 4 curvature of the curb and that would be a 5 drive that's connected to the parking area. 6 We have substantial custodial work 7 throughout the week. We keep the area 8 clean. I think from many points of view, 9 putting a barrier up might just change the 10 atmosphere and it's certainly is going to 11 change the structural use of that walk 12 during inclement weather. So, we are 13 appealing this based on several reasons that 14 I have mentioned. We are trying to 15 maintain, as you probably know we try to 16 keep a very nice premise there. We keep it 17 clean. We have good greenery and we do have 18 requirements of our tenants to maintain 19 their areas. 20 We think both as owners and as 21 business people that the barrier really to 22 our way of thinking is not necessary. And 23 as I said, during the off season it would 24 provide an obstruction. So we are seeking
82 1 an approval of this variance. 2 I also have another sketch which kind 3 of gives you some dimensions. Let's see if 4 I can position it properly. As you can see 5 this is the front the building. The curb is 6 out here. Jimmy John is to the lower part 7 in this area here. The seating area we're 8 requiring roughly 18, 20 foot in one 9 direction and 12, 13 foot in that direction. 10 There is a curb at the -- as you go around I 11 should mention that this is the entrance to 12 the restaurant. The other door is the 13 service entrance and that allows serve staff 14 to enter and serve the tables without going 15 through the front door. It's kind of a 16 unique arrangement. We would like to keep 17 it that way. 18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Anything else? 19 MR. ALAWAN: No, sir. 20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there anyone 21 in the audience that wishes to make a 22 comment on the case? Seeing none, I will 23 ask the Secretary to record any 24 correspondence.
83 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number: 2 08-011, 173 notices were mailed. Two 3 approvals and zero objections. 4 First one is from Mr. McCroy, general 5 manager, Gina Agosta Salon on Grand River: 6 "We have absolutely no problem with this. 7 We encourage you to allow them their 8 requested variance." 9 The second one is from Pheasant Run 10 Plaza, Incorporated, Ali Fayez, president. 11 He has an approval. No comments. 12 Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, Madam 14 Secretary. 15 At this time we'll move to the City 16 for any comments. 17 MS. KUDLA: None. 18 MR. BOULARD: I have a couple 19 questions if I could for the Applicant. 20 Does the restaurant serve alcohol? 21 MR. ALAWAN: No, sir. 22 MR. BOULARD: So, there is no alcohol 23 served inside or contemplated in the 24 exterior area?
84 1 MR. ALAWAN: No, sir. It's a family 2 restaurant. 3 MR. BOULARD: Second question is, the 4 doors that's labeled the service door, your 5 deliveries don't come in there, your 6 deliveries come in the back? 7 MR. ALAWAN: No, sir. Deliveries are 8 in the rear of the building. 9 MR. BOULARD: So, if the outdoor 10 seating area is enclosed, how do your 11 patrons enter that area? They enter in the 12 restaurant? 13 MR. ALAWAN: If it were enclosed? 14 MR. BOULARD: If it were enclosed? 15 MR. ALAWAN: They would have to go 16 through the front door of the restaurant and 17 all the way through and make a U turn and 18 come out the service door. 19 MR. BOULARD: So, the service door 20 serves the employee area? 21 MR. ALAWAN: Yes, sir, that's an 22 employee entrance. 23 MR. BOULARD: Okay, thank you. 24 MR. ALAWAN: You're welcome.
85 1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Anyone else from 2 the City? Then I'll open it up for Board 3 discussion. 4 Member Sanghvi? 5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I just had 6 one question. Have you ever had any problem 7 with this kind of arrangement? 8 MR. ALAWAN: None that I'm aware of. 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I have no 10 problem. This a seasonal thing and it 11 happens every year, then I have no problem 12 with supporting the application. Thank you. 13 MEMBER BAUER: I would support it 14 also, Mr. Chairman. 15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Question for the 16 City. Oftentimes in this plaza we have seen 17 where they were coming to get the variance 18 to get outdoor seating, but this is 19 different than that request, is it not? 20 MS. WORKING: Through the Chair, I 21 would defer to Ms. Kapelanski. The 22 Ordinance recently was amended to include a 23 section specifically addressing outdoor 24 seating and an actual site plan review
86 1 requirement now, and in the past we didn't 2 have that section of the Ordinance and 3 that's why you saw those cases come before 4 you. Ms. Kapelanski did the review on this 5 case so I think she would probably be able 6 to answer that question. 7 MS. KAPELANSKI: A follow-up to Ms. 8 Working's comments. The Ordinance was 9 recently amended as she said. I think it 10 was about a year and a half ago now. So, 11 outdoor seating is now reviewed by the 12 Planning Division. 13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you for 14 that by the way. That's a very good change. 15 Kudos to the Building Department. 16 MS. KAPELANSKI: So, the Planning 17 Division will review the outdoor seating 18 plan and approve that administratively. 19 This case is before you this evening since 20 the Applicant is seeking a variance from one 21 of the requirements listed in the new 22 outdoor seating ordinance. 23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Follow-up with 24 that. What is the intent of the Ordinance
87 1 to have an enclosed area? 2 MS. KAPELANSKI: As I understand it as 3 we have interpreted that, part of it is is 4 partially to protect the Applicant. If you 5 have a wait staff serving an outdoor seating 6 area and no enclosure, people could 7 theoretically get up and walk away without 8 paying the bill. If it's enclosed there is 9 a little bit of a barrier there. I think 10 it's also to create some kind of separation 11 between the sidewalk or a parking lot, 12 wherever the outdoor seating is proposed and 13 the restaurant itself. 14 We have no objection to this 15 particular request. 16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: By enclosure 17 what do you mean by that? Would that have 18 to be a full fledged building with a facade 19 or could it be a gate with a fence? 20 MS. KAPELANSKI: Generally it's an 21 iron-type gate. It has to be made of a 22 durable material. 23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Given that it 24 seems that the intent of the Ordinance is
88 1 that to protect the Petitioner. The 2 Petitioner is in essence declining that 3 protection. I hope no one walks away from 4 the restaurant, but, I would be willing to 5 approve as well. 6 Any other Board Members? Member 7 Shroyer? 8 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 9 I had the question about intent as well, but 10 another question to the City in that regard. 11 Are temporary barriers approvable? She 12 mentioned there are slots on each column 13 that you slide an iron fence down during the 14 summer and you lift it up during the winter. 15 Is that considered an enclosure? 16 MS. KAPELANSKI: I can address that, 17 Member Shroyer. 18 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay, thank you. 19 MS. KAPELANSKI: The only thing that 20 the Ordinance list is that the outdoor 21 seating area has to be enclosed. We would 22 have no problem with something that would be 23 movable or removal in the winter or fall 24 months. The only issue would be that
89 1 whenever an applicant requests a special 2 inspection which they have to do every year, 3 to make sure that outdoor seating area is 4 set up according to the approved plan. The 5 enclosure or the gate would have to be in 6 place at that point. 7 MEMBER SHROYER: Before you leave. Is 8 the yearly inspection is there a charge for 9 that? 10 MS. KAPELANSKI: There is a $70, I 11 believe it's a $70 fee for the special 12 inspection and that would be every year. 13 MEMBER SHROYER: And the Applicant is 14 aware that it would be every year? 15 MS. KAPELANSKI: Yes. 16 MEMBER SHROYER: Before you leave you 17 might be able to answer this as well. Are 18 there currently any other establishments in 19 the Novi area with this permission that has 20 been granted? 21 MS. KAPELANSKI: With a variance for 22 the enclosure or with outdoor seating as 23 well? 24 MEMBER SHROYER: Variance.
90 1 MS. KAPELANSKI: This is first 2 variance I believe you are seeing for the 3 enclosure. This is a fairly new Ordinance 4 and I believe we have had maybe three new 5 restaurants come through under the 6 Ordinance. And most of them did not require 7 an enclosure. They didn't have wait staff 8 for outdoor seating. 9 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. I am 10 always concerned about setting precedents 11 that may get out of hand down the road or 12 whatever. And my primary concern, however, 13 on this one was regarding the liquor 14 license, and that was addressed. 15 So, with that I don't have a problem 16 with approving this as well. Thank you, Mr. 17 Chair. 18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I agree. To 19 that effect I would think we would in the 20 motion want to make it very clear that it 21 would be for this type of business so we can 22 get away from that precedent setting because 23 of the special circumstances surrounding 24 this eatery in general. So, whoever might
91
1 be willing to make a motion I would prefer 2 that be part of that. 3 Member Shroyer? 4 MEMBER SHROYER: My motion initially 5 was to deny it because I thought they had a 6 liquor license. I can put something 7 together. 8 In case number: 08-011 filed by Chuck 9 Alawan from Greek Isle Eatery located at 10 39777 Grand River Avenue. Move to approve 11 the request for a variance due to the facts 12 that the Applicant has demonstrated that 13 building a barrier would actually impede the 14 pedestrians from being able to utilize the 15 walkway during inclement weather. It does 16 not create a safety hazard because there is 17 still adequate walking area between the 18 outside column area and the drive. They do 19 not serve liquor so there are no concerns 20 about any police issues. I believe that's 21 all. 22 There is one other thing that we 23 covered that you mentioned isn't there? 24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The intent for
92 1 the Ordinance? 2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Is it in 3 the intent of the Ordinance? 4 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. Based on the 5 intent of the Ordinance it doesn't fall 6 under either one of those negatives. In 7 other words, the intent of the Ordinance was 8 to protect the Applicant. The Applicant has 9 chosen to pursue the variance anyway. 10 And then also there was one other 11 thing that had to do with -- Oh, and this 12 would be specific to the Greek Isle Eatery 13 only. 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: What about Jimmy 15 Johns? 16 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 17 MEMBER SHROYER: No, not Jimmy Johns 18 at this point. They would have to come to 19 us separately. 20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Motion by Member 21 Shroyer. And a second by whom? By Member 22 Bauer. 23 Any other discussion? Seeing 24 none, Ms. Working, will you please call the
93 1 roll. 2 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer? 3 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 4 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 5 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 6 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer? 7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 8 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 9 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 10 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 11 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 12 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 14 MS. WORKING: And Member Wrobel? 15 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 16 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0. 17 MR. ALAWAN: Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At this time we 19 have been on for about 90 minutes and we 20 seem to be about halfway through the 21 caseload, so let's go ahead and take a brief 22 10 minute recess. We will reconvene at 23 8:40. 24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It's been about
94 1 10 minutes, so let's go ahead and continue 2 with the agenda. 3 4 Case number five on the 5 agenda is Case Number: 08-012 filed by 6 Bradley Schupholm of Bradley Signworks for 7 Crowne Plaza located at 27000 Sheraton 8 Drive. 9 The Petitioner is requesting two 10 variances to a previously approved pole sign 11 to allow for two additional panels on the 12 existing sign. The first panel measures 44 13 square feet and is to be located below the 14 existing Crowne Plaza sign for Benedetto's 15 Steakhouse. The second panel measures 33 16 square feet and is to be placed below the 17 Benedetto's sign. This panel is proposed to 18 be a LED reader board sign. 19 The Applicant is also requesting one 20 wall sign variance for a 63 square foot 21 illuminated wall sign to be located on the 22 west elevation of the Crowne Plaza hotel 23 located at said address. The property is 24 zoned C-Conference Center and is located
95 1 north of I-96 and west of Novi Road. 2 Are you the Petitioner? 3 MS. NELSON: Yes. 4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Are you an 5 attorney? 6 MS. NELSON: All right. If you could 7 raise your hand and be sworn in by our 8 Secretary. 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number: 10 08-012 that you would swear or affirm to 11 tell the truth in this case? 12 MS. NELSON: Yes. 13 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Please state 15 your name and address and proceed with your 16 case. 17 MS. NELSON: Cynthia Nelson. I am here 18 on behalf of Bradley Signworks, 46601 Grand 19 River, Novi is where we are located. 20 In the case of the pole sign, I 21 realize that the original pole sign that you 22 can see on the screen, it did go in front of 23 the ZBA previously and we're not talking 24 about changing any structure. Everything is
