City of Novi ZBA Minutes - November 10, 2009

View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting

REGULAR MEETING - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY OF NOVI
TUESDAY, November 10, 2009

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, November 10, 2009.

BOARD MEMBERS
Mav Sanghvi, Chairperson
Wayne Wrobel, Vice-Chairperson
Gerald Bauer
Victor Cassis
David Ghannam
Rickie Ibe
Donna Skelcy

ALSO PRESENT:
Elizabeth Kudla, City Attorney
Charles Boulard, Building Official
Malinda Martin, Senior Customer Service Representative

REPORTED BY:

Mona L. Talton, Certified Shorthand Reporter.

1 Novi, Michigan

2 Tuesday, November 10, 2009

3 7:00 p.m.

4 - - - - - -

5 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Good evening. I

6 would like to call to order the November 10,

7 2009 meeting of Zoning Board of Appeals for

8 City of Novi. Will you please join me and

9 Mr. Bauer in the pledge of allegiance.

10 BOARD MEMBERS: I pledge allegiance to

11 the flag of the United States of America and

12 to the republic for which it stands, one

13 nation under God indivisible with liberty

14 and justice for all.

15 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you.

16 Ms. Martin, will you please call the

17 roll.

18 MS. MARTIN: Member Bauer?

19 MEMBER BAUER: Present.

20 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Sanghvi?

21 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Here.

22 MS. MARTIN: Member Wrobel?

23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Present.

24 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?

1 MEMBER SKELCY: Here.

2 MS. MARTIN: Member Ghannam?

3 MEMBER GHANNAM: Here.

4 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?

5 MEMBER IBE: Present.

6 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis?

7 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: He is here.

8 MEMBER CASSIS: Who?

9 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: You.

10 MEMBER CASSIS: Oh, I thought you

11 forgot me. I'm here.

12 MS. MARTIN: And Member Krieger will

13 be absent tonight.

14 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. We

15 do have quorum and the meeting in now in

16 session. I would like to go over the rules

17 of conduct. Just a friendly reminder,

18 please turn off all your cell phones and

19 pagers. And I will check mine. Individual

20 applicants may take five minutes and groups

21 may take up to 10 minutes to address the

22 Board.

23 Zoning Board of Appeals is a Hearing

24 Board empowered by the Novi City Charter to

1 hear appeals seeking variances from the

2 application of the Novi Zoning Ordinances.

3 It takes a vote of at least four members to

4 approve a variance request and a vote of the

5 majority of the members present to deny a

6 variance. Tonight we have a full Board so

7 all decisions will be final.

8 Let's look at the agenda. Are there

9 any changes in the agenda, Ms. Martin?

10 MS. MARTIN: No, there is not.

11 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: May I have

12 motion to approve the agenda?

13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Motion to

14 approve.

15 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

16 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: All those in

17 favor of accepting the agenda please signify

18 by saying aye?

19 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye.

20 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: All those

21 opposed same sign. So, we have an agenda.

22 Moving along, we have Minutes from October

23 13th, 2009. Are there any changes,

24 additions --

1 MEMBER BAUER: Page 35.

2 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay.

3 MEMBER BAUER: It said by Mr. Baker:

4 The type of vehicles that we're dealing with

5 I'm quite certain that our clients would be

6 very displeased with us if we theft. It

7 should be left these vehicles outside.

8 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: All right.

9 Anything else?

10 MEMBER BAUER: No.

11 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Anybody else

12 with any corrections? Seeing none, may I

13 have a motion to accept the Minutes as

14 amended?

15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Motion as

16 amended.

17 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The motion has

19 been made and seconded. All those in favor

20 of accepting the Minutes as amended please

21 signify by saying aye?

22 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye.

23 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: All those

24 opposed same sign. Thank you. Let's move

1 on.

2 The first case is from last month.

3 And is the Applicant here? Case number:

4 09-039, 26050 Novi Road, Novi Town Center.

5 The Petitioner is requesting a variance to

6 allow installation of one additional 58

7 square foot wall sign on the east elevation

8 of the multi-tenant building located at

9 26050 Novi Road for AT&T. The property is

10 zoned TC and located north of Grand River

11 and east of Novi Road.

12 Would you please identify yourself.

13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Mr. Chair?

14 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Oh, yes. Yes,

15 Mr. Wrobel?

16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Once again

17 being an employee of AT&T I would request

18 that the Board recuse me on this issue.

19 MEMBER BAUER: So moved.

20 MEMBER CASSIS: Second.

21 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The motion has

22 been made and seconded. All those in favor

23 of recusing Mr. Wrobel?

24 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye.

1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Thank you.

2 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Go ahead.

3 (Unintelligible).

4 Okay, please go on and identify

5 yourself.

6 MS. DEMLOWE: My name is Carrie

7 Demlowe. I'm with Allied Signs in Clinton

8 Township, Michigan.

9 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Do we need to

10 swear her in again, Counselor?

11 MS. KUDLA: Might as well.

12 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: All right, Mr.

13 Bauer.

14 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm

15 to tell the truth regarding case: 09-039?

16 MS. DEMLOWE: I do.

17 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Go ahead and

19 make your presentation.

20 MS. DEMLOWE: Well, the last time I

21 was here was about a month ago. We

22 discussed the addition of a second wall sign

23 at the AT&T store. The argument is still

24 the same or the request is still the same.

1 When I left the last time you had asked me

2 to verify if, in fact, the second store

3 which was in extremely close proximity to

4 the new store is going to, in fact, close.

5 We e-mailed our client who in turn e-mailed

6 AT&T and we do have written confirmation

7 that that store will close or has closed on

8 the 6th of November, and the new store

9 opened on the 7th.

10 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay. So, you

11 have answered all the questions we had. And

12 as far as I am concerned I have no further

13 issues from this point. Mr. Cassis, do you

14 have any issues?

15 MEMBER CASSIS: No, I have no issue,

16 except that they were so sure that they

17 already erected the sign. So, I don't know.

18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Very good.

19 MEMBER CASSIS: As far as I am

20 concerned they shouldn't have done it until

21 we okay it tonight. I hate to be a little

22 bit resistant here, and congratulations.

23 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Very good. Are

24 we going to have any more discussion on this

1 issue any further? Or are we going to

2 entertain a motion?

3 MEMBER CASSIS: I'm not going to make

4 that motion.

5 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay.

6 MEMBER GHANNAM: I can make a motion.

7 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Go ahead.

8 MEMBER GHANNAM: I will go ahead and

9 move in case number: 09-039 for 26050 Novi

10 Road, Novi Town Center to approve the sign

11 variance as granted. I think the standards

12 have been met. And as we have discussed in

13 our previous meeting, the circumstances or

14 features are exceptional and unique to this

15 particular property given its proximity to

16 the corner and its layout and so forth.

17 The failure to grant relief will

18 unreasonably prevent or limit the use of the

19 property and will result in substantially

20 more than mere inconvenience or inability to

21 attain a higher economic or financial

22 return.

23 The grant of relief will not result in

24 a use of a structure that is incompatible

1 with or unreasonably interferes with

2 adjacent or surrounding properties, and will

3 result in substantial justice being done to

4 both the applicant and adjacent or

5 surrounding properties, and is not

6 inconsistent with the spirit of the

7 ordinance.

8 MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion.

9 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Motion has been

10 made and seconded. Do I hear any further

11 discussion? Seeing none, Ms. Martin, will

12 you please call the roll.

13 MS. MARTIN: Member Bauer?

14 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

15 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis?

16 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes.

17 MS. MARTIN: Member Ghannam?

18 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes.

19 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?

20 MEMBER IBE: Yes.

21 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?

22 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes.

23 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Sanghvi?

24 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.

1 MS. MARTIN: It passes.

2 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The motion

3 passes. Thank you.

4 MS. DEMLOWE: Thank you.

5 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, let's move

6 along. I need to correct myself. I didn't

7 go through the public remark section. Is

8 there anybody in the audience who would like

9 to make any comments regarding anything

10 other than the items on the agenda? This is

11 the time to do it.

12 (No response.)

13 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: And seeing

14 none, again, we will close the public remark

15 section and move onto the second case.

16 That is case number: 09-043, Novi

17 Corporate Park. The site is located at

18 46050 Twelve Mile Road. Is the applicant

19 here? I don't see anybody here. It looks

20 like they haven't made it here yet.

22 Let's move on to the next case. And

23 that is case number: 09-044, 1407 East Lake

24 Drive. Mr. Andrew Soborowski is requesting

1 one maximum side yard setback variance, one

2 six foot maximum rear yard variance from

3 property line, and three foot maximum

4 variance for the minimum required distance

5 between primary and accessory structures,

6 and maximum 16 percent rear yard lot

7 coverage and 11 percent total lot coverage

8 variance for the construction of a 468

9 square foot proposed detached garage to be

10 located at 1407 East Lake Drive. The

11 property is zoned R-4 and is located north

12 of Thirteen Mile Road and west of Novi Road.

13 If you will kindly identify yourself.

14 MR. SOBOROWSKI: Andrew Soborowski the

15 homeowner.

16 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Are you an

17 attorney?

18 MR. SOBOROWSKI: No.

19 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, will you

20 please be sworn in by our Secretary, Mr.

21 Bauer.

22 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm

23 to tell the truth regarding case: 09-044?

24 MR. SOBOROWSKI: I do.

1 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

2 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, sir. Go

3 ahead and make your presentation.

4 MR. SOBOROWSKI: By virtue of these

5 lots, I don't know if you are familiar with

6 them, they are very narrow and not very

7 deep, 30 by 100. That presents a hardship

8 to the owner just by virtue of the size.

9 This is probably the fourth time I've been

10 here. I have been here when I built the

11 house. I was here when I built the deck. I

12 was here when I built the original shed, and

13 back again for the same thing. And it's

14 just a matter of trying to work with the

15 limited property resources we have. And for

16 that reason I need a variance to put a

17 garage up.

18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay. That's

19 it?

20 MR. SOBOROWSKI: That is it.

21 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Is there anybody

22 in the audience who would like to address

23 the Board regarding this case?

