|
View Agenda 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, on Tuesday, April 12, 2011. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: 1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3 7:00 p.m. 4 - - - 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Good 6 evening, everybody. I want to call the 7 Zoning Board meeting of April 12, 2011, 8 to order. 9 First thing we'll do is say 10 the Pledge of Allegiance. If Member 11 Ibe can start us off. 12 (The Pledge of 13 Allegiance was 14 recited.) 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: First, 16 Ms. Marchioni, if you can call the 17 role, please. 18 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Ibe? 19 MEMBER IBE: Present. 20 MS. MARCHIONI: Member 21 Cassis? Excused. Member Krieger? 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Present. 23 MS. MARCHIONI: 24 Member Sanghvi? 25 MEMBER SANGHVI: Here.
4 1 MS. MARCHIONI: Member 2 Skelcy? 3 MEMBER SKELCY: Here. 4 MS. MARCHIONI: Chairman 5 Ghannam? 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Here. 7 MS. MARCHIONI: Member 8 Gedeon? 9 MEMBER GEDEON: Here. 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next is 11 our public hearing format and rules. 12 If anybody needs a copy of our rules 13 and format of this particular meeting, 14 you can get them in the back. 15 Just to remind people, please 16 turn off your pagers and cell phones or 17 put them on vibrate so they do not 18 interrupt the meeting. 19 Applicants or their 20 representatives will be allowed five 21 minutes to address the board and 22 present their case. Extensions may be 23 granted at the discretion of the chair. 24 Anybody in the audience who 25 wishes to address the board regarding
5 1 the current case will be asked to raise 2 their hands and be recognized at that 3 time. 4 Next is the approval of the 5 agenda. Is there any issues with the 6 agenda or additions or modifications? 7 Nothing from the city? Anybody else 8 have any issues with the agenda? 9 Seeing none, I will entertain a motion 10 to approve the agenda. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: So move. 12 MEMBER SKELCY: Second. 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: It's been 14 moved and second. All in favor, say 15 aye. 16 THE BOARD: Aye. 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any 18 opposed? Seeing none, the agenda is 19 approved. 20 Next is the approval of the 21 minutes from March 8, 2011. Are there 22 any issues or corrections to make? 23 Member Sanghvi. Member Skelcy. 24 MEMBER SKELCY: Yeah. On 25 page 29, line 17, it should say, "He
6 1 did" -- "Basically all he did was list" 2 l-i-s-t "it?" List it. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other 4 comments or corrections or 5 modifications? Seeing none -- I'm 6 sorry, Member Sanghvi. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: It should be 8 noted that she misspelled my name once 9 and, hence, created two different items 10 under my name. It should be corrected 11 and should be just one. 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: If there 13 are no other corrections, I will 14 entertain a motion to approve the 15 minutes of the meeting from March 8, 16 2011, as amended. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: So move. 18 MEMBER IBE: Second. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing a 20 motion and second, all in favor, say 21 aye. 22 THE BOARD: Aye. 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any 24 opposed? Seeing none, the minutes of 25 the March 8, 2011, meeting are
7 1 approved. 2 Next is the public remarks 3 section. Is there anybody in the 4 audience who wishes to address the 5 board not on a case that's going to be 6 called in front of the board this 7 evening? If there are, please raise 8 your hand, and I will recognize you. 9 Seeing none, I will close the public 10 remarks section and call our first 11 case. 12 Item No. 1 is Case No. 13 10-061, 41107 Jo Drive. Will the 14 applicant please come forward. 15 MR. QUINN: Yes. Good 16 evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name 17 is Matthew Quinn. I'm the attorney for 18 the owners of this property. With me 19 is the general manager of the Cadillac 20 dealership, Ed Pobur, and he should be 21 sworn. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Could you 23 raise your right hand, sir, and be 24 sworn by our secretary. 25 MEMBER SKELCY: Do you swear
8 1 or affirm to tell the truth? 2 MR. POBUR: Yes. 3 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you. 4 MR. QUINN: Good evening, to 5 you, once again. I'm Matt Quinn, and 6 we are here today to ask for a parking 7 variance on a piece of property that's 8 on Jo Drive. The request for the 9 variance is related specifically, 10 however, to the Cadillac dealership. 11 And I'm putting up -- here we go. For 12 your reference -- I guess I will turn 13 it around this way. I will show you 14 how it's referenced. 15 Area A on this map is Grand 16 River and Meadowbrook, and that's now 17 the Cadillac dealership. Area B is 18 the property on Jo Drive. And you will 19 see the street through the yellow line, 20 the close proximity to these. 21 Now, remember back in 2004, 22 the dealership opened up as a Hummer 23 dealership. The Hummer was a very 24 large vehicle, and the sales of the 25 Hummers allowed all of the necessary
9 1 vehicles to be stored on site at Ten 2 Mile -- at Grand River and Meadowbrook. 3 Now, with Hummer going out of 4 business and the Cadillac dealer coming 5 in, I must say that both my client and 6 Novi was very fortunate that General 7 Motors awarded the Cadillac dealership 8 to this particular site. But with 9 General Motors' dealerships comes 10 certain requirements. And that's a 11 requirement of vehicles being available 12 for sale, to be viewed, to be 13 processed. 14 Now, unfortunately, at the 15 Cadillac dealership, what happened 16 initially with the site plan is there 17 is an area that was dedicated as a 18 conservation easement. So the -- and I 19 will show you on the map. It's this 20 entire east side of the site is 21 dedicated as a conservation easement 22 and also part of the back. So, that 23 takes away from the parking that's 24 really available at the Cadillac 25 dealership.
10 1 So, what did they do? They 2 looked around to see what was the 3 closest building available that would 4 suit the ability to process vehicles. 5 And what they found on Jo Drive, 6 which is B, was a vacant building that 7 they said, "Well, let's buy this 8 building. Let's make it productive 9 again, and we'll be able to use it." 10 What they do inside of the building is 11 they got a special land use to do 12 vehicle prep and to do minor vehicle 13 repair at this site. 14 Now, on the outside of the 15 building, they have excess space that 16 isn't used for anything at this point 17 in time. That is why we are proposing 18 to use this excess space at the Jo 19 Drive facility for the outside storage 20 of new car vehicles. 21 Now, we say -- we look around 22 and say, "Well, what impact does this 23 request for variance have on the 24 surrounding properties?" Let me show 25 you what the surrounding properties
11 1 are. 2 Here's our site, once again, 3 right at the end of Jo Drive. Jo Drive 4 stops right here. Immediately to the 5 east, as you can see, are two, four, 6 six, seven large fuel storage tanks. 7 Well, let me go in numerical order, 8 since I actually numbered these. 9 Item Area A, and we'll look 10 at a closer view, is outside storage of 11 a number of trucks, truck beds, what 12 have you. Area 2, again, along this 13 property line is the outside storage of 14 a number of vehicles used by these 15 businesses. Three, is the business 16 area for the fuel storage depot. Five 17 is the tanks, we mentioned. Four is 18 the U-Haul dealer. And if you could 19 see this picture closer, this entire 20 back area is used for the outside 21 storage of vehicles for U-Haul. 22 Now, if we looked at that a 23 little closer, that Area 1 and 2, 24 again, you can see all the vehicles 25 that are stored outside here, all the
12 1 vehicles that are stored here. Here's 2 the end of our site, once again. 3 And what we are asking is 4 within the existing site plan -- this 5 comes into a little focus a little 6 better. This is the site plan for the 7 building. What I've highlighted in 8 yellow are all existing parking spots, 9 all right, all the way through here. 10 And, actually, there is some more over 11 here. Some of these are for employees. 12 But all of the yellow tag and the 13 yellow ones are 60 in total, are 14 completely excess to them. 15 Now, so far what you have 16 seen is the site is isolated. And I 17 took some pictures from different 18 parts. Let me do it like this, focus 19 this in a little bit, if they will. 20 This is right from the front of the 21 building. Sorry for that bright spot 22 there; maybe that's not going to go 23 away. I just wanted to show you that 24 from this main street, looking at the 25 building, you can't see any of the rear
13 1 area where these vehicles are to be 2 parked. From their rear parking lot, 3 right away from the rear of the 4 building is where these are taken. You 5 have the storage facilities at their 6 property line to the south. The 7 picture just shows again at their 8 property line. 9 Other industrial buildings, 10 to the east is another industrial 11 building. And, again, to the 12 southeast, just shows their fence line 13 and the other industrial buildings. 14 Once again, the point of that 15 is, is to demonstrate that this is a 16 completely isolated piece of land. 17 Everything around it is already being 18 used for what we are asking a variance 19 for. 20 Now, I didn't check to see if 21 all those uses are legal or not. But 22 they exist, and they are all there in 23 that capacity. Now, this is nothing 24 that my client asked for. They didn't 25 ask to buy another building. They
14 1 didn't ask to have to come here to you 2 today. They are a victim of the 3 economy. With the Hummer going out, 4 the Cadillac coming in, they need the 5 additional space for these vehicles. 6 They want to be as visibly business 7 friendly to Novi as we are asking Novi 8 to be business friendly to the Cadillac 9 dealership. They will be able to 10 succeed with this outdoor storage of 11 vehicles being allowed. 12 If you think about this 13 outdoor storage, this could -- if this 14 was a factory, all of those parking 15 places could be filled by employees, 16 all day long. And even if it was a 17 24-hour factory, you could have 18 vehicles there 24 hours a day. 19 Yes, they would be employee-related; 20 they would come and go. All we are 21 asking is to allow vehicles to be 22 parked there. These are, yes, 23 unlicensed vehicles. They are 24 Cadillacs that are waiting to go into 25 the building to be prepped, so that
15 1 they can then take them to the 2 dealership to be put on display to be 3 sold. 4 I also want to inform you 5 that the Cadillac dealership is going 6 in front of the planning commission 7 next month for site plan revisions, 8 putting a new facade on portions of the 9 building, extending the parking lot a 10 little bit where it used to have the 11 test track in back - IF you ever saw 12 the Hummer test track back there - but 13 it still doesn't provide enough parking 14 as necessary. They are going to expand 15 the shoulder a little bit. So this is 16 all part of a big overall expansion of 17 Cadillac that will allow this 18 dealership to be successful. 19 So far, I can tell you that 20 it has been so successful, that when 21 they started using this storage area, I 22 went out there, I was shown by the 23 owner, and I said, "My goodness." 24 There was a hundred vehicles inside the 25 building working on prep. There were
16 1 60 buildings -- 60 vehicles outside 2 here. I went back a week later to take 3 pictures; they had sold all those 4 vehicles already. They sold the 60 5 outside; they sold the hundred inside. 6 This is a successful 7 dealership. They need this location. 8 There is no other -- the only place in 9 Novi that allows outside storage is 10 I-2. There is no available I-2 within 11 a reasonable area around here. 12 This is I-1. It's isolated, 13 and this is the -- I think the best 14 they can do. And without this, it's 15 going to be very difficult, if not 16 impossible, to operate what's now 17 becoming, after only, let's see, this 18 opened in February, so last year. It's 19 only been open for a little over a year 20 now as a Cadillac dealership. And 21 because of the Novi location, even 22 though it's hard to find and they spent 23 a lot of time advertising how to use 24 your GPS to find the dealership at 25 Meadowbrook and Grand River, they are
17 1 doing a great job. Ed is doing an 2 outstanding job. 3 So we are asking your 4 assistance. I will finish up our 5 little ordinance review, that the 6 strict application of the regulations 7 would result in a peculiar and 8 exceptional practical difficulty to the 9 Cadillac dealership and its owners. 10 And that would be an exceptional undue 11 hardship without this relief. They 12 could actually lose the Cadillac 13 dealership if they don't meet the 14 Cadillac GM requirements. Therefore, 15 their request can be granted without 16 substantial detriment to the public 17 good, and it will not substantially 18 impair the intent or purpose of the 19 ordinance. 20 This variance request will 21 not impair the adequate supply of light 22 or air to adjacent properties, and it 23 will not unreasonably increase the 24 congestion on public streets. Let 25 me -- public streets brings me back to
18 1 a good point. All of the vehicle 2 carriers will be unloading at the Jo 3 Drive site instead of busying up 4 Meadowbrook and Grand River. So it 5 kind of moves that over to there. And 6 it will not increase the danger of fire 7 or endanger the safety of the public. 8 And it will not impair the established 9 property values within the surrounding 10 areas as you saw. And, in my mind, 11 it's just the right thing to do, and 12 that's what we are asking you to do. 13 We are here to answer any 14 questions that you might have, and we 15 look forward to that. Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, 17 Mr. Quinn. Is there anybody in the 18 audience who would like to make a 19 comment on this case only? If so, 20 please raise your hand, and I will 21 recognize you. Seeing none, I will 22 close the public remarks section and 23 ask our secretary if there is any 24 correspondence in terms of objections 25 or approval.