96 1 going to stay intact. He is going to add 2 the steakhouse where the old Oak Grill was 3 on the side of the building there. And 4 there is no signage indicating that or that 5 you can see coming from 96. He would like 6 to put the steakhouse there. And the bottom 7 sign we are proposing would be an LED reader 8 board. It would have messages on it. It 9 would only be visible from -- there is no 10 other -- the locations where that the light 11 could bother anybody else or anything like 12 that. And basically what you could do is 13 you would be able to see it going 96 east on 14 the freeway. 15 The Crowne Plaza is a very nice hotel 16 if you haven't been there. It is lovely 17 inside. They have lots of facilities that 18 are unadvertised such as shuttle buses to 19 the Rock Financial. They do weddings, 20 catering, all kinds of afternoon banquets. 21 Like Pat was there last week and a bunch of 22 ladies from the Rock Financial were and they 23 would like to be able to advertise these 24 events as well as allow the city to use the
97 1 reader board for any city functions that you 2 might see fit such as like the '50s thing or 3 something that you might want to get people 4 in town for. 5 I think if you drive by that hotel, it 6 is, what I think is one of the biggest 7 hardships about getting into that hotel if 8 you tried to get in there and look at the 9 signs that we have got up there is the 10 driveway. You have to get on the left hand 11 lane, you got to make a real sharp turn when 12 you first go in that shopping plaza. And I 13 have been there like 50 times and I go by it 14 every time. I end up at Circuit City 15 turning around and going through the back 16 driveway by Carrabba's over there because 17 you really, it doesn't have real good 18 access. And they are trying to make a go of 19 it. I think it could be a lucrative 20 business bringing a lot of money for the 21 city. People coming there and they stay 22 there. 23 When I was in there meeting with the 24 owner last week and I heard, there was like
98 1 50 people all came in at once. They were 2 going to Rock Financial. They were all 3 saying, oh, where should we go to eat? 4 Where can we go and have a cocktail? Where 5 can we go afterwards? 6 People want to be in the area. 7 And obviously as business owners in the City 8 of Novi we want to keep the business here. 9 Driving down 96 the big signs that you see 10 for hotels are all in Wixom. We need them 11 to go just a little but further and see some 12 nice places in Novi to go. So that would be 13 our reason for wanting that. 14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. Any other 15 comments? And that doesn't mean you have to 16 have any. Just making sure you are all set. 17 MS. NELSON: I do have two requests. 18 I didn't know if you want to discuss this 19 one or go on to the next? 20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What's the 21 Board's pleasure? Let's go ahead and do 22 both. 23 MS. NELSON: The other one I am 24 proposing a channel letter sign on the side
99 1 so you can see it coming east on 96. It's 2 basically in the parking lot of the E-magine 3 theater and the only place that it would be 4 visible from other than the expressway 5 coming 96 east would be from the parking 6 lot. But I think if you drive by there 7 which I do everyday on my way there to my 8 shop and home, it would be very effective to 9 have a lit channel letter sign. We're not 10 proposing to change any of the -- all of the 11 type, the colors, everything is consistent 12 with what is already there. It would just 13 be straight black letter just simple, easy 14 to read and unfortunately I do believe I 15 gave everybody 13 copies of this other, this 16 Crowne Plaza Sign, but I don't have any. I 17 gave them all away. 18 Thank you very much. So this would be 19 that. We do have a mock-up of it on the 20 building so if you had an opportunity, been 21 able to drive by. I know you got to figure 22 that it's going to be lighted. The burgundy 23 color for the face is consistent with the 24 colors of the chain. It's their corporate
100 1 burgundy color and we're proposing single 2 stripe white neon on the raise way that 3 would match the building and I don't think 4 it would be obtrusive. And it definitely 5 would be noticeable. You have to kind of 6 think of things like people that are in town 7 maybe new to Michigan and/or the Novi area, 8 they are coming in for a wedding or a 9 funeral or going to Rock Financial or 10 whatever they want to do and they don't know 11 where to go. Well, they see a nice clean 12 sign on the side of a building and they 13 might be more inclined to stop at our 14 location instead of moving down the road. 15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Anything else? 16 MS. NELSON: No. 17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there anyone 18 in the audience that wishes to make comment 19 on this case? Seeing none, I will ask our 20 secretary to read -- actually, I will just 21 let us know there were 231 notices mailed 22 with zero approvals and zero objections. 23 That closes the public hearing portion 24 of the case and I will ask for the City if
101 1 there are any comments? 2 MR. AMOLSCH: No comments, sir. 3 MS. KUDLA: No. 4 MR. BOULARD: I have one comment. 5 It's actually a point of clarification. And 6 I believe the copy of the letter from 7 Bradley Signworks that's in your packet has 8 a note at the bottom that the Applicant is 9 withdrawing a request for number three. I 10 just wanted to point out as I understand it 11 that corresponds with request number two on 12 the actual application form. 13 MS. NELSON: Can I address that? 14 MS. WORKING: And I will further point 15 out through the Chair that we did not notify 16 for the parts of their petition that were 17 withdrawn. They are only notified for what 18 they are requesting and what they just 19 proposed to you this evening. 20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 21 comments? Open it up for Board discussion. 22 Member Sanghvi? 23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you,
24 Mr. Chair. To me this request sounds quite
102 1 reasonable and I have no difficulty 2 supporting it. Except I have one question. 3 I know at the present the bottom of the 4 panel is black. Do you have any specific 5 idea what kind of sign you are going to put 6 on that main portion of the panel? 7 MS. NELSON: I'm sorry, what panel? 8 The pole sign? 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The one on 10 the pole sign -- 11 MS. NELSON: Oh, because it shows up 12 black on your thing? 13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yeah. 14 MS. NELSON: That's called, that's a 15 reader board. 16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: It is a 17 changing sign, isn't it? 18 MS. NELSON: Yeah, it would have copy 19 on it that would change in accordance with 20 the Ordinance of the City of Novi. 21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Does that 22 change the complexion of the type of sign 23 because of the changing verbiage on that 24 pole sign?
103
1 MR. AMOLSCH: With regard to 2 changeable copy? 3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 4 MR. AMOLSCH: Do you want to know does 5 it changes anything about the sign? 6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Does it 7 become part of a different or part of the 8 sign ordinance because of that? 9 MR. AMOLSCH: Well, changeable copy 10 signs are permitted currently for restaurant 11 uses. However, the Ordinance I believe is 12 not going to allow that. It has to be a 13 freestanding building with a restaurant use 14 only. This is a restaurant use and a hotel. 15 MS. KUDLA: Currently that issue does 16 not need an additional variance. 17 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 18 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, were your 19 dimensions different? Is that what you were 20 trying to show me? 21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mine looks 22 different than everybody else's. 23 MS. WORKING: Well, it's noticed for 24 33 square feet, so that would be the 3 by 11
104 1 measurement for the LED portion of the pole 2 sign request, just so you are aware. I just 3 saw that your picture did look different and 4 I didn't want you to think that you were 5 looking at anything other than what has been 6 noticed. 7 MS. NELSON: I'm sorry about that. I 8 think what you have for some reason is the 9 first picture that I turned in and I was 10 told by the City that it had to be inside of 11 the poles, so we changed all the dimensions 12 of it to fit in the criteria which were 13 asked to do. I'm sorry about that. 14 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I feel a little 16 better. All right. Thank you, Member 17 Sanghvi and the other Board Members. 18 Member Shroyer? 19 MEMBER SHROYER: I'm sorry, I am still 20 confused. When they told me that number 21 three is actually number two, could you 22 clarify what was going on? 23 MS. NELSON: I think what happened is 24 when I first applied for the sign permit I
105 1 was told by the sign inspector that I had to 2 have a variance to put up Benedetto's 3 Steakhouse where the Oak Grill is. So, I 4 sent in the paperwork as that, so I had 5 three issues. 6 MEMBER SHROYER: On the building or on 7 the side? 8 MS. NELSON: On the side of the 9 building when you first come in. I was told 10 that I had to have a variance for that also. 11 So, I applied for all three. 12 Then I was later told that you are 13 allowed to have at this time a freestanding 14 building, you can have the restaurant sign. 15 So I went ahead and I did secure the regular 16 sign permit for that. 17 MEMBER SHROYER: So, I had it right 18 then? 19 MS. NELSON: Yes. 20 MEMBER SHROYER: They tried to confuse 21 me. 22 MS. NELSON: Yeah, I'm doing my best. 23 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you for that. 24 And I agree. The entryway to get into that
106 1 location is horrible. We have had issues 2 with that with the City for ages and somehow 3 we can't seem to get it addressed. 4 I'm okay with the Steakhouse sign. 5 I'm okay with the Crowne Plaza sign, but I 6 do have concerns about the reader board. I 7 drove up and down 96 trying to envision with 8 a picture in one hand and trying to steer 9 with the other. People probably thought I 10 had been drinking or something, which I 11 don't. 12 It seems like three lines is just too 13 much verbiage. The size of the letters is 14 too small, and I am afraid it would create 15 quite a bit of a safety hazard to try to 16 read that from 96. The loop road, whatever 17 the name of that road is, sure it would be 18 beneficial, but even for the loop road it 19 would be more beneficial if it was down 20 toward the ground to be able to read it 21 instead of trying to look up to read. So, I 22 have some serious concerns about that 23 portion. Like I said, I am in favor of the 24 others. The reader board sign I'm not
107 1 impressed, so you are just going to have to 2 convince me that that's needed for me to 3 approve this. 4 MS. NELSON: If you allow me to 5 comment on that. We're definitely flexible 6 on the copy. On the lines of copy and I 7 think what we really would like to do is 8 say, you know, it's not going to messages 9 that are going over and over. Maybe say 10 it's the Golf Show at Rock Financial. Hey, 11 good prices for golf show or something like 12 that. We could go down to less than three 13 line for the reader board. 14 MEMBER SHROYER: I would be more open 15 -- 16 MS. NELSON: Two lines and a bigger 17 copy. 18 MEMBER SHROYER: Again, I would want 19 to get feedback from the City regarding that 20 as to their recommendations and what have 21 you. Of course, I would want to hear 22 comments from the rest of the Board. That's 23 all I have, Mr. Chair. 24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
108 1 Member Shroyer. 2 Member Wrobel? 3 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 4 First off, I understand the problems of 5 accessibility there and hopefully if the new 6 master plan is adapted there are some 7 exciting things purposed for that area which 8 would really open up accessibility. Maybe 9 it will come to fruition in our lifetime. 10 As far as the Crowne Plaza sign, I 11 have no issue whatsoever with. 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The wall sign? 13 MEMBER WROBEL: The wall sign, right. 14 The Benedetto sign, no issue with. 15 I too have concerns about the reader 16 board, the LED board and I am just not sold 17 on it. 18 Would this board be used just for the 19 restaurant or the hotel or both primarily? 20 MS. NELSON: For both. 21 MEMBER WROBEL: Given the size of it, 22 given the location of it, I don't really 23 think it's going to do that much. I don't 24 believe it's needed, but I will listen to my
109 1 colleagues and go from there. Thank you. 2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 3 Member Wrobel. 4 Member Bauer? 5 MEMBER BAUER: I like the Crowne Plaza 6 sign and Steakhouse sign. That reader board 7 is going to be such a deterrent for people 8 going by and go right off the road. Thank 9 you. 10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Could someone 11 quickly tell me how large is the Crowne 12 Plaza sign? 13 MR. AMOLSCH: It's 193.5 square feet. 14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do you have the 15 dimensions? 16 MR. AMOLSCH: 21.6 by 9 feet. 17 MS. NELSON: If I could just add one 18 more thing on this. I am still pleading my 19 case here for the reader board. But don't 20 forget, you guys can use it too. You can do 21 weather reports or Amber alerts. 22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I appreciate 23 that, but at the same time if we allowed a 24 sign like that for everyone who offered to
110 1 let us use this, it would be all the way up 2 and down Grand River. How often do you plan 3 on changing it? 4 MS. NELSON: How often do you plan on 5 changing it? 6 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Changing the 7 message? 8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes. 9 UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: I really didn't 10 think about it to be honest with you. 11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. If you 12 can just throw something at me if I am not 13 paying attention. Member Ibe? 14 MEMBER IBE: Thank you, Member 15 Chairman. I think I want to re-emphasize 16 what my colleague has said. I'm certainly 17 in favor of the sign itself as well as the 18 Benedetto's Steakhouse. 19 As far as the LED reader is concerned, 20 I don't think that the Board wants to go 21 that route in setting a precedent. We don't 22 want Novi to become a city where you have 23 neon lights. I have seen quite a few 24 sitting on this board lately. I mean, it
