| 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, AUGUST 11, 2009. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: 1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, August 11, 2009 3 7:00 p.m. 4 - - - - - - 5 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Good evening. 6 The clock says 7:00. Today is August 11, 7 2009 so it has to be time for the meeting of 8 the Zoning Board of Appeals for the City of 9 Novi. 10 Let's all rise and, Mr. Wrobel, will 11 you kindly lead us in the pledge of 12 allegiance. 13 BOARD MEMBERS: I pledge allegiance to 14 the flag of the United States of America and 15 to the Republic for which it stands, one 16 nation under God indivisible with liberty 17 and justice for all. 18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Ms. 19 Martin, will you please call the roll. 20 MS. MARTIN: Member Bauer? 21 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 22 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Sanghvi? 23 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Here. 24 MS. MARTIN: Member Wrobel?
4 1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Present. 2 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 3 MEMBER SKELCY: Here. 4 MS. MARTIN: Member Ghannam? 5 MEMBER GHANNAM: Here. 6 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Present. 8 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 9 MEMBER IBE: Present. 10 MS. MARTIN: And Member Cassis is 11 vacant tonight or absent tonight. 12 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: We do have a 13 quorum and the meeting is now in session. I 14 would like to go over the rules of conduct. 15 You will find them in the agenda. And just 16 a friendly reminder. Please turn off all 17 cell phones and pagers. And let me be the 18 one to do this to start with. 19 Individual applicants make take five 20 minutes and groups may take up to 10 minutes 21 to address the Board. Zoning Board of 22 Appeals is a Hearing Board empowered by the 23 Novi City Charter to hear appeals seeking 24 variances from the application of Novi
5 1 Zoning Ordinances. It takes a vote of at 2 least four members to approve a variance 3 request and a vote of the majority of the 4 members present to deny a variance. Tonight 5 we do have a full Board so all decisions 6 made will be final. 7 Let's look at the agenda. Are there 8 any changes, additions or deletions, Ms. 9 Martin? 10 MS. MARTIN: No, there is not. 11 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: May I entertain 12 a motion to approve the agenda as presented? 13 MEMBER BAUER: So moved. 14 MEMBER WROBEL: Second. 15 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The motion has 16 been made and seconded. All those in favor 17 signify by saying aye? 18 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 19 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: All those 20 opposed same sign. 21 All right. Moving on next now that we 22 have an agenda, we do have Minutes today. 23 And are there any kind of additions, 24 deletions, omissions in the Minutes for last
6 1 month? I have -- I beg your pardon. Go 2 ahead. 3 MR. BOULARD: Page 64, line 7 it 4 should be, building code would also require 5 hardwired and interconnected smoke 6 detectors. And then on line 10 the 7 unintelligible should be, upgrade. 8 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, thank you. 9 Anybody else? I had one correction which is 10 on page 36, line 15. It has the word style 11 and it should read recognition. 12 Anything else? Seeing none -- 13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Motion to 14 approve the amended Minutes. 15 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Motion has been 16 made by Member Wrobel -- 17 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Seconded by Mr. 19 Bauer. If there are no further discussions, 20 all those in favor of accepting the amended 21 Minutes please signify by saying aye? 22 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 23 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: All those 24 opposed same sign. Thank you.
7 1 Now, this is the time for the public 2 remarks section. Is there anybody in the 3 audience who would like to address the Board 4 regarding anything other than those items 5 which are on the agenda today? 6 (No response.) 7 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Seeing none, we 8 will close the public remarks section. 9 And moving along to the first case on 10 the agenda which is Case Number: 09-030, 11 25875 Novi Road, Suite 124, City Center 12 Plaza. Is the Applicant here? Would you 13 please come to the podium, identify yourself 14 with your name and address, and if you are 15 not an attorney please be sworn in by our 16 Secretary, Mr. Bauer. 17 MR. LINGFIELD (ph): Thank you, Mr. 18 Chairman. My name is William Lingfield. I 19 reside at 52617 Wessex Way in Shelby 20 Township, and I operate the store at Suite 21 124 City Center Plaza. 22 MEMBER BAUER: Would you please raise 23 your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to 24 tell the truth regarding Case: 09-030?
8 1 THE WITNESS: I do. 2 MEMBER BAUER: Okay. Thank you, sir. 3 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Please go ahead 4 and make your presentation. 5 MR. LINGFIELD: Thank you, Mr. 6 Chairman. I think in your packet you have 7 just a black and white photo which might 8 give the, I guess, most concise presentation 9 that I would suggest or request for a 10 variance of the sign ordinance. If you 11 would turn to that photo. 12 A little over two years ago we leased 13 the Suite 130 which is located to the far 14 right of the photo. In fact, there is still 15 a temporary sign in the window saying floor 16 model savings sale. That suite was 4,000 or 17 still is, actually, 4,000 square feet in 18 floor space. With economic conditions 19 changing over the past two, two and a half, 20 three years and perhaps even further back, 21 we negotiated with Mr. Karis (ph) and the 22 ownership of City Center Plaza to downsize 23 our location. 24 We want very much to stay in the city
9 1 of Novi. We do have a business that is 2 operating, but we felt strongly that to be 3 successful we needed to downsize. He worked 4 with us and after some negotiations we 5 obtained a space which is Suite 124 which is 6 actually two suites to the south or to the 7 left as you look at this photo. And the 8 sign in question is shown there, Tradewind 9 Spas. Frankly, in all of the negotiations, 10 to be very honest with you, I overlooked the 11 legalities or the zoning requirements, 12 building code requirements of the sign and 13 just, it just didn't come across that the 14 move since it's a smaller building, now a 15 sign that we had made that was only two 16 years old, I didn't even think about it 17 would not meet code. 18 My request to you and hopefully 19 looking at the sign in its proximity to 20 other stores and signs in the plaza, 21 obviously I'm prejudiced, but to me, it does 22 not stand out. There was no intent to 23 create any kind of advertising advantage. 24 Simply, again, from an economic standpoint
10 1 we desperately need to reuse this sign 2 because of the expense of it, and it would, 3 it would be crucial to our continuing to do 4 business if we could receive a variance to 5 use the sign at the store location we 6 currently are. 7 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Is 8 there anybody in the audience who would like 9 to address the Board regarding this case? 10 (No response.) 11 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Seeing none, Mr. 12 Bauer, have you any correspondence regarding 13 this case? 14 MEMBER BAUER: There were 37 notices 15 sent. There was zero response. Five 16 returned. 17 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 18 Building Department? 19 MR. BOULARD: Thank you. As the 20 Petitioner indicated, the previous sign was 21 sized based on the frontage of the suite. 22 That frontage is decreased in the new 23 location and thus the sign is oversized. If 24 the existing 48 square foot wall sign were