19 1 MEMBER SKELCY: There was one 2 objection from Rob Rochey. He 3 states, "We are lease holders in the 4 building next to 41107 Jo Drive. Cars 5 have been stored in a fenced-in area in 6 that location for the past couple 7 months. In addition, there is constant 8 traffic of these cars being moved in 9 and out of the location. The drivers 10 are very aggressive and reckless, and 11 it affects the safety of my employees 12 when they are entering or leaving our 13 parking lot. Therefore, we are opposed 14 to the requested variance." 15 That is dated 1/26/11. There 16 are no approvals, and we had no 17 returned mail. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Any 19 comments from the city on this 20 particular case? 21 MR. BOULARD: Nothing to 22 add. 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Then I 24 will open it up to the board for 25 discussion.
20 1 MS. KUDLA: I just want to 2 remind everybody it's a use variance, 3 and we have the undue hardship 4 standards rather than practical 5 difficulty. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thanks. 7 Anybody from the board have any 8 questions for the applicant? 9 Member Sanghvi. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: I have no 11 questions; I have a comment. 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Sure. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: I went to 14 the site and looked around, and I 15 personally have no difficulty in 16 supporting this application. I don't 17 think it's going to change much or 18 impact the area or interfere with 19 anything else that goes on there 20 already. Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anybody 22 else? Ms. Skelcy. 23 MEMBER SKELCY: Did he 24 purchase the property or is it being 25 leased?
21 1 MR. POBUR: They purchased 2 the property. 3 MEMBER SKELCY: What was the 4 purchase date? 5 MR. POBUR: Like May, 2010. 6 MR. QUINN: He's referencing 7 May of 2010, May or June. 8 MEMBER SKELCY: Will there be 9 a body shop there, or is it going to be 10 strictly prep? 11 MR. POBUR: No, not at this 12 time. 13 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. Do you 14 have plans in the future? 15 MR. POBUR: There is 16 probably -- there is probably not 17 enough room in the building to do that 18 right now. 19 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. 20 MR. POBUR: We'll probably 21 have to find another building if we are 22 going to do that. 23 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. Do you 24 do body shop work? 25 MR. POBUR: We do; we have a
22 1 body shop in Southfield. 2 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. 3 MR. POBUR: Between Eight and 4 Nine Mile on Telegraph. 5 MEMBER SKELCY: All right. 6 Thank you. No further questions. 7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member 8 Gedeon. 9 MEMBER GEDEON: Just as a 10 follow-up to that comment. I point out 11 the Planning Commission motion, Item 12 B, states that, "There will be no 13 vehicle undercoating, body repair and 14 collision work, painting, tire 15 recapping or auto dismantling." 16 And, in general, I mean, I 17 understand that this is the undue 18 hardship burden. But, I mean, this 19 applicant seems to have a lot of 20 compelling reasons to use the site in 21 this manner. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: 23 Member Krieger. 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: If you want 25 to comment toward the letter, the
23 1 objection letter that was read into the 2 minutes, if you want to comment. 3 MR. POBUR: I can comment on 4 that for sure. We have -- we did get a 5 complaint around that time, and we have 6 addressed it for sure, as far as the 7 drivers and so forth that go over that 8 way. 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. Then 10 I agree with the previous speakers. 11 Thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I just 13 have one question. You put one of the 14 pictures on the board that showed 15 yellow, you said about 60 spaces where 16 you intend on parking vehicles. 17 MR. QUINN: Yes. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Do you 19 intend on parking anywhere other than 20 those for the overnight vehicles? 21 MR. QUINN: No. They will 22 only be parked in existing parking 23 spaces. 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I'm also 25 in agreement with this, because I have
24 1 no problem with this. I think, first 2 of all, you made a very good case in 3 terms of the necessity of this under 4 the circumstances, given that you are 5 trying to retrofit this dealership from 6 a former dealership, so I have no 7 problem. 8 Any other comments or 9 questions for the board? Seeing none, 10 I will entertain a motion on this one. 11 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, in 12 Case 10-061, 41107 Jo Drive, I move 13 that we grant the request of the 14 applicant, as requested, for the 15 following reasons: That the property 16 cannot be reasonably used for any of 17 the uses permitted by right or by 18 special land use permit in the zoning 19 district in which it is located. The 20 need for the requested variance is due 21 to unique circumstances or physical 22 conditions of the property involved, 23 such as narrowness, the shallowness and 24 the topographic or similar physical 25 conditions, and is not due to the
25 1 applicants's personal or economic 2 hardship. That the proposed land use 3 will not alter the essential character 4 of the neighborhood. And as was stated 5 by the attorney for the applicant, the 6 area itself is pretty isolated. And, 7 really, I think this fits very well 8 with the character of the neighborhood. 9 That the need of the 10 requested variance is not the result of 11 actions of the proposed owner of the 12 property, being that it is not 13 self-created. And it is a Cadillac 14 dealership, and General Motors requires 15 certain consistency with each 16 dealership. And, obviously, the owners 17 of this dealership have gone to great 18 efforts to ensure that it complies with 19 what is required to maintain a 20 dealership. Therefore, based on the 21 foregoing reasons, I move that we grant 22 the request as stated by the applicant. 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing a 25 motion and a second, Ms. Marchioni, can
26 1 you please call the role. 2 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Ibe? 3 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 4 MS. MARCHIONI: Member 5 Krieger? 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 7 MS. MARCHIONI: 8 Member Sanghvi? 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 10 MS. MARCHIONI: 11 Member Ghannam? 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes. 13 MS. MARCHIONI: Member 14 Skelcy? 15 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 16 MS. MARCHIONI: Member 17 Gedeon? 18 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 19 MS. MARCHIONI: Motion 20 passes, six to zero. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: 22 Congratulations. 23 MR. QUINN: Thank you very 24 much. Come on down for your new 25 Cadillac.
27 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you 2 very much. 3 MR. QUINN: I don't mean it 4 that way. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next on 6 the agenda is Item No. 2, Case No. 7 11-006, for 30275 Hudson Drive. 8 Is the petitioner here? 9 Please come down, sir. It indicates 10 the petitioner is requesting a variance 11 to the required number of off-street 12 parking spaces. Petitioner is 13 proposing 110 parking spaces in lieu of 14 128 required by zoning ordinances. 15 Can you please state your 16 name and address. 17 MR. AMCHESLAVSKY: Hi, Oleg 18 Amcheslavsky, 26090 Lannys, Novi, 19 Michigan, 48375. 20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: If you are 21 not an attorney, please raise your hand 22 and be sworn by our secretary. Right 23 hand. 24 MR. AMCHESLAVSKY: Sorry. 25 MEMBER SKELCY: Do you swear
28 1 or affirm to tell the truth? 2 MR. AMCHESLAVSKY: Yes, I do. 3 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Go ahead, 5 sir. 6 MR. AMCHESLAVSKY: I go 7 first? 8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You may 9 proceed. 10 MR. AMCHESLAVSKY: Well, 11 basically, if you go to the Beck North 12 and Beck West, and I'm going to go as 13 far and say Novi Road campus, you have 14 a tremendous amount of building with a 15 tremendous amount of parking lot and a 16 tremendous amount of empty spaces. 17 These buildings almost look like they 18 are not rented, although they are. 19 And, you know, it's kind of a waste of 20 everybody's energy. The tenants are 21 getting upset. More and more I'm 22 hearing that, you know, they don't need 23 X amount of spaces. And it's starting 24 to make their businesses look like they 25 are empty, and we are trying to deal
29 1 with that. 2 In this particular case, this 3 is MAC/Apple Computers tenant. They 4 are more of a technology tenant. And 5 as we all know with technology 6 advances, we don't need as many people 7 in the building for communication. 8 I believe, I have my record 9 on me, but I think it says they have 10 about 65 employees -- 45 employees and 11 20 visitors on site for brief periods 12 of time, and 128 spaces is just way 13 over the amount that's needed, 14 especially for this tenant with their 15 communication capabilities. 16 If you look at the floor plan 17 that was proposed and that is being 18 developed, as we speak, it's mostly 19 open office, minimal one-person 20 offices, mostly conference rooms. 21 I don't know what else I can 22 say, except for it's a lot of parking 23 spaces for this use. I'd like to keep 24 the land available for people who need 25 the parking spaces and not waste them.
30 1 And the hardship is the tenant doesn't 2 want to see the building look empty. 3 I'm hearing more and more from all my 4 tenants. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anything 6 else, sir? 7 MR. AMCHESLAVSKY: That's 8 about it. 9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you. 10 At this time I will open it up to the 11 public for anybody who has any comment 12 on this particular case. Please step 13 forward or raise your hand. Seeing 14 none, I will close the public remarks 15 section and ask our secretary to read 16 any correspondence. 17 MEMBER SKELCY: There were 18 five notices mailed with no responses, 19 and one mail returned. 20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. I 21 will turn it over to the city for any 22 comments. 23 MS. KUDLA: I have none. 24 MR. BOULARD: Nothing to add. 25 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. I
31 1 will open it up to the board for 2 discussion. Member Sanghvi. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 4 Mr. Chairman. I did visit the site 5 yesterday and walked around there. 6 It's a beautiful area, which has 7 become -- it's going to be a very 8 prominent area before long. It's in a 9 very nice facility, very well laid out, 10 and I don't think these 18 spaces, or 11 whatever they are looking, is going to 12 make any substantial difference in 13 their site or their kind of business. 14 So, I have no difficulty in supporting 15 their application. Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you. 17 Anybody else? Comments or questions? 18 Member Krieger. 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Question. 20 You are on Lannys Drive, so you own 21 both or you are moving them to that 22 area? 23 MR. AMCHESLAVSKY: No, no, 24 Lannys is my office, and I use it as my 25 building address and my home address.
32 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. 2 MR. AMCHESLAVSKY: This is 3 not Hudson; this is Beck North 4 Industrial Park. 5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yeah, two 6 separate sites. 7 MR. AMCHESLAVSKY: Yeah, my 8 building is on Lannys. Whenever 9 somebody asks me where I live, I always 10 say Lannys. Technically, I live in 11 Commerce, but I really live in Novi. 12 MEMBER KRIEGER: No, I meant 13 the business is on Lannys, so I was -- 14 MR. AMCHESLAVSKY: My 15 business or my tenants? 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: I'm sorry, 17 the Nadlan that was on the application 18 is Novi and Grand River. 19 MR. AMCHESLAVSKY: Correct. 20 MEMBER KRIEGER: In addition 21 to -- this is in addition to that? 22 MR. AMCHESLAVSKY: No, no, 23 this has nothing to do with Nadlan. 24 Nadlan is the developer that built the 25 building for Apple Computers.
33 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. 2 Sorry. 3 MR. AMCHESLAVSKY: No 4 problem. I'm just trying to clarify. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member 6 Skelcy. 7 MEMBER SKELCY: What is land 8 banked parking? It says here, 9 "Twenty-six of the proposed parking 10 spaces will be in the form of land 11 banked parking." 12 MR. BOULARD: If I can jump 13 in. The zoning ordinance allows in 14 certain cases up to a given percentage 15 of parking spaces not to be built, and 16 the land is set aside. The plan 17 includes those spaces and makes sure 18 the orientation is there and the space 19 for them if they are needed for the 20 future. They don't need to be 21 constructed up front. 22 What's happening here is they 23 have a tenant that appears to require 24 less parking than would typically be 25 required, so there is reduced -- they
34 1 requested to reduce the parking spaces. 2 In addition, some of those parking 3 spaces may not be constructed 4 immediately, but they are included in 5 the site plan and could be available 6 later on that property if there is a 7 need. So they are not paved at this 8 point, but they are essentially already 9 approved. 10 MEMBER SKELCY: So 26 of the 11 110 are not built? 12 MR. BOULARD: Correct. 13 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. Thank 14 you. 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Along 16 those lines, I've got a couple 17 questions. First of all, sir, with 18 this new tenant, will that complete the 19 occupancy of this building? 20 MR. AMCHESLAVSKY: Yeah, it's 21 a single tenant. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: It's a 23 single tenant? 24 MR. AMCHESLAVSKY: 25 Approximately 40,000 square feet.