111 1 seems like everybody wants neon lights. 2 It's going to be called Las Vegas, Michigan. 3 I think that your sign is bright 4 enough that the LED becomes a huge 5 distraction. The bright red and all the 6 pleasant color you have, you are going to be 7 taking away from it once you add that LED 8 and it is a safety hazard. If you are 9 driving down 96 and I have been there, it's 10 dangerous to try to read the sign and travel 11 at the same time. You don't want to trust 12 the drivers to be careful. 13 I will be in favor of what you have so 14 long as it does not include the LED. If the 15 LED is there I would certainly decline to 16 approve. 17 Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you,
19 Member Ibe. 20 I would tend to agree with the Board's 21 sentiments as well. I know that the 22 Planning Commission and City Council are 23 apparently looking at LED signs and 24 messages, how often their changing them; is
112 1 that correct? I would urge them to make a 2 decision fast. Because like I said, we have 3 been getting quite a few requests for 4 variances regarding these and if we don't 5 keep our eye on the ball, well, guess what, 6 pretty soon Novi as you said will have 7 messages everywhere. 8 To me unfortunately I don't believe it 9 to be aesthetically pleasing. I don't 10 believe it to be in the intent of the 11 Ordinance to have something flashing 12 constantly. To have every single business 13 having some type of changeable copy sign 14 such as that or changeable reading sign. 15 So, I don't feel that the variance as to 16 practical difficulty has been shown in that 17 case. 18 Not to mention that if we add up all 19 the square of footage if I did it correctly, 20 that pole sign would be upward of 277 square 21 feet. That's above, I think right around if 22 not above all the sides we gave at the 23 anchor stores at the malls. I believe that 24 would be upward of what we gave Rock
113 1 Financial. 2 Do you know Rock Financial's square 3 footage by chance? 4 MR. AMOLSCH: I think the one on the 5 freeway is about 700 square feet. 6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I am not sure 7 that the size, despite the traffic issues 8 that have been mentioned, I don't think that 9 the size of the property and the building 10 that's on there warrant something as large 11 as Twelve Oaks Mall. So I know that 12 everyone seems to be fine with the 13 additional wall sign and steakhouse sign, 14 but I was hesitant the first time when we 15 gave the Crown Plaza sign. So, the LED sign 16 is way above and beyond in my eyes. The 17 practicality is just not there. 18 Those would be my comments. I am 19 still hesitant to comment on the other 20 pieces. 21 Member Sanghvi? 22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I would be 23 quite happy to make a motion to approve 24 minus the reader board sign on the pole to
114 1 approve your request. If you can live with 2 it. Either you have it or you lose the 3 whole thing? It's your choice. 4 MS. NELSON: Can you live with that? 5 Yes, sir, we can live with that. 6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay. I 7 will make motion that in case number: 8 08-012 filed by Bradley Schupholm of Bradley 9 Signworks for Crowne Plaza located at 27000 10 Sheraton Drive, we approve the pole sign 11 minus the reader board also the wall sign on 12 the west elevation. 13 MEMBER IBE: Second. 14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Has 15 demonstrated sufficient hardship and need 16 for business identification. Thank you. 17 MEMBER IBE: And I'll second that. 18 Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Just a point of 20 clarification that the Board use practical 21 difficulty as the standard as opposed to 22 hardship. 23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The seconder
115 1 agrees as well? 2 MEMBER IBE: Yes, I do. Thank you, 3 Mr. Chair. 4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 5 comments? Ms. Working, would you please 6 call the roll. 7 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 10 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 11 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 12 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 13 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer? 14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 15 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 17 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer? 18 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 19 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 20 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 21 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0. 22 MS. NELSON: Thank you for your time. 23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Your variance 24 has been partially granted and best of luck
116 1 to you guys. 2 MS. NELSON: Thank you. 3 4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Moving 5 along to case number: 08-013 filed by Ron 6 Nuechterlein of Superior Diversified 7 Services for the Shirvanian Office Building 8 located at 43485 Fonda Drive. 9 The Petitioner is requesting four 10 variances for the construction of a proposed 11 office building to be located at 43485 Fonda 12 Street. 13 The Applicant is 14 requesting two parking setback variances, 15 one loading space setback variance and one 16 maneuvering lane width variance. The 17 property is zone TC and is located north of 18 Grand River Avenue and west of Novi Road. 19 Member Wrobel? 20 MEMBER WROBEL: Once, again, I need to 21 recuse myself based on dealings with this 22 case. 23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Motion to 24 approve the recusal of --
117 1 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: -- Member Wrobel 3 based on his Planning Commission duties. 4 There is a second. All in favor say aye? 5 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right, you 7 have been recused. 8 Member Ghannam, at this time I would 9 actually like to welcome you. I note and 10 someone brought it to my attention that the 11 first meeting was technically a special 12 meeting and there wasn't any audience 13 participation so I do want to welcome you 14 and my apologies for leaving you hanging the 15 first time. 16 MR. GHANNAM: Thank you, sir, I 17 appreciate it. 18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I will look 19 forward to your comments during this case. 20 You are the Petitioner? 21 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Yes, sir. 22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Are you an 23 attorney, sir? 24 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: No, I am not.
118 1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right. If 2 you would raise your hand and be sworn in by 3 our Secretary. 4 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number: 5 08-013 do you swear or affirm to tell the 6 truth in this case? 7 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Yes. 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Give your name 10 and address and proceed with your case. 11 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: My name is Ron 12 Nuechterlein. I'm with Superior Diversified 13 Services. We are the selected construction 14 manager for the project and represent the 15 Applicant for these four variances we are 16 requesting. We have as I stated in my 17 letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals 18 received preliminary site plan approval for 19 this approximately a month ago. 20 The four variances we are requesting I 21 didn't bring the small sheet, but I maybe 22 can best describe them with the larger board 23 as to where they are. 24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do we have an
119 1 easel? 2 MS. WORKING: It's right behind the 3 pole. 4 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Oh, okay. 5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you going to 6 set it over there and if you could grab a 7 microphone too, and if we could have the 8 people in the back make sure the other 9 microphone is working that would be great. 10 MEMBER SHROYER: Would you like to put 11 this on the overhead for the members of the 12 audience? 13 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Is this on? 14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes. Sir, we 15 tried to get a Bob Barker microphone, but. 16 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Fox. 17 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Firstly to give you 18 an idea of our location here, this is the 19 cul-de-sac and Fonda Drive located here. 20 This site is approximately 400 feet in width 21 by 400 feet in depth. This is the Baby R Us 22 building here and this is the main drive 23 coming in off Fonda Street which is 24 feet 24 in width and has a common access ingress,
120 1 egress with the Dara Place (ph) parcel that 2 goes out to Novi Road. So, there is 3 circulation here for this particular 4 development. 5 The first three variances we're 6 requesting relate to side yard parking 7 setback and loading setback. The parking 8 area here is adjacent to the property line 9 as well as the loading area. And also as 10 well as this, the easterly side the site. 11 The ordinance requires 20 feet of 12 clearance there. As you can see, we have a 13 very small parcel of land and to develop the 14 small parcel of land and get adequate car 15 parking, it would be difficult for us to
16 move our parking 20 feet in from each, the 17 east and west property line and be able to 18 come up with a building of any size to 19 develop here. 20 The third -- or the fourth variance 21 we're requesting is a circulatory drive 22 aisle variance which is for the parking 23 located here and in the center area here in 24 the building. This drive aisle is 22 feet
121 1 in periphery. Our main drive through and 2 access to Dara Place is 24 feet. This is a 3 secondary route through this area. 4 Twenty-two feet is commonly used in a lot of 5 communities for secondary circulatory 6 parking. 7 I did personally talk to Fire Marshal 8 Michael Evans and Michael Evans had no 9 problems with that width in being 10 maneuverable to this area. The detention 11 pond in the back exist and was built with 12 the Dara Place development. This is a joint 13 detention facility that services both Dara 14 Place and this development combining both 15 properties which is good. One detention 16 pond for two properties. 17 Some of the considerations we gave in 18 trying to make this 24 feet is we could have 19 eliminated a four foot green belt buffer 20 along the building, however, I think that 21 the landscaping is more important from the 22 aspect that this is very useable and in the 23 southerly portion the parking actually 24 borders the free board of the detention pond
122 1 which is basically the crown creating the 2 capacity for the detention pond. 3 So, we couldn't really move into that 4 area. I believe that's pretty much the gist 5 of our requested variances and I would be 6 happy to address any other questions you 7 might have regarding this. 8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you very 9 much. Is there anyone in the audience that 10 wishes to make a comment on this case? 11 Seeing none. I'll ask the Secretary to 12 record the correspondence for us. 13 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case ZBA: 08-013 14 there were 35 notices with zero approvals 15 and zero objections. 16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That closes out 17 the public hearing portion of the case and 18 I'll ask the City if there are any comments? 19 MR. BOULARD: I have a couple of 20 questions if I could. The plan shows the 21 parking lot it curbs basically running right 22 up to the property line. Will those grades 23 match the grades on the adjacent property? 24 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: For the most part
123 1 in the rear of the property along the 2 easterly edge, yes. 3 Along the westerly edge as you can see how 4 the contours fall off here, we have an area, 5 a lower area here which there is a 6 structural retaining wall that is being 7 built in a segment of the westerly property 8 line and that has been structurally 9 designed. It's adequate for our purpose to 10 retain the grade that we're proposing for 11 this piece relative to the adjacent piece. 12 I might also add that this parcel is 13 owned by the City of Novi. It's 14 predominantly wetland. 15 The chances of it ever being developed is 16 probably very slim. There is a water course 17 that presently runs through here which is 18 the middle River Rouge drain. 19 Charles, your second question was? 20 MR. BOULARD: My second question had 21 to deal -- the second question was, is the 22 west facade of the building going to be 23 designed to take into account the limited 24 separation of the property line?
124 1 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: I am not sure I 2 understand that question. We have 3 approximately seven feet of distance between 4 the westerly property line and the building. 5 MR. BOULARD: So, it will be designed 6 appropriately? 7 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Yes. 8 MR. BOULARD: That's it. 9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, sir. 10 I'll open it up to the Board for discussion 11 seeing no other comments from the City. 12 Member Shroyer? 13 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 14 I have some concerns. I had similar 15 concerns with other building that was built 16 nearby. The main concern is with the 17 property bordering, basically having zero 18 yard setbacks, you are right on the property 19 line. First of all, how could you build a 20 wall without trespassing on the adjacent 21 property? 22 And then second of all, how could you 23 maintain a wall without trespassing on the 24 adjacent property?