11 1 to remain, it would require a variance of 2 approximately 23 square feet in area. 3 Nothing to add other than what's in 4 the staff report other than to suggest that 5 if the Board were inclined to consider a 6 variance, I would suggest that consideration 7 would be given to limiting the variance to 8 this particular tenant or this particular 9 sign. 10 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. All 11 right, I will open it up to the Board. Yes, 12 Mr. Ghannam? 13 MEMBER GHANNAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 14 I just have a couple of questions, sir. You 15 said your new suite is to the left or to the 16 south of your existing suite? 17 MR. LINGFIELD: Correct. 18 MEMBER GHANNAM: The photograph that 19 you provided us is the existing suite, 20 correct? 21 MR. LINGFIELD: That actually shows 22 both. The area where the white SUV or 23 station wagon where it has just the paper 24 sign in the window that was the former
12 1 suite. 2 MEMBER GHANNAM: And it's currently 3 located over your current suite? 4 MR. LINGFIELD: And the sign is 5 located over the current suite, that is 6 correct. 7 MEMBER GHANNAM: And it's the exact 8 same sign, correct? 9 MR. LINGFIELD: Same sign exactly, 10 yes. 11 MEMBER GHANNAM: You have received no 12 objections from your neighbors in the same 13 shopping mall? 14 MR. LINGFIELD: None whatsoever. 15 MEMBER GHANNAM: Given this unique set 16 of circumstances, you are in the same 17 shopping center. You are moving a couple of 18 doors down. You are downsizing somewhat, I 19 don't see a problem and I would be in 20 support of it. Thank you. 21 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Yes, 22 Mr. Wrobel? 23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: I too as my 24 colleague I will support this.
13 1 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 2 While we are talking about it, would you 3 like to put that photograph on the screen 4 there so people at home also can see what we 5 are talking about. Are you familiar with 6 that? Thank you. 7 All right. Anybody else? Seeing 8 none, may I entertain a motion, please? 9 Yes, go ahead. 10 MEMBER GHANNAM: I will move in Case: 11 09-030 for 25875 Novi Road, Suite 124, City 12 Center Plaza for this particular Petitioner, 13 that we grant this petition for a variance 14 for a sign as requested given that it is the 15 exact same sign moved to a different 16 location. I think the request is based on 17 circumstances that are unique or exceptional 18 to this particular tenant and this 19 particular property. Failure to grant 20 relief will unreasonably prevent or limit 21 the use of the property and it will not 22 result in a use of structure that is 23 incompatible or unreasonably interferes with 24 adjacent or surrounding properties. And
14 1 justice will be done to the Applicant and 2 the surrounding properties, and is not 3 inconsistent with the ordinances. 4 I know we have had a suggestion that 5 we somehow limit this, but every case is 6 treated separately and certainly I would, 7 you know, I would make my motion that it be 8 this specific sign that you had already 9 moved. 10 MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion. 11 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. The 12 motion has been made and seconded. Do I see 13 any further discussion coming? 14 Seeing none, Ms. Martin, will you 15 please call the roll. 16 MS. MARTIN: Member Bauer? 17 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 18 MS. MARTIN: Member Ghannam? 19 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 20 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 21 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 22 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 24 MS. MARTIN: Member Wrobel?
15 1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Yes. 2 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Sanghvi? 3 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 4 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 5 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 6 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Congratulations. 7 The motion is passed. 8 MR. LINGFIELD: Thank you very much. 9 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Moving on to the 10 second case, Case Number: 09-031 at 40399 11 Grand River Avenue in the Beech Tree Plaza. 12 Jason Fochtman of Jeffrey Scott Architects 13 for the Kroger Company is requesting a 14 variance to permit the installation of a 15 proposed generator in the interior side yard 16 of the existing Kroger Company offices 17 located at 40399 Grand River Avenue. 18 The property is zoned I-1 and is 19 located on the south side of Grand River 20 Avenue, between Joseph Drive and Bashian 21 Drive. 22 Is the Applicant here? 23 MR. FOCHTMAN: Yes. 24 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, would you
16 1 please identify yourself and give your name 2 and address and if you are not an attorney 3 please be sworn in by our Secretary. 4 MR. FOCHTMAN: My name is Jason 5 Fochtman from Jeffrey Scott Architects, 6 32316 Grand River Avenue, Farmington, 7 Michigan. 8 MEMBER BAUER: You are not an 9 attorney? 10 MR. FOCHTMAN: No, I'm not. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Would you raise your 12 right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell 13 the truth regarding Case: 09-031? 14 MR. FOCHTMAN: I do. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 16 MR. FOCHTMAN: I am here for the 17 Kroger Company and they are the owners of 18 this building and also occupy a majority of 19 the building. Currently there is one other 20 tenant who occupies the back portion which 21 would be right in this area here. But the 22 rest of the building is occupied by Kroger. 23 And what they are looking to do is add a 24 generator to the building to allow their
17 1 computers and network systems that 2 communicate with the stores around the areas 3 in the Michigan area to continue to run in 4 case of a power failure so they can properly 5 shut down and manage, and take care of the 6 store, so that if they lose power that the 7 stores aren't in a situation where they are 8 not running properly or it didn't get shut 9 down wrong, and the information that they 10 need to operate is not available. 11 The reason we're here is to put the 12 generator on the side yard which is 13 immediately adjacent to where all the switch 14 gear is for the building along with the 15 transformer that the power comes in on, 16 versus the rear yard which is nicely 17 landscaped and dividing the residential 18 behind the center, behind this office 19 building from the -- in addition, placing it 20 in the rear yard would be much more of a 21 disruption to the tenant in the building as 22 well as the owner and would require longer 23 feeds and make it really pretty infeasible 24 in the case of running all the wire and the
18 1 power and how it would operate would be less 2 efficient. 3 I have a few pictures showing where it 4 would be going. I don't know if I can 5 lighten that or not. Currently the 6 transformer sits right here and the 7 generator would sit right where the car is 8 right next to that. I can walk this up if 9 that would be easier to see. And then from 10 the front of the center, the transformer 11 that exist you can tell from, this is not 12 quite the road, but the berm in front of the 13 center that you can't quite tell where the 14 transformer is existing right now and the 15 generator behind it, and it would be similar 16 shape and size. 17 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, thank you. 18 Is there anybody in the audience who would 19 like to address the Board regarding this 20 case? 21 (No response.) 22 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Seeing none, Mr. 23 Bauer, have you got any correspondence 24 regarding this case?