24 (No response.)

1 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Seeing none, we

2 will request our Secretary to read any

3 correspondence he might have.

4 MEMBER BAUER: Thirty-four notices

5 mailed. Two approvals. Four were returned.

6 Mr. Irby, both he and his wife.

7 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: All right. Mr.

8 Boulard?

9 MR. BOULARD: Thank you. This request

10 is not unlike previous variance requests

11 that you have seen and probably variance

12 requests for the same property for the

13 existing lot. Expanding the side of it is

14 not an option. One thing I would like to

15 point out, when the Petitioner originally

16 came in, the request was for a garage of a

17 certain size backed up against the property

18 line. In view of past history and the

19 Board's (unintelligible) to at times grant

20 variances where a building is right against

21 the property line, suggested that the

22 requested size be expanded to allow

23 flexibility for the Board to work with the

24 Petitioner if you so desired, to craft a

1 solution and not have to go back in and

2 advertise again. I.e., asking for a longer

3 garage allowed us to not only ask for the

4 full request of the rear setback, but also

5 anything that would hopefully be necessary

6 for the distance, reduction in distance

7 between the house and the garage. So, I

8 hope I haven't confused that or put words in

9 the petitioner's mouth. Please let me know.

10 Second thing is in past cases of this

11 type the Board has requested the fire

12 marshal's view, and so to that end we have

13 included the letter from the fire marshal

14 that I hope will be useful.

15 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes. And maybe

16 we should put the fire marshal's letter in

17 the Minutes. What do you think, Counsel?

18 MS. KUDLA: We can do that, that's

19 fine.

20 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. And I

21 am just going to read it quickly for the

22 people at home. This is a letter from Fire

23 Marshal Michael Evans addressed to Mr.

24 Boulard and it states and I quote, "I have

1 reviewed the ZBA Case referenced above for

2 1407 East Lake Drive where the property

3 owner, Mr. Andrew Soborowski is requesting

4 multiple variances in order to erect a 468

5 square foot detached garage.

6 I am opposed to this request for the

7 reasoning that allowing this building to be

8 built, with very minimal setbacks, would

9 create a fire hazard to not only the

10 residence located on the property but also

11 to the neighbors and buildings located on

12 the neighbor's property.

13 Building setbacks play a very

14 important role in preventing fire from

15 spreading from one building to another. By

16 allowing these setbacks to be reduced or

17 eliminated, creates a severe fire risk that

18 is unnecessary and preventable."

19 Okay, we will open it up now for the

20 Board discussion. Yes, Ms. Skelcy?

21 MEMBER SKELCY: I have a question

22 about the use of the garage. Will it be for

23 cars or for storage?

24 MR. SOBOROWSKI: Storage. I don't

1 have the ability to get a car in there.

2 MEMBER SKELCY: I didn't think so. It

3 seemed like a very narrow driveway.

4 MR. SOBOROWSKI: My neighbor and I

5 have gone in on a driveway that we do have

6 access back there if we wanted to take

7 something larger, but to drive a car back

8 there, no.

9 MEMBER SKELCY: And the square footage

10 of this garage?

11 MR. SOBOROWSKI: Sixteen by 20.

12 MEMBER SKELCY: All right. Thank you.

13 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay. Yes,

14 Member Cassis?

15 MEMBER CASSIS: I can understand that

16 you want to have a garage and a place that

17 you can store some stuff. And, you know,

18 that is an improvement in your, in the house

19 and, of course, it sits right next to it.

20 So, I have no objection to that except that

21 I think as far as the fire marshal is

22 concerned, that creates that hazard. Who is

23 behind you there?

24 MR. SOBOROWSKI: There is a lot behind

1 me. They have a pre-existing structure,

2 their garage. That is probably 10 to 15

3 feet from the lot line.

4 MEMBER CASSIS: Are you able to reduce

5 it let's say from that 20 feet you said?

6 MR. SOBOROWSKI: Um-hum.

7 MEMBER CASSIS: Make it like 12 to 15

8 feet so that you can leave a little bit of

9 a --

10 MR. SOBOROWSKI: How about if we

11 moved -- I requested zero if you notice on

12 the rear.

13 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes.

14 MR. SOBOROWSKI: If we move that to

15 three?

16 MEMBER CASSIS: Three feet?

17 MR. SOBOROWSKI: Yes.

18 MEMBER CASSIS: I don't know if three

19 feet was going to be just enough.

20 Mr. Boulard, what's your

21 recommendation? What do you think would be

22 safe? I mean, we're going to conjecture

23 here as to what the fire marshal is going to

24 go along with.

1 MR. BOULARD: The fire marshal has

2 made a recommendation and has communicated

3 his concerns. Obviously more is better in

4 his mind. The building code actually does

5 allow buildings to be built up within three

6 feet of the property line with certain

7 restrictions. And, so, depending on that

8 distance of the property line there would

9 be, there would be requirements for fire

10 retardancy that would come in to prevent the

11 spread of fire between properties.

12 So, if the Board is inclined to

13 consider allowing the garage to be built at

14 20 by 16, my suggestion would be to perhaps

15 that --

16 MEMBER CASSIS: Make it wider?

17 MR. BOULARD: Well, keep the three

18 feet between the rear property line and then

19 allow a reduction in the distance between

20 the house and the garage from ten feet to

21 seven.

22 MEMBER CASSIS: Or another suggestion

23 would be why not make it a little wider and

24 move it five feet?

1 MR. SOBOROWSKI: I think it has to do

2 with building material. It's like a four by

3 eight --

4 MEMBER CASSIS: Oh, I see. It's

5 cheaper for you.

6 MR. SOBOROWSKI: Well, they actually

7 come in kits. So, you would have a half a

8 truss.

9 MEMBER CASSIS: How about what Mr.

10 Boulard said, move it?

11 MR. SOBOROWSKI: That makes very good

12 sense.

13 MEMBER CASSIS: I don't know what my

14 colleagues would go along with, but maybe

15 five feet, six feet away and move it closer

16 to the house I would go along with that.

17 Thank you, Mr. Chair.

18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Mr.

19 Ghannam?

20 MEMBER GHANNAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

21 Part of my problem with this request is the

22 fire marshal's comments. We're not experts

23 in fire safety and so forth, he is. And one

24 of the basis we need to grant a variance if

1 you are entitled to one is that there would

2 be no increase of fire danger or public

3 safety. He has commented directly on that.

4 I guess my question to you is, do you have

5 anything that would contradict what he says?

6 MR. SOBOROWSKI: You know, I think the

7 variances have been allowed in the past and

8 are allowed on a constant basis. With the

9 stipulation as you noted, a fire retardancy

10 be instituted in the building which is

11 simply a, I think it's as simple as a

12 doubling of the interior wall, the drywall

13 that prevents a fire.

14 MEMBER GHANNAM: I don't know the

15 details, you may be right, you may be wrong.

16 I don't have the fire marshal's comments on

17 those types of things. Even if you wanted

18 to move it three feet from the lot line I

19 don't know what his comments would be. That

20 would be to me important. But at least just

21 from my perspective I couldn't support it as

22 it's proposed for those reasons because fire

23 safety and public safety as for yourself as

24 well as your neighbors is obviously

1 important.

2 I'm with you on the idea that you have

3 to have garages for typically storing cars.

4 I know we have granted them before under

5 those unique circumstances because of the

6 dimensions of the lot and narrowness and so

7 forth, but everyone is treated differently

8 and I don't remember exactly the specifics

9 of those. But this one does concern me

10 because of his comments. So, I just wanted

11 to make that comment.

12 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Ibe?

13 MEMBER IBE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I

14 think I would like to re-echo the points

15 made by my colleagues. As much as I would

16 love to go along with you and grant your

17 request, I am very concerned, concerned

18 about the fire marshal's comments. I think

19 Michael Evans is an expert in fire. I'm

20 not, I'm an attorney. I have no knowledge

21 about how fire spreads or how to control it.

22 So, I will defer to his expert opinion which

23 he has given us.

24 And if I may make a suggestion, and

1 you don't have to go with what I am

2 suggesting. It's what was advised by Mr.

3 Boulard. If you want to adopt that

4 recommendation, I'm not going to vote in

5 favor of it today, but I would like it taken

6 back to the fire marshal to see if it meets

7 with the standard required. And if it does,

8 then I will obviously go along with it.

9 But if you so want a vote today,

10 unfortunately I am going to have to vote

11 against it, as much as I would want you to

12 have it, because I think it's a great thing

13 for you to have. But certainly I would like

14 to get the opinion of the person who is

15 responsible for insuring that we have public

16 safety.

17 MR. SOBOROWSKI: For the record let me

18 point out that there is houses in that area

19 that have been granted four foot variances

20 for the house, four feet for a house. So,

21 based on that precedent, I don't see the

22 logic in making a contradictory statement to

23 that. I mean, if it's something that's been

24 given in the past, that would make it

1 somewhat grandfathered in or even obviously

2 workable because there hasn't been a problem

3 with the houses in that area that have a

4 four foot variance, myself included.

5 MEMBER IBE: Your point is well taken,

6 sir. However, see, when cases come before

7 this Board we have to look at each

8 individual case on a case by case basis. We

9 really don't have a precedent that we have

10 to go by. But certainly we do welcome

11 individuals such as yourself who want to

12 make improvements to their property, and we

13 do not intend to stand in the way of any

14 improvements, and don't want to appear as if

15 we prefer one property owner to another one

16 obviously. But certainly you will

17 understand with me that if the fire marshal

18 gives an opinion, as a prudent member of

19 this Board we ought to take it seriously.

20 And my suggestion is that perhaps if

21 you adopt that which Mr. Boulard just stated

22 in terms of some of the reductions that he

23 asked for in terms of the movement, I will

24 feel more comfortable voting for it if the

1 fire marshal were to take a look at that.

2 Because what he has right now is what we

3 have in front of us. Now, if you make

4 adjustments or corrections to it, I will

5 certainly value his opinion as well. I

6 think it's only fair.