125 1 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Are you referring 2 to the retaining wall portion as being a 3 wall? 4 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. Because that's 5 still your property. The retaining wall is 6 part of your property. 7 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Right. And, you 8 know, I'm not exactly sure that that wall is 9 right on the property line. There might be 10 slight distance, but that wall is racked 11 back to a degree. To construct that wall we 12 do need some permission. We need permission 13 from the adjacent property owner which, of 14 course, we are doing a couple of other 15 things here that I might add. 16 There is a sanitary sewer that runs 17 down this property adjacent to the west 18 property line. There was never an easement 19 created for it. The Engineering Department 20 has asked me if we would be willing to 21 dedicate a portion of our property to give 22 the City a 20-foot wide easement for the 23 maintenance of that sanitary sewer. We 24 agreed to do that.
126 1 We also have to sign an agreement that 2 in the event that they never dig for that 3 sanitary sewer that we are responsible for 4 the replacement of that wall. In addition 5 to that, there is another thing that we have 6 offered. There is a portion of property 7 here that does not fall. This little 8 triangle here does not fall within the 9 dedicated right-of-way up to this point. 10 We have agreed to give that to the 11 City of Novi at no charge. We are trying to 12 be as accommodating as we possibly be can. 13 In the case of this to answer 14 your question, I guess we would have to ask 15 the city of Novi if we have permission to 16 repair that wall. I don't think the City of 17 Novi would be totally unreasonable. 18 MEMBER SHROYER: I just always have a 19 concern when somebody puts their property 20 line right on for their building or their 21 parking lot or anything else right on the 22 line because even to weed whip grass that 23 might be between the edges you have to go on 24 the other side and basically trespass or get
127 1 written permission because of liability and 2 everything else. So that's a concern that I 3 have. 4 And, likewise, on the other side, the 5 east side you only have a two foot request 6 and the way it looks to me is that that is 7 sod or grass. 8 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: That would occur at 9 this portion right here. And that is right 10 now in a woodland state. That has not been 11 approved. I might even mention Mr. Cuttey 12 (ph) I believe owns that parcel immediately 13 adjacent to us. It's not grass or it's not 14 manicured. It just rough woodland. 15 MEMBER SHROYER: It's never got to the 16 point of being manicured. Now you are 17 talking about a mower that's less than two 18 feet wide and things like that. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Use scissors. 20 MEMBER SHROYER: And you got to use 21 scissors. You mentioned or you talked 22 substantially about the wetlands and it 23 doesn't seem to be any issue with that. 24 You talked about receiving permission
128 1 from the Fire Marshal to go to a, I believe 2 it was 22-foot wide drive. 3 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Drive. 4 MEMBER SHROYER: Do you have that in 5 written form on file as well? 6 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Yes, I do. That is 7 part of his initial review for preliminary 8 site plan approval when it was given by the 9 Planning Commission. 10 MEMBER SHROYER: And we have that on 11 file, correct? We can ask. We want to try 12 to protect the City and make sure we have 13 all the documents. 14 MS. KAPELANSKI: The Fire Marshal did 15 review the preliminary site plan which shows 16 the 20-foot wide drive around. His review 17 has not made any mention or objection to 18 that. 19 MEMBER SHROYER: What I would request 20 to the Board if we do approve this, that we 21 do make it contingent upon receiving the 22 written documentation from the Fire Marshal 23 that he is agreeable with the 22-foot wide 24 lane.
129
1 And that's all the questions I have, 2 Mr. Chair. Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 4 Member Shroyer. 5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Mr. Chair. 6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Sanghvi? 7 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 8 I had a question. Wasn't there some point 9 in time there was a plan to build that road, 10 the road connecting onto Novi Road? 11 MS. WORKING: I'm not sure. 12 MS. KAPELANSKI: I can speak to that. 13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Should we get 14 you a name tag and get you a seat over there 15 maybe? 16 MS. WORKING: I offered, Mr. Chair, I 17 offered. 18 MS. KAPELANSKI: As part of the master 19 plan review recommendations that Member 20 Wrobel was referring to, there are some 21 plans and the master plans recommendations 22 are going to the Planning Commission next 23 week. There are plans for a ring road to 24 connect to that property. As I understand
130 1 it right now, the ring road would be on City 2 owned property. Excuse me, I misspoke 3 there. The ring road would come -- 4 MEMBER SHROYER: It's further west. 5 MS. KAPELANSKI: If I am remembering 6 correctly, the ring road would come through 7 here, if I am remembering correctly. So it 8 would not, the development of this property 9 in particular would not impact the ring 10 road, it would blend together. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: It's going to be east 12 of the ring road? 13 MS. KAPELANSKI: Yes, I believe so. 14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, thank 15 you. I had a rough idea, it's something we 16 had talked about their building a ring road 17 there somewhere along that line. 18 *Well, this is a very difficult piece 19 of property, it is like a Band-Aid. We are 20 trying to put everything on a Band-Aid. So, 21 without all of these variances it's totally 22 (unintelligible). So, the way things 23 are, the configuration of the lot, without 24 any variances we can't do anything, so I
131 1 think it beholds upon us to grant some of 2 his variances so that he can 3 (unintelligible). Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 5 Member Sanghvi. 6 Other Board Member comments? Is it 7 getting past you guys' bedtimes? 8 MEMBER BAUER: It's past our bedtime. 9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I have no 10 comments to add. 11 Member Sanghvi? 12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Sir, in 13 that case I would make a motion that in case 14 number: 08-013 filed by -- please pronounce 15 your name. 16 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Ron Nuechterlein. 17 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 18 Filed by Ron Nuechterlein for Superior 19 Diversified Services for the Shirvanian 20 Office Building located at 43485 Fonda 21 Drive, we grant the request for the 22 variances due to the lot configuration and 23 the conditions of the terrain 24 (unintelligible). Thank you.
132
1 MEMBER SHROYER: I'll support. 2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is a 3 motion by Member Sanghvi and a support by 4 Member Shroyer. Were we considering -- you 5 had mentioned it being contingent upon the 6 Fire Marshal letter. Do we wish to make that 7 part of the motion? 8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I have no 9 problem. I think he said the fire 10 Marshal -- 11 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: I personally did 12 talk to Mike Evans. 13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: You don't 14 have any written statement. I have no 15 difficulty without his statements. 16 MEMBER SHROYER: Does that mean you 17 are going to include it in the motion or 18 not? 19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: If you like 20 we can. I have no problem either one. 21 MEMBER SHROYER: I would feel better 22 if it was included. 23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Well, if it 24 makes you happy I have no problem including
133 1 it. 2 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Contingent upon 4 Member Shroyer's comments during his 5 discussion, written confirmation. 6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I agree. 7 Contingent upon a letter of approval by the 8 Fire Marshal. 9 MEMBER SHROYER: Being provided to the 10 City. 11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr. Boulard? 13 MR. BOULARD: If I may. The intent of 14 that letter would specifically mention in an 15 affirmative fashion that the Fire Marshal is 16 in support of the variance for the reduced 17 maneuvering lane width. 18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The whole 19 purpose is to know whether or not you can 20 turn around in the parking lot. If he say 21 you can you can. I don't know how many feet 22 you need to turn around in a fire engine. I 23 have never driven one before, but that's 24 fine with me. Thank you.
134
1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is a 2 motion with a contingency and a second by 3 Member Shroyer. 4 Ms. Working, will you please call the 5 roll. 6 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 7 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 8 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer? 9 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 10 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 11 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 12 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer? 13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 14 MS. WORKING: Member Ghannam? 15 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 16 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 17 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 18 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 20 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0. 21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Your variance 22 has been granted with that one restriction 23 and good luck with that parcel. 24 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Thank you.
135 1 2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That brings us 3 to Case Number: 08-014 filed by Paul 4 Weinstock of Radiant Sign Company for Hertz 5 located at 42355 Grand River Avenue. 6 Petitioner is requesting a 15 square 7 foot sign variance for the placement of a 6' 8 x 30" directional sign to be located at said 9 address. The property is zoned B-3 and is 10 located south of Grand River and west of 11 Meadowbrook Road. 12 Are you an attorney? 13 MR. WEINSTOCK: No. 14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Shroyer? 15 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 16 Before you move forward I would like to make 17 a comment that because this is located on a 18 property owned by a Chevrolet dealership, I 19 am employed by General Motors Corporation. 20 I would like to disclose that. I don't 21 think any of my judgments would be impaired 22 or be changed based on that employment, but 23 I wanted to disclose that for everybody's 24 knowledge.