35 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Is it a 2 requirement that you receive this 3 variance in order for the tenant to 4 move in? 5 MR. AMCHESLAVSKY: No, it's 6 not a requirement, it's just that it 7 was a major request, and kind of a 8 promise made to them they wouldn't be 9 over-parked. 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: And, for 11 the city, can this be limited to this 12 particular tenant, this variance? 13 MS. KUDLA: Yes. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: In other 15 words, if this tenant moved out later 16 and they got a new tenant, that may 17 require -- they would have to address 18 it at that time? 19 MS. KUDLA: Correct. 20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay, I 21 understand. In this case, I would tend 22 to agree, but I would just recommend a 23 limitation with this particular tenant. 24 If the tenancy changes in the future, 25 it will have to be revisited at that
36 1 time. 2 MR. AMCHESLASKY: I hope it 3 doesn't. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other 5 questions or comments? Seeing none, 6 anybody want to make a motion? 7 Member Krieger, please. 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: In Case No. 9 11-006, on 30275 Hudson Drive, 10 MacProfessionals, I move to approve the 11 variance request for the number of 12 off-street parking spaces, that the 13 petitioner is proposing 110 in lieu of 14 the 128. And this will be for this 15 particular tenant and need to be 16 revisited in the future if a new tenant 17 was to move in; hopefully not. And 18 that the parking structure, so that 19 they would have for the office space as 20 requested, the 11,750 square feet for 21 office, moved to 23,378 for office. 22 And then the warehouse, they move from 23 21,416 to 15,991 for 6,203 square foot 24 change. 25 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any
37 1 second? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any 4 further discussion? Seeing none, 5 Ms. Marchioni, can you call the role, 6 please. 7 MS. MARCHIONI: 8 Member Krieger? 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 10 MS. MARCHIONI: 11 Member Sanghvi? 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 13 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Ibe? 14 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 15 MS. MARCHIONI: Chairman 16 Ghannam? 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes. 18 MS. MARCHIONI: 19 Member Skelcy? 20 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 21 MS. MARCHIONI: Member 22 Gedeon? 23 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 24 MS. MARCHIONI: Motion 25 passes, six to zero.
38 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: 2 Congratulations. 3 MR. AMCHESLAVSKY: Thank you 4 very much. Thank you for your support. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next on 6 the agenda is Item No. 3, Case 11-007, 7 24255 Novi Road. The petitioner is 8 requesting a variance to install a 30 9 square foot multi-tenant business 10 center sign to include four business 11 names at the Pine Ridge Center, which 12 is located at 24255 Novi Road. 13 Property is zoned B-3 and located north 14 of Ten Mile on the west side of 15 Novi Road. 16 Are both of you going to be 17 speaking tonight? 18 MR. FREER: I will be 19 speaking. 20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Just raise 21 your right hand and be sworn. 22 MEMBER SKELCY: This is my 23 first night being the secretary. Do 24 you swear or affirm to tell the truth? 25 MR. FREER: Yes.
39 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Go ahead 2 and state your name and address, and 3 then you can proceed. 4 MR. FREER: My name is Marty 5 Freer, representing Inter City Neon 6 Signs. My Address is 10 Winnington 7 (ph) in Troy, Michigan. 8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Go ahead, 9 sir. 10 MR. FREER: We are requesting 11 a variance for the Pine Ridge Center 12 for new signage for four tenant panels. 13 The site itself on Novi Road is built 14 out into a depression, and it's 15 obscured from the street by trees. And 16 we believe that putting some signage 17 out near the road would allow people to 18 actually realize the tenants which are 19 within the center. And possibly also 20 help to stop any safety issues out 21 there with people trying to (inaudible) 22 into the center. 23 It's also built on an 24 L-shape, and as you come southbound on 25 Novi Road, you actually almost pass the
40 1 entire center before you actually know 2 it's even there. So, is there anything 3 you would like to add? 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Nothing 5 else, sir? 6 MR. FREER: No. There is 7 other people that I do believe would 8 like to speak. 9 MS. BARNES: I would. 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: If there 11 is nothing else, I will open it up to 12 the public for any comments on this 13 particular case. Please come forward. 14 Sir, if you could just step 15 aside and let her speak. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Ma'am, 17 please state your name and address. 18 MS. BARNES: I'm Anne Marie 19 Barnes. I'm one of the owners of Pine 20 Ridge. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. If 22 you can raise your right hand and be 23 sworn. 24 MEMBER SKELCY: Do you swear 25 or affirm to tell the truth?
41 1 MS. BARNES: Yes, I do. 2 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you. 3 MS. BARNES: Our partners 4 haven't received a penny for three 5 years now because of the economy. The 6 tenants there are complaining that 7 there is no signage for them, that they 8 are losing a lot of business, and now 9 they are going to do this tremendous 10 road construction. And, I mean, we are 11 just holding on. And I feel -- we 12 would like to make improvements and 13 make the shopping center look better, 14 but we are just making it. 15 Like I said, the partners 16 haven't received a penny in three 17 years. And I just think that we really 18 need to have the sign changed. And not 19 only just four panels, but for all the 20 people that are there, all the tenants 21 that are in there. 22 We have one that's gone in 23 there, we have a five-year lease with 24 them, and they are complaining bitterly 25 that they are not making enough money,
42 1 that they need the advertisement. And 2 I think that, as they stated, I think 3 it was in the Free Press about the road 4 being re-built and, you know, made 5 wider to suit the things that are going 6 on in the city. I think the city needs 7 to change the sign -- I mean, the times 8 have changed. It's not just a little 9 place. And it's been a great shopping 10 center, but we have to do something to 11 make it better, to make it so that the 12 tenants are going to want to stay 13 there, so that we can get new tenants. 14 We lost tenants. 15 And I think that it's, you 16 know, the city needs to change. I 17 mean, we are supporting the city; the 18 city needs to support us now. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, 20 ma'am. 21 Sir, are you going to speak? 22 MR. MARTIN: May I? 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You can. 24 Just give your name and address and 25 raise your right hand and be sworn.
43 1 MR. MARTIN: I'm Paul Martin, 2 I live at 18010 Meridian, Grosse Ile, 3 Michigan. 4 MEMBER SKELCY: Do you swear 5 or affirm to tell the truth? 6 MR. MARTIN: Yes. 7 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Go ahead, 9 sir. If you can speak closer to the 10 microphone. 11 MR. MARTIN: We have had such 12 tenants at the center as Honey Baked 13 Ham, which you are all familiar with, 14 Play It Again Sports, and they both 15 moved out because they didn't have 16 enough viewage from the street. If you 17 drive by, you actually have to really 18 look over there, and it is more of a 19 hazard. 20 Coming in here today, it's 21 the first time I have been here, I 22 notice that you have a sign out front 23 that's lit, that says what's going on 24 at the center. If it's good enough for 25 the city, I was wondering why wouldn't
44 1 it be good enough for taxpaying 2 citizens? That's my comment. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 4 Thank you. Anybody else from the 5 public that would like to make a 6 comment on this case, please step 7 forward. Sir, come on up. Go ahead 8 and state your name and address. 9 MR. WOLFORD: Peter Wolford. 10 I'm one of the tenants of the strip 11 mall that we are discussing. 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Raise your 13 right hand, sir, and be sworn. 14 MEMBER SKELCY: Do you swear 15 or affirm to tell the truth? 16 MR. WOLFORD: I do. 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Go ahead, 18 sir. Speak toward the microphone, 19 please. 20 MR. WOLFORD: One of the 21 concerns that I had when I saw the 22 notification that was going out is that 23 it's limited to four signs of tenants 24 in there. There are 20 spaces in the 25 strip mall. I would like to get some
45 1 feeling as to how it's going to be 2 determined who the select four are. 3 You know, I have very mixed 4 opinions about the existing sign that 5 we have up there. You know, I think it 6 needs a bit of a paint job and things 7 like that to make it look a little more 8 sort of user friendly. 9 The present sign is, as you 10 probably know, is just like, Pine Ridge 11 Center sign, which has been up there. 12 We have been a tenant at the strip mall 13 for I think about 16 years, 14, 16 14 years, something like that, and we have 15 always had just the Pine Ridge Center 16 sign up. And I think to use it as a 17 point of reference, it's been 18 important, because the buildings do sit 19 back from the road. But, you know, I 20 think that to remove the Pine Ridge 21 Center sign would also be harmful, 22 because I think through all these 23 years, the tenants who are there, we 24 have used it as a reference point. I'd 25 like to see the sign stay there and
46 1 maybe have it be modified. Just the 2 names up there really doesn't help that 3 matter. It's -- most people, you know, 4 will relate to the Pine Ridge Center, 5 if you explain exactly where it is. 6 Other than that, I don't have any other 7 comments. 8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All right. 9 Thank you, sir. Anybody else from the 10 public who would like to make a comment 11 on this particular case? 12 MS. BARNES: I do have a 13 letter I'd like you to read. And, 14 actually, the other partners and some 15 of the other people, but I left them; I 16 didn't mail them in. 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: In terms 18 of the support for this particular 19 case? 20 MS. BARNES: Yes. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Do we have 22 to read these into the record? 23 MS. BARNES: It's not very 24 long. 25 MS. KUDLA: If it's not
47 1 submitted into the record, it should be 2 read into the record. She should 3 probably submit it if she has an extra 4 copy. 5 MS. BARNES: I do have an 6 extra copy. 7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: This is 8 from one of the tenants, ma'am? 9 MS. BARNES: This is from one 10 of the owners. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: If 12 addition to yourself? 13 MS. BARNES: Yes. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I see what 15 you are talking about. Why don't you 16 go ahead and bring it forward, ma'am. 17 Our secretary will read this into the 18 record, please. 19 MEMBER SKELCY: The letter is 20 from Delores Miller, dated March 12, 21 2011. 22 "To whom it may concern. I 23 am a partner in the above-referenced 24 shopping center. This is a formal 25 request that we be permitted to replace
48 1 the pylon sign located on this 2 property. 3 "The center needs a sign that 4 will afford better advertisement for 5 the shops located in the center. It is 6 urgent that this issue be addressed 7 immediately. The impending 8 construction on Novi Road and its 9 closure to traffic will result in a 10 significant economic impact and 11 financial hardships to the tenants 12 located in Pine Ridge. Our concern is 13 that not only will the tenants and 14 their shops be affected, but so will 15 the viability of this center. 16 "Our center and our tenants 17 provide a necessary niche in this 18 community, and we believe that 19 modernizing the sign will reduce the 20 burden. I am requesting that the 21 hearing to discuss this issue be 22 scheduled at your next board meeting. 23 Thank you for your consideration." 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Any 25 other public comments on this
49 1 particular case? Seeing none, I will 2 close the public remarks section and 3 ask our secretary to read any other 4 correspondence. 5 MEMBER SKELCY: There were a 6 total of five objections, and it was 7 joined together. It includes Sang Doe, 8 S-a-n-g, D-o-e, Novi Pizza Company, The 9 Frame Peddler, Yoko's Hair Salon and 10 Fumi Restaurant. This is a two-page 11 objection with regard to the fact that 12 only four tenants will be listed on the 13 sign, and as to what criteria was used 14 when selecting the four tenants. 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you. 16 Any other correspondence? 17 MEMBER SKELCY: There were no 18 approvals, and five mail returned, and 19 no other objections. 20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Any 21 comments from the city? 22 MS. KUDLA: No. 23 MR. BOULARD: Just a couple 24 questions, if I could, for the 25 petitioner.