7 Now, if you need this to be done like

8 today, unfortunately I'm not sure as to how

9 other Board members are going to feel about

10 it, but I do know what my position is, and I

11 would not be in favor today. But I will be

12 more than happy to go along so long as the

13 fire marshal gives us an agreement. Thank

14 you, Mr. Chair.

15 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: You are welcome,

16 sir. Yes, Mr. Bauer?

17 MEMBER BAUER: I want to correct a few

18 things. First of all, sir, this Board does

19 not make any precedent to any one case.

20 They are each individually voted upon.

21 Second, if we indeed move it down to

22 have a proposed setback of three feet,

23 that's going to make it three feet closer to

24 the home, and that I'm against.

1 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Yes,

2 Mr. Wrobel?

3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Thank you,

4 Mr. Chair. I totally agree with Member

5 Ibe's comments. As it sits right now I

6 could not support it. Since this is not

7 going to be used for car storage, but for

8 storage, I would look at the possibility of

9 reducing the size would make it more

10 acceptable. Thank you.

11 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Did

12 I hear that you would like a rear yard

13 setback of three feet as opposed to nothing?

14 MEMBER CASSIS: Are you asking me?

15 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.

16 MEMBER CASSIS: May I have another

17 turn at it?

18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Go ahead.

19 MEMBER CASSIS: Sometimes I am very

20 tough with cases and sometimes I guess I'm

21 just sympathetic. I think I just try to do

22 whatever I think can be architected in a way

23 to help the petitioner if there is really

24 not that great of an objection or hazard or

1 public safety in question. And I'm going to

2 read, again, part of the communication that

3 the fire marshal has given us.

4 The second paragraph he says: I'm

5 opposed to this request for the reasoning

6 that allowing this building to be built,

7 with very minimal setbacks -- I'm going to

8 repeat -- with very minimal setbacks, would

9 create a fire hazard.

10 I read with very minimal -- now, he

11 could -- the fire marshal, and I'm not

12 trying to get into his place, okay. But, we

13 as human beings and as people who sit on

14 cases, and many of us have sat on cases have

15 tried to use some logic and tried to use

16 some, a little bit of fire moxie to try to

17 understand what's going on. My

18 understanding of the fire marshal's

19 instructions here, and I wish he could have

20 been a little bit more exact, but I think

21 Mr. Boulard has surmised a little bit, and

22 that's why in his introduction he said, if

23 you could pull the setback and pull it

24 towards the house. So, from those two

1 things, from Mr. Boulard's comments and from

2 that precise comment that the fire marshal

3 has given, I would really try to help this

4 individual if he agrees to pull it back

5 about five feet or so, and give him the

6 benefit of the doubt. You know, we could

7 also say we could make it tentative if the

8 fire marshal objects later on, you know, we

9 could -- I don't know if that's legal.

10 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: You can always

11 put that as a clause.

12 MS. KUDLA: The only concern that I

13 would have is that we're making the variance

14 request as far as between the structures

15 greater and I feel like we would have to

16 re-notice that. We would have to table it

17 if that was a proposal. The Petitioner would

18 have to consider that and we would have to

19 increase that variance request and come

20 back.

21 MEMBER CASSIS: So, he has to come

22 back anyhow, is that what you are saying?

23 MS. KUDLA: If that's the proposal, he

24 is going to consider shifting it backward

1 and closer to the house, we are increasing

2 his variance request towards the house and

3 it would have to be re-noticed. We are

4 decreasing one variance request but

5 increasing another.

6 MEMBER CASSIS: Oh, okay. Yes, Mr.

7 Boulard? Through the Chair.

8 MR. BOULARD: If I may. If there

9 is -- in my mind, and this is purely my

10 opinion, if there is an option to -- if

11 there is a trade off between the distance

12 between the house and the garage, and the

13 garage and the property line, I would

14 certainly, I would certainly be more likely

15 to support, say, a three foot setback from

16 the rear property line and seven feet from

17 the house, realizing that probably you are

18 going to have, in all probability you are

19 going to have at least six feet, seven feet,

20 eight feet, even if there is a variance

21 granted on the other property for a garage

22 to come back, it's probably not going to

23 have -- it would be less than three feet

24 which would give you six feet total. And

1 the neighbor's garage is not going to have

2 people in it.

3 MEMBER CASSIS: Well, not only that,

4 but -- I still have the floor, I guess?

5 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: You can have it

6 any time you want.

7 MEMBER CASSIS: But the garage of the

8 adjoining property is quite a distance too.

9 What was the distance?

10 MR. SOBOROWSKI: The rear, it's

11 probably 10 feet. I think to your point the

12 fire marshal probably saw that zero which we

13 put that, go for the maximum and then we can

14 always come back.

15 MEMBER CASSIS: Now, one more

16 question. How far of a distance from the

17 house should that structure be without

18 coming back and having another variance

19 situation?

20 MR. BOULARD: The Zoning Ordinance

21 requires 10 feet. We advertised for --

22 MEMBER CASSIS: How much?

23 MR. BOULARD: We advertised for a

24 minimum of seven feet. So, a three feet

1 variance to that 10 feet.

2 MR. SOBOROWSKI: No, I'm fine with

3 that. And to that point I am confused as to

4 why you think the proximity of the garage to

5 the house matters. I mean, 90 percent of

6 garages are attached to a house, they are

7 zero.

8 MEMBER CASSIS: Well, that's the

9 Ordinance, I guess. Or what? Where are we

10 getting that?

11 MR. BOULARD: The 10 feet?

12 MEMBER CASSIS: Yeah.

13 MR. BOULARD: The 10 feet is in the

14 Ordinance. It's to provide access to the

15 backyard.

16 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Detached

17 accessory structure. This is not a garage

18 in the true sense of the word.

19 MEMBER CASSIS: Yeah, okay. Before I

20 give up my turn --

21 MR. SOBOROWSKI: No, you are doing

22 good.

23 MEMBER CASSIS: Where are we?

24 MR. SOBOROWSKI: No, I'm here to

1 negotiate something that we can all agree

2 on.

3 MEMBER CASSIS: Okay.

4 MR. SOBOROWSKI: It shouldn't be that

5 big a deal. The lots are a hardship because

6 of the way they are designed. Thirty feet

7 is very, very narrow and people build on

8 these. And if you allow people to build

9 with the variance that I got, I went and got

10 a four foot variance for my house, and then

11 to say after that, you know, we're going to

12 stop doing that, I'm a little confused about

13 that. It's on a crawl space. There is no

14 storage. There is no basement.

15 MEMBER CASSIS: Okay, what would

16 you --

17 MR. SOBOROWSKI: To your point, yes.

18 Let's negotiate a reasonable variance and

19 we'll go from there.

20 MEMBER CASSIS: The three feet --

21 MR. SOBOROWSKI: Pardon me?

22 MEMBER CASSIS: The three feet --

23 MR. SOBOROWSKI: The three feet is

24 fine, yes.

1 MEMBER CASSIS: Mr. Chairman, in my

2 capacity as councilman, then on the Planning

3 Commission and now on the ZBA, we have had

4 multiple cases from East Lake Drive, West

5 Lake Drive, around the lake. Those lots are

6 small. They were meant for cottages in the

7 old days. And it's amazing the renaissance

8 that has taken place around that lake that

9 many of us would have wished to have bought

10 a lot there. It has increased the values

11 and it has made that area there really a

12 great area. And the people should be

13 commended for that. And I think in this

14 case I think we should probably come up with

15 some solution for this man. Thank you very

16 much, Mr. Chair.

17 MR. SOBOROWSKI: Thank you.

18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, so let me

19 summarize the whole thing. The only issue

20 we have is with the rear yard setback. We

21 have no problem with the other setbacks or

22 the lot coverage, right?

23 MS. KUDLA: I guess further

24 clarification that we have already taken

1 into consideration that we might have to

2 shift back off that zero and it was

3 advertised for moving that a little bit back

4 more towards the house, we don't have that

5 concern about coming back. So that potential

6 was already built in --

7 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: That's right.

8 That's why I'm saying we can really make a

9 decision and he doesn't have to come back --

10 MS. KUDLA: Correct.

11 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: We are reducing

12 the variance not increasing it.

13 MS. KUDLA: Right. Because the one is

14 not going to increase.

15 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: That's what I

16 wanted to clarify. So, the matter is if you

17 have a three foot rear yard setback and the

18 rest of setbacks remain as requested do we

19 have any problem with that issue?

20 MEMBER BAUER: No.

21 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay.

22 MEMBER BAUER: We have the diagram

23 showing seven feet between the garage and

24 the house now with it being at zero line.

1 So, if you move it back to the house you are

2 taking away that 20 feet from 7.

3 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The space will

4 be reduced between the house and the

5 structure.

6 MEMBER BAUER: Correct.

7 MEMBER SKELCY: Mr. Chairman?

8 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Ms. Skelcy?

9 MEMBER SKELCY: Are you willing to

10 reduce the size of the storage if we move it

11 back off the rear lot line by three feet?

12 Are you willing to reduce it by three feet?

13 MR. SOBOROWSKI: If we moved it back

14 by three feet, and I had put seven -- I

15 mean, that would move it to seven from the

16 house. Is the Board fine with seven feet

17 from the house?

18 MEMBER SKELCY: No, what I'm saying is

19 you already asked for seven feet for the

20 side closest to the house.

21 MR. SOBOROWSKI: It would stay at

22 seven.

23 MEMBER SKELCY: It would stay at

24 seven?

1 MR. SOBOROWSKI: Right.

2 MEMBER SKELCY: On the rear portion

3 that abuts your neighbors.

4 MR. SOBOROWSKI: We would go from zero

5 to three.

6 MEMBER SKELCY: So, are you willing to

7 reduce it --

8 MR. SOBOROWSKI: The diagram is 16 by

9 23, so it would be 16 by 20 then.

10 MEMBER SKELCY: Is that acceptable to

11 you?

12 MR. SOBOROWSKI: Yes.

13 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay, thank you.

14 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Mr.