136 1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I appreciate 2 that disclosure and I don't think it should 3 be an issue. All right, the Board seems to 4 agree. 5 So, are you an attorney? 6 MR. WEINSTOCK: No. 7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Will you be 8 speaking as well and are you an attorney? 9 MR. LADUE (ph): No. 10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do you both 11 want to go ahead and raise your hands and be 12 sworn in by our Secretary? 13 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number: 14 08-014 do you swear and affirm to tell the 15 truth in this case? 16 MR. WEINSTOCK: Yes. 17 MR. LADUE: Yes. 18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you would 19 state your name and address and proceed with 20 your case. 21 MR. WEINSTOCK: Paul Weinstock from 22 Radiant Sign Company, 30943 Sutters Hill 23 Court, Farmington Hills. I am the sign 24 contractor. I applied for the variance and
137 1 I have a Hertz representative here that just 2 wants to speak. 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. 4 MR. LADUE: Good evening. Rick Ladue, 5 42355 Grand River. I am currently an area 6 manager with the Hertz Corporation. 7 In essence based on the current layout 8 of this dealership where we have been since 9 2004, we really are looking for some help in 10 guiding our customers to find our current 11 operations out of the dealership. 12 As you can see, we're really looking 13 for a directional signage not illuminated 14 just on the easement off of Grand River 15 Avenue. 16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 17 comments? 18 MR. LADUE: Outside of I do have some 19 documentation. As a Hertz representative we 20 do have some very creative ways for 21 customers to give feedback in terms of their 22 rental car experience. I do have some 23 documentation from one particular customer 24 that we have on paper in terms of our
138 1 hardship being able to locate the location. 2 I can tell you I have personally taken 3 numerous phone calls from people not quite 4 aware of where we are because of what's 5 currently available and what's there at 6 Marty Feldman Chevrolet. So, our request is 7 really just to provide, like you say, one 8 sign, a monument sign to direct people into 9 the location to either drop off and pick up 10 all of their customers. 11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is there anyone 12 in the audience that wishes to make comment 13 on this case? Seeing none, I will pass the 14 file to our Secretary and ask her to read 15 any correspondence. 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number: 17 08-014 23 notices were mailed. Zero 18 approvals and zero objections. 19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, Madam 20 Secretary. That takes care of the public 21 hearing portion of our case and I will turn 22 it over to see if there are any comments 23 from the City. 24 MR. AMOLSCH: I have a comment, sir,
139 1 through the Chair. When I originally 2 reviewed this request it was several months 3 ago. When it came in the sign was not on 4 the monument as it's indicated on your 5 drawing. It was viewed as a pole sign only. 6 So, therefore, they do not need a variance 7 for the monument. But the second variance 8 is listed on the notice. 9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Section 10 28-1(10)? 11 MR. AMOLSCH: That's correct. 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is no longer 13 required? 14 MR. AMOLSCH: No longer required. 15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It is your 16 intent to put it on the monument sign? 17 MR. WEINSTOCK: Originally we were 18 going to put it on a pole which is a covered 19 skirt, like a metal aluminum skirt to cover 20 it. And then when we found that the new 21 code was on a brick base, we were willing to 22 go the extra mile and do the extra step of 23 putting it on a brick base to keep it within 24 the code. So, really the only variance
140 1 we're asking for is the additional sign on 2 the property. 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 4 comments from the Building or the City? 5 Member Boulard -- not Member. Mr. 6 Boulard? 7 MR. BOULARD: Just a question for the 8 Applicant. The Goodwrench sign that shows 9 in the drawing that's sitting between the 10 roadway and the proposed sign, is the intent 11 to remove that sign? 12 MR. WEINSTOCK: No. That sign is 13 owned by Goodwrench. We are not allowed to 14 mount anything on it or attach anything to 15 it so this would be a sign in addition to 16 that. 17 MR. BOULARD: Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. Any 19 other comments? All right, I'll turn it 20 over to the Board. 21 Member Sanghvi? 22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you, 23 sir. This is a second business at the same 24 address in the area. It's not part of the
141 1 Marty Feldman business, so they need a 2 business identification for how to get in 3 and get out. I didn't know that you existed 4 there. So, I understand what you meant and 5 I have no problem supporting your 6 application. 7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 8 Member Sanghvi. 9 Member Wrobel? 10 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 11 I also have no problem. I know the business 12 needs identification. I have a question. 13 Is this a general rental or is this just for 14 people taking their car in for service at a 15 Chevy dealership? 16 MR. LADUE: That's a very good 17 question. We do obviously service the 18 dealership in terms of servicing the 19 warranty work. However, obviously based on 20 the number of corporate partners that we 21 have in the area, (unintelligible) as being 22 one that comes off the top of my head. But, 23 yes, it's really to identify where we are. 24 A lot of our corporate, a lot of our leisure
142 1 customers that live in the city of Novi have 2 issues finding us. So, we just want to make 3 that in terms of traffic flow and things of 4 that nature easier to locate our operation. 5 MEMBER WROBEL: So, it's more 6 (unintelligible). I can support the sign. 7 I just wish from an aesthetic standpoint 8 that could combine the Hertz and Goodwrench 9 signs. I know they are owned by different 10 people, but it's not going to happen in this 11 case. So I will support it as is. 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Shroyer? 13 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 14 I understand the need. I was in a 15 dealership one time and saw the desk and 16 said, oh, it's a Hertz here. And was 17 curious about the same thing and was asking 18 about a business within a business which was 19 mentioned earlier. 20 One of the questions I have for 21 the two of you or one of you is, was this 22 the only location that was being considered 23 to place the sign? Or was that the only 24 place that was considered under Marty
143 1 Feldman? 2 MR. WEINSTOCK: Well, based on the 3 property layout and looking at where the 4 property line is, the only other place we 5 would have to put it would have to be a 6 parking space and we would put it in front 7 of it because there is parking across the 8 whole front. It would have to go in front 9 of the property line and that would really 10 be encroaching on the right of way and the 11 easement. 12 So, that's really the only island. 13 There is another island to the east, but 14 then the Hertz is not on that driveway, 15 that's by the body shop, so it doesn't make 16 sense to put it there. 17 MR. LADUE: In addition, aesthetically 18 we felt that that was the best location 19 without distracting. We are trying to 20 maintain the height so it's not taller than 21 the Goodwrench sign. 22 MEMBER SHROYER: Well, the aesthetics 23 is the only thing that I have an issue with. 24 I agree it's needed and I will be supporting
144 1 it for that reason. I actually like the 2 bare, not skirted, but the bare poles better 3 than the bricks. 4 MR. WEINSTOCK: We're not opposed to 5 that. 6 MEMBER SHROYER: The reason I say that 7 is because of the Mr. Goodwrench sign. 8 MR. WEINSTOCK: To match it? 9 MEMBER SHROYER: To match it. Because 10 now we're looking at the possibility of 11 putting up a brick monument sign if we could 12 get Goodwrench to put up brick monument sign 13 also, that would be great. But that's not 14 our discussion this evening. 15 So, you wouldn't be opposed to that 16 skirt? 17 MR. WEINSTOCK: No. We originally had 18 it on a single pole, but we can put it on 19 two end poles to match the Goodwrench. We 20 were just trying to give a little bit 21 towards the new Ordinance with the bricks so 22 that maybe they will give us the variance 23 for the sign. 24 MEMBER SHROYER: I like the new
145 1 Ordinance, but I don't like the new 2 Ordinance set right beside an old Ordinance, 3 one that we can't change. 4 Mr. Amolsch, if we were to look at 5 something like that would that bring Section 6 28-1 back into play? 7 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes. 8 MEMBER SHROYER: So, I am asking the 9 Board to look at adding another variance. 10 That's unusual. 11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 12 comments, Member Shroyer? 13 MEMBER SHROYER: That's it. I'll shut 14 up for now. 15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I think that's a 16 very slippery slope personally. My issue 17 with that is eventually I hope that 18 Goodwrench comes into conformance with the 19 new Ordinance because if you drive up and 20 down that Grand River corridor, that's the 21 kind of signs that are going up. Now, if 22 Marty Feldman cares to leave their -- and 23 it's not a knock against GM just because I 24 work for Ford -- their other signs we'll
146 1 call them up, then so be it. But eventually 2 I would like to see them come into 3 conformance with the signs as well so I 4 would be very hesitant to add variances 5 because remember, the Zoning Board should 6 always be looking to use the least amount of 7 variances, but allow the Petitioner to use 8 their property. 9 Going back to the sign in itself and 10 the need for the sign, what percentage of 11 business is from Marty Feldman Chevrolet, 12 and what is what I would call freestanding 13 or someone who is calling in? 14 MR. LADUE: To be honest that really 15 varies depending on the time of the year. 16 Obviously in the summer months we tend to 17 excel more in the leisure business or 18 corporate travel. Having said that it would 19 range anywhere from 10 to maybe 20 percent 20 of it being Marty Feldman referred business, 21 if you will. Outside of that it's typical 22 Novi residents that are looking to travel 23 with leisure or, again, the corporate 24 partners that we have in the area.
147 1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, you are 2 saying 80 to 90 percent of your normal 3 business is? 4 MR. LADUE: Walk-in travel. 5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Having been at 6 Varsity Lincoln, now they have nice signs 7 I'll have you know. 8 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: However, their 10 Enterprise dealership is in the used lot 11 which is in Wixom and I don't believe that 12 they do have the 13 business -- 14 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 15 MR. AMOLSCH: The only sign that's in 16 Wixom is the pole sign. 17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'm talking 18 about at the old used one. Behind like 19 Don's of Traverse City there. 20 MEMBER WROBEL: North of Twelve Mile. 21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Anyway, I'm not 22 sure if they have a second sign, but I would 23 tend to guess that their business is driven 24 mostly from the Varsity Lincoln dealership
148 1 because they are often sending people there. 2 So, given that fact, given the fact that you 3 had mentioned that the majority of business 4 is from other Novi businesses or residents, 5 I guess I see a need for the sign given that 6 it is a business within a business which is 7 a different unique circumstance in itself. 8 Once, again, I would not support 9 trying to match the Goodwrench or Chevrolet 10 signs in any manner of speaking. 11 MEMBER SHROYER: I don't disagree. 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Sanghvi? 13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you, 14 sir. If I may I would like to make a motion 15 that in case number: 08-014 filed Paul 16 Weinstock of Radiant Sign Company for Hertz 17 located at 42355 Grand River. We grant the 18 request for the variance for business 19 identification and direction. Thank you. 20 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Point of 22 clarification that we are approving the 23 variance for the number of on premise signs 24 but not the variance to the pole sign?
149 1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: No, there 2 is no pole sign. It's going to be -- 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It's going to be 4 on a brick base, correct. But it was 5 noticed. I want to clarify that we are only 6 approving the one and the other one has been 7 withdrawn. 8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The other 9 one has been withdrawn, yes. 10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Are we all set 11 with that? 12 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi, it was 13 for business identification and? 14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Direction. 15 MS. WORKING: Direction. Thank you, 16 sir. 17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There was a 18 motion by Member Sanghvi and a second by 19 Member Krieger. 20 Are we all set with that? I'm asking the 21 City attorney. 22 MS. KUDLA: Yes. 23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Ms. Working, 24 would you please call the roll.
150 1 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 3 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 5 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer? 6 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 7 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 8 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 10 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 11 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer? 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 13 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe?
14 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 15 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0. 16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Your variance 17 has been granted. Good luck. 18 Once, again, if you can convince Marty 19 Feldman. 20 MR. LADUE: We'll work on it. 21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Tell him to give 22 the Building Department a call. 23 24 We'll move to case number:
151 1 08-015 filed by Thomas Vanoyen of Curb 2 Appeal Homes for 1915 West Lake Drive. The 3 Petitioner is requesting three setback 4 variances and one total lot coverage 5 variance for the construction of a new home 6 to be located at said address. The property 7 is zoned R-4 and is located south of Pontiac 8 Trail and east of West Lake Drive. 9 You are the Petitioner. Are you an 10 attorney, sir? 11 MR. VANOYEN: No. 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you can raise 13 your hand and be sworn in by our Secretary. 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number: 15 08-015 do you swear in this case to tell the 16 truth? 17 MR. VANOYEN: Yes, I do. 18 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you will 20 state your name and address. 21 MR. VANOYEN: My name is Thomas 22 Vanoyen and I am representing Mary and James 23 Street is their names, and they have 24 employed me to build them a house or add on
152 1 to this house and this is the house that I 2 have. You can see the -- I gave you guys 3 the footprint of the new house. This is 4 behind you, I'm sorry you will have to turn 5 your head, behind you is the existing house 6 right now and it's a plot plan. What you 7 are seeing there, there is a -- what I am 8 really trying to point out is the distance 9 from the property line to the water's edge. 10 There is just a very, very small amount of 11 area there, but it is almost 900 square 12 feet. 13 You take a look at this picture right
14 here which isn't -- anyway, you are not 15 going to see it very, very good. But that 16 is approximately 30 feet that you see right 17 there. It's not even on the print. No one 18 can touch it except for the Streets, the new 19 owners, and it makes the lot quite a bit 20 larger than it actually appears on the plot 21 plan. 22 So, I am saying that there is almost 23 900 square feet, 860 square feet that is 24 really there. It's just that it's just not