19 1 MEMBER BAUER: There were 54 notices 2 mailed. Four returned. One approval. And 3 it's Robert Chamose (ph) and no address. 4 Approved. 5 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Mr. 6 Boulard? Anything from the Building 7 Department? 8 MR. BOULARD: Just a couple of brief 9 things. The petition packet was missing the 10 owner approval. Did you bring that letter 11 or is that -- 12 MR. FOCHTMAN: I have the owner's 13 representative with me. I do not have the 14 letter with me. Do you just need his 15 signature or an actual letter? 16 MR. BOULARD: Normally as an 17 alternative they can sign the application. 18 MR. FOCHTMAN: I have an extra 19 application here. He can sign it. 20 MR. BOULARD: The attorney has advised 21 us that that is acceptable. That's fine. 22 Other than that, I just wanted to 23 point out a couple of issues. The planning 24 staff has confirmed that one parking space
20 1 would be lost and that that would be 2 allowable with the parking and the occupancy 3 of the structure. Also the screening would 4 be required. And we can deal with that 5 within the ordinance. And they agreed that 6 some measures, bollards or other measures to 7 keep plows and cars from backing into the 8 generator would probably be a good idea and 9 would be advised. 10 Other than that, I would be happy to 11 answer your questions. 12 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. All 13 right. I will open it up to the Board. 14 Member Skelcy, you go first. 15 MEMBER SKELCY: Can you tell me what 16 the dimensions are of the generator that 17 would be installed? 18 MR. FOCHTMAN: They are 3'2" by 9'4". 19 MEMBER SKELCY: 9'4" the long way? 20 MR. FOCHTMAN: Yes, and it's roughly 5 21 feet tall. 22 MEMBER SKELCY: Are there currently 23 air conditioning units on that side of the 24 building or something?
21 1 MR. FOCHTMAN: Yes, they are. 2 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay, thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Wrobel? 4 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: 5 Does Kroger have an IT room here or 6 something or is it just a few 7 circuits -- 8 MR. FOCHTMAN: Yes. 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay, they 10 are worried about the computer system. 11 MR. FOCHTMAN: No, there is an IT room 12 and databases that feed out to the stores in 13 Michigan. Not just Novi, but in Michigan. 14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: What 15 percentage of their office is IT related and 16 what's office, do you have an approximation? 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I would say 18 about 10 percent. 19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: So, minimal. 20 Would this generator be used for the entire 21 building or for just Kroger? 22 MR. FOCHTMAN: The generator is only 23 for Kroger. It is mainly for the IT 24 circuits and enough lighting and other
22 1 miscellaneous items to make it reasonable to 2 go through the shutdown process and put 3 everything in working order while the power 4 is out. 5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: My next 6 question is, how many outages have you had 7 at that location? 8 MR. FOCHTMAN: Actually we're 9 relatively new to the location. We have 10 been there, it's been about a year now. 11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, just less 12 than a year. 13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Have there 14 been any outages? 15 MR. FOCHTMAN: In the last year not 16 that I'm aware of. 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not in the a.m. 18 working hours. 19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Another 20 issue Mr. Boulard addressed was the 21 screening of the generator. What kind of 22 screening do you project using? I know that 23 they will deal with it, but I'm just curious 24 now.
23 1 MR. FOCHTMAN: Discussions with 2 Planning was a wood fence with landscaping 3 around it at the current time, but we're in 4 the process at the moment. 5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: 6 Okay. That's all, Mr. Chair. 7 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 8 Anybody else? No? Very good. Would 9 anybody like to make a motion? Okay, yes, 10 Ms. Krieger. 11 MEMBER KRIEGER: In Case Number: 12 09-031 at 40399 Grand River Avenue for 13 Kroger, I move that we approve the request 14 for the installation of a proposed generator 15 in the interior side year of the existing 16 offices located at that address. And 17 according to the Petitioner's statements and 18 the City that they would be able to work it 19 out with the position of the generator and 20 the enclosure and sound request. And that 21 the setback requirements doesn't 22 unreasonably prevent the use of the property 23 for its permitted use. And that the 24 variance will provide substantial justice to
24 1 the Petitioner and surrounding property 2 owners. And it is adequate for light and 3 air, and does not increase the fire danger 4 or public safety as in the spirit of the 5 Zoning Ordinance. 6 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 7 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The motion has 8 been made and seconded. Is there any 9 further discussion? Yes, Mr. Wrobel? 10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Mr. Boulard, 11 as far as noise in generators, I know we 12 have standards for noise allowances. Do we 13 know that this would fall within the 14 acceptable levels? 15 MR. BOULARD: I don't know what -- 16 MR. FOCHTMAN: Actually we submitted 17 the noise levels to Planning and they 18 approved that. The only thing that they had 19 an issue with was the side yard setback. 20 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Okay, thank 21 you. 22 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, that's 23 about it. All right. No further 24 discussion, Ms. Martin, please call the
25 1 roll. 2 MS. MARTIN: Member Bauer? 3 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 4 MS. MARTIN: Member Ghannam? 5 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 6 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 7 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 8 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 10 MS. MARTIN: Member Wrobel? 11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Yes. 12 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Sanghvi? 13 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 14 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 15 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 16 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Well, 17 congratulations. 18 MR. FOCHTMAN: Thank you very much, 19 sir. 20 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Moving along to 21 case number 3 on the agenda. Case number: 22 09-032, 21355 Meadowbrook Road, Meadowbrook 23 Congregation Church. Michael A. Mikulan of 24 Northville Cooperative Preschool is
26 1 requesting a variance to permit the 2 installation of a preschool/day care center 3 accommodating less than 50 children at 4 existing classroom space at the Meadowbrook 5 Congregational Church located at 21355 6 Meadowbrook Road without providing a fenced 7 in recreation area. The property is zone R-1 8 and is located on the western side of 9 Meadowbrook Road between Nine Mile Road and 10 Eight Mile Road. 11 It seems the Applicant is here. Would 12 you kindly identify yourself. Give your 13 name and address and if you are not an 14 attorney please be sworn in by our 15 Secretary. 16 MR. MIKULAN: My name is Michael 17 Mikulan. I am the president of the 18 Northville Cooperative Preschool. My 19 address is 6147 Evergreen, Plymouth, 48170. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm 21 to tell the truth regarding case: 09-032? 22 MR. MIKULAN: I do. 23 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Please go ahead 24 and make your presentation.