15 Boulard?

16 MR. BOULARD: I hope I'm not confusing

17 the issue. But the request that's shown on

18 the drawing is for zero feet at the property

19 line to seven feet from the deck. The issue

20 is that, and his intent pretty much for most

21 of the time has been if necessary to pull

22 the building three feet from the rear

23 setback line or from the rear property line

24 and reduce the width or the total length to

1 20 feet. So, you would have three feet from

2 the rear property line, seven feet from

3 the --

4 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Everything else

5 remains the same?

6 MR. BOULARD: Yes. If the Board finds

7 that acceptable.

8 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay. The rear

9 is the status now, if we reduce the size by

10 three feet of the structure here, and leave

11 the rest of these variances requested as it

12 is. Well, now that we have sorted it out,

13 is that acceptable to you?

14 MR. SOBOROWSKI: Yes.

15 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: We might have a

16 motion on the floor now. Would somebody

17 like to make a motion to that effect? You

18 are the proposer of the day, you might as

19 well do it.

20 MEMBER CASSIS: All right. I move

21 that in the case of --

22 CHAIRMAN SANGHVI: 09-044 --

23 MEMBER CASSIS: 09-044, 1407 East Lake

24 Drive that a rear setback of three feet from

1 the lot line at a reduction in the size of

2 the garage to -- 17 feet is it?

3 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI:

4 (Unintelligible).

5 MEMBER CASSIS: And I go along with

6 that because this gentleman is trying to

7 improve his property. That it would not be

8 hazardous to the rear owners of the rear

9 lot. That the setback frontage, height,

10 bulk and density requirements unreasonably

11 prevent the use of the property for the

12 permitted purpose, and a variance will

13 provide substantial justice to petitioner

14 and surrounding property owners and the

15 zoning district. And it's due to the unique

16 circumstances of the property in that

17 location. And the problem is not really

18 self created here. And there is adequate

19 light and air that's provided to adjacent

20 properties. No increase of fire danger or

21 public safety. Property values will be

22 improved actually in the surrounding areas.

23 And the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance is

24 observed.

1 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Yes,

2 Mr. Boulard?

3 MR. BOULARD: May I confirm?

4 MEMBER CASSIS: Absolutely.

5 MR. BOULARD: So, am I correct that

6 your intent is to allow a 16 by 20 foot

7 garage three feet from the rear property

8 line?

9 MEMBER CASSIS: Three feet from the

10 rear.

11 MR. BOULARD: Seven feet from the

12 house?

13 MEMBER CASSIS: Seven feet from the

14 house.

15 MR. BOULARD: Five feet from the side

16 property line, and the lot coverage and rear

17 yard coverages as the original request?

18 MEMBER CASSIS: That is true.

19 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Very good.

20 Okay.

21 MEMBER IBE: I'll second it.

22 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: All right,

23 seconded by Mr. Ibe. If there is no further

24 discussion will you please call the roll.

1 MS. MARTIN: Member Bauer?

2 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

3 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis?

4 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes.

5 MS. MARTIN: Member Ghannam?

6 MEMBER GHANNAM: No.

7 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?

8 MEMBER IBE: Yes.

9 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?

10 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes.

11 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Sanghvi?

12 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.

13 MS. MARTIN: Member Wrobel?

14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Yes.

15 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Motion passes.

16 Thank you very much. Congratulations.

17 MR. SOBOROWSKI: Thank you very much.

18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, moving

19 along to case number 4 on the agenda. Case

20 number: 09-045, 23893 Beck Road, Oakland

21 Baptist Church. Mr. Tim Whyte of Oakland

22 Baptist Church is requesting special

23 approval relating to a previous approved

24 Special Land Use per Section 2903 of the

1 Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the

2 installation of a new steeple on the

3 existing church located at 23893 Beck Road.

4 Would you kindly identify yourself,

5 sir, state your name and address and be

6 sworn in by our Secretary, please.

7 MR. VOLNER: Carl Volner with

8 Tucci & Volner Architects in Brighton,

9 Michigan.

10 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm

11 to tell the truth regarding case: 09-045?

12 MR. VOLNER: I do.

13 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Please go ahead

14 and make your presentation.

15 MR. VOLNER: Good evening. I

16 represent Oakland Baptist Church. And the

17 existing church building was built in 1875

18 located on Grand River in the City of Novi.

19 In 1992 the original steeple had to be

20 removed due to deterioration. And then

21 later on in 1997 the church was moved to its

22 present location on Beck Road between Nine

23 and Ten. So, we're asking for this variance

24 to the height restriction to restore the

1 steeple to this historic building. The

2 existing building meets the 35 foot height

3 requirement and the height of the steeple

4 would meet the intent of Section 2903 which

5 states that as long as it's not closer than

6 the distance to the property line then it

7 would be okay. So, that's what we're

8 requesting.

9 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Very good.

10 Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience

11 who would like to make comments regarding

12 this case?

13 (No response.)

14 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Seeing none, Mr.

15 Bauer, are there any correspondence?

16 MEMBER BAUER: Yes, there were 19

17 notices sent. Two were returned. We had

18 one objection. No approvals. You want this

19 read?

20 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Go ahead.

21 MEMBER BAUER: "We are the neighbors

22 of the immediate north of this property. We

23 recognize that the congregation has been

24 completing many of the renovations to the

1 church themselves which has led to slow rate

2 of progress. Although the building was

3 originally moved to the property in '97,

4 there are still outstanding site issues.

5 While we have no specific issue with the

6 granting of the special approval for the

7 installation of the steeple, it should be

8 granted contingent upon completion of all

9 outstanding site issues and/or obligations

10 to the city. Specifically, as evidenced in

11 the December 5th, 2000 minutes of the Zoning

12 Board of Appeals a variance was granted to

13 the church that allowed them to replace the

14 required berm with landscape between our

15 house and the church. To date no such

16 landscaping has occurred.

17 As evidenced by the fact that

18 outstanding issues still exist since the

19 start of the project over 12 years ago,

20 starting a new project until existing issues

21 are resolved does not appear to be in the

22 best interest for the property. As such, it

23 is our recommendation that a special

24 approval should, at a minimum and if

1 granted, be contingent upon completion of

2 all outstanding site issues."

3 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Mr.

4 Boulard?

5 MR. BOULARD: Thank you. Just a

6 couple of comments. I am also concerned

7 about the progress of the completion of the

8 site work and so on with this project. The

9 balance of the sidewalks and grading

10 contingent upon the landscaping and so on.

11 However, I did want to ask the attorney to

12 separate these items as appropriate for us.

13 And also to kind of outline where this

14 particular steeple approval process fits

15 within the scope of the variance approvals

16 and disapprovals that the Board hears. So,

17 if I may.

18 MS. KUDLA: Okay. What I'm going to

19 do is sort of just go over the standard that

20 we're looking at in the Ordinance and the

21 fact that you are subject to looking at this

22 a little bit under different standards

23 because it is a religious land use and are

24 subject to the rules and statute. So, let

1 me just back up to the issue of the

2 construction and the site issues to start

3 off with.

4 The letter that Member Bauer read from

5 the neighbors concerning un-complete site

6 issues. That should not really be taken

7 into consideration with this request. It is

8 a separate concern. It is addressed by

9 other Ordinances that the City has in place

10 and will be handled by the Community

11 Development Department pursuant to the other

12 Ordinances. So, completing another project

13 before considering this one is not something

14 that you should undertake pursuant to the

15 request of the neighbor.

16 And as far as the standards go, what

17 we're looking at here is really not the 35

18 foot maximum height. We're not looking at a

19 variance in the 35 foot maximum height.

20 What we're instead looking at here is the

21 fact that this is a church steeple, church

22 spire that is exempt under the Ordinance

23 from that 35 foot requirement. So, rather

24 than that what the Ordinance would have you

1 to do is to look at special approval

2 standards under the Ordinance. And we have

3 done that before in certain types of cases.

4 Those special approval standards are

5 outlined in the memorandum put together by

6 Community Development on the second page and

7 it's the underlying standards there that are

8 the important standards to look at in this

9 case as far as the Ordinance goes.

10 Before granting an exception or

11 special approval under this subsection, the

12 Board shall determine that the proposed

13 exception or special approval will not

14 impair an adequate supply of light and air

15 to adjacent property or unreasonably

16 increase the congestion in public streets or

17 increase the danger of fire or endanger the

18 public safety or unreasonably diminish or

19 impair established property values, safety,

20 comfort, morals or welfare of the

21 inhabitants of the City of Novi.

22 So, these are the primary standards

23 that we're looking at as far as the

24 Ordinance goes. However, because this is a

1 religious land use we can even go a little

2 bit beyond that in this case.

3 These standards for special approval

4 were obviously not developed specifically

5 with respect to church steeples, so it is

6 important to look at this generally, but

7 more important to consider the fact that it

8 is a religious use, and we're looking at

9 whether the regulation as it is here would

10 substantially burden the request to use the

11 land for religious purposes.

12 Generally overall as probably most of

13 you recall from the Temple case on Taft Road

14 that has been in the last two years, I don't

15 know if all of you were here, but I think

16 most of you were, this issue was discussed

17 in detail as far as the standards go and as

18 far as RALUPA goes. So many of you probably

19 recall to some extent those standards and

20 how we have to give this a little bit of a

21 different consideration.

22 In that request you had considered all

23 of these standards and that approval was

24 given. In this case and in general, church

1 spires are going to be most likely

2 considered an integral part of a church use

3 and a religious purpose. So that is

4 important to consider so that you are

5 looking at, in this case you would need to

6 have a substantial record, something, some

7 really strong reasons on record of why you

8 think this request is inappropriate. Given

9 that, number one, that there is no specific

10 Ordinance limitation on the height of a

11 church steeple and it just requires you to

12 consider those standards. We're

13 recommending considering an approval,

14 keeping in mind the Temple case that was

15 just reviewed not too long ago on Taft Road.

16 Any questions about the standards I

17 would be happy to go into further detail.

18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you.

19 While we are discussing this can you put

20 this on your projector there so the people

21 at home can see. Why don't you use one of

22 these so people at home can see what we are

23 talking about.