153 1 noted. 2 And the second place would be the 3 house that we're looking at right now, 4 that's the house right there. That has 5 approximately 900 square feet in it right 6 now. They have two kids. One 18, one six 7 and then the mom and dad. It's just not 8 enough room to support the now-a-day 9 contemporary lifestyle that people live in. 10 One of the reasons they picked that 11 particular neighborhood was the houses in 12 the neighborhood are growing. They are 13 growing very quickly. This house right here 14 you will see this is only five houses down 15 which is only on a 30 foot lot if you look 16 at that. They managed to squeeze quite a 17 bit out of that particular lot. 18 This one right here is seven houses 19 down. That looks like it's under 20 construction. Obviously it is. Again, 21 seven houses down on the same street. And 22 last, this one right here is eight houses 23 down which is directly next door to the one 24 we just saw. That one right there is
154 1 completed and there is people living in it. 2 I feel that the neighborhood, once we 3 add the new two-story building onto this lot 4 will nothing but add to the entire 5 neighborhood and I feel that it won't -- if 6 anything, it's just going to make the whole 7 neighborhood look more beautiful. Thank 8 you. 9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. Is 10 there anyone in the audience that wishes to 11 make a comment on this case? Seeing none, 12 once again, I will pass the correspondence 13 to the Secretary and ask her to record it 14 into the record. 15 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number: 16 08-015, 45 notices were mailed. Zero 17 approvals and zero objections. There are 18 two letters of concern. 19 First one: "To Whom It May Concern. 20 My name is Jerry Ross and I live at 1911 21 West Lake Drive. The property just to the 22 north of the street, the property at 1915
23 West Lake Drive. I have lived there since 24 1924 and served in several committees for
155 1 the improvement of the City especially in 2 the Walled Lake area. I have seen a great 3 deal of improvement around the lake over the 4 years. But one thing has puzzled me. Why 5 are people putting such large houses on 6 cottage sized lots? 7 This ruins the integrity of the 8 property. I probably am not alone in 9 thinking this because standards and zoning 10 were created to prevent this. If these 11 codes are to be changed, the neighbors 12 should have the final say. 13 Even though I have seen other smaller 14 lots on the lake overbuilt, this was the 15 first time in my 30 sum years here that this 16 has directly affected me. 17 My wife and I have had many long 18 discussions since receiving the Board of 19 Appeals public hearing notice. We like the 20 Streets (unintelligible). Nevertheless, I 21 need to protect my property. I am mainly 22 concerned that the amount of the impervious 23 ground covered by the movement and structure 24 would cause runoff onto our property. It is
156 1 a fairly flat piece of property with the 2 water cable three feet below the surface. 3 With approximately 50 percent of the 4 property covered and only four feet on 5 either side for runoff, where will this 6 water go? 7 We would like assurance that property 8 drainage -- proper drainage from this amount 9 of impervious ground is correctly and 10 adequately taken care of. We don't want the 11 value of our property to be negatively 12 impacted by this construction. 13 Thank you, Jerry and Debra Ross." 14 The other concern is from Gary 15 Phillips on West Lake: "I have some concern 16 that the near working percent lot coverage 17 may cause excessive water runoff to the 18 detriment of neighbors on both sides." 19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right. 20 Thank you, Madam Secretary. That will close 21 the public hearing portion of the case and 22 I'll turn it over for City comments. 23 MR. FOX: I'd like to make a comment. 24 When we review it for building permits, if
157 1 it's given approval, we will be looking to 2 maintain the drainage path on the property 3 as part of our review. So, we will make 4 sure the water stays on the property and 5 does not encroach on the neighbors in either 6 direction. 7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'll open it up 8 for Board discussion. Member Bauer? 9 MEMBER BAUER: Has the fire department 10 given the okay being that close together? 11 It's only eight feet between them. 12 MR. FOX: We have requested an answer 13 from Mike Evans and we haven't received 14 anything at this time. We have issued 15 setbacks of this type in the past. 16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Along those same 17 lines, are there increased standards of 18 building material that needs to be used when 19 said setback is in place? Or is it just the 20 same as -- 21 MR. FOX: The building code gives us 22 up to three feet from the property line 23 before we have to go to a rated wall for 24 fire separation. So, it meets the
158 1 requirements of the building code as far as 2 fire separations go between the buildings. 3 We have a six foot minimum. Anything closer 4 than that have to be rated between the two 5 buildings. 6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do you have any 7 further comments in regards to the drainage 8 concerns and the 900 square feet or so that 9 wouldn't be part of the calculation, is my 10 understanding? 11 MR. FOX: The area behind the house or 12 I would consider on the lake front side of 13 the property, it's not really considered 14 property as far as it's part of the lake, 15 it's not part of the individual property. 16 It doesn't really have any affect on us as 17 far as drainage. We'll maintain the proper 18 drainage on the property up to there and 19 make sure that none of it floats either way. 20 They are required to have a swale on their 21 property to maintain water on their site and 22 they are not allowed to drain it on either 23 side. 24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'll keep the
159 1 questions going. If there was some type of 2 emergency behind the house given that there 3 would be four feet on one side, what would 4 be the plan? Or would there be excavating 5 in the backyard or anything to that affect, 6 have you considered that? What if something 7 large needed to get in the backyard I guess 8 is my question? 9 MR. VANOYEN: You would have to 10 encroach on the neighbor's yard. He has a 11 lot of room. Mike uniquely fit a fire truck 12 through there. 13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do you know the 14 exact measurement? 15 MR. VANOYEN: I would say approximate, 16 ball parking 22, 25 feet. 17 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer, there is 18 an areal view in the proper ZBA file that 19 Madam Secretary was reading from on the left 20 side of the file. If you wanted to have 21 that put up on the projector. There are two 22 there. 23 One shows lots of pink outline and 24 that's your identification downgrade. The
160 1 one underneath it will show you the actual 2 lot and any structures that are on lots next 3 door or adjacent to the Petitioner's 4 request. 5 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Does the Board 6 wish to see this on the overhead? 7 MR. VANOYEN: Now, we're taking a look 8 right here at the existing house. As we 9 look to the -- if you can look to the left, 10 it looks like there is no one. You can see 11 a house just vaguely and you see there is a 12 property line. The neighbor owns both of 13 those lots. That would be, I forget the 14 number. I think it's 26 and 25. Or is it 15 27? 16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: 28, 29. 17 MR. VANOYEN: Okay, it's 28, 29. You 18 can see his house right there. He clips 19 about a good six feet of it. Maybe eight 20 feet of it. Now, the rest of that in 21 between the 30 foot lot he has got 25 feet 22 of room in between there that you can get 23 something back in there if ever the case may 24 be that you can, if it was needed on any of
161 1 these lots. But not to say that that's 2 going to change.
3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Other Board 4 Members? Member Shroyer? 5 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 6 The main concern that I have with any of the 7 lake lots is impeding the view of the 8 neighboring properties. When I went out 9 there I easily saw the house from the left 10 and the right. It was easier to see from 11 the areal view. It doesn't appear that even 12 with the expansion there would be any 13 difficulty on the house to the left, but 14 could you kind of outline with your pencil 15 the new frame for the house, or how far back 16 it would go towards the lake so I could try 17 to compare it? 18 MR. VANOYEN: Yes, I certainly can. 19 You see this deck that's back in here? 20 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 21 MR. VANOYEN: I am going to take this 22 house and add 20 feet onto it. This deck is 23 approximately 30 feet the way it sits right 24 now so I am going to take two thirds of this
162 1 deck right here onto it. The neighbor's 2 house that's right to the left, now that 3 would be, right now it's sitting 4 approximately here and this house over here, 5 this is right next door. This house is way 6 up in front by the water. So that's not 7 going to affect anybody. If anybody it 8 might affect is this guy a little bit 9 looking this way, but not any other way. 10 MEMBER SHROYER: Actually the house on 11 lot 28 may even impede his view of the lake, 12 just a portion in front of 27 would be the 13 area that might be obstructed. 14 MR. VANOYEN: If I were going to say 15 that the existing house on the right hand 16 side, if anything a new structure will be a 17 few feet in front of his view, but nothing 18 like a tunnel or anything. We're not going 19 to dump a two-story house and he is back the 20 last 40 feet. He is not going to be back to 21 that at all. 22 MEMBER SHROYER: If you would, please 23 put the areal photo back up again and show 24 me on the deck approximately where the new
163 1 house would be. 2 MR. VANOYEN: That deck is the 3 existing deck right now and it is at 30 feet 4 the way it sits right now and we are going 5 to use, that's where the new house is going 6 to sit right there. There will be ten feet 7 of deck left over. 8 Now, the front part will go all the 9 way up. We are probably going to add, 10 that's about where it's going to sitting now 11 according to my measurements with the new 12 front garage. 13 MEMBER SHROYER: I am not as concerned 14 about the front as I am the back. People 15 live on the lake because they want to see 16 the lake. 17 MR. VANOYEN: That's true. 18 MEMBER SHROYER: And I don't want 19 impede the aesthetic view of the neighbors 20 by allowing someone to exceed the Ordinance 21 requirements. But in this case due to the 22 angle of the lake or the angle I should say 23 of the lots on the lake, I don't believe 24 it's going to create any visual hazards.
164 1 So, I would be in support of these requests. 2 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 4 Member Shroyer. 5 Member Sanghvi? 6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Are you 7 building a new home or are you adding on? 8 MR. VANOYEN: I am adding onto this 9 home. 10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: So, here 11 you say construction of a new home which is 12 a totally different meaning to me. 13 MS. WORKING: We are okay with the 14 setback request as requested in terms of the 15 documented measurements. It was my 16 understanding that the Petitioner is going 17 to knock down the existing home. He is only 18 knocking down the existing garage to make 19 room for the new home addition to the 20 existing footprint. So the setback requests 21 as they were made are still valid. 22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: It's a 23 combination of both? 24 MS. WORKING: Correct.
165 1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Wrobel? 2 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 3 To staff. I am concerned about the side 4 yard setback being at four feet. Do we have 5 additional homes in that area? I know that 6 some of the big foot homes are in that area. 7 Are we looking at are four foot setbacks 8 there or smaller setbacks or larger 9 setbacks? 10 MR. FOX: I don't have any of the 11 exact numbers. There would not be any 12 smaller than four feet that I would know of. 13 We had four feet setbacks in the past. I 14 don't know which lots on that particular 15 street have that. If there is any directly 16 adjacent to each other that are about four 17 feet I don't know the answer. 18 MEMBER WROBEL: But we have done four 19 feet? 20 MR. FOX: We have done four feet. 21 MEMBER WROBEL: I just don't want to 22 set a precedent. 23 MR. FOX: Four feet we have done. 24 MEMBER WROBEL: Oh, thank you.
166 1 MS. WORKING: Through the Chair, in 2 discussion with the community development 3 director, he has asked that the Fire Marshal 4 does weigh in on what the requirement or 5 what the restriction would be for setbacks 6 within certain requested footage. We just 7 don't know what that is going to be yet. We 8 don't have anything by Ordinance that 9 restricts us. You as a Board don't. But we 10 in a meeting decided that it's probably a 11 request that we are going to see very 12 frequently and Fire Marshal Evans is going 13 to be putting something together for your 14 direction in the future. It was just a 15 little bit too quick of a turn around for 16 this particular request this evening. 17 MR. VANOYEN: May I say just one thing 18 about the four foot setback? The house 19 right now is sitting at four feet. All we 20 are going to do is continue it from the 21 front to the back. Thank you very much. 22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Anyone want to 23 speak? Member Krieger? 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number:
167 1 08-015 filed by Thomas Vanoyen of Curb 2 Appeal Homes for 1915 West Lake Drive I move 3 that we approve this case in requesting 4 three setback variances. The variance 5 requested for the rear 9.25 feet. The 6 minimum side proposed is four feet, so the 7 variance request for six feet, and with that 8 anything that the Fire Marshal would need to 9 add. And then a proposed aggregate of two 10 sign variance of 17 feet. And with our 11 discussion the proof of the practical 12 difficulty for the use of this property. 13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Lot coverage? 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Maximum total lot 15 coverage of 25 percent. 16 MEMBER SHROYER: No, 12. 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Variance request of 18 12 percent. 19 MEMBER IBE: I'll second that. 20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is a 21 motion by Krieger and a second by Ibe. 22 MS. WORKING: Would Member Krieger 23 like to make that subject to Fire Marshal 24 approval?
168 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Does the 3 seconder concur? 4 MEMBER IBE: Yes, please. Thank you, 5 Mr. Chair. 6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 7 comments? Seeing none, Ms. Working would 8 you please call the roll. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 11 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 12 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 13 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer? 14 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 15 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 17 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 18 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 19 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 20 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 21 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 23 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer, I 24 apologize. Motion passes 7-0.
169 1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Your variance 2 has been granted. 3 MR. VANOYEN: Thank you very much. 4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It's kind of 5 late so let's go ahead and go home and we'll 6 do this next month. Just kidding. 7 8 We'll call case number: 08-016 9 filed by Mark Johnson of Cornell Sign 10 Company for K&S Plaza located at 30900 Beck 11 Road. 12 The Petitioner is requesting one sign 13 variance to allow a 30 square foot 14 multi-tenant business sign for the K&S Plaza 15 located at said address. 16 The proposed multi-tenant sign will 17 replace the existing business center pole 18 center. The property is zone B-3 and located 19 east of Beck Road and south of Pontiac 20 Trail. Are you an attorney? 21 MR. JOHNSON: No. 22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you could 23 raise your hand and be sworn in by our 24 Secretary.