27 1 MR. MIKULAN: Well, as I had stated in 2 the letter I submitted that we are 3 classified as a day care by the City 4 Ordinances, but we actually do function as a 5 preschool, and as such our children aren't 6 in school for more than two hours and 20 7 minutes. And the State licensing does not 8 require us to send them outside for extended 9 periods of time. 10 In general, weather permitting they 11 would be outside for less than 25 percent of 12 the time. They would never be outside 13 without close adult supervision. As I said, 14 there would be at least three adults with 15 the children at all times and they would go 16 out by class. So, the most that you would 17 have would be 15 children out there at any 18 one time with three adults. 19 Also as such, the property is 6.4 20 acres. It's a very large property. To put 21 a fence in there would really limit the use 22 of the space. We actually, looking at the 23 space there are beautiful trees where we may 24 have picnics. There are side yards where we
28 1 might run. There is a large yard where they 2 might kick a ball or something like that. 3 But to put in a fenced in area to kind of 4 pin them in would actually kind of create a 5 challenge to the uses that we kind of 6 intended of having a preschool. 7 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, thank you. 8 Is there anybody in the audience who would 9 like to address the Board? Please come 10 forward, identify yourself. Give your name 11 and address and be sworn in by our Secretary 12 if you are not an attorney. 13 MS. WEINWRIGHT (ph): Good evening, my 14 name is Shirley Weinwright. I live at 41717 15 Broquet Drive directly behind Meadowbrook 16 Church. And I would like -- I'm sorry. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm 18 to tell the truth regarding case: 09-032? 19 MS. WEINWRIGHT: Yes, I do. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 21 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Go ahead. 22 MS. WEINWRIGHT: I am concerned about 23 where the play area is going to be. Mr. 24 Mikulan just mentioned trees. I live right
29 1 facing the tree line. I sent a letter in to 2 the Zoning about the wooded area. It's 3 changed considerably, and it's not a good 4 area for children. I can't even go down 5 there to tend to my flowers because the 6 mosquitos and poison ivy is so bad. So, I'm 7 worried about that. 8 I am worried about he said 15 children 9 for three attendants. That's five children 10 per attendant. And if they are playing back 11 there there is lots of little trees, good 12 sized pine trees for kids to hide and play 13 hide and seek. One child dart in there, we 14 have a real problem with critters. We have 15 got -- if you have read my statement, we 16 have as many as seven ground hogs coming up 17 on our patio at once to sun themselves. 18 Mother and six young ones. We have coyotes. 19 We had a coyote again, Mrs. DeCosta 20 (ph), my neighbor is here, yesterday morning 21 there was a coyote by her deck. We have 22 coyotes in here. We had a deer go through 23 yesterday. We have got raccoons, a big 24 raccoon family. And I would hate to see a
30 1 child either get bitten and have to go 2 through rabies test or get poison ivy. 3 If they are going to be playing back 4 there on the grass strip, which to me look 5 like the best place to put them, it's really 6 a hazard. But someone had said, I think 7 they talked to someone at the Planning 8 Department that it was going to be closer to 9 the church, so I'm not clear just where this 10 is planned. If it's closer to the church, 11 what about the traffic? And are they going 12 to play on cement? 13 I am a single parent. I know about 14 day care, I know it's important, but I worry 15 about the children too. I wouldn't want my 16 grandchildren playing in this. So, that's 17 just my concerns, and that's why I'm here 18 tonight to find out because I'm worried. I 19 don't want to see the city in a lawsuit. 20 I'm a taxpayer here in Novi and it's 21 something that I wasn't sure that the Zoning 22 Commission was aware of, so I just wanted to 23 bring it forth. Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. I
31 1 appreciate your concern. Thank you very 2 much. Anybody else? Mr. Bauer, do we have 3 any correspondence? 4 MEMBER BAUER: Yes, there were 597 5 notices mailed. There are 45 that came 6 back. Thirteen objections. Two approvals. 7 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Let's find out 8 who they are. 9 MEMBER BAUER: We have the lady that 10 was just here. 11 We have a Jan (unintelligible). "I am 12 concerned about the placement of the day 13 care center at Meadowbrook Church. Behind 14 the church is a small wooded area which 15 residents have seen coyotes and deer and so 16 forth." 17 And just a letter, this is DeCosta 18 (ph). "We disapprove of the Meadowbrook 19 Church having a preschool/day care center 20 because of the dangers of the animals, 21 mosquitos on the church property. The 22 congestion with cars." 23 We have one from Joyce Reynolds. "To 24 whom it may concern. I would like to voice
32 1 my concern regarding the preschool being 2 proposed from Meadowbrook Church. I live in 3 Country Place Condominiums and our lots back 4 up to Meadowbrook Church. There are many 5 wild animals in the area which are fairly 6 harmless unless they are rabid." 7 Another objection, no name. 8 Another objection, Janet Evans. "I 9 believe Novi Code required a fence placed in 10 yard. It's for the good of the city and for 11 the preschool children. Unless there is a 12 fence the children can get into a lot of 13 trouble." 14 Another objection. "I am totally 15 opposed to the preschool church happening 16 surrounded by all sides by homes. I live 17 immediately behind it. I have many nieces 18 and nephews and today's children yell and 19 scream like I could never have imagined. I 20 love, love, love them. The trees existing 21 are dying off and nothing to muffle the 22 noise. The church has a driving school that 23 is easily heard when they are out there." 24 And it looks like another objection.