24 MEMBER GHANNAM: On the overhead.

1 MR. VOLNER: Oh.

2 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. And

3 thank you, Counselor. Yes, Mr. Wrobel?

4 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Thank you,

5 Mr. Chair. So I understand it, we just deal

6 with this issue, the other issues the

7 Building Department and Community

8 Development will deal with?

9 MS. KUDLA: That's correct.

10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: I just want

11 to make sure that they are looked at.

12 It's hard to be believe it's been 12

13 years already. I still remember this

14 building sitting on Grand River and Novi

15 Road. And I commend the church for moving

16 it to its current location. And obviously

17 the steeple is a natural fit for the church

18 and I would totally support this. Thank

19 you.

20 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay. All

21 right. Yes, Mr. Bauer?

22 MEMBER BAUER: I certainly support it.

23 Without the steeple it looks bare now, so I

24 would go along with that.

1 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: It's time to

2 make it look like a church. So, I am very

3 happy you are moving in the right direction.

4 (Unintelligible). I have no problem.

5 Yes, Mr. Cassis?

6 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

7 Thank you. Nostalgically I do recall and

8 remember the day that Detroit Edison lines

9 were moved and that trip took place, that

10 church to be housed in that location. If

11 only because it meant so much to Mr. and

12 Mrs. Hugh Crawford being their church at

13 that time and how much they have really

14 pulled for that church to stay as a living

15 structure. I do travel that Beck Road quite

16 often and I have seen a very slow, very slow

17 progress. And I have no doubt that there

18 were reasons for that, but the fact that

19 this parish has really existed and had kept

20 the faith, and God has provided for its

21 survival, and my complete emotional pull for

22 that parish to keep that church going as it

23 is. I applaud that and I am hoping that

24 more material money would be found to keep

1 the progress going. And maybe a raffle of

2 some sort would bring in some money. So,

3 you would have my approval of this petition.

4 MR. VOLNER: Thank you.

5 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you.

6 Seeing none, may I entertain a motion? Yes,

7 Mr. Ibe?

8 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, in case number

9 09-045 for 23893 Beck Road, Oakland Baptist

10 Church, I'll move that we grant the

11 Petitioner's request. Considering that the

12 property in question is a church, the

13 request of the Petitioner would not

14 unreasonably increase the congestion in

15 public streets and will not endanger public

16 safety. And it will not impair established

17 property values within the surrounding area.

18 And that the comfort, morals or welfare of

19 the inhabitants of the City of Novi will not

20 be disturbed by allowing the Petitioner's

21 request. I, therefore, move that we grant

22 the request as made.

23 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

24 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Motion has been

1 made and seconded by Mr. Bauer. I don't see

2 any further discussion, will you kindly call

3 the roll, Ms. Martin.

4 MS. MARTIN: Member Bauer?

5 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

6 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis?

7 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes.

8 MS. MARTIN: Member Ghannam?

9 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes.

10 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?

11 MEMBER IBE: Yes.

12 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?

13 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes.

14 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Sanghvi?

15 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.

16 MS. MARTIN: Member Wrobel?

17 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Yes.

18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you.

19 Congratulations.

20 MR. VOLNER: Thank you.

21 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Moving along to

22 the next case. Case number: 09-046, 470601

23 Grand River, Providence Park Hospital.

24 SighGraphix is requesting a variance to

1 erect an additional 385 square foot wall

2 sign on the east elevation and an additional

3 168 square foot illuminated ground sign at

4 the interior site entranceway for Providence

5 Park Hospital located at 47601 Grand River

6 Avenue.

7 There has been a revision in the

8 identification that the request for the

9 additional illuminated ground sign is now

10 reduced to 40 square feet as to opposed to

11 the original request.

12 All right, would you like to identify

13 yourself for the record, Mr. Applicant?

14 MR. LUTZ: My name is Bill Lutz, 39255

15 Country Club Drive, Farmington Hills,

16 Michigan.

17 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm

18 to tell the truth regarding case: 09-046?

19 MR. LUTZ: I do.

20 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

21 MR. LUTZ: Good evening. Mr. Chair,

22 if I may, do you care what order we take

23 these? There are two items on the agenda

24 this evening and it's your pleasure.

1 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: You go one by

2 one and we'll consider both at the same

3 time.

4 MR. LUTZ: Terrific. There are two

5 separate issues here and I will turn on the

6 overhead here a second. Although I think

7 there are some photos here and studies that

8 are not in your packet. So, if we could, I

9 don't know how we dim the lights here a

10 little bit, if we could do that so we could

11 see the screen, that probably would help us.

12 The two issues involved here is the

13 long range identifiers of the building. You

14 and I addressed that several months ago and

15 we put up a set of individual logos and

16 letters on the northwest elevation of the

17 building to identify traffic coming off of

18 the expressway and coming eastbound on Grand

19 River Avenue, and that has worked quite

20 well. That has avoided a lot of confusion

21 on this very busy campus. Now, we would

22 like to do exactly the same thing on the

23 other elevation for long range visibility

24 for traffic that is westbound on Grand River

1 and northbound on Beck. That would take

2 care of our building identification,

3 complete the main structure of the building

4 and identify it as the hospital.

5 The secondary issue is our main

6 entrance off of Beck Road. That is our

7 primary entrance for the entrance to the

8 hospital. It also is a frontal entrance to

9 the emergency department and to the ring

10 road which direct people around the entire

11 campus. There has been a tremendous amount

12 of confusion about where the hospital

13 entrance is. We had the same issue with the

14 emergency entrance. We were able to address

15 that with emergency letters on top of the

16 canopy.

17 The other canopy is not so easily

18 identifiable because of the lay of the land

19 and the visibility and the site lines. So,

20 our best way to address that, and we have

21 looked at a number of ways, is to identify

22 the entrance to this hospital at the island,

23 if you will, at the entrance to the hospital

24 which is the road that proceeds and kind of

1 winds around to the entryway. We have had a

2 lot of confused folks that are wandering

3 around and getting into other entrances.

4 There is a lot of ways into this complex,

5 but only one way into the main entrance.

6 So, our proposal is and our initial

7 proposal that you had in front of you was

8 cube sign, a four sided sign, and we all

9 agreed that that probably was not necessary,

10 but we had to get it in front of you and on

11 the agenda. So, that's why the revision was

12 made to a two-sided sign we think functions

13 just as well.

14 Now, because of the width of this

15 entryway, because of our site line began as

16 exemplified by the photo up on the screen

17 right now, that entry sign will be visible

18 from people coming into the Beck Road

19 entrance and will identify that island and,

20 therefore, that roadway as the entrance to

21 the hospital.

22 It's reinforced with some secondary

23 directional signs, but they don't seem to be

24 working nearly as well. The copy is

1 smaller, they're not as prominent, they're

2 not in the sight lines, so they are just not

3 as visible.

4 So, we have two issues to address here

5 this evening. One is the long range way

6 finding and building identification for that

7 specific building which is the hospital.

8 And then the secondary issue of the entrance

9 into the hospital. Keep in mind that we're

10 dealing with over the course of a normal

11 week with a thousand visitors. Our first

12 order of business as a way-finding

13 consultant is to get those folks off of the

14 main roads, off of Beck Road, off of Grand

15 River and into the complex onto the ring

16 road.

17 Secondarily, we need to get them to

18 the the right entrance, to the right

19 building because there are multiple

20 buildings and multiple services available in

21 this facility.

22 If I can call your attention to the

23 next photo study. This is the view of this

24 sign, if you will, coming around the ring

1 road from one direction which will capture

2 people that came in another entrance either

3 by mistake or if they just happen to enter

4 the complex possibly from Grand River Avenue

5 or indirectly by a staff entrance which is

6 not advertised as that, but is another way

7 into the complex. So, this will capture

8 them in that direction.

9 And then finally the opposite

10 direction will again identify that island as

11 a place to turn to get to the hospital

12 entrance. We think this will solve a huge

13 issue with our way finding and getting

14 people into the right place. The secondary

15 issue, of course, is the long range issue,

16 if you will, and if you want to consider

17 these together we can look at those slides

18 here for a moment. If I can get to the

19 right slide here. That is more of an issue

20 of the long range visibility again as I have

21 mentioned. Well, you can see it up on the

22 screen here. This is a mimic of the

23 opposite side of the building, if you will.

24 We have the long range visibility from Beck

1 and for westbound Grand River. And the new

2 letters that we just put up a few months ago

3 on the opposite side are just not visible

4 from those two directions. And since this

5 is a primary funnel, since a large portion

6 of Novi demographics and Novi population

7 base lives south and somewhat west of the

8 hospital, we need to get those folks that

9 are coming northbound on Beck and then

10 westbound on Grand River into this complex

11 and identify that as the best long range way

12 finding that we have actually.

13 So, those are the items for your

14 consideration this evening. Any questions?

15 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, please go

16 ahead.

17 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you, Mr.

18 Chairman. I have a concern about, I guess,

19 the smaller signs.

20 MR. LUTZ: The entry sign.

21 MEMBER SKELCY: The entry sign. Are

22 you aware of how many signs are at that

23 entryway?

24 MR. LUTZ: Yes, those are secondary

1 directional signs that were meant for

2 traffic on the ring road.

3 MEMBER SKELCY: Right. And this abuts

4 ring road, correct?

5 MR. LUTZ: Yes, it does.

6 MEMBER SKELCY: How many signs are

7 there at that particular intersection?

8 MR. LUTZ: There are I believe two

9 other signs at that intersection.

10 MEMBER SKELCY: When I drove by today

11 there were four and they all have the

12 directional information about it. So, if we

13 were to grant this, would you be willing to

14 remove some of those signs? Because that's

15 going to be like five signs within a very

16 small circumference area.

17 MR. LUTZ: Well, keep in mind they are

18 all meant for different things. The smaller

19 directional signs are only really visible

20 when you are right in front of them at a

21 stop sign. It's either turning signs to

22 turn people or to keep them moving, i.e., to

23 keep them moving towards emergency or to one

24 of the other facilities. They are not meant

1 really to be viewed very easily for people

2 coming into that main entrance. There is

3 the one sign off to the right here that

4 would address that, but unfortunately it's

5 not being seen by as many people as we would

6 like.