50 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Sure. 2 MR. BOULARD: I just want to 3 clarify. I believe I had -- when I was 4 putting together the information for 5 the board, I wanted to confirm that the 6 existing sign is intended to be 7 removed? 8 MR. FREER: Yes, it is. 9 MR. BOULARD: If this 10 variance is granted? 11 MR. FREER: Yes, it is. 12 MR. BOULARD: The other 13 question, and perhaps it was my 14 misunderstanding. I understood there 15 had been some conversation or some 16 information had gone to the other 17 tenants of the space. I guess my 18 question is in terms of all the tenants 19 in the mall, what -- if you could tell 20 us, what's going to keep all the other 21 tenants from coming and saying, "Well, 22 these four people got a sign, why 23 shouldn't we have one"? 24 MR. FREER: Well, when we 25 first proposed to add tenant signage,
51 1 we thought that four was a bit of a 2 reach, due to the fact that zero is 3 allowed in the district. So, four was 4 a bit of a reach. I mean, we could 5 have gone for 12, 16, but we thought 6 that would have been denied. 7 MR. BOULARD: And I guess my 8 question would be, once you give it to 9 four, why shouldn't the others have it? 10 MR. FREER: Well, there is 11 the opportunity to change faces. The 12 city does allow face changes within the 13 sign, and it's nothing more than an 14 application or permit that's granted, 15 and faces can be changed. So, possibly 16 an accommodation could be made for the 17 other tenants through a face change. 18 MR. BOULARD: Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: As I open 20 it up to the board, I have a couple 21 questions for the city. We are just 22 simply granting their request for a 23 30-foot, multi-tenant sign with the 24 existing taken out, correct? 25 MS. KUDLA: Correct.
52 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Are they 2 limited to the four tenants as opposed 3 to more or less as part of this 4 request, or we are just approving the 5 30 square foot or disapproving? 6 MR. BOULARD: The ordinance 7 does not allow any tenant names at all. 8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: That I 9 understand. 10 MR. BOULARD: The request is 11 for a new sign with four tenants. 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: If we 13 approve it or disapprove, it's based on 14 30 square feet and the number of 15 tenants that can be advertised on that 16 sign? 17 MS. KUDLA: Correct. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: So it's 19 either that be approved or that be 20 denied? 21 MS. KUDLA: Yes. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: With that 23 in mind, sir, you had other tenants, 24 and their concerns, whether you or the 25 owner, they want to comment on that
53 1 particular issue? I know as part of 2 your request you put four names there, 3 but I assume that's not the four names 4 that are going to be printed on the 5 sign. 6 MR. FREER: No. Actually, we 7 had to change one of them because he's 8 no longer there. 9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: So my 10 question, I guess if you are saying 11 your difficulty is the location setback 12 and so forth. 13 MR. FREER: Yes. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: And I 15 understand that. I have been by that 16 center a million times; I live in that 17 area. I understand, because I don't 18 know all the tenants, you don't see 19 them, because they are not prominent. 20 If one is approved, who is to decide 21 which four tenants are going to be on 22 that sign? 23 MR. FREER: I can't answer 24 that for you, being just the sign 25 person. Possibly the owner. I'm not
54 1 sure exactly how they want to handle 2 it. I only heard about the issues with 3 other tenants this previous week. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: That's a 5 logical question. 6 MR. FREER: No, no, I 7 understand, 100 percent. Believe me, 8 if I thought we could get 12 tenant 9 panels, we would have come in front of 10 you for that. I did not believe we 11 would have possibly even four. 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Ma'am, can 13 you comment on that? 14 MS. BARNES: He's absolutely 15 right. We probably could keep the sign 16 the same size, maybe make the lettering 17 smaller, and in one space put two names 18 or rotate them. Or the other -- the 19 other thing we were thinking is we were 20 thinking of a digital sign. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: That's not 22 up before us tonight, ma'am. 23 MS. BARNES: No. 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You have 25 one, 30 foot square --
55 1 MR. FREER: That's right. 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: One 30 3 foot sign with four tenant spaces. 4 MS. BARNES: Yes. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: My 6 question is, how do you address the 7 other tenants and the city as to who 8 goes on it? 9 MS. BARNES: Well, we put 10 them in strips. We could cut the 11 strips in half; that would give us 12 eight. Or we could rotate it, put 13 different names in there. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: But isn't 15 that improper? 16 MS. KUDLA: The request was 17 for four tenants, so if you are 18 requesting more, you would have to 19 modify your request and come back for 20 an increase variance to get more 21 tenants on the sign. 22 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Do 23 that. 24 MR. MARTIN: If I could 25 address. I don't know if I can at this
56 1 point. 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Let me let 3 the board ask some questions; maybe 4 that will answer some questions. 5 Member Skelcy. 6 MEMBER SKELCY: I have a 7 question for the building owner. I 8 have some questions. 9 MS. BARNES: Okay. 10 MEMBER SKELCY: You are the 11 one that's making the application for 12 the sign, correct? 13 MS. BARNES: Yes. 14 MEMBER SKELCY: And yet you 15 have tenants who are calling you up and 16 saying, "I'm upset because my name is 17 not going to appear on the sign," is 18 that correct? 19 MS. BARNES: Yes. 20 MEMBER SKELCY: So, I cannot 21 support this application when, you 22 know, you are not certain what names 23 are going to be up there or how many 24 can be up there. And if you've got 25 internal problems with your tenants,
57 1 who even sent objections to us about 2 this particular request. 3 MS. BARNES: Well, the thing 4 is that you -- the city says zero is to 5 be up there. So we are just asking for 6 four, so that we can at least get a 7 start. So that we can -- the fact that 8 the four would be up there would be 9 beneficial to the others that are 10 there. Because if somebody comes in to 11 see Once Upon A Child, they are going 12 to come into the shopping center, and 13 they are going to see the other tenants 14 there. 15 I can't answer that. And 16 many of the other shopping centers, I 17 mean, they may have 12 or 20 tenants in 18 there, but they only have four to six 19 names on the sign. And that's what we 20 based it on. We figured if we could 21 just get something. And then if there 22 is a problem or something, we can come 23 back and say, "Okay, can we get a 24 couple more names on there?" Or, "You 25 know, how can we handle this so that we
58 1 can rotate the names?" Leaving the 2 sign the same height and everything. 3 We need something. 4 MEMBER SKELCY: I can 5 understand you need something, but I 6 would suggest that you get your house 7 in order with regard to how many names 8 are going to be on the sign after all, 9 and what size of sign you actually 10 need. 11 MS. BARNES: Well, we based 12 it on the tenants that we feel that we 13 put there, they have been there a long 14 time. They pay their rent; they have 15 signed new leases. I mean, the tenants 16 that -- some of the tenants that are 17 debating this, they won't give us a 18 lease. They don't pay the rent. And 19 we are -- you know, the people that are 20 out there are the people who is paying 21 their rent. They are the people who 22 give the ten-year lease or five-year 23 lease. These others, we have no lease, 24 and they don't pay the rent. And 25 that's what we based it on.
59 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other 2 questions? 3 MEMBER SKELCY: No, thank 4 you. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. I 6 think Member Krieger was next; she had 7 her hand up. Do you have any 8 questions? 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: I agree with 10 the previous speaker, and that if I was 11 the owner or partner of an ownership of 12 a building, and I had 20 tenants, I 13 would want the input of my 20 tenants 14 so I didn't lose them all, and have a 15 meeting with them before I came to the 16 city with any request. So I also 17 cannot support this at this time. 18 Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member 20 Ibe. 21 MEMBER IBE: Ma'am, I 22 completely understand your previous 23 comments to why you want the sign. And 24 you understand that, of course, we live 25 in a different time economically wise,
60 1 and everybody wants more exposure. 2 However, perhaps I think you have 3 jumped the gun. Perhaps maybe more 4 of (inaudible) you got 20 tenants, you 5 are concerned of everybody getting 6 exposure. Chances are, the way you are 7 going about this, you may end up losing 8 more tenants, which means you will end 9 up with more vacancies in that spot. 10 It appears, based upon what 11 I'm getting the feedback from the 12 members here -- 13 MS. BARNES: Okay -- 14 MEMBER IBE: Excuse me. One 15 moment, please. If we were to take a 16 vote tonight, chances are that your 17 proposal may not pass. Even though you 18 mean well, it may not pass. 19 May I suggest, and it's just 20 a suggestion for you and the other 21 parties who are in support of this, 22 perhaps you go back and work things out 23 with the people, the owners as well as 24 the tenants, talk about this. Now, you 25 have ways to get four people in there.
61 1 It's called a contract, in your lease, 2 you can specify things like that. So 3 that perhaps this will be an incentive 4 to get people to sign a new lease or 5 the same one, maybe. So I would 6 suggest you go back and re-visit this 7 issue and table this so that it will 8 give you a better opportunity to be 9 prepared when you come back to us. 10 Because if we vote today, ma'am, 11 chances are you may not get what you 12 want, and that wouldn't be good for 13 you. 14 MS. BARNES: Except we only 15 have seven tenants right now. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: But there 17 is 20 spaces. 18 MS. BARNES: Not necessarily. 19 Depends on how much -- if somebody came 20 in there and how much space they would 21 take. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next, 23 Member Sanghvi. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 25 I have another question for the
62 1 attorney. Is it within the terms of 2 the reference of Zoning Board of 3 Appeals to go in and figure whose name 4 they should put and why they should put 5 it? 6 MS. KUDLA: Only from the 7 perspective of whether or not they plan 8 on coming back and asking for an 9 increase in signage, because they 10 haven't really determined how many 11 people are on there and whether this is 12 the actual request or not. At this 13 time, it seems like maybe there is some 14 question about what the request is. If 15 they are certain that the request is 16 for four-tenant signage, you can make 17 that determination today based on what 18 you heard. If you feel that you need 19 more information on whether or not it 20 actually is for a four-tenant sign, you 21 can table it and ask for more 22 information on that aspect. But how it 23 gets assigned really is not within the 24 parameters of your decision. You just 25 need to know what action is the request
63 1 that's being made today. 2 MS. BARNES: Okay. We would 3 like to table it, if we could. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I 5 appreciate that. Let me just make sure 6 everybody has their questions in and 7 you have a clear idea of what you want 8 to do. 9 Do you have any other 10 questions, Member Sanghvi? 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: No, just I 12 want to give them an opportunity to 13 come back and fix things. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member 15 Gedeon. 16 MEMBER GEDEON: I guess I'm 17 not in total agreement with the other 18 board members here. I think we are 19 making this way too complicated. They 20 made a request for four-sign slots on 21 this sign. And as the city pointed 22 out, it's a net reduction of the pole 23 sign is coming down. So, I mean, this 24 seems to make a lot of sense to me. 25 And I would also make
64 1 reference to our meeting, I believe it 2 was in January or December, when it was 3 obviously a different zoning ordinance 4 section, when we approved the monument 5 sign for the Town Center, which had 6 four tenant spaces on it. So I think 7 this is somewhat comparable, even if 8 it's zoned sort of differently. So I 9 would not have problems supporting this 10 as applied right now. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other 12 comments? I actually understand his 13 point, as a basis, and I can appreciate 14 it. The problem is, you mentioned, 15 "Well, we'll change the signs, we'll 16 come back and get bigger signs." Your 17 job is to minimize the request that you 18 are making. It is a variance. The 19 city ordinance says you can't have it, 20 you are right. You are asking for an 21 exception to the rule, which you are 22 entitled to request. Your job is to 23 come and minimize your request and 24 really only do it once. I don't think 25 it would be a good idea to come back
65 1 every other month, every time you want 2 to change the sign or enlarge it or 3 things like that. So, if you do want 4 to table it, we can certainly vote on 5 that today, if that's your request. 6 MS. BARNES: Yes, we would 7 like to table it. 8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: With that 9 in mind, is there anybody that is 10 willing to make a motion to table this? 11 Would you want it for one 12 month, ma'am? Or how many months do 13 you want? As we are talking, when is 14 our next meeting, May what? 15 MS. MARCHIONI: May 10th. 16 MR. BOULARD: If I might, 17 there is a couple things. If the 18 request is going to be other than for 19 this size sign with the four names on 20 it, we would need to re-advertise. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Right. 22 MR. BOULARD: I would suggest 23 then perhaps we delay for -- to a date 24 certain two months out, so that there 25 is enough time to get everything on
66 1 paper and respond. 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You 3 understand that, ma'am? 4 MS. BARNES: Yes. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: If there 6 is -- if you are going to keep the same 7 request, a month shouldn't be a 8 problem. If you are going to change 9 the request and add to your request, it 10 would need to be re-advertised. So 11 would you like the June meeting? 12 MS. BARNES: Okay, we'll do 13 the June meeting. 14 MS. KUDLA: June 14th. 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: June 14th. 16 Would there be anybody willing to make 17 a motion to adjourn this to the June 18 14th meeting? 19 MEMBER SKELCY: I move that 20 we table Case No. 11-007, for 21 24255 Novi Road, Pine Ridge Center, and 22 that we table it until June 16th, 2011. 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: June 24 14th. 25 MEMBER SKELCY: Oh, 14th,
67 1 2011. 2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any 4 further discussion? With that in mind, 5 Ms. Marchioni, will you please call the 6 role. 7 MS. MARCHIONI: Member 8 Skelcy? 9 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 10 MS. MARCHIONI: 11 Member Krieger? 12 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 13 MS. MARCHIONI: 14 Member Sanghvi? 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 16 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Ibe? 17 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 18 MS. MARCHIONI: Chairman 19 Ghannam? 20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes. 21 MS. MARCHIONI: 22 Member Gedeon? 23 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 24 MS. MARCHIONI: Motion 25 passes, six to zero.