33 1 "There are far too many days cars in the 2 area." 3 Another objection, no name. "There is 4 some type of driving education in the 5 parking lot. Driving on Bouquet is the main 6 entrance into Country Place also." 7 Objection no name. "Variance should 8 not be granted, the code and ordinances is 9 to protect the citizens. A fence will 10 protect the children, teachers, ongoing 11 traffic as well as the preschool." 12 Robert Sherman. "Objection. As a 13 resident of Country Place we object to Mr. 14 Mikulan's request for a variance. The code 15 of ordinance and the city are requiring a 16 fenced outdoor area. It should be no other 17 way to go." 18 Another one, I can't make out the 19 name. "Objection. Children need a safe 20 place to play." The church -- it's hard to 21 read. 22 "Objection. Traffic concerns on 23 Meadowbrook." 24 Dorothy Good. "Approval. I approve
34 1 of preschool/day care center at Meadowbrook 2 Congressional Church. Twenty years ago I 3 had four grandchildren attending Ward 4 Presbyterian Preschool. Children develop 5 better by having this." 6 "Approval. We already sent in a 7 questionnaire before when one was sent. 8 Approval." 9 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you very 10 much. Mr. Boulard? 11 MR. BOULARD: Thank you. As you are 12 I'm sure aware, this proposed use was 13 approved by the Planning Commission as a 14 special use previously and that may account 15 for some of the folks that got two notices 16 for the two different Boards. But also with 17 regard to that, Kristen Kapelanski is here 18 from the Planning Division and her memo is 19 in your packet if you have any questions. 20 Thank you. 21 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Do you have 22 anything further to add other than your 23 memo? 24 MR. BOULARD: No. Thank you.
35 1 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: All right. I 2 will open it up to the Board. While you 3 are thinking about what to say I will say 4 that to me, the safety of the children is of 5 primary order. Everything else is 6 secondary. And I don't see anything here 7 that guarantees any kind of safety, so I 8 personally am not in favor of granting this 9 kind of variance when the safety is 10 concerned. Thank you. 11 And I had a question also for our 12 attorney. And that is, in case the Board 13 grants this variance what is the city's 14 liability if any accident occurs with the 15 children? 16 MS. KUDLA: This isn't a city property 17 so there would no liability. There would be 18 governmental immunity. 19 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Yes, 20 Mr. Wrobel? 21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Thank you, 22 Mr. Chair. To the Applicant, if there is no 23 fenced out area where the children will play 24 when they go outside, what areas will they
36 1 play, what areas of the property? 2 MR. MIKULAN: To address one of the 3 issues, we will not play anywhere near 4 Meadowbrook Road. Meadowbrook Road is in 5 front of the church. Our preschool is going 6 to be in the back section of the church. 7 And I don't actually have a picture that I 8 can -- in that overhead view, the 9 photograph. There it is. In this view, 10 Meadowbrook is at the top of the screen and 11 the classrooms are here and the areas that 12 we would -- Country Place where several of 13 the letters came from is back here. 14 The tree that I was speaking of for 15 picnics and things is the one that is right 16 off the parking lot here. It's a very large 17 shady tree. We have no intention of playing 18 in the woods that are back behind the grassy 19 area. We would play mainly in this area 20 behind the parking lot and sometimes in this 21 area here that's kind of between the church 22 and the side yard, those would be our two 23 primary play areas. So, they are not 24 anywhere near the Meadowbrook Road or
37 1 Broquet Road as far as traffic goes. 2 MS. WEINWRIGHT: What was the first 3 area you said by the parking lot? 4 MR. MIKULAN: It would be the area -- 5 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 6 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Let us continue 7 over deliberation first and then we will 8 take your questions also. 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Your 10 preschool what are your proposed hours of 11 operation? 12 MR. MIKULAN: Our morning classes 13 would start at 9:10 and we expect to have 14 afternoon classes Monday, Wednesday and 15 Fridays, so those classes would end at 3:30. 16 So the maximum time would be 9:10 to 3:30. 17 That would be morning sessions and then a 18 break and then afternoon sessions with 19 different children. 20 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: And that was 21 roughly did I see 23 students? Is that in 22 the entire one time in the morning session 23 and then 23 in the afternoon? 24 MR. MIKULAN: That would be a class of
38 1 eight two year olds in a morning session and 2 a class of up to 15 either three or four 3 year olds. So, it's two classes making a 4 total of 23 children. 5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: 6 Okay. I too have a concern about the safety 7 of children and I know they can get out even 8 though you got one to five ratio. At this 9 time unless I see something that really can 10 turn me around, I would be leaning to 11 rejecting this. But I will listen to my 12 colleagues and maybe they can give me a 13 reason. Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. 15 Ghannam? 16 MEMBER GHANNAM: Thank you, Mr. 17 Chair. One of the things that we have to 18 look at, sir, is whether or not the spirit 19 of the ordinances are being observed. The 20 ordinance says when you have this type of 21 day care you need protection, fenced in 22 areas. You are not even requesting a 23 smaller area or even a larger area, you are 24 requesting none. I think it's clearly a
39 1 safety issue with our ordinances and that's 2 the spirit of the ordinance. 3 One of your main arguments in the 4 papers that you proposed is that it would 5 provide no benefit in regards to public 6 safety. I think that's totally off. I think 7 the intent of the -- 8 MR. MIKULAN: I interpret public 9 safety as the safety of the public, not the 10 safety of the children. 11 MEMBER GHANNAM: Well, children are 12 part of the public. Their protection as 13 well as other people's protection is equally 14 important. 15 And you say it's an eyesore, well, if 16 that's your intent to have the children play 17 on the, I guess, it would be the west side 18 of the property and maybe the south, I don't 19 think that would be very noticeable from 20 Meadowbrook Road. It may be from the side 21 street Broquet, but I don't think that's a 22 major argument. 23 I have a problem too because I don't 24 think the spirit of the zoning ordinance is
40 1 observed. There are other issues that we go 2 through such as, does this unreasonably 3 prevent you using your property for the 4 permitted purpose? A fenced in area does 5 not prohibit you from using it. There is a 6 cost, I understand that and that's 7 important, but thus the nature of your 8 business, you want to get into this type of 9 business, you have to follow in general the 10 rules. And I understand there are 11 exceptions, but the exception to me should 12 not be no fenced in area, so I would not be 13 in support of this particular application. 14 MR. MIKULAN: Can I make a comment to 15 that? 16 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Ibe? 17 MEMBER IBE: I would like to re-echo 18 what my colleagues have said. I find it 19 troubling as well that you don't obviously 20 want to put a fence around this play area. 21 There is one aspect of the guidelines that 22 we use to determine whether to approve or 23 deny is whether or not the problem is self 24 created. Now, to me it appears you have
41 1 chosen beauty over safety. And it appears 2 beautification really doesn't trump safety. 3 I think safety should trump beautification. 4 I mean, it's a beautiful church, I 5 love it. I have driven by there a few 6 times, it's a wonderful place. But you got 7 to understand that there are safety reasons 8 here. And I speak as someone who has a 9 little kid that's just nine years old right 10 now and she goes to day care at a nearby 11 street. If the place didn't have a fence I 12 wouldn't have sent her there. Because kids 13 they play, they play ball, I mean, it's 14 going to roll right into those bushes you 15 are talking about. And heaven forbid 16 something happens. I mean, it would be 17 something else. 18 Unfortunately, it appears that since 19 you have chosen beauty over safety, 20 personally I don't think I will be in favor 21 of this. As much as I want to vote for you, 22 you don't give me good reason to. 23 MR. MIKULAN: Can I make a comment 24 just to the concerns?