7 MEMBER SKELCY: There is actually four

8 signs that show direction at each corner of

9 this intersection.

10 MR. LUTZ: That's correct.

11 MEMBER SKELCY: And you are saying

12 those signs are not effective?

13 MR. LUTZ: They're especially not

14 effective for people coming into the main

15 entrance. Only one of those signs can be

16 seen from -- if I am coming in the main

17 entrance from Beck Road, there is only one

18 sign of those four that can be seen too, and

19 that would be the one just to right that

20 would either turn me to go to the medical

21 office buildings to the right, or turn me

22 left to go to the emergency department, or

23 to go straight ahead for the main entrance

24 of the hospital. Unfortunately when you

1 pull up to the stop sign you are almost

2 adjacent to that sign. So, either you see

3 that sign as you approach it or you don't

4 see it at all.

5 My experience around health care and

6 hospitals in particular is that folks who

7 come to hospitals are not our normal people

8 that we are trying to give way finding

9 directions to. They are under a lot of

10 stress. They don't necessarily read real

11 well. I may have told this story to this

12 Board. But I was at a hospital campus one

13 time standing right next to a very large

14 emergency sign and the lady asked me where

15 the emergency department was. And that's

16 very typical. We see that a lot. We get

17 stopped a lot when we are doing site surveys

18 by folks, and I know the people from the

19 hospital will probably address this later

20 too. They are stopped a lot by folks just

21 saying, how do I get to here? And they may

22 be right next to a sign that says exactly

23 what they're looking for, but they are kind

24 of oblivious to all that. So, you got to

1 hit them over the head a little harder with

2 heath care patients unfortunately.

3 MEMBER SKELCY: So, if they entered

4 through the entryway and they pass that sign

5 and they are going straight, what's at the

6 end of that road? Is there another way

7 finder sign?

8 MR. LUTZ: Yeah, there are other small

9 way finding signs throughout the campus that

10 would indicate that main entrance. And when

11 you approach that, that's a, if you have

12 been up that main entrance it's a curbed

13 berm divided highway, if you will, or

14 divided roadway. And the end destination is

15 the emergency entrance. It is very obvious

16 that it is a main hospital entrance within

17 the circular drive around it. It's quite

18 prominent once you get there. The problem

19 is you can't see it from that stop sign.

20 MEMBER SKELCY: The actual sign itself

21 all it says is Providence Park Hospital.

22 MR. LUTZ: Entrance.

23 MEMBER SKELCY: You're also proposing

24 to have a sign on buildings that offsets

1 Providence Park Hospital in the same

2 direction so that --

3 MR. LUTZ: It's in the same direction,

4 but it's quite a bit outside of your line of

5 sight. If you are in a motor vehicle and you

6 are driving up that entranceway, you are not

7 looking at the top of the building, you are

8 looking directly ahead of you. So we're

9 looking at what is in your line of sight.

10 Your line of sight is pretty limited, or

11 should be. We hope that you are not looking

12 at the top of the building. The top of the

13 building sign which is several stories up,

14 seven or eight stories up is meant as a long

15 range way finding tool to get people off of

16 Beck Road or Grand River, or in the case of

17 the one on the opposite side of the building

18 from the express interchange. Those are

19 meant as a different kind of tool. That's

20 not meant as a main entrance identifier.

21 That's simply a hospital campus directional.

22 MEMBER SKELCY: Can you tell me why

23 you did not apply for a variance for this

24 sign on the, I think it's the east sign when

1 you did the other sign?

2 MR. LUTZ: Well, that's a very good

3 question. First of all, we wanted to make

4 sure that it worked. Second of all, there

5 were certainly economic considerations at

6 the time. So, only one was requested. In

7 hindsight it would have probably made more

8 sense to ask for them both, but most

9 variances require a one year time frame and,

10 frankly, we didn't know if we could execute

11 both of those in a one year time frame. Or

12 whether it would work as planned. Sometimes

13 you look at these things, you come up with a

14 good plan and usually it works, but not

15 always and that's a very large investment on

16 the part of the hospital to make a plan that

17 maybe didn't work as well. Well, we found

18 it's working great on that side, but it

19 really needs to be on both sides of the

20 building.

21 MEMBER SKELCY: At this point I would

22 have to say that I would not approve the

23 smaller sign, but I would approve the larger

24 sign for the eastern side of the building.

1 I think you have way too many signs. You

2 have signs on that property, a ton of signs.

3 I have never seen so many signs in a

4 hospital facility as Providence Hospital

5 has. So, that's the way I would vote

6 tonight. Thank you.

7 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I want to

8 backtrack a little. If there is anybody in

9 the audience who would like to address the

10 Board regarding this case?

11 (No response.)

12 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Seeing none, Mr.

13 Bauer, have you got any correspondence?

14 MEMBER BAUER: Fifty-seven notices

15 were mailed. Seven were returned. No

16 objections. One approval. (Unintelligible).

17 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, thank you.

18 Mr. Boulard, have you any comment?

19 MR. BOULARD: I don't have anything to

20 add. I would be happy to answer any

21 questions.

22 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay. Now we

23 will open it up for the Board. Mr. Wrobel,

24 go ahead.

1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Welcome back

2 for the umpteenth time. If we were to

3 approve the building sign, my concern is we

4 had a lot of discussion about the main sign

5 at Beck and Grand River, the size of that,

6 which was finally agreed on. If you have

7 these signs, in my perspective that sign is

8 no longer needed. What's the possibility of

9 removing that sign?

10 MR. LUTZ: Well, I think the main

11 function of that sign is not to identify the

12 property so much as it is to give direction

13 to the main entrance.

14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Well, back

15 then, I beg to differ, you said that so

16 people could find it coming off the

17 expressway. Now you have to have --

18 MR. LUTZ: You really can't see that

19 sign coming off the expressway. Remember we

20 downsized that sign per your request. That

21 sign was meant to divide traffic or to cue

22 people either to go right to certain

23 destinations or to go left to other

24 destinations. Primarily that left

1 destination was the main entrance and the

2 emergency. We didn't want emergency

3 patients going all the way around the ring

4 road and going in to the Grand River

5 entrance. So, yes, the secondary objective

6 of that sign was to identify the property

7 because that was the only property

8 identifier.

9 You know, when you build a hospital

10 it's hard to anticipate everything that you

11 absolutely need.

12 There was a feeling at some levels that

13 building identification that high up on the

14 building really wasn't going to be

15 necessary. That's one of those plans that

16 didn't work out as well as planned. The

17 directional aspect of that sign on the

18 corner are absolutely necessary to direct

19 people either straight ahead to get them to

20 emergency to go down Beck Road or off to the

21 right to get to the ancillary facilities off

22 of that entrance. So that's become more of

23 a directional sign as opposed to an

24 established campus identifier.

1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: I could go

2 along with the building sign, but I would

3 like to see that sign reduced in size

4 personally. I think it's way too big now

5 for the purpose that it's going to serve,

6 now that you will have the building sign.

7 Those are my thoughts on that one.

8 Now the other sign, I don't know if

9 it's really needed, I could possibly go

10 along with it, but as Member Skelcy said,

11 there is sign upon sign there. It's almost

12 too many signs. It's getting confusing

13 driving around there. Thank you.

14 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Cassis?

15 MEMBER CASSIS: Thank you, Mr.

16 Chairman. I have an admission to make. I

17 went for a chest x-ray about a year and a

18 half ago. And although on the Planning

19 Commission some four or five years ago I had

20 looked at all the plans and I saw where

21 everything is and all the different

22 buildings, I could not locate that X-Ray

23 Building which sits on the west side of the

24 campus, extreme west side of the campus. I

1 had to ask a police -- what do you call

2 them?

3 MR. LUTZ: A security officer.

4 MEMBER CASSIS: A security officer.

5 And that is the truth I'm saying, to guide

6 me around all of these different parking lot

7 circles of that campus, of that huge campus

8 to lead me to that building.

9 Mr. Chairman, we all know how large

10 that campus is and the many buildings that

11 it contains, and will be containing in the

12 future. Mind you, there will be two or

13 three or half a dozen more buildings coming

14 up on that campus. I don't think -- now,

15 here's what I do when I go to a campus like

16 this whether it be a hospital or a corporate

17 park or what have you, the first thing I

18 would look is where is the location of that

19 entire campus. Which is that sign that you

20 have way up there on the top. Now, luckily

21 I do know where Providence Park Hospital is.

22 There are many of us here who know where it

23 is.

24 Now, we want to zero in on where we

1 want to go into that campus. Where is our

2 specific target or where our specific

3 destination is. With that kind of extensive

4 and big huge campus, it would seem to me

5 that we should not try to analyze how many

6 different signs there are on that campus. I

7 mean, we just gave two signs to a small

8 building of AT&T. Now, this is a huge, huge

9 campus. And it seems to me that some of

10 those signs that are placed in certain

11 different areas strategically -- and I don't

12 think the Petitioner here is guaranteeing

13 that those are going to work, but I think

14 from what I hear from you is that you are

15 trying your best to try to put certain signs

16 in certain locations and pray to God that

17 that patient who is really trying to find

18 that particular spot on that campus will

19 find it. We all work at trial and error

20 sometimes trying to magnify or trying to

21 approach a certain complex problem in the

22 best way we can.

23 And, Mr. Chairman, I don't think

24 Providence Hospital with its limited recent

1 resources of money wants to put multiple

2 signs all over the place and spend the money

3 just for putting more signs. In my belief

4 they are just trying to help a patient who

5 sometimes is in a critical situation trying

6 to find a spot. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

7 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Yes,

8 Mr. Bauer?

9 MEMBER BAUER: I went to the emergency

10 in 2008, so I own part of the E in

11 emergency. I had no problem getting to the

12 emergency. My wife drove, but that was

13 fine. These signs are to me seem to be just

14 going overboard. There should be, I think,

15 a few less, but more identification as to

16 where to go for x-ray, as my fellow panelist

17 has mentioned. I think that today in the

18 economic times maybe not so many people are

19 going to the hospital, or maybe we need more

20 advertisement, I have no way of knowing

21 that, but I think we're just overloaded with

22 signs. And if they could be squished down

23 to let people know outside of emergency of

24 where to go for certain things.