68 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Your 2 matter is tabled to June 14, 2011. 3 MS. BARNES: Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you. 5 Next on the agenda is Item No. 4, 6 Case No. 11-008, for 26444 Taft Road. 7 The petitioner is requesting four 8 variances for the proposed use of an 9 existing non-conforming structure for a 10 professional office located at 26444 11 Taft Road. 12 MR. CAPELLO: Good evening. 13 I'm Kim Capello; I'm the petitioner. 14 I'm here today to ask for a variance, 15 four variances, as you have stated, 16 26444 Taft Road. It's a small 24-by-24 17 foot home. The setback line goes 18 almost right through the middle of the 19 home, 13 feet into the home from the 20 front, which leaves me basically with 21 an 11-foot-by-24-foot work area in back 22 of the house. 23 Originally, when I was here 24 three-and-a-half, four years ago, the 25 intent was we were going to tear the
69 1 house down, build on the north end of 2 the property. The lower level was 3 going to be used and occupied by a 4 restaurant manufacturer preparing 5 foods. And then I was going to occupy 6 the top floor for office purposes. 7 Given the economy, the 8 restaurateur has found brand spanking 9 new retail space much cheaper than he 10 can build space, so he has decided to 11 build out in Plymouth, and he's 12 occupying space there. As a result, we 13 changed plans, decided to move the new 14 structure to the south. We are going 15 to retain the existing house as part of 16 the structure. 17 As part of that site plan 18 approval, I was told I would still have 19 to come back in front of you. Problem 20 again, is you hear from anybody who 21 comes here, the economy. I can't get 22 any financing to build the addition at 23 this stage because of the cost of 24 construction wouldn't support the rents 25 that I could get in Novi today. People
70 1 are paying $10 gross square foot for 2 pretty reasonable office space here in 3 Novi, and that certainly wouldn't 4 support a mortgage payment on a new 5 structure. 6 So, what I'm intending to do 7 for the time being, is to keep the 8 existing space, occupy it as a law 9 office, and at some point in the 10 future, hopefully not too distant 11 future, then head on. I got the plans 12 and over $30,000 in engineering and 13 construction, construction drawings. 14 Plans are ready to go, but I need the 15 economy's boost in order to help me get 16 the financing for it. 17 I know it looks bad. I'm 18 asking for four variances, and I really 19 don't want four, but I need to ask for 20 four. The setback is obvious, because 21 the house as existing was existing when 22 the zoning ordinance changed. I would 23 love to pave the parking lot and put 24 asphalt down. I would love to do some 25 landscaping in front. However, when I
71 1 get to the point of asking for the 2 paving of the landscaping, I think I'm 3 getting into the stages where I need to 4 submit site plan approval for the 5 existing house. That's an additional 6 cost, and I did not want to have to go 7 through that process. 8 I'm not trying to cheat on 9 every aspect. I still will try to 10 figure out some way to come in and put 11 some -- I'm going to re-do the facade 12 of the home. I'm sure there is some 13 level of landscaping I can put in 14 without having to go through site plan 15 approval, and I intend to do that. And 16 I am going to continue to pursue to see 17 if there is some type of pavement I can 18 do other than gravel. 19 Now, Novi has -- we have a 20 problem. And I say we, I'm not 21 pointing at you as a city, because I 22 have been there, and I tried to work 23 through this. Remember, it's still 24 there at Ten Mile, the Kroger shopping 25 center, that needed a facelift.
72 1 Unfortunately, we haven't been so lucky 2 that all the development coming in is 3 new. So we don't have a mechanism 4 where an existing building or existing 5 center can improve itself without 6 having to bring the center up to a 7 hundred percent of the current 8 standards. And, in most cases, that is 9 not cost effective. And that's the 10 problem that I have now; that's the 11 problem at Ten Mile and Meadowbrook. 12 But, if this is granted, I'm 13 still going to work with the building 14 department to see what I can do to 15 continue to improve that site. I just 16 got water at the front; we would be 17 looking at the water. And occupying, 18 my wife and I, as a law office. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you. 20 Any comments from the public on this 21 matter at this time? Seeing none, I 22 will close the public remarks section 23 and ask the secretary to read any 24 correspondence. 25 MEMBER SKELCY: Nineteen
73 1 notices were mailed. There was one 2 approval and one objection. 3 The approval is from Robert 4 Ledbetter. "I live in the house next 5 to Kim Capello. He has been a good 6 neighbor and has always maintained his 7 property. I have no objection to his 8 future office plans with his property." 9 The objection comes from 10 Larry Santos, dated April 7, 2011. It 11 reads as follows: "I believe that city 12 records show that in 2007 Mr. Capello 13 was given a non-conforming use variance 14 for 18 months, in which time he was to 15 submit a plan for a structure adhering 16 to zoning requirements. Mr. Capello 17 promised to do so at that time. He did 18 not do so. 19 "Now, after non-conforming 20 for an additional four years, he now 21 requests the same non-conforming use 22 for a vague amount of time until a new 23 conforming structure can be built. 24 Same promise. Can he be trusted to 25 honor his word, now that he has failed
74 1 to do so in the past, and has flaunted 2 city ordinance requirements? I don't 3 think so. 4 "I have for the past four to 5 five years asked him in writing, both 6 from my lawyer and myself, to stop 7 mowing on my land, and especially in 8 the wetland area of my land. He has 9 ignored my many requests, and to this 10 day continues to mow on my land and in 11 the wetlands. I hired a surveyor to 12 put survey stakes on the lot line. 13 They were gone in less than a day. 14 "In addition, several years 15 ago I desired to build a recording 16 studio on my land just south of the 17 non-conforming use building in 18 question. I came before the zoning 19 board asking for essentially the same 20 kind of variances Mr. Capello is 21 currently requesting. I was turned 22 down on all counts. That fact is 23 public record. If the board allows 24 Capello the variances he asks for, will 25 they then allow me the similar
75 1 variances I asked for and thereby allow 2 me to build a recording studio now? 3 "In conclusion, I strongly 4 urge the zoning board to disallow the 5 variances Mr. Capello again requests 6 after four years of flaunting 7 non-conformance." 8 There were two mail returns, 9 as well. 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any 11 comments from the city? 12 MS. KUDLA: I have none. 13 MR. BOULARD: Nothing to add. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. I 15 will open it up to the board for 16 discussion. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Question. 18 This came before the ZBA about four 19 years ago and a variance was granted 20 for 18 months. What happened in 21 between? What did the city do about 22 the lapse of the variance time? 23 MR. BOULARD: About the time 24 shortly after the variance - and 25 Mr. Capello could speak to this, also -
76 1 shortly after the time that the 2 variance expired, there was a fair 3 amount of communication back and forth 4 about different -- there were some 5 different things that were -- different 6 ideas for the property and directions 7 to go forward that the board discussed. 8 And, finally, at this juncture we are 9 back here to try to resolve this. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Because if 11 my memory serves me right, when 12 Mr. Capello came the previous time, 13 with the very clear understanding that 14 this was a temporary grant of variance 15 and not a permanent one. And I don't 16 think I can support a permanent 17 variance. Thank you. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other 19 questions or comments by the board? 20 MEMBER SKELCY: Can you -- I 21 have a question. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes, 23 Member Skelcy. 24 MEMBER SKELCY: Mr. Capello, 25 can you speak to the length of time
77 1 that's taken place between the 18 2 months and now? 3 MR. CAPELLO: Yes. Charles 4 is right. We have continually had 5 communications. The building was 6 moved, the idea with the 18 months, I 7 was going to come back and tell you 8 where we stood in regard to planning 9 and development of the property. When 10 my partners decided to go in another 11 direction, the building was moved, so I 12 had the plans re-designed and re-done, 13 and hoping that the next set of plans 14 was going to lead to construction of 15 the building and to site plan approval. 16 With the economy, I didn't get there. 17 It is my fault that it took 18 me this long to get here. I had 19 nothing to report because I didn't know 20 what I was going to do. At this stage, 21 all that I know that I'm going to do is 22 that I can't afford to build right now. 23 So, to stop the discussions, to put 24 administration on the spot, I have come 25 back in front of you and said, "I need
78 1 this variance to keep the house as it 2 is until something is going to happen." 3 And, eventually, something will happen; 4 I just can't tell you when. That's 5 been the reason for my delay, because I 6 didn't have anything specific to tell 7 you. 8 MEMBER SKELCY: So you have 9 no timeline at all with regard to when 10 you want to build the enhanced 11 building? 12 MR. CAPELLO: It's entirely 13 dictated by the economy. I can't build 14 until I'm able to get tenants in there 15 to pay the rents. And a tenant -- it's 16 going to be a small building, to pay 17 the rent to support the mortgage. The 18 way that the rental rates now in 19 existing office buildings in Novi are, 20 it's not going to support a mortgage. 21 As I said, you can get space for 10, 22 $12 gross a square foot, which is 23 phenomenally cheap. It's not going to 24 support a mortgage. Those rates have 25 to go up before I can get a tenant to
79 1 pay the rents that building. I don't 2 know when that's going to happen. 3 MEMBER SKELCY: Once you do 4 the proposed building, will you remain 5 in it as well? 6 MR. CAPELLO: Oh, yeah. 7 We're bursting. It's just my wife and 8 I, but 24 square feet, we are bursting 9 at the seams right now; we need more 10 room. I just can't afford it right 11 now. I even looked -- I even looked 12 before I came here, looked at phasing 13 the construction and building 1,200 14 square feet now on the back and 1,200 15 square feet later. Again, financially, 16 that wasn't going to make sense to 17 break up the construction. 18 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you. I 19 have no other questions. 20 MR. CAPELLO: And I apologize 21 for the delay. You are right, it's my 22 fault. But, if you recall, if you were 23 here, the only reason you gave me 18 24 months is because we anticipated in 25 asking -- we anticipated by 18 months
80 1 we would have plans in place. That 2 just didn't happen. It wasn't really 3 something you dictated to me; it was an 4 idea of when I thought I would be able 5 to give you something more concrete. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other 7 questions or comments? Member 8 Krieger. 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: If you could 10 do like a tentative in two years, if we 11 asked you to come back and say, "I'm 12 continuing my non-conforming because of 13 the zoning change," that because of the 14 economy, you can't tell right now. Say 15 we ask you to come back in two years to 16 see where you are at. 17 MR. CAPELLO: I'm just trying 18 to put an end to this so that the 19 administration and I aren't back and 20 forth, even though I don't mind talking 21 to administration, but so we are not 22 back and forth and constantly putting 23 them on the spot that I'm beyond my 24 time period, what do we do again? I 25 can come back and tell you whenever and
81 1 whatever you want to hear. 2 I've got $30,000 invested in 3 engineering, architectural and 4 construction drawings. So, you know, 5 I'm ready to go as soon as the money is 6 available to do the construction, but I 7 have no idea when. And I will be 8 honest, I would be very surprised if 9 the economy in that market is going to 10 pick up in the next two years. The 11 only thing that's somewhat stable out 12 there is retail, but office is real 13 slow. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I just 15 have a question for the city. Why did 16 this particular building become 17 non-comforming originally? 18 MR. BOULARD: This building 19 was a residence. It was used in the 20 past apparently in a non-conforming 21 manner. Basically, it was as a former 22 home of a business, so it was not 23 conforming. It was not conforming as a 24 business when Mr. Capello purchased it. 25 Hence, the original request and why we
82 1 are back again. 2 If I may, one of the things 3 that was discussed, because the 4 decisions are market driven, one of the 5 suggestions that we -- one of the 6 things we talked about was coming and 7 getting a site plan approval. The 8 issue with that was the site plan 9 approval might certainly expire, 10 depending on the market. So, that was 11 the reason that I couldn't support the 12 overall variance as a permanent 13 measure. But if the board is inclined 14 to grant a variance, to do it for 15 another specific time and address the 16 wetland question separately. 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All right. 18 MR. CAPELLO: May I respond? 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Go ahead, 20 please. 21 MR. CAPELLO: It was 22 originally zoned residential, and the 23 setback was fine. When the city 24 initiated a re-zoning to light 25 industrial, that's what triggered the