42 1 MEMBER IBE: Go ahead, sir. 2 MR. MIKULAN: There are other 3 preschools/day cares in the area that also 4 do not have fences. There was a day care, 5 it's now back to being a church, but there 6 was a day care directly on the other side of 7 Meadowbrook Road about a block to the north 8 that did not have a fenced in play area. 9 There is another cooperative preschool 10 that's located right off of Ten Mile Road. 11 They have a fence in the back, but they have 12 no fence separating them from the side yard 13 which is a strip mall and no fence 14 separating them from Ten Mile Road which is 15 much, much busier than Meadowbrook Road. 16 So, I guess I'm troubled that they 17 could be approved to not have a fence and 18 that it would be an issue for us to not have 19 a fence. 20 MEMBER IBE: Does the City have any 21 comment regarding what he just said? 22 Because obviously I'm always troubled when 23 Applicants raise the issues regarding other 24 businesses that are similar to their
43 1 business. Is this true what he said about 2 these other day cares that obviously don't 3 have any fence? And if it is, when were 4 those approvals given? 5 MS. KAPELANSKI: If I could address 6 the Commission. 7 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 8 MS. KAPELANSKI: We would have to do 9 some research to find out how that was 10 passed. I can assure you that a fenced in 11 area certainly would have been required. We 12 always look at preschools as day cares and 13 they, therefore, all require fenced in play 14 areas. So, we would have to do some 15 research and see what variances were 16 granted, when they were proposed, when they 17 occupied the space, et cetera, et cetera. 18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 19 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. Thank you, 20 Mr. Chair. 21 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Anybody else? 22 Yes, Mr. Bauer? 23 MEMBER BAUER: I could not believe 24 this when I first got it that you were not
44 1 providing a fence. Children are our dearest 2 items for our city and for our home. And I 3 cannot approve this due to the fact of no 4 fencing. 5 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Ms. 6 Krieger? 7 MEMBER KRIEGER: I agree that if you 8 are going to have a day care in this area, 9 if the children are in the church that's 10 fine, but if they are outside they need to 11 be in a fenced in area so that strangers 12 don't come up and walk away with a child, or 13 as the neighboring residents have stated, 14 that there are coyotes and foxes in our 15 area, that a small child could be an easy 16 target for them. And if a child is quiet, 17 there is something going on. And when you 18 have many little children running around, I 19 don't know how you can keep up with children 20 in so many directions. So, I have a concern 21 with this. And I would not approve as well, 22 an area without a fenced in area for 23 children. Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Ms. Skelcy?
45 1 MEMBER SKELCY: I have a concern too 2 and, you know, I think today there are a lot 3 of really good decorative fences that people 4 can put up that can take care of the issue 5 regarding how it looks to the neighborhood. 6 And I think it's really much, much too easy 7 to lose track of little kids even if you 8 have a one to five ratio. So, this is 9 something that I do not feel that I could 10 support at this time. 11 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 12 MR. MIKULAN: Can I say something? 13 Everybody -- 14 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Just one second. 15 Go ahead. 16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: We 17 understand what you are saying, there are 18 other day cares which we will be researching 19 to find out. But we have to judge each case 20 individually. We can't say because it's 21 allowed here, it may have been done 30 years 22 ago or something, we have to look at what's 23 before us now and base it on the regulations 24 and ordinances now. We can't say, well,
46 1 just because they don't have it, you don't 2 have to have it. So, I just wanted you to 3 understand that perspective. 4 MR. MIKULAN: I do understand that. 5 Just on a personal issue. This will be my 6 fifth year in the co-op. Believe me, I 7 worry about the safety of the children. I 8 am not choosing beauty over safety. I guess 9 just personally having been through the 10 co-op for five years and knowing the 11 teachers and knowing the parents who help in 12 the class, I have no concerns with having, 13 having three adults watching 15 children. I 14 know that they will be safe. 15 It wasn't about the beauty of the 16 fence. I'm not worried about the beauty of 17 the fence. I just actually don't have that 18 security concern, I guess. I am not worried 19 about these children getting away from these 20 teachers and these parents because I know 21 them well. 22 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 23 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, just one quick 24 question, please. Sir, did you ever
47 1 consider the fencing at all? 2 MR. MIKULAN: Well, unfortunately 3 being a co-operative preschool we cannot 4 afford to put up a fence. If we are 5 required to put up a fence we cannot afford 6 it and we will have to go out of business 7 after 57 years. 8 MEMBER IBE: Have you brought this up 9 at all and everyone said, no, we can't 10 afford it? Or is this just your personal 11 opinion? 12 MR. MIKULAN: I'm the president of the 13 co-op, I know what our budget is. 14 MEMBER IBE: I understand that, but 15 obviously if your existence is tied into 16 having a fence, there is no way obviously 17 you can afford to have a fence and stay in 18 business, is that what you are telling us? 19 MR. MIKULAN: The situation to kind of 20 get into the whole detail, we had a five 21 year lease at the Rock Church that was on 22 Beck Road. They went out of business 23 suddenly throwing us into the search for new 24 home. Meadowbrook was kind enough to offer