1 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Well, let me say

2 my penny's worth. I have been in the health

3 care providing business for over 50 years

4 and I have seen quite a few hospitals in my

5 lifetime in various roles, as a patient, as

6 a physician and visitor and all that. There

7 can never be too many signs in a hospital to

8 guide people to go to the right place.

9 The only comment I want to make is

10 about the verbiage you have got on this

11 hospital sign, small sign. You see, it's

12 not really very clear to me. If you want to

13 show where the main hospital is you just

14 want to write the main hospital entrance and

15 not everything else, otherwise just

16 identify it as the hospital entrance. It

17 doesn't specify that this is the main

18 hospital entrance. And that would be my

19 only suggestion to you because you can have

20 a logo, but I think you ought to write there

21 just main hospital entrance because

22 otherwise it doesn't give you any specific

23 information. That sign is not giving you

24 any specific information.

1 Otherwise, I have no problem with it.

2 Thank you. Yes, Mr. Ghannam?

3 MEMBER GHANNAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

4 I just have one question. I understand this

5 is a unique property and it's exceptional in

6 our city. But with regard to Ms. Skelcy's

7 questions, you said there were four signs

8 around the main entrance sign that you

9 propose, correct? If those are ineffective

10 why not remove some or all of them?

11 MR. LUTZ: It's not that they are

12 ineffective, they're ineffective in getting

13 people to the main entrance. That's the

14 problem. They work very well to turn

15 people.

16 And to the general comment about the

17 number of signs, it's necessary on a ring

18 road of this nature when you have this many

19 entrances and this many buildings and this

20 many departments, if you will, that people

21 come to visit, many more actually in total

22 than go to emergency. It's important to get

23 those people into the right parking lot.

24 Because if we don't get them into the right

1 parking we have lost them. And now they've

2 got to walk through the complex. And if

3 we're dealing with older folks it's very

4 difficult for them to manage to get to the

5 opposite side of campus.

6 MEMBER GHANNAM: I don't doubt any of

7 that. I'm just saying are there any of

8 those signs near the same entrance sign that

9 accomplish or try to accomplish the same

10 thing?

11 MR. LUTZ: In a very limited way.

12 What we find in way finding, and I am

13 looking at it as a way finding consultant

14 because this is the crux of our business is

15 way finding for campuses, primarily health

16 care campuses. So, I have been doing this a

17 lot of years too. What we found is you

18 can't identify every department from every

19 entrance. What you can do is kind of try to

20 categorize people into outpatient areas and

21 to lab areas perhaps or to special areas

22 that are very limited into their access.

23 So, that requires that we put a sign at

24 every curb cut. Every time there is a

1 possibility that you can turn right or turn

2 left there needs to be some kind of a

3 directional sign to either keep those folks

4 going the same direction or to turn right or

5 left into whatever access area there is to

6 the right or the left.

7 So, because of this being a very wide

8 intersection, it's necessary to have a sign

9 at every corner, i.e., the four signs. The

10 fifth sign that we're asking for is right in

11 the middle to keep them going into the

12 entrance of the hospital.

13 Now, to Mr. Sanghvi's question about

14 should we say main hospital entrance as

15 opposed to entrance, now we're talking

16 semantics and you may be right about that,

17 and that's certainly something that we would

18 look at. But it's necessary to let people

19 know that this is Providence Park Hospital

20 and this is an entrance to the main service

21 area, if you will, what you call main

22 entrance in the hospital.

23 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: But you have

24 already entered the campus there by the time

1 you come to this sign you are talking about.

2 So, what you want to tell them is where is

3 the entrance to the main hospital, this

4 Providence Park Hospital. They are already

5 in it.

6 MR. LUTZ: Well, they're at the

7 Providence Park. But Providence Park has a

8 lot of entities in it. It has an orthopedic

9 entrance --

10 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI:

11 (Unintelligible).

12 MR. LUTZ: But many of those are in

13 different buildings and many of those are

14 not Providence Hospital. They're not

15 legally Providence Hospital and they are not

16 functional as Providence Hospital. They are

17 separate entities. So, it's absolutely

18 necessary to get those folks to their

19 destination too. So, that's the need for

20 those signs, one on every corner that has a

21 limited amount of information to get folks

22 to those other main entrances whether it be

23 emergency, whether it be neuroscience,

24 whether it be the main hospital entrance.

1 Hospital visitors and patients are a

2 different animal when it comes to way

3 finding. I can't emphasize that enough.

4 They are not the same as everyday folks that

5 are on the road that can follow directions

6 and follow highway signs in a pretty logical

7 way. They are not necessarily logical. You

8 kind of have to bang them over the head a

9 little bit to get them to wake up. So copy

10 has to be a little bit larger. Footprints

11 of signs has to be a little bit larger. The

12 use of color. You will notice this

13 particular sign at the entrance is blue as

14 opposed to the other more generic colors.

15 One of the goals here with the City,

16 and remember, we had planned this with the

17 City for a number of years, was to have

18 those signs not necessarily be visible from

19 Beck Road. The City was mostly concerned

20 with any sign and only those signs that

21 could be visible from Grand River and Beck

22 Road. These secondary signs that gave

23 direction for people within the ring road,

24 they said, you know, we really can't see

1 them from the road anyway, we certainly

2 can't read them from the road. So, that's

3 really from a planning perspective. From a

4 sign perspective that was not something that

5 concerned them. And, of course, the one

6 entrance sign we're talking about this

7 evening meets that criteria.

8 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay. Anybody

9 else? Yes, Ms. Skelcy?

10 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you, Mr.

11 Chairman. Were they supposed to do a

12 mock-up of the smaller sign?

13 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: There should be a

14 mock-up there.

15 MEMBER SKELCY: When I drove by today

16 I didn't see the mock-up for the 40 foot

17 sign. I just saw a square board. Did you

18 do a mock-up?

19 MR. LUTZ: That is the mock-up that

20 the Building Department agreed to.

21 MEMBER SKELCY: Just a board?

22 MR. LUTZ: Just a board. They seemed

23 to be concerned with the footprint. You

24 could see the size of the footprint impact.

1 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay, thank you.

2 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Any more

3 discussion on the signs? I think we have

4 really exhausted that. I think the time has

5 come to take some decisions. May I

6 entertain a motion regarding this case?

7 Nobody wants to go from the Board? All

8 right.

9 MEMBER CASSIS: I wonder if we do have

10 a consensus? I guess that's the procedure

11 just to be followed.

12 MR. ABBOTT: Excuse me, might I just

13 make one comment?

14 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Go ahead.

15 MR. ABBOTT: Richard Abbott. I'm with

16 Providence Park, 47601 --

17 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: You haven't been

18 sworn in today have you?

19 MR. ABBOTT: No.

20 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Maybe we should.

21 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

22 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case:

23 09-046?

24 MR. ABBOTT: I do.

1 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

2 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Go ahead.

3 MR. ABBOTT: Some of the earlier

4 comments I just wanted to provide some

5 comment to that and feedback. We have kind

6 of taken a minimalist approach on signage

7 and we tried to not over sign the campus,

8 and we were conscious of our budget and

9 careful in not providing signage that was

10 unnecessary. So thanks for your patience in

11 us coming back and asking for things again

12 here. I think last time I said never say

13 never because I didn't think we would be

14 back again, and here we are just several

15 months later asking again for your

16 consideration.

17 But we're asking for it because we

18 found that we still have a problem and we

19 are just trying to solve that problem. And

20 I understand the concerns about the signs

21 being overly burdensome at the entrance when

22 you get to that intersection. Our sign

23 philosophy has been to kind of get people

24 going to the hospital to go to the Beck Road

1 entrance. If you are going to the

2 outpatient center go to the Grand River

3 entrance. So then we just give you the next

4 piece of information instead of

5 overburdening you with a lot of information

6 on the marquee sign. Here is the X-Ray

7 Department. Here is the Neurosurgery

8 Department. You know, just get to the right

9 entrance, get the next piece of information.

10 So, since we are providing that information

11 incrementally, when you get to that

12 intersection if you come in off of Beck

13 we're feeding you the next piece like turn

14 left to the go to the hotel. Turn left to

15 go to the Orthopedic Center. Go straight to

16 go to the hospital I think is on that also.

17 So, we're finding that's just not

18 effective. You would think the tendency

19 would be to keep going straight to go to the

20 hospital and we wouldn't need to reinforce

21 it, but we're finding we have to because

22 they are turning through there and they

23 think they need to turn and do something,

24 and maybe because they feel a little bit of

1 sense of urgency because they are coming in

2 off Beck Road and they don't want to stay

3 there long and read a sign and read eight

4 lines of copy or six lines of copy, whatever

5 is there.

6 So, we're just trying to make it

7 easier for them to say, okay, where is the

8 hospital. Because most people are coming

9 there are coming to the hospital. People

10 that are probably feeling most anxious are

11 coming to the hospital and we just want to

12 do something to reinforce it to say keep

13 going straight. We want you to go to the

14 hospital or make your right or left turn to

15 get to the hospital.

16 We have done a lot for the sign

17 emergency and we think people are getting to

18 the emergency very effectively. The concern

19 is maybe in doing so and not emphasizing

20 the main entrance to the hospital they are

21 going to the emergency department

22 unnecessarily and then they are having to

23 get back in their car and drive back around

24 to the entrance. What we are trying to do

1 is just fix that problem, make it easier for

2 patients finding the facility and them not

3 unnecessarily parking and getting back in

4 their car and leaving.

5 MEMBER CASSIS: Mr. Chairman, I will

6 attempt to make a motion and we'll see.

7 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Go ahead.

8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: We have one

9 motion or two?

10 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: We are doing

11 them both at the same time.