170 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number: 2 08-016, that you swear and affirm to tell 3 the truth in this case? 4 MR. JOHNSON: Yes. 5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you could 7 state your name and address and proceed with 8 your case. 9 MR. JOHNSON: Mark R. Johnson, Cornell 10 Sign Company, 9641 Northwest Court, 11 Clarkston, Michigan. 12 The property in question, K&S Plaza, 13 is a multi-tenant retail center that has the 14 potential of up to eight tenants that was 15 built many years ago. I have an areal view 16 here on the projector that shows the 17 orientation of the building in regards to 18 Beck Road and the fact that it is 19 perpendicular with the entrances to all the 20 different stores being facing due south. 21 This was done at the time, of course, 22 because before the wonderful interchange at 23 Beck Road was put in place, most of the 24 traffic pattern for Beck Road for the most
171 1 case was northbound and a southbound 2 orientation was best. The access onto 96 at 3 Beck Road was limited, so, therefore, 4 heading south towards 96 to then get on 5 wasn't done because there wasn't an actual 6 ramp to use to get on other than heading out 7 towards Lansing. 8 The sign in question that is there 9 presently, the existing sign is also a 5 by 10 6. It has K&S Plaza solely on it. It is 15 11 feet tall at the top and while it does not 12 project over the lot line, it does not meet 13 the three foot requirement of setback off 14 the lot line. For safety purposes my 15 understanding is why most ordinances use a 16 three feet requirement is that if a sidewalk 17 is placed on a lot line or a foot within the 18 lot line, that you have people being able to 19 go up and down the sidewalk whether it be a 20 young kid biking and whatever and you 21 physically can't have a ground sign because 22 it's sitting right on top of it. So, it's 23 nonconforming in two different ways. 24 The problem is is that exposure for
172 1 the businesses is severely limited and it is 2 only viewable for the northbound traffic. 3 Obviously with the expansion of the road and 4 the improvement to the interchange, the 5 traffic pattern on Beck Road has changed 6 immensely and you have as much if not 7 perhaps even at times moreso southbound as 8 northbound traffic. 9 So, what we proposed to do is take the 10 existing non-conforming pole sign and put up 11 a ground sign that meets the 30 square foot 12 requirement. It also meets the six foot 13 maximum height requirement versus the 15 14 feet of the existing sign and also will meet 15 the setback requirement. 16 The purpose for this is to give 17 exposure for the businesses for advertising 18 for southbound traffic. Beck Road because 19 of its traffic count should afford this 20 retail center a very -- how to put it? Even 21 in these economic times, a very stable 22 exposure and base to the public. The 23 problem being is the width and the way the 24 center is located that it has a tendency
173 1 that when you are heading southbound even if 2 you are in line because let's face it, when 3 you are on roads in southeastern, Michigan 4 you are usually in a traffic jam of some 5 sort, you have no idea as you are heading 6 south of what those businesses are on that 7 side and that is the reason for the request. 8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other 9 comments? 10 MR. JOHNSON: I do have Mark Angeloni 11 (ph) who is the owner of the center. 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Are you an 13 attorney? 14 MR. ANGELONI: No. 15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do you want to 16 be sworn in as well, please? 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: In case number: 18 08-016 do you swear or affirm to tell the 19 truth in this case? 20 MR. ANGELONI: Yes. 21 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: State your name 22 and address too. 23 MR. ANGELONI: Mar Angeloni of K&S 24 Investment Group, 1800 West 14 Mile Road,
174 1 Suite C, Royal Oak. We are the owners of 2 the K&S Plaza on 30900 Beck Road. We are 3 here this evening requesting a variance of 4 the multi-tenant sign at K&S Plaza. 5 We realize that the City of Novi does 6 not allow multi-tenant signs, however, 7 because of various circumstances, we are in 8 a unique position that warrants a variance. 9 Because we are located in the northwest 10 corner of the city limits we border the 11 cities of Wixom, Commerce and nearby walled 12 Lake. Those cities have had several new 13 commercial retail developments in the past 14 couple of years. 15 Besides the new downtown development 16 in Wixom, there have been three new strip 17 centers within one mile from us. The point 18 is during these difficult economic times, 19 the competition for our tenants has 20 increased. These other communities allow 21 multi-tenant signs in their strip centers 22 and that puts us an our tenants at a 23 disadvantage. All we ask for is a level 24 playing field for our tenants. By approving
175 1 the variance it only helps our tenants 2 potentially reach greater financial success 3 which in turn is an advantage to the City of 4 Novi receiving more tax dollars. 5 I believe that you all have seen, you 6 see the copy there of the proposed sign that 7 we do hope to erect, you can see it's well 8 designed. It's attractive and it matches 9 the color scheme of our building. 10 Ultimately it enhances the appearance of the 11 center. 12 Finally, I just want to thank you for 13 consideration of our multi-tenant variance 14 request. And I am willing to answer any 15 questions that you may have. 16 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. 17 MR. JOHNSON: May I make one 18 additional comment? 19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Absolutely. 20 MR. JOHNSON: I just want to mention 21 that I know that we erected a mock-up. It 22 was actually erected ten days prior as 23 required, and then a week ago today it was 24 kind of the Wizard of Oz here in Michigan
176 1 and it kind of blew apart and we tried to 2 get it back up as best we could for you. 3 Hopefully some of you were able to see it 4 before the winds got ahold of it and we felt 5 like Dorothy, we weren't in Kansas anymore. 6 It kind of gives you the idea that 7 that was the actual size and proportions of 8 sign that it's something, the variances 9 requested and we feel it's a workable sign 10 because of the fact the way traffic backs up 11 on Beck Road and everything it gives time 12 for people to read and things because I know 13 that's one time. I have been doing this for 14 many years and sometimes it's a concern, is 15 it really going to be effective? When you 16 are heading to or from that freeway you are 17 sitting in traffic and they are going to 18 have the time to read it. 19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right. Is 20 there anyone in the audience that wishes to 21 make a comment on this case? Seeing none, 22 I'll ask the Secretary to read any 23 correspondence. 24 MS. KRIEGER: In case number:
177 1 08-016, 73 notices were mailed. One 2 approval. Zero objections. 3 And the one approval is from Sandra E. 4 Golden-Schaefer: "Thank you for taking the 5 time to read my concerns regarding the 6 appeal for Mark Johnson and Cornell Sign 7 Company to allow a 30 square foot 8 multi-tenant sign for K&S Plaza. I agree 9 with Mr. Johnson that the sign needs to be 10 updated and it also needs to be more 11 informational. As long as the sign is 12 classy in keeping with the facade of the 13 building and it isn't a glaring neon sign 14 that will glow in the dark and keep me 15 awake, I recommend you approve this 16 business. Thank you." 17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right. That 18 concludes the public hearing portion of the 19 case. Any comments from the City? 20 MR. AMOLSCH: No comments, sir. 21 MS. KUDLA: No comments. 22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. Then 23 I will turn it over to the Board for 24 discussion.
178 1 Member Sanghvi? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. Question. 3 How many stores have you got in the plaza? 4 MR. ANGELONI: There is a potential of 5 up to eight. There are six tenants 6 presently, though. But some tenants have an 7 expanded, you know, double suite or 8 something like that. 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Have many 10 tenants have you got? Is it full now? 11 MR. ANGELONI: No. 12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: You have 13 some empty stores there? 14 MR. ANGELONI: Two. 15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, thank 16 you. 17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 18 Member Sanghvi. 19 Member Bauer? 20 MEMBER BAUER: I think it's going to 21 be real nice up there. I like the sign much 22 better than just the K&S. It says 23 something. Thank you. Good luck. 24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member Wrobel?
179 1 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 2 I also approve of the sign. It's a lot 3 better than the other one and I understand 4 the need for it for the southbound traffic 5 at that location so people can see what's in 6 there. And, hopefully, just an editorial 7 comment, once the sign goes up we won't be 8 seeing the Farmer Grill truck parked out 9 acting as a sign as it is now. 10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Isn't that 11 technically an ordinance violation, Alan? 12 MR. AMOLSCH: If it's parked there all 13 the time, yes. 14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I am pretty sure 15 it is actually. 16 Member Shroyer? 17 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 18 I believe I read part of your mock sign near 19 my house on 10 Mile yesterday and I approved 20 of it. It looked nice. No, I agree 21 totally. 22 It's a great improvement over the 23 sign. I do want to ask because I have also 24 wondered every since I lived in Novi, what
180 1 does K&S stand for? 2 MR. ANGELONI: They are the initials 3 of my parents. 4 MEMBER SHROYER: Well, great, that's 5 nice. 6 I believe I have a motion if you are ready 7 for one. 8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Go right 9 ahead. 10 MEMBER SHROYER: In case number: 11 08-016 filed by Mark Johnson of Cornell Sign 12 Company, Incorporated, for K&S Plaza located 13 at 3900 Beck Road, I move to approve the 14 request to replace the existing business 15 center pole sign with a multi-tenant 16 business sign. The signage itself is not 17 increasing in size, the location will not 18 impair the view from surrounding businesses. 19 The sign will meet all setback requirements 20 and will result in the removal of the 21 existing non-conforming pole sign. 22 The proposed sign will allow for the 23 exposure for up to eight businesses that are 24 located in the plaza. Without the signage
181 1 viewable from northbound Beck Road. 2 MEMBER WROBEL: Second. 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It is a motion 4 by Member Shroyer and a second by Member 5 Wrobel. 6 Any further discussion? Seeing none, 7 Ms. Working will you please call the roll. 8 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer? 9 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 10 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 11 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 12 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 14 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 15 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 16 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer? 17 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 18 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 19 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 20 MS. WORKING: And Member Krieger? 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 22 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0. 23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Good luck over 24 there.
182 1 MR. JOHNSON: If I may add to the 2 Chairman. You are right, Ford does have 3 better pole coverage on their signs. And I 4 apologize to Member Shroyer. My wife works 5 for a service parts operation at GM and I 6 still have to say that. 7 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If we could mark 8 my vote as an enthusiastic aye. 9 MEMBER SHROYER: Can I withdraw the 10 motion? 11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: No, the case has 12 been decided. 13 14 Moving along. We are done with the 15 case section of the meeting so let's move to 16 other matters. Building Official Comments, 17 number one. 18 MR. BOULARD: I just have a couple of 19 things. First I wanted to bring to your 20 attention, I am sure you have already seen 21 them, two copies of correspondence from our 22 attorneys. One of which was mailed to you 23 and the other is, I believe -- 24 MS. WORKING: Both were mailed.