83 1 non-conformance of the setback of the 2 house. It was the city-initiated 3 rezoning that triggered the 4 non-conformance. 5 Charles was right, though, 6 there was a pool company that was in 7 there that wanted to do the same thing 8 that I intended to do, is to tear down 9 and build a building. However, the 10 building they needed wasn't going to 11 fit sufficiently on that lot, because 12 they needed to have a drive-through 13 access with two curbs cuts, which 14 wasn't provided or allowed for by our 15 ordinance. So it was the 16 city-initiated rezoning that created 17 the non-conformance. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: What I'm 19 thinking is and what the city is 20 saying, if we grant the variances, you 21 are by-passing the site plan approval 22 process, which is the purview of that 23 particular section of the city, as well 24 as maybe city council approval. If we 25 grant these variances, basically you
84 1 get to exist as you currently are, 2 correct? And that's what you want, is 3 that accurate? 4 MR. CAPELLO: It's not what I 5 want; that's what I'm asking for. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I 7 understand. 8 MR. CAPELLO: I'm asking -- 9 and as I said, I can't -- if I come for 10 site plan approval, I mean, what do I 11 have, a three-year window? I'm not 12 going to be able -- I'm sure I'm not 13 going to be able to begin construction 14 in three years. So that's very 15 problematic for me to come and get the 16 approval. It expires, and then I 17 wasted additional money. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I 19 certainly can't make it a condition 20 when rents go up in Novi. 21 MR. CAPELLO: I understand. 22 It's problematic, and I apologize for 23 putting you again on the spot, but the 24 city is telling me to do something. I 25 don't want that building to sit there
85 1 vacant, so this is the only thing that 2 I can think of, to come in front of you 3 and ask for. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Out of 5 curiosity, if this is denied, what's 6 the result after this? What would the 7 petitioner have to do to come into 8 conformance? 9 MR. BOULARD: Well, there 10 is -- and I apologize for the 11 confusion. There is a couple of 12 conformance issues. One is the use and 13 one is the setback. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 15 MR. BOULARD: And so if this 16 is denied, the response would be that 17 the building cannot be used for 18 commercial purposes. So, if the use is 19 going to continue as it has in the 20 past, in other words, a previous 21 variance, another variance would need 22 to be granted for at least a portion of 23 that. 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: And 25 what's -- okay, so one is the use --
86 1 the actual use of the building being 2 commercial as opposed to something 3 else, correct? 4 MR. BOULARD: I'm sorry? 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: One of the 6 variances is for the use, for the law 7 offices, as opposed to residential, 8 correct? Am I getting that straight, 9 or no? 10 MR. BOULARD: Yes. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: The second 12 one is for the gravel parking as 13 opposed to paving. And I understood 14 the third one to be the landscaping. 15 MR. BOULARD: There are 16 several variances. The first one 17 essentially would be renewal of the 18 previous variance to allow the parking 19 to stay unpaved and so on. And then 20 the other is the wetland issue. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other 22 questions or comments? 23 MEMBER GEDEON: Yeah. Just 24 following up on your questions. So, is 25 the use as a commercial property, you
87 1 know, not industrial property and not a 2 residential property, is that 3 grandfathered in? 4 MR. BOULARD: The building 5 was originally a residential structure. 6 In order to be used for commercial 7 under the typical, in the typical 8 fashion, a site plan would be required. 9 That was not -- that process didn't 10 happen, so the building remains a 11 non-conforming use. 12 The previous variance -- if 13 the property went through the site plan 14 process and a new building was built 15 with the appropriate approvals and so 16 on, it would then become a conforming 17 use with the site for commercial use. 18 At this point, the building is occupied 19 for commercial use and in a 20 non-conforming manner, and that's the 21 question that's before you. I'm not 22 sure if that answers your question. 23 MEMBER GEDEON: Not really. 24 So we don't actually have to grant a 25 motion for use of an I-1 property for a
88 1 non-I-1 purpose? 2 MR. BOULARD: It's an 3 existing non-conforming use. In that 4 sense, you are correct. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any 6 another questions or comments by the 7 board? 8 MEMBER IBE: Just one. 9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member 10 Ibe. 11 MEMBER IBE: Good evening, 12 Mr. Capello. 13 MR. CAPELLO: Hi, how are 14 you? 15 MEMBER IBE: Very well. So, 16 if I hear you correctly, are you saying 17 you would not be amenable to extension 18 of this temporary variance, because you 19 cannot predict the future, is that 20 correct? 21 MR. CAPELLO: No. I didn't 22 say I would not be amenable. I said 23 putting a time period on it, not 24 knowing what that time period is 25 going -- when that time period is going
89 1 to run, just results in me coming back 2 again and letters back and forth with 3 the administration again. No, I didn't 4 say I wasn't amenable. I will take 5 whatever you give me. I just want to 6 get the city off my back and be in 7 compliance. 8 MEMBER IBE: I assume that if 9 we grant you a temporary use for now, 10 that would be fine with you, and then 11 you can see -- hopefully, things might 12 improve. You never know. 13 MR. CAPELLO: Yes, that would 14 be fine. Just give me some time for 15 things to happen, if you would. 16 MEMBER IBE: Very well. 17 MR. CAPELLO: It puts us all 18 on the spot when I'm out of 19 compliance. 20 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 21 MR. CAPELLO: Thank you. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member 23 Skelcy. 24 MEMBER SKELCY: Mr. Boulard, 25 are you suggesting that -- I'm trying
90 1 to understand about the variance 2 regarding the mowing of the 3 watercourse/wetland buffer. Are you 4 suggesting that we not address that 5 tonight and address that at another 6 time? I may have misunderstood what 7 you are saying. 8 MR. BOULARD: My suggestion 9 was that perhaps that be dealt with in 10 a separate motion. 11 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. 12 MR. BOULARD: That's all. 13 MR. CAPELLO: Can I address 14 that issue? 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Sure. Go 16 ahead. 17 MR. CAPELLO: There is a 18 watercourse that runs through there 19 from across the street from the 20 wetlands. It's natural, and it goes to 21 the nature wetland retention area. For 22 years, at least 12 years that I can 23 figure from viewing it myself and many 24 more years by getting all the aerials 25 from Oakland County, I think I got them
91 1 back from 1960, the grass has been 2 grass, and it's been mowed up to the 3 edge of the creek without infringing 4 upon the creek at all. There is a 5 small area of wetland vegetation, but 6 mostly it's mowed, and it's always been 7 grass. 8 Now, the Santos next door, he 9 has a little slice of that lawn, and he 10 refuses to maintain it and wants it to 11 grow up weeds like the rest of his 12 property. And the guy that cuts my 13 lawn, I just have him mow it, and he 14 mows right up to the edge. That allows 15 me to get in there with a rake. I pull 16 out the plastic bags, I pull out the 17 milk cartons, the other floaties that 18 are in there, beer bottles. And I can 19 at least get up to it and clean it out 20 a little bit. It's not impacting the 21 wetland at all. The only reason this 22 is brought up is because Santos, for 23 some reason, well, I know why, doesn't 24 get along with me and has brought this 25 to the city's attention. Otherwise, I
92 1 don't think anybody would have ever 2 written a letter on it. That's the 3 only reason I'm here. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anything 5 else? If we grant -- question for the 6 city. If we granted a temporary 7 extension, whether it be a year, two 8 years, whatever it may be, we can grant 9 them for all the requested potential 10 petitions? 11 MS. KUDLA: You can. 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Is 13 there any problems with that, issues 14 with that? 15 MS. KUDLA: No. Other than 16 the fact that the -- I mean, I guess 17 the wetland, I guess you would have to 18 determine whether you think the wetland 19 has to go along with that request or 20 whether it needs to be done separately. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: And the 22 wetland issue is whether or not they 23 can mow the grass up to the wetland? 24 MS. KUDLA: That's correct. 25 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: What is
93 1 the current requirement that -- or what 2 they are supposed to do or allowed to 3 do with regard to the wetland and 4 mowing? 5 MR. BOULARD: Right now the 6 ordinance calls for 25-foot wetland 7 buffer at the edge of the wetland, and 8 that's supposed to be not mowed and so 9 on to protect the wetland and keep it 10 from intrusion. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: So 12 whatever grows there, grows there for 13 25 feet? 14 MR. BOULARD: More or less. 15 When there is new construction and 16 someone goes into that buffer of the 17 wetland, it's required to make sure 18 it's restored. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other 20 questions or comments? Member Krieger. 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: I can relate 22 to the wetland, and that creek runs 23 through my back yard. And I also cut 24 the grass up to it and take care of it. 25 And so I can understand the
94 1 petitioner's request to continue doing 2 so to actually clean out the creek. If 3 that's what he's doing, I would not be 4 in opposition to him continuing to do 5 that. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: We can 7 take them separately. 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Right. 9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Whoever 10 wants to make -- you can make a motion 11 on three, and then the wetland issue 12 separately. 13 Personally, I understand the 14 city's position in terms of trying to 15 require the site plan approval process 16 and so forth. I think through the 17 planning commission, whatever the 18 requirements are, I understand that 19 point. To request variances here for 20 all of them are very difficult for a 21 permanent basis. I understand that. 22 My suggestion would be, at least on the 23 three, but it doesn't include the 24 wetland, giving the extension of some 25 kind of whatever that may be, a year,
95 1 two years. And then for the wetland 2 issue, then make a separate decision on 3 that. And I don't have a problem 4 extending that for the same amount of 5 time until everything is pretty much 6 resolved with your site plan issues. I 7 think that has to be resolved at one 8 point, and I think that's difficult to 9 get that permanency in zoning, Zoning 10 Board of Appeals. 11 Anybody want to take a stab 12 at it? 13 Member Skelcy. 14 MEMBER SKELCY: I move in the 15 matter of Case No. 11-008 at the 16 address of 26444 Taft Road in Novi, at 17 the location south of Grand River and 18 east of Taft Road, that the following 19 variances, which have been requested, 20 be granted for a time period of two 21 years only. And those variances 22 include a one-yard -- one front yard 23 setback variance of 13 feet; one 24 parking service variance to allow for 25 gravel, and one variance from the
96 1 required standards for landscaping the 2 right-of-way landscape buffer 3 screening. 4 I make this motion because 5 there are unique circumstances and 6 physical conditions of the property, 7 such as its shape and other physical 8 conditions. And then the need for the 9 variance is not due to the applicant's 10 personal or economic difficulty. The 11 need is not self-created. Strict 12 compliance with regulations governing 13 area, setback, frontage, height, 14 density, bulk and other dimensional 15 requirements will unreasonably prevent 16 the property owner for using the 17 property for a permitted purpose, which 18 he indicates is commercial in nature, 19 and will render conformity with those 20 regulations unnecessarily burdensome. 21 The requested variance is the 22 minimum variance necessary to do 23 substantial justice to the applicant, 24 as well as to other property owners in 25 the district. The requested variance
97 1 will not cause an adverse impact on the 2 surrounding property, property values 3 or the use and enjoyment of the 4 property in the neighborhood or zoning 5 district. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any 7 seconds? 8 MEMBER GEDEON: I will second 9 that. 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. I 11 just have one comment. Did you mean to 12 include the three variances or all four 13 for two years? Because there is a 14 fourth one for the wetlands. 15 MEMBER SKELCY: I thought we 16 are going to deal with the wetlands -- 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: We can. 18 MEMBER SKELCY: Yeah, for the 19 three. 20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. So 21 with the motion and second, is there 22 any further discussion? 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Question. 24 For two years, then the petitioner 25 needs to go to the city for site plans
98 1 to go into conformity, is that correct? 2 MR. BOULARD: Yes. The 3 options would be to come back to the 4 board to cease the use or to -- or 5 probably superseded hopefully by a new 6 site plan and new building. 7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Since the 8 petitioner requested that two would 9 probably be too short, would the 10 motioner be amenable to three years? 11 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 12 MEMBER GEDEON: Sure, I will 13 re-second that. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: For the 15 amendment, so the amendment will be for 16 a three-year extension. Any further 17 discussion? Seeing none, 18 Ms. Marchioni, can you please call the 19 role? 20 MS. MARCHIONI: 21 Member Skelcy? 22 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 23 MS. MARCHIONI: 24 Member Gedeon? 25 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes.