48 1 us the space. Other than Meadowbrook we did 2 not have any offers for space. So, without 3 their generous offer we would have been out 4 of business already. But there is no 5 existing fence there. We cannot afford to 6 put one in. 7 They are looking to bring renters in 8 because they are struggling financially 9 also. So, they are not going to pay for a 10 fence for us. So, to say one of your stress 11 test is, is the situation self created? We 12 did know the fencing requirement was there, 13 but we were forced to look for a new home 14 because the other place we were at went out 15 of business. So, I guess, we chose the 16 location knowing that there is a fencing 17 requirement. And given the small number of 18 children and the oversight that we have with 19 the parents we were, I guess, really hoping 20 to get a waiver of that requirement because 21 we didn't have any other place to go. 22 MEMBER IBE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 23 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. 24 Ibe. May I entertain a motion regarding
49 1 this case? Yes, Ms. Krieger? 2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Would you be willing 3 to have a day care where children meet 4 inside and not outside without a fence? 5 MR. MIKULAN: This is our director. 6 This is Jeanine Bouchard (ph). 7 MEMBER BAUER: You can't. 8 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay, I withdraw. 10 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: That question I 11 don't think we can entertain now, can we? 12 MS. KUDLA: It depends. I would ask 13 you to withdraw the motion if you wanted to 14 step back. If the maker was willing to 15 withdraw the motion, if you wanted to step 16 back. But no additional information from 17 speakers once the motion is made. 18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay. Member 19 Ghannam? 20 MEMBER GHANNAM: I will be ready to 21 make a motion if there is no further 22 discussion. 23 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: If no one has 24 anything else to say I think you can go
50 1 ahead. 2 MEMBER GHANNAM: Although I can 3 empathize with you and your situation, I 4 still think that a motion to deny is in 5 order and there are many reasons. And I 6 know you say your teachers are good and they 7 are going to watch and safety is important, 8 but that changes from time to time as well 9 as the kids. 10 So, in this case in case number: 11 09-032 for 21355 Meadowbrook Road, 12 Northville Cooperative Preschool, I am going 13 to move to deny the motion because it does 14 not meet our guidelines in that a denial 15 will not unreasonably prevent the use of the 16 property for permitted purpose. The 17 variance will not provide substantial 18 justice to the petitioner and surrounding 19 property. There are not unique 20 circumstances to the property. There would 21 be an increase of public safety issues in 22 terms of increased danger. I don't think 23 the spirit of the Zoning Ordinances would be 24 observed if it was approved. In fact, I
51 1 think it would not be observed if it was not 2 denied. So, I would move to deny it. 3 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 5 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Seconded by Mr. 6 Bauer. Any further discussion? Seeing 7 none, Ms. Martin will you please call the 8 roll? 9 MS. MARTIN: Member Bauer? 10 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 11 MS. MARTIN: Member Ghannam? 12 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 13 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 14 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 15 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 17 MS. MARTIN: Member Wrobel? 18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Yes. 19 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Sanghvi? 20 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 21 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 22 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 23 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Sorry, your 24 motion has been denied. Thank you.
52 1 Okay. Moving along to the next 2 case on the list. It's case number: 3 09-033, 26054 Novi Road, Bagger Dave's. 4 Petitioner is requesting a variance to allow 5 installation of one additional 50 square 6 foot wall sign on the west elevation of the 7 multi-tenant building located at 26054 Novi 8 Road for Bagger Dave's. The property is 9 zoned TC and located north of Grand River 10 and east of Novi Road. 11 The Applicant is here. Would you 12 please identify yourself. State your name 13 and address. If you are not an attorney 14 please be sworn in by our Secretary. 15 MR. KRIEGER: No, I'm not. 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Mr. Chair, in the 17 application it's by Krieger Associates. And 18 not to my knowledge that I have relatives 19 with that name so. 20 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: A lot of people 21 have the same last name. 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Just in case. 23 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I'm not worried 24 about that. Go ahead.
53 1 MR. KRIEGER: My name is Jason Krieger 2 from Krieger Associates who are the 3 architects working with Bagger Dave's on 4 this project. 5 MEMBER BAUER: Address? 6 MR. KRIEGER: It's 1412 East Eleven 7 Mile, Royal Oak, Michigan 48067. 8 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand. 9 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth 10 regarding case: 09-033? 11 MR. KRIEGER: I do. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Go ahead. 14 MR. KRIEGER: I have a hand out if I 15 may to pass this out to the Board. 16 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 17 MR. KRIEGER: I have a copy here so I 18 can put it on the screen for the audience. 19 Bagger Dave's is more of an upscale 20 hamburger establishment. They have a couple 21 locations right now in Michigan. I don't 22 know if anybody has visited them. There is 23 one in Ann Arbor that does very well and 24 there is one in Berkley that does well too.