12 MEMBER CASSIS: Thank you, Mr.

13 Chairman. I will make a motion on case

14 number: 09-046, Providence Park Hospital.

15 The request is for an additional 385 square

16 foot wall sign on the east elevation and an

17 additional 168 --

18 MEMBER BAUER: It changed to 40.

19 MEMBER CASSIS: Oh, okay.

20 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: No, the other

21 one is 40 square feet.

22 MEMBER CASSIS: Changed to 40, I'm

23 sorry. Well, just for the request can I

24 eliminate the request and go into --

1 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.

2 MEMBER CASSIS: I would grant the

3 request of the Petitioner and would cite the

4 following for approval. That the request is

5 based upon circumstances or features that

6 are exceptional and unique to the property

7 and do not result from conditions that exist

8 generally in the City or that are self

9 created. That the failure to grant relief

10 will unreasonably prevent or limit the use

11 of the property and will result in

12 substantially more than mere inconvenience

13 or inability to attain a higher economic or

14 financial return. A grant of relief will

15 not result in a use of structure that is

16 incompatible with or unreasonably interferes

17 with adjacent or surrounding properties.

18 Will result in substantial justice being

19 done to both the applicant and adjacent or

20 surrounding properties. And is not

21 inconsistent with the spirit of the

22 Ordinance.

23 And may I add that in the case of this

24 hospital and the patients that are seeking

1 direction to come into very specific areas

2 of that campus, of that huge campus, I think

3 we would be remiss if we just go against --

4 you know, remising on the falsehood that we

5 might prevent this from happening, and then

6 people suffer not being able to go into that

7 specific area of that hospital. I don't

8 think we want to be held into that kind of a

9 condition where we deny this and then deny a

10 certain patient from getting where they want

11 to go. Thank you.

12 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. And

13 I will second the motion. All right.

14 MS. KUDLA: I just wanted to know if

15 everybody would be, I guess, agreeing to

16 that same logic to approve the motion? So,

17 if you have commentary you can make comment

18 on the motion now. But if you want to

19 change the reason you are approving, you

20 would have to move to amend the motion.

21 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: That's correct.

22 MEMBER GHANNAM: I guess I'll try to

23 do this, maybe I can move to amend his

24 motion by agreeing to all the factors that

1 he considered to approve it, but deleting

2 the editorial comments afterwards.

3 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I have no

4 problem with that. I think you can

5 paraphrase, for the benefit of the welfare

6 of the patients and the visitors. And that

7 will suffice for what Mr. Cassis was saying.

8 MS. KUDLA: Do we accept the

9 amendment?

10 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, I do.

11 MEMBER CASSIS: Absolutely.

12 MS. KUDLA: Okay.

13 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. Any

14 further amendments? Not seeing anything,

15 Ms. Martin, will you please call the roll.

16 MS. MARTIN: Member Bauer?

17 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

18 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis?

19 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes.

20 MS. MARTIN: Member Ghannam?

21 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes.

22 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?

23 MEMBER IBE: Yes.

24 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?

1 MEMBER SKELCY: No.

2 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Sanghvi?

3 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.

4 MS. MARTIN: Member Wrobel?

5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Yes.

6 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes.

7 MR. LUTZ: Thank you all very much.

8 We again thank you for your time and your

9 consideration.

10 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you. All

11 right, let's move on to the next one. Is

12 the applicant for the other case here?

13 (Unintelligible).

14 Now, case number: 09-047, 20795

15 Normandy Court, Lot Number, 2 Normandy

16 Hills. All right, sir, would you identify

17 yourself. The Petitioner is requesting a

18 temporary use permit renewal for the

19 continued placement of a temporary sales

20 trailer on Lot 2 of Normandy Hills.

21 Okay, sir, identify yourself. State

22 your name and address and be sworn in by our

23 Secretary.

24 MR. CLAYMAN (ph): Richard Clayman for

1 Custom Homes of Normandy Hills.

2 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm

3 to tell the truth regarding case 09-047?

4 MR. CLAYMAN: I do.

5 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

6 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Go ahead.

7 MR. CLAYMAN: This is as you mentioned

8 a request for an extension for an existing

9 sales trailer in a 13 home site community,

10 Normandy Hills Estates. I have a finished

11 furnished model there. The intent is when

12 the model is sold to maintain a physical

13 presence in the community and that's why I

14 wanted to maintain the presence of the sales

15 trailer.

16 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay. Well, I

17 don't see anybody in the audience to make

18 any comments in the public remarks section.

19 Mr. Bauer, have you got any --

20 MEMBER BAUER: 321 notices were

21 mailed. Forty-six were returned. We have

22 one approval.

23 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Very good.

24 MEMBER BAUER: Approval.

1 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Thank you.

2 MEMBER BAUER: Vickie Cooper.

3 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes, Mr.

4 Boulard, any comments?

5 MR. BOULARD: No comments beyond what

6 is in the staff report. This is, the

7 trailer is well kept up and they have done a

8 good job of maintaining it. However, in the

9 event that hopefully as we're all optimists,

10 the project gets built out before the two

11 years is up, I suggest that the trailer be

12 removed at that time.

13 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Very good. Open

14 it up to the Board. Anybody have any

15 comments? I went there and there is very

16 little activity going on in your

17 neighborhood where you have your trailer.

18 And I think there is hardly any traffic

19 there either. There is only one house built

20 in the whole site.

21 MR. CLAYMAN: That's the model,

22 correct.

23 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: And your trailer

24 are the only two structures on that street.

1 MR. CLAYMAN: The trailer is our

2 (unintelligible).

3 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I can see the

4 problem there and I guess you need to be

5 hanging around that area for a little

6 longer. And as far as I am concerned the

7 way the economy and everything that is going

8 on, you might be there for a couple of years

9 I guess. But I will leave it to the Board

10 to decide what is your pleasure. Yes, Mr.

11 Ibe?

12 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, I don't have

13 any problem with the Petitioner's request

14 considering the state of the economy as well

15 as stated by you, it's possible that it's

16 going to be hanging around for the next 24

17 months. Times are hard and everybody needs

18 a helping hand. I think the developer

19 obviously needs a little bit more, and I

20 hope that you find what you are looking for.

21 So, I would have no problem with this, Mr.

22 Chair. Thank you.

23 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Anybody else?

24 Comments? Yes, Mr. Boulard, you want to say

1 something?

2 MR. BOULARD: I did want to mention

3 the previous renewals have been for 24

4 months, but I believe the request is for a

5 three-year extension.

6 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I don't think we

7 will go beyond two years as a general rule.

8 Okay. Maybe Mr. Ibe wants to make a motion?

9 MEMBER IBE: I will be more happy, Mr.

10 Chair. In case number 09-047, 20795

11 Normandy Court, I'll move that we grant the

12 request of the Petitioner to extend the

13 temporary land use not to exceed a period of

14 24 months. In granting, the reasons for

15 allowing this extension is because of the

16 uniqueness of the circumstances of the

17 property. And the problem is not self

18 created. The economic climate that we

19 currently find ourselves in are not of the

20 making of this Petitioner, and that the

21 granting of this motion will be in the

22 spirit of the Zoning Ordinance.

23 MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion.

24 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Very good. Yes,

1 Mr. Wrobel?

2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: I would like

3 to make a friendly amendment to this. From

4 the time period of 24 months or until all

5 the lots have been sold.

6 MEMBER IBE: Well, obviously if we

7 have to use until the lots are sold, that

8 could be another 24 months.

9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Or.

11 (Interposing)(Unintelligible).

12 MEMBER IBE: Oh, absolutely,

13 absolutely. I will concur with that.

14 Thanks.

15 MEMBER GHANNAM: Whichever is shorter.

16 MEMBER IBE: Whichever is shorter,

17 right.

18 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Okay, after that

19 clarification do we have any discussion?

20 All right, Ms. Martin please call the roll.

21 MS. MARTIN: Member Bauer?

22 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

23 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis?

24 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes.

1 MS. MARTIN: Member Ghannam?

2 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes.

3 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?

4 MEMBER IBE: Yes.

5 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?

6 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes.

7 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Sanghvi?

8 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yes.

9 MS. MARTIN: Member Wrobel?

10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Yes.

11 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Very good.

12 MR. CLAYMAN: Thank you for your

13 consideration.

14 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: You have two

15 more years, hopefully you will sell by then.

16 MR. CLAYMAN: I hope so. Thank you.

17 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: I think that we

18 should assume that the other applicant is a

19 no show because they haven't shown up.

20 So, that takes us to the other

21 matters. Is there anything, Mr. Boulard,

22 that you want to bring to the Board?

23 MR. BOULARD: I guess my question

24 would be I believe there is an option for

1 the remaining variance request to either

2 deny it or table it until the next meeting

3 if you are so inclined to. And hopefully

4 whatever has held up the Petitioner at this

5 point they would have their hearing then.

6 MEMBER BAUER: I move that we table it

7 to the next meeting.

8 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: We will table it

9 to the next meeting and (unintelligible).

10 MR. BOULARD: Then if you wanted to

11 leave the paperwork.

12 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Yeah, we don't

13 need to duplicate everything.

14 MR. BOULARD: Thank you.

15 MS. MARTIN: Do we have to do a second

16 on that?

17 MR. BOULARD: Do we have a second?

18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON WROBEL: Second.

19 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Motion has been

20 made and seconded. All those in favor of

21 tabling the motion signify by saying aye?

22 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye.

23 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: All those

24 opposed same sign. Very good. Anything

1 else? No. Then I would entertain a motion

2 to adjourn.

3 MEMBER BAUER: So moved.

4 MEMBER IBE: Second.

5 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: The motion has

6 been made and seconded. All those in favor

7 of adjourning signify by saying aye?

8 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye.

9 CHAIRPERSON SANGHVI: Meeting is

10 adjourned.

11 (The meeting was adjourned at

12 8:39 p.m.)

1 C E R T I F I C A T E

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 (82) typewritten pages, is a

12 true and correct transcript of my said

13 stenographic notes.

19 _____________________________

20 Mona L. Talton,

21 Certified Shorthand Reporter

24 November 20, 2009