99 1 MS. MARCHIONI: 2 Member Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: No. 4 MS. MARCHIONI: 5 Member Krieger? 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 7 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Ibe? 8 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 9 MS. MARCHIONI: Chairman 10 Ghannam? 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes. 12 MS. MARCHIONI: Motion 13 passes, five to one. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: And with 15 regard to the wetlands, Ms. Skelcy, 16 would you like to take a stab at that? 17 MEMBER SKELCY: In the matter 18 of Case No. 11-008, 26444 Taft Road, 19 south of Grand River and east of Taft 20 Road, I move that we allow a three-year 21 variance to permit the petitioner to 22 mow within the watercourse/wetland 23 buffer. 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 25 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay.
100 1 Mr. Boulard. 2 MR. BOULARD: Might I suggest 3 that there is the caveat that for the 4 sake of Mr. Capello and the city, that 5 whatever work does take place is in 6 line with the DEQ requirements and so 7 on? 8 MEMBER SKELCY: Do you 9 understand what the DEQ requirements 10 are? 11 MR. CAPELLO: As I understand 12 it, the DEQ does not control that, and 13 that's the only variance that I need is 14 to come in front of you. That's my 15 understanding. 16 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. I 17 would like to amend my original motion 18 to include the additional information 19 put forth by Mr. Boulard. 20 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Any 22 further discussion? Seeing none, 23 Ms. Marchioni, can you call the role? 24 MS. MARCHIONI: 25 Member Skelcy?
101 1 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 2 MS. MARCHIONI: 3 Member Krieger? 4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 5 MS. MARCHIONI: 6 Member Sanghvi? 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 8 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Ibe? 9 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 10 MS. MARCHIONI: Chairman 11 Ghannam? 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes. 13 MS. MARCHIONI: And Member 14 Gedeon? 15 MEMBER GEDEON: No. 16 MS. MARCHIONI: Motion 17 passes, five to one. 18 MR. CAPELLO: Thank you very 19 much. 20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: 21 Congratulations. 22 Next on the agenda is Item 23 No. 5, Case 11-009, 25000 Joseph Drive. 24 The petitioner is requesting a variance 25 to install an additional wall sign on
102 1 the north elevation of the building 2 located at 25000 Joseph Drive, for 3 Oakland Oral Surgery. Property is 4 zoned NCC and located south of Grand 5 River and east of Meadowbrook Road. 6 Can you state your name, sir, 7 and address. 8 MR. ROYAL: I'm Edward Royal. 9 MR. CHAMES: Robert Chames. 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Will both 11 of you be speaking? 12 MR. CHAMES: Ed will be 13 speaking. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Can you 15 give us your address? 16 MR. ROYAL: 25000 Joseph 17 Drive. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You are 19 not an attorney, correct? 20 MR. ROYAL: Correct. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Are you a 22 doctor? 23 MR. ROYAL: I am. 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You have 25 to be sworn as a doctor.
103 1 MR. ROYAL: Actually, I'm a 2 dentist. 3 MEMBER SKELCY: Do you swear 4 or affirm to tell the truth? 5 MR. ROYAL: I do. 6 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you. 7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Go ahead, 8 sir. 9 MR. ROYAL: Okay. First of 10 all, I want to thank you for hearing us 11 tonight. And we are representing 12 Oakland Oral Surgery. I have three 13 other partners who own the business 14 with the two of us. 15 And first we want to 16 apologize for not appropriately 17 understanding the regulations regarding 18 the signage on our building. But I do 19 want to stress that the reason the sign 20 is on there is not for advertising 21 purposes, but it's for identification 22 purposes. And we have been in business 23 in Novi for over 30 years, since I 24 think 1978 was when my original partner 25 opened our operation.
104 1 In the current location on 2 Joseph Drive, we have been for a year 3 and a half. We were at Ten Mile just 4 west of Haggerty, and now we are in 5 this location that's on the corner of 6 Joseph Drive and Grand River. And our 7 address is on Joseph Drive, which 8 presents somewhat of a problem for our 9 patients, because everybody knows where 10 Grand River is; nobody knows where 11 Joseph Drive is. And they are always 12 looking for 25000 Grand River, because 13 they see our map and they see we are on 14 Grand River. So, there is some 15 confusion, based on a small residential 16 side street that we have a commercial 17 business on that's not called Grand 18 River. 19 And the biggest problem we 20 are having, which is a hardship for our 21 patients and for our practice, is that 22 the monument sign that we currently 23 have is small and close to the ground. 24 And it's a difficult sign to identify. 25 And traffic comes down Grand River at a
105 1 fairly good rate of speed. You know, 2 if people are obeying the speed limit, 3 it's still a pretty reasonable rate of 4 speed. And then people have to make a 5 turn onto Joseph Drive to get into our 6 parking lot. On a regular basis, we 7 hear a screech of tires, of people 8 trying to slow down quickly to make the 9 turn, because that's when they can see 10 our sign. 11 The sign is not only small 12 but there is a building behind us 13 that's also on the monument that 14 doesn't have frontage on Grand River, 15 and their sign gets the top bill and we 16 are on the bottom bill. So we have a 17 small sign that's closer to the grass 18 and even more difficult to read for our 19 patients. 20 And our patients are coming 21 to us by referral. It's not a repeat 22 patient population. We are not in 23 primary care; we are in referral 24 business. So literally every patient 25 that comes to our office is a new
106 1 patient, unless they are coming from 2 their final check-up. Most people come 3 one or two visits, and they are gone. 4 There are more new patients coming, 5 none of whom have been to our office 6 before. So they are not used to where 7 we are, and that further complicates 8 the low identification profile that we 9 have. 10 We also have many elderly 11 patients. We do oral and maxillofacial 12 surgery, and the population is not just 13 kids. We have a lot of elderly 14 patients, and for them it's even a 15 greater hardship with visual problems 16 and some intimidation on being on the 17 roads already. They have complained to 18 us. And we got many, many complaints 19 from our patients, not just the 20 elderly, but especially the elderly, 21 who come in and say, "I couldn't see 22 your sign. I missed the turn, and I 23 had to go around the block. And then I 24 was looking for 25000, but the 25 commercial facility just before your
107 1 building is nowhere near 25000." 2 Because it's a Grand River address, and 3 we are a Joseph Drive address. And 4 then they complain they have to make a 5 short stop or quick turn when they 6 finally do see the sign. 7 So, they said to us, "Why 8 don't you put a sign up like all those 9 buildings across the street?" Which is 10 a strip mall, and everybody has a large 11 sign. Granted, there is no monument 12 sign. And I have subsequently come to 13 learn that you are only allowed to have 14 two signs. Before I learned that, 15 though, we succumbed to the request of 16 our patient population, and we put a 17 wall sign on the north facing of our 18 building, which is bigger, done in good 19 taste, no lighting. It's not 20 advertising; it's for identification 21 purposes. But, easily read from both 22 directions on Grand River. 23 And since we put the sign up 24 in November, our complaints have 25 dropped off dramatically. You don't
108 1 hear the screeching tires as much from 2 people trying to stop quickly to make 3 the turn. And for all these reasons, 4 it becomes a traffic hazard and a 5 safety issue for the citizenry of Novi 6 and our patient population. And also 7 for identification purposes, for our 8 patients to easily find the building. 9 So it's definitely an ID situation and 10 not an advertising situation. And for 11 the safety of all concerned, we are, 12 you know, respectfully requesting that 13 we be allowed to be able to have this 14 larger sign on the wall of our 15 building. And I think it serves 16 everyone well. 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, 18 sir. Is there anybody in the public 19 that would like to speak on this 20 particular case, please raise your 21 hand. Seeing none, I will close the 22 public remark section and ask our 23 secretary to read any correspondence. 24 MEMBER SKELCY: Thirty-six 25 notices were mailed out with zero
109 1 responses and three mail returned. 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Any 3 comments from the city? 4 MS. KUDLA: No. 5 MR. BOULARD: Nothing to 6 add. 7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 8 Then I will open it up to the board for 9 discussion. Member Skelcy. 10 MEMBER SKELCY: So you put 11 the sign up before you got permission 12 basically? 13 MR. ROYAL: Yes. 14 MEMBER SKELCY: Got a ticket? 15 MR. ROYAL: I'm not a lawyer, 16 and we didn't know that we couldn't do 17 that. We knew we couldn't have another 18 sign on the monument, but we thought on 19 our building, which is our property and 20 not the city's property, that we could 21 have a sign. And I do apologize for 22 that. We shortly, after the sign was 23 up in February, maybe four months 24 later, I received notification from 25 Jeanie Niland telling me that we had
110 1 violated the rules. And I immediately 2 entered into conversations with her. 3 And she said we had ten days to get the 4 sign down, and I asked for an extension 5 for more than ten days, because it 6 would take us longer than that to get 7 the sign down. "And, by the way, what 8 else can we do?" And I presented my 9 case to her, and she said you can 10 appeal to the zoning board, and that 11 why we are here today. 12 I have to say, she was very 13 nice and helpful, and I didn't feel any 14 kind of obstructive conversation going 15 on. 16 MEMBER SKELCY: Are they 17 considered a corner property owner? 18 MR. BOULARD: In the NCC 19 district, they would be allowed to one 20 sign by right. The monument sign or a 21 building sign, but not both. 22 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. 23 MR. BOULARD: There is 24 actually two buildings on the site. 25 The site is a little bit unique; there
111 1 are two buildings on the site. It's 2 long and narrow, and the other building 3 is actually behind your building. 4 MR. ROYAL: Correct. 5 MR. BOULARD: And you occupy 6 the entire first building. As I 7 understand, the second building is not 8 currently occupied, but is also going 9 to be occupied by a single tenant? 10 MR. ROYAL: We don't -- we do 11 not own -- it's a condominium set-up. 12 We own our building and rent to 13 ourselves, only one occupant. The back 14 building has currently been leased. 15 It's undergoing leasehold improvements 16 now, and I don't know who the tenant is 17 going to be. And I don't know if they 18 are taking the full square footage or 19 just a segment of it. But they don't 20 have frontage on Grand River. They 21 need the monument sign I think. 22 MEMBER SKELCY: Who owns the 23 monument sign? 24 MR. ROYAL: The condominium 25 association owns it.
112 1 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I 3 personally -- I have looked at it. I 4 have been by there certainly, and I 5 understand Grand River is a very fast 6 road despite the speed limit. And I 7 understand the need, especially because 8 of the way this is situated and the -- 9 at least the size of the monument sign. 10 So, ordinarily, obviously, you are not 11 entitled to it under the ordinance, but 12 in terms of your request, I see that 13 there is a need. Personally, I have no 14 problem. 15 Any other comments or 16 questions? Member Sanghvi. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: I have no 18 problem with the sign. Do you know 19 what is the size of your sign? 20 MR. ROYAL: We had the 21 dimensions mailed in. It's fairly 22 large; it's not obnoxious. It's maybe 23 eight or nine feet wide and five feet 24 tall maybe. 25 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: What was
113 1 the request for, how many square feet? 2 MR. BOULARD: Approximately 3 31 square feet. I believe the 4 information as presented is 39.5, but 5 the ordinance requires that we measure 6 it to the boundaries. So the request 7 was for approximately 31 square feet. 8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: The 9 request was for 31 square feet? 10 MR. BOULARD: Yes. That's 11 what we -- 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: The 13 proposed sign is how large? 14 MR. BOULARD: That size. 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: That size? 16 MR. BOULARD: Yes. 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Any 18 other questions or comments by the 19 board? Member Ibe. 20 MEMBER IBE: I also say that 21 I think based on the unique 22 circumstances, especially considering 23 the fact that you have another building 24 right behind your building, you know, I 25 think it makes sense that the back
114 1 building gets the monument and you get 2 the sign that works for you. So I 3 would have no problem as well 4 supporting this. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: 6 Ordinarily, if you had both, I would 7 say why not take one as opposed to the 8 other. But, again, it is unique, it is 9 a hazard; that always makes sense. 10 Anybody else? I will 11 entertain the motion. Member Ibe will 12 take it. 13 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, in 14 Case No. 11-009, 25000 Joseph Drive, 15 Oakland Oral Surgery, I move that we 16 grant the request as stated by the 17 applicant for the variance. The 18 request should be granted based on 19 circumstances or features that are 20 exceptional and unique to the property, 21 and do not result from the conditions 22 that exist generally in the city or 23 that is self-created. And as well 24 stated by the applicant, as well as 25 some of the comments by the members,
115 1 there are two building in this 2 particular parcel. Yours is in the 3 front, meaning the applicant, and there 4 is another building in the back. There 5 is one sign that can serve the back 6 tenant, and what you are requesting 7 will serve the front tenant, that being 8 you. So that is what is unique about 9 this particular property. 10 Second, the failure to grant 11 relief will unreasonably prevent or 12 limit the use of the property and will 13 result in substantially more than mere 14 inconvenience for you to achieve a high 15 economic financial return on your 16 investments. And, two, the grant of 17 relief will not -- will not be 18 incompatible or reasonably interfere 19 with adjacent property owners. And I 20 believe that this is consistent with 21 the spirit of the zoning ordinance. 22 Therefore, based on the 23 foregoing reasons, I move that we grant 24 your request as made by the 25 applicant.