54 1 And they are looking to branch out and they 2 are looking at Novi right now. So, the 3 address that they are proposing to move into 4 is 26054 Novi Town Center. And we are here 5 this evening seeking a variance for a sign 6 that would be on Novi Road. 7 The sign design looks like this. This 8 right here is actually a view of looking at 9 the building from Novi Town Center. 10 Currently there is one sign allowed for a 11 building. We feel that we have a hardship 12 here because this building is one of the out 13 buildings at Novi Town Center. Because of 14 where it is it has two fronts. One on Novi 15 Road and the other one in Novi Town Center. 16 If you are on one side of the building you 17 cannot see the other side. So, we feel that 18 to only have the one sign would hurt this 19 tenant, this person moving in here because 20 it would limit any kind of exposure. What 21 it would do is it would hurt way finding to 22 the establishment itself. 23 We feel that also only having one sign 24 would then make one side or the other look
55 1 like a rear entrance and that right there 2 would hurt the greater appearance of Novi or 3 the street scape of Novi Road. We feel that 4 the variance is within the spirit of the 5 Ordinance because we see both sides as a 6 front elevation and what's required is one 7 sign with one elevation. 8 The signage that we're proposing it's 9 tasteful. On the last page here I have an 10 example of signage from the other buildings. 11 So, as you can see it's a baglet sign, high 12 quality. It will look really nice and it 13 would go along well on Novi Road or looking 14 at it from Novi Town Center. 15 One thing I want to mention is that 16 the allowed square frontage for the sign on 17 the building is 63.75 square feet. And what 18 we're proposing for both signs is 50.27. 19 So, we're actually below the maximum 20 allowed. And we don't see this as being 21 detrimental to any other neighbors, harmful 22 or endangering anyone. 23 So I am available for questions. 24 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Is
56 1 there anybody in the audience who who like 2 to address the Board regard this case? 3 (No response.) 4 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Seeing none, Mr. 5 Bauer, do we have any correspondence? 6 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. There were 74 7 notices mailed. Seven returned. One 8 approval. 9 "I have no problem with the additional 10 sign. In this economy businesses need all 11 the help they can get." 12 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Mr. 13 Boulard? 14 MR. BOULARD: Thank you. Just one 15 point of clarification. If you are looking 16 at the large plan, there is some size 17 calculations there. Those are incorrect. 18 It's actually square feet as opposed to 19 inches which agrees with the rest of the 20 application. Other than that, I would be 21 happy to answer any questions. 22 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Open 23 it up to the Board. Yes, Mr. Wrobel? 24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Thank you,
57 1 Mr. Chair. First off, we didn't have a sign 2 up there to look at. I don't know, were 3 they required to place one up? 4 MS. MARTIN: Yes, they were. It was in 5 the letter. Did you put a mock-up sign up? 6 MR. KRIEGER: They did not, no. 7 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: I looked 8 yesterday and I didn't see one. I totally 9 understand the requirement for a second 10 sign, we have approved some of the other out 11 lot buildings on this thing. I am just 12 having a hard time by looking at the 13 pictures and without visually seeing it in 14 actuality and seeing how big it really is. 15 Staff, the other signs that we allowed 16 facing Grand River on the other buildings, 17 using that as a reference, do you recall how 18 big those signs are? Because maybe it's 19 just the shape of the sign but it just seems 20 much bigger to me, even though it's 21 underneath the allowable size of the other 22 signs. 23 MR. BOULARD: I don't have that 24 information available right at this moment.
58 1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: This could 2 be just be a perception thing for me because 3 it's a circle sign. It looks big to me. 4 That's all, Mr. Chair. 5 MR. KRIEGER: I have some photos in 6 the back just examples of Bigsby Coffee and 7 Pot Belly. And if you were to compare just 8 visually, the renderings we provided are to 9 scale. Bagger Dave's to me actually looks 10 smaller visually than Bigsby Coffee or the 11 one at Pot Belly. It looks actually 12 comparable to Pot Belly. Bigsby Coffee is a 13 pretty large sign and personally I think a 14 circle would be less aggressive when looking 15 at it. I think it actually looks smaller on 16 the surface. 17 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. 18 Yes, Ms. Skelcy? 19 MS. SKELCY: Why did you guys not put 20 up a mock-up sign? 21 MR. KRIEGER: You know what, I think 22 that it was missed in the letter. I don't 23 think anybody noticed that it had to be 24 done.
59 1 MEMBER BAUER: It's in the 2 application. 3 MEMBER SKELCY: Yeah, it's stated 4 right in the application. All other 5 businesses that have come before us do have 6 mock-up signs, and I know for me I'm a very 7 visual person and that really helps me get 8 an idea as to what city residents are going 9 to look at when they are driving along that 10 road. So, at this point I don't think I 11 could favor this without seeing the mock-up 12 and without seeing how it would look up 13 there. 14 MR. KRIEGER: No, I understand 15 completely. I think that was an oversight to 16 be completely honest. I understand that 17 that would be a concern. Is there something 18 that can be approved contingently? Or is 19 there something that maybe can be done 20 administratively if everybody approves this 21 mockup once it goes up on the building? 22 MS. KUDLA: We would have to table. 23 MR. KRIEGER: We have to table it and 24 come back? Okay.
60 1 MEMBER BAUER: Come back. 2 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Can we see them 3 next month if the schedule is open? 4 MS. MARTIN: Yes. 5 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Why don't we see 6 you next month, and in the meantime you can 7 have the mock-up before the next meeting. 8 MR. KRIEGER: Okay. 9 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Is that enough 10 time? And we will reconsider the whole 11 situation. 12 MR. KRIEGER: Okay. Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Just one second. 14 May I have a motion? 15 MEMBER GHANNAM: So moved to table 16 this to next month. 17 MEMBER IBE: Second. 18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: A motion has 19 been made and seconded. 20 MS. MARTIN: Who made that motion? 21 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Mr. Ghannam made 22 it and seconded by Mr. Bauer. And if there 23 is no further discussion, will you please 24 call the roll, Ms. Martin.
61 1 MS. MARTIN: Member Bauer? 2 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 3 MS. MARTIN: Member Ghannam? 4 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 5 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 6 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 7 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 9 MS. MARTIN: Member Wrobel? 10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Yes. 11 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Sanghvi? 12 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. 13 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 14 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 15 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay. We will 16 see you next month. 17 MR. KRIEGER: Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: If there is no 19 other business coming before the Board may I 20 entertain a motion to adjourn? 21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Motion to 22 adjourn. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 24 MR. BOULARD: Mr. Chairman?
62 1 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Motion has been 2 made and seconded. All those in favor of 3 adjournment please signify by saying out 4 loud aye? 5 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 6 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay. All those 7 opposed same sign. The meeting is 8 adjourned. 9 MR. BOULARD: Mr. Chairman, if I could 10 just mention about -- 11 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Oh, I beg your 12 pardon. 13 MR. BOULARD: No, no, that's fine. 14 Just for your information, the addition to 15 the house on Malott, they are going to be 16 come back next month as planned, to confirm 17 that. 18 Also, you should have a copy of the 19 Michigan Planner. I just want to point out 20 there is an interesting article about 21 testing the practical difficulties of 9 inch 22 variances. Just in case you need some light 23 reading. Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you.
63 1 (The meeting was adjourned at 2 8:08 p.m.) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
64 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 4 5 I, Mona L. Talton, do hereby certify 6 that I have recorded stenographically the 7 proceedings had and testimony taken in the 8 above-entitled matter at the time and place 9 hereinbefore set forth, and I do further 10 certify that the foregoing transcript, 11 consisting of (63) typewritten pages, is a 12 true and correct transcript of my said 13 stenographic notes. 14 15 16 17 18 19 _____________________________ 20 Mona L. Talton, 21 Certified Shorthand Reporter 22 23 24 August 14, 2009
|