183 1 MR. BOULARD: Both were mailed to you. 2 If for whatever reason you did not receive 3 those, let us know. I want to pass along 4 that her discussion at the last meeting, as 5 to the request that Counsel consider the 6 addition of second alternate has been passed 7 along to the administration. 8 And last in regard to training there 9 is a couple of opportunities that Mr. Rumple 10 is working on. One would be to have someone 11 from outside come in and do some training. 12 And the intent is to have that following 13 some training (unintelligible) in our 14 offices. The intent would be to have that 15 training on an off Tuesday night and if you 16 all would be so kind, I would appreciate it 17 if there were times on Tuesday nights in the 18 future next, probably in the next month or 19 month and a half that you would be 20 available, if you could let Ms. Working know 21 so that we could try to get that scheduled. 22 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I might add to 23 that. What I said when this was brought up 24 to me is that I feel that the in-house
184 1 training from the City Council -- Counsel 2 that the City employs, Secrest, Wardle, has 3 a very good foundational piece, and I am 4 happy to see that they are working on some 5 outside advance training for us. And I 6 agree wholeheartedly with Steve's 7 recommendation that we first concentrate on 8 the foundations and basics from our City 9 attorney and then move to some outside 10 perspectives. So I wanted to, I told him 11 that earlier today and I wanted to share 12 that with the Board. 13 If I can ask if Ms. Working would just 14 shoot an e-mail to the Board within maybe 15 the next six to eight weeks and the Board 16 could respond back to her which ones are 17 available, similar to what we did for the 18 special meeting, I feel that that worked out 19 well for us if it worked out well for you. 20 MS. WORKING: That's fine. I would 21 just like to point out that you have three 22 remaining Tuesdays in April and one Tuesday 23 in May prior to the scheduled ZBA hearing 24 and then two more Tuesdays in May. Would
185 1 you like me to go into June as well? I know 2 it's the time of year -- 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Let's just do 4 April and May at this point. 5 MS. WORKING: I'll get that together. 6 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. Sorry to 7 interrupt. 8 MR. BOULARD: Nothing further. Thank 9 you. 10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. Moving 11 along to number two. Rules of Procedure 12 Update. Is there anything to that effect? 13 MS. KUDLA: What's been going on is 14 that I believe we found there was an 15 amendment to the rules in 2005 that we do 16 need to add. So, I will add that as a red 17 line. I did make some recommended changes 18 to the Minutes and I believe you received 19 those changes. Consistent with those 20 changes I will make the red lining changes 21 to the rules that we discussed. 22 In addition, I am doing some 23 additional research regarding the, as far as 24 the alternate member what we can -- the MZBA
186
1 recent amendments do not clarify anything 2 with respect to what the alternate members 3 are permitted to do or forbidden to do, so 4 we are going to try to look outside the 5 scope of that ordinate statute and see if we 6 can find support for having the member 7 participate in other similar statutes. So, 8 I will be trying to put together an opinion 9 letter on that issue concurrent with us 10 considering the change language. So, I 11 would expect that would be within the same 12 time frame at the end of the month. 13 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. Sounds 14 good. 15 Yes, something was mentioned to me 16 regarding the mocked sign amendment that was 17 approved in 2005, I believe that is what you 18 are referring to; is that correct? 19 MS. KUDLA: Correct. 20 MS. WORKING: I would like to also 21 propose to the Chair, it was recommended to 22 me that the Board might consider making one 23 of the requirements having to do with mock 24 signage. That the Applicant provide a
187 1 picture of what the mock sign looks like in 2 the event that we do have inclement weather 3 like that and then I would be able to 4 forward that to you in case you didn't have 5 a chance for the site visit. We would 6 implement that as a requirement by the rules 7 for application for consideration if the 8 Board would see that to be useful. 9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do we want to 10 make that a recommendation? 11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, I 12 think it's a very good idea. 13 MEMBER SHROYER: I think it's a lousy 14 idea. 15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All right, looks 16 like it passes 6-1 then. 17 MS. WORKING: This was Member 18 Shroyer's idea. 19 MEMBER SHROYER: Well, I change my 20 vote. 21 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: He likes to 23 see all the signs end up in his front yard. 24 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Any other
188 1 comments on the rules and procedures? 2 MEMBER SHROYER: I have one. 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes. 4 MEMBER SHROYER: In the write up that 5 Ms. Working did, I appreciate all the 6 effort in trying to decipher the audiotape 7 and everything to put these together. I do 8 have several question marks that I'm not 9 sure I remembered everything correctly. So, 10 I guess my question is, will we be getting 11 another copy of the revisions to review 12 prior to when we're going to vote on the 13 final recommendations or the final set? 14 MS. KUDLA: You will be getting a copy 15 of the actual procedures. I don't think 16 it's part of the Minutes that we are going 17 to go into any more detail on it. 18 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligible). 19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Are we going to 20 have to approve those Minutes? 21 MS. KUDLA: Yes.
22 MEMBER SHROYER: That was the next 23 question I had is, do these have to be 24 approved?
189
1 MS. KUDLA: They do. But from my 2 review of the Open Meetings Act and the 3 minimum requirements for Minutes they do 4 both require that. 5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I move that 6 we accept the Minutes as presented. 7 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I think they are 9 still making revisions to the Minutes. 10 MS. KUDLA: We made revisions, but -- 11 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Were they part 12 of what we got? 13 MS. KUDLA: Yes. 14 MS. WORKING: You should have received 15 the blue -- 16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I have seen 17 them. 18 MEMBER SHROYER: I have not seen that. 19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I don't think I 20 have. 21 MS. WORKING: In the mailing just the 22 other day? 23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The 24 envelope that came by mail?
190 1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I got a weird 2 sign picture too. 3 MEMBER SHROYER: The only thing I have 4 is the original letter. 5 MS. WORKING: Possibly -- we have had 6 a lot of problems with our color copier. 7 So, it's possible that some of you received 8 black and white copies. Member Ghannam has 9 pointed it that he got one. So, if you did 10 receive -- 11 MEMBER BAUER: I got two. 12 MS. WORKING: Oh, that's wonderful. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Yeah. 14 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Can we have it 16 sent back out? 17 MS. WORKING: I would prefer to 18 e-mail. 19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Will you e-mail 20 the newest version to us and then we will 21 approve them next time? 22 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer 23 (unintelligible), if I can access the color 24 copier actually.
191 1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: E-mail them to 2 me and I will print them out for him. 3 MEMBER SHROYER: I'll figure out a way 4 to get them. 5 MS. WORKING: Okay. I can mail them 6 to you, that's not a problem. I just feel 7 that you should have them now. 8 MEMBER SHROYER: That's fine. 9 MS. WORKING: Now, you need a copy of 10 the old, this set as well as what Beth is 11 going to put together something new now to 12 incorporate the mock sign amendment and 13 everything. So, do you want these first or 14 do you want to wait until she send them to 15 me and then I'll send them all out at the 16 same time? 17 MEMBER BAUER: All at one time. 18 MS. WORKING: I'll send them all at 19 one time. Thank you. 20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is a 21 motion and a second. Let me withdraw the 22 motion and approve 23 the -- 24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Motion has
192 1 been withdrawn. 2 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That's all 3 right. Any other rule and procedure 4 updates? 5 Moving on to number three. 6 MS. WORKING: Novi Corporate Campus. 7 There is a photograph inside your meeting 8 file that was taken on March 14th of this 9 year. Along with it you will see the motion 10 that was made by the Zoning Board to grant 11 the variances requested for a one year 12 period with a six month review. We are at 13 the six month review point. Ordinance 14 Officer (unintelligible) said she feels that 15 the trailer is in compliance with the 16 landscaping concerns that the Board has and 17 is before you today to see if you will grant 18 them their additional six months on the 19 requested variance back in September. 20 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Given the fact 21 that the Ordinance officer is okay with it 22 and we approved it under the finding of fact 23 last time, I would move that we go ahead and 24 approve the second six months for case
193 1 number: 07-065, Novi Corporate Campus. 2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Second. 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is a 4 motion and a second. Any further 5 discussion? Seeing none, Ms. Working, will 6 you please call the roll. 7 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer? 8 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi. 10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Aye. 11 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 12 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 13 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 15 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer? 16 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 17 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 18 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 19 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 20 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 21 MS. WORKING: Motion to approve in six 22 months on ZBA 07-065 passes 7-0. 23 24 The next item that you are being
194 1 asked to consider this evening is ZBA 07-00 2 -- excuse me, 028. It's past my bedtime. 3 That's for 1411 West Lake Drive. 4 Members of the Board, this is a 5 request to extend per 90 days the 6 requirement to pull a building permit within 7 that 90 days. The Petitioner was granted 8 variances by the Board at the January 9th 9 meeting, and he would like another 90 days. 10 You can see his request in writing attached 11 to the original motion. 12 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It appears that 13 he has difficulty with his architects in 14 getting the plans. I don't see an issue 15 with this. So, with everyone shaking their 16 head I move that in case number: 07-028 17 that we extend the time period to pull a 18 permit an additional 90 days from tonight. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 20 MEMBER SHROYER: Since the original 21 motion was written so well I would support 22 the motion. 23 MS. KRIEGER: Oh, you wrote it, did 24 you?
195 1 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Ms. Working, 2 will you please call the roll. 3 MS. WORKING: Chairman Fischer? 4 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 5 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 6 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 7 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 8 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 11 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer? 12 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 13 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 15 MS. WORKING: And Member Wrobel? 16 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 17 MS. WORKING: Motion to extend passes 18 7-0. 19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Number five was 20 my question for something that came up. In 21 an effort to somewhat streamline the process 22 that we do here so we don't run here until 23 10:30, I had asked for a recommendation as 24 to whether we could have something similar
196 1 to the City Council where they have a 2 consent agenda where these 90 day 3 extensions, things like that we could just 4 throw under there, review it as part of our 5 packet process and just approve it, but it's 6 my understanding that since we're a quasi 7 judicial board, the City Attorney does not 8 recommend that and that's their prerogative 9 and so if that's their recommendation then I 10 will go with that. 11 So, at this point I would ask the 12 Board to consider directing the Building 13 Department to looking into recommending to 14 the Ordinance Review Committee and City 15 Council to review this 90-day rule and 16 possibly extend it to six months or whatever 17 their recommendation may be. If that's the 18 direction of the Board, maybe intent, might 19 try something differently, but if it can be 20 reviewed and streamline our processes I 21 think we would be much appreciative. 22 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There is 24 apparently a motion and a second. All in
197 1 favor of giving that direction say aye? 2 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 3 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Does the 4 Building Department wish to comment before 5 that actually? 6 MR. BOULARD: My only question would 7 be if there would be direction to consider a 8 time other than the six months? 9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: My take is that 10 you guys are the professionals. Whatever 11 you feel an appropriate time frame would be 12 is fine with us. If you still think it's 13 90, that's fine, come back and tell us. 14 But I am just looking at some direction from 15 you whether or not we can recommend to that 16 in ordinance review as to extending that so 17 we don't get as many of these. 18 MR. BOULARD: I heard six months. I 19 assume there is some reasoning and some 20 experience that would lead to that and I 21 just wondered if there is anything you all 22 wanted to add to that? 23 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: My only comment 24 would be that oftentimes it's 90 days and we
198 1 approve for another 90 days and that seems 2 to take care of the issue. Other than that 3 I have no experience in that. 4 Any other members wish to comment on 5 that? 6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I think 180 7 days is a very good idea because you don't 8 know what the weather is going to be like 9 when you give 90 days in December. 10 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Exactly. It 11 will give them a change of a season 12 possibility and stuff like that. 13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: They might 14 even change the (unintelligible). 15 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Seeing no other 16 business before the Board I would like -- 17 You have business? 18 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 19 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Paradise Park where do 21 we stand? 22 MS. WORKING: Members of the Board, 23 the Board gave the Petitioner the option to 24 return in April or May. The Petitioner
199 1 chose to return in May. So, he has been 2 sent a letter regarding that. I have spoken 3 to him on the phone and he will receive 4 another meeting notification to remind him 5 to show up in May. Those letters will go 6 out the third week of this month along with 7 the regular agenda items for the month of 8 May. 9 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Seeing no other 10 business, I'll entertain a motion to 11 adjourn. 12 MEMBER WROBEL: Motion to adjourn. 13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Second. 14 CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All in favor say 15 aye? 16 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 17 (The meeting was adjourned at 18 10:32 p.m.) 19 20 21 22 23 24
200 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 4 I, Mona L. Talton, do hereby certify 5 that I have recorded stenographically the 6 proceedings had and testimony taken in the 7 above-entitled matter at the time and place 8 hereinbefore set forth, and I do further 9 certify that the foregoing transcript, 10 consisting of (167) typewritten pages, is a 11 true and correct transcript of my said 12 stenographic notes. 13 14 15 16 17 18 _____________________________ 19 Mona L. Talton, 20 Certified Shorthand Reporter 21 22 April 24, 2008 23 24
|