116 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 3 There being a motion and a second, any 4 other discussion? Seeing none, 5 Ms. Marchioni, can you please call the 6 role. 7 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Ibe? 8 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 9 MS. MARCHIONI: Member 10 Krieger? 11 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 12 MS. MARCHIONI: Member 13 Sanghvi? 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 15 MS. MARCHIONI: Chairman 16 Ghannam? 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes. 18 MS. MARCHIONI: 19 Member Skelcy? 20 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 21 MS. MARCHIONI: Member 22 Gedeon? 23 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 24 MS. MARCHIONI: Motion 25 passes, six to zero.
117 1 MR. ROYAL: Thank you very 2 much. We are happy to treat any and 3 all of you. You can easily find our 4 building on the corner of Joseph and 5 Grand River. Thank you. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you. 7 Next is Item No. 6, Case No. 11-010, 8 for 25100 Novi Road. The petitioner is 9 requesting variances to address 10 non-conformities that will result from 11 acquisition of the additional highway 12 easement for the new railroad bridge on 13 Novi Road, including front yard 14 setbacks, waiver of corner clearance, 15 waiver of right of way/parking lot 16 buffer/ screening, et cetera. The 17 petitioner is here. 18 MR. ROLLINGER: Good evening. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Good 20 evening, sir. State your my name and 21 address, please. 22 MR. ROLLINGER: Certainly. My 23 name is Robert Rollinger. I'm an 24 attorney; I'm here on behalf of the 25 applicant, Board of County Road
118 1 Commissioners of Oakland County. 2 As indicated in the agenda, 3 we are seeking a series of zoning 4 variances related to the Novi Road Mid 5 Section project and its impact on this 6 parcel, 25100 Novi Road. It's 7 currently operated by Gagliano 8 Enterprises and Collex Collision site. 9 We are requesting a variance 10 for the front yard setback, west side 11 setback, to allow 7.80 feet and provide 12 for a variance of 92.20 feet. We are 13 also seeking a variance to request a 14 parking lot setback and require 40 15 foot front yard setback on Novi Road. 16 This will reflect the new alignment for 17 Novi Road right-of-way being moved ten 18 feet to the east from where it is 19 today. 20 Because of the new 21 right-of-way alignment on Novi Road, 22 this variance request is for 32.2 feet 23 front yard setback variance to allow 24 7.80 feet, being provided for the front 25 yard perpendicular parallel parking
119 1 area that does front on Novi Road. 2 Also, a required clear -- 3 corner clearance clear zone variance is 4 also being requested along the north 5 side of the relocated driveway, due to 6 the location of a newly installed 7 retaining wall as part of the project. 8 The variance request will allow a 9 waiver of the required corner clearance 10 for the relocated north driveway. 11 The Road Commission rules and 12 regulations for commercial driveways 13 recognizes there shouldn't be any 14 visual obstruction at the measured 15 level of a motor vehicle operator's 16 line of vision, which is measured from 17 the established street grade. The zone 18 is typically measured 25 feet along the 19 right-of-way line, and is to remain 20 clear of all objects which exceed two 21 feet in height. 22 There is also a variance 23 request for the 25 foot landscape area 24 contiguous and adjacent to the 25 Novi Road frontage. This variance is
120 1 requested from the required landscape 2 width of 25 feet, as once the project 3 is built, the new wall is put in, there 4 will be 7.8 feet being provided. A 5 variance of 17.2 feet is being 6 requested due to the location of the 7 new Novi Road right-of-way line, again, 8 being moved ten feet to the east. 9 There is a variance request 10 for the required right-of-way trees 11 along Novi Road. This is a request 12 from the required canopy trees, as 13 seven are required; three can be 14 provided. And the sub-canopy tree 15 requirement of 11 trees, as three can 16 be provided. This variance from the 17 four required canopy trees and eight 18 required sub-canopy trees is based upon 19 the fact that a retaining wall is going 20 to be located in close proximity to the 21 property line. The existing trees, 22 obviously, they are there and intend to 23 remain; however, there is a reasonable 24 likelihood that the remaining trees 25 also may not be able to survive and
121 1 have adequate sun light. 2 There is a variance request 3 being requested from the required 4 outdoor storage yard screening, which 5 would be required under the zoning 6 ordinance required for parking lot 7 screening walls or landscaped berm 8 requirement or any alternative chain 9 link fence along Novi Road, with heavy 10 screen plantings to screen the existing 11 outdoor storage area. This variance 12 request is being made to allow instead 13 of maintenance of existing landscaping 14 along the Novi Road frontage, and to 15 allow for the removal of a masonry 16 screen wall that currently exists. It 17 is proposed that this be allowed to be 18 removed due to the proximity of its 19 location to the proposed bridge 20 retaining wall. 21 The applicants understand 22 under this section, screening of 23 outdoor storage yards may by 24 accomplished through any of the 25 following: Masonry wall, landscaped
122 1 earth berm, a chain link fence with 2 heavy screen plantings or a 3 combination. Because of the proximity 4 of the location of the bridge retaining 5 wall, there wouldn't be any further 6 need to retain the existing masonry 7 screen wall because of the height and 8 the dimension of the newly constructed 9 proposed bridge retaining wall, which 10 would obviate the need to continue the 11 masonry screen wall at this location. 12 A variance is also being 13 requested for the three-foot high berm, 14 when adjacent to a parking area for a 15 landscape berm to be located within the 16 green belt, inasmuch as there will be 17 7.8 feet of green belt available, and a 18 three-foot high berm would require a 19 minimum of 21 feet to be sustainable. 20 A variance is being requested then to 21 eliminate the earth berm requirement. 22 There is a variance also to 23 allow the existing sign, which 24 currently identifies the location as 25 being Collex Collision, to be elevated
123 1 to a height of sufficient elevation to 2 be visible to passing motorists 3 traveling on and along Novi Road in 4 both a southerly direction as well as a 5 northerly direction along Novi Road. 6 The sign currently measures 34 square 7 feet in area, and it is requested to be 8 either place the sign at a height and 9 elevation perpendicular to Novi Road by 10 being elevated or being placed in a 11 position on the existing Collex 12 building at a sufficient height so it 13 will be visible to passing motorists to 14 observe the location of the identity of 15 the operator, and to be able to 16 maneuver safely for ingress and egress, 17 getting into and out of the site. 18 Again, finally, there will be 19 a variance request to allow a temporary 20 ten-foot high sign for a term of 21 approximately 18 months to 24 months. 22 Again, during the phase of actually 23 building of the Mid Section project, to 24 again assist the customers of the 25 business to identify the ingress/egress
124 1 into the location, into and out of 2 Novi Road. Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anything 4 else, sir? 5 MR. ROLLINGER: I would just 6 indicate basically that we are here -- 7 the Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act 8 does authorize the condemning agency, 9 when you are in a situation where there 10 is a partial taking, to seek zoning 11 variances from the local zoning board 12 of appeals, and that's why we are here. 13 We were trying to mitigate the effects 14 of the taking so that the property 15 owner will be in as good a position as 16 possible. 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, 18 sir. At this point, I will open it up 19 for public remarks. If there is 20 anybody from the public that would like 21 to speak, please come forward. 22 MS. WEEKLEY: Yes, 23 Mr. Chairman. My name is Rebecca 24 Weekley, I'm general counsel for 25 Gagliano Enterprises.
125 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 2 MS. WEEKLEY: Firstly, I want 3 to just take care of a few 4 housecleaning matters. Personally, I 5 am not involved in any litigation that 6 is currently pending with Oakland 7 County. 8 Secondly, the application as 9 been submitted by the Road Commission 10 implies that my client, Gagliano 11 Enterprises, may be behind or in 12 support of these variances, and I am 13 here to categorically deny any support 14 of the variances as requested tonight. 15 I'm going to echo the 16 sentiments that you made earlier, 17 Mr. Chairman, in saying that these are 18 exceptions to the rule they are 19 seeking. And they are -- you should be 20 looking to minimize the request. 21 As we have seen tonight, 22 there is no minimization here. I 23 believe there are nine variances 24 requested and, you know, our opposition 25 to all the variances is steadfast. Our
126 1 main concern is that the variances 2 don't comply and, in fact, 3 substantially impair the spirit of the 4 ordinances. 5 And, secondly, and most 6 importantly, is that they are unsafe. 7 Let me say that again. These variances 8 will endanger absolutely the safety of 9 the public. There is issues with the 10 grading, issues with sight distance. 11 And Mr. Cliff Seiber is here, and he is 12 going to go over all those in greater 13 technical detail. 14 Further, I also have with me 15 tonight a representative of our tenant, 16 Collex Collision Experts. As I said, 17 Collex Collision is our tenant. If the 18 property cannot be operated in a safe 19 manner for both employees or our 20 tenant, vendors of the tenant, visitors 21 of the site, we are going to lose the 22 tenant. Simple as that. That can not 23 occur. Safety has to be paramount 24 here. 25 Finally, we also have Stan
127 1 Rivard (ph) from Rivard Construction. 2 Gagliano Enterprises has a secondary 3 plan, which is a much safer option, 4 which we also submitted to the board 5 for the review. Obviously, this is for 6 informational purposes; it's not been 7 submitted for site plan approval yet. 8 This is merely informational so that 9 you know there is another option that 10 provides a safe alternative to the 11 variances that are requested here 12 tonight. 13 Without further ado, I'm 14 going to turn this over to Mr. Cliff 15 Seiber, and he's going to address the 16 safety issues for the public hearing in 17 this matter. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 19 MR. SEIBER: Good evening. 20 My name is Cliff Seiber, 21 representing Gagliano Enterprises. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Just give 23 your address and raise your hand and be 24 sworn. 25 MR. SEIBER: 8145 Benny Lane,
128 1 White Lake Township. 2 MEMBER SKELCY: Do you swear 3 or affirm to tell the truth? 4 MR. SEIBER: I do. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Go ahead, 6 sir. 7 MR. SEIBER: I'd like to go 8 over -- actually, I did submit a letter 9 for you for the packets or for the 10 board member's consideration. Just to 11 hit a few of those highlights and to 12 give you an idea of what's going on 13 here. 14 The proposed Collex driveway 15 is being raised in elevation about nine 16 feet from where it is today. So based 17 on that, you can see there is going to 18 be a significant grade or slope into 19 that driveway as it approaches 20 Novi Road. This plan shows the 21 driveway at this location. This is 22 Novi Road here. And there is a sight 23 distance or a clear vision triangle 24 that is proposed for part of your 25 ordinance.
129 1 If you extend that triangle, 2 it intersects this proposed retaining 3 wall at that point. And at that point, 4 that wall measures about 12 feet in 5 height, so there is certainly a 6 problem. There is actually zero clear 7 visionary within that triangle. 8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I don't 9 mean to interrupt, but do you have a 10 smaller version of that you can put on 11 our overhead, or no? 12 MR. SEIBER: No, that's the 13 only version I have. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay, 15 good. It helps our viewers at home who 16 are watching this on TV, if you have 17 one. If you don't, that's fine. 18 Please proceed. 19 MR. SEIBER: No, that's the 20 only one I have. 21 So, primarily, the clear 22 vision triangle is the issue, the 23 safety issue, that we are very 24 concerned about. As you know, that the 25 driveway is proposed at six percent,
130 1 which means for every 100 feet of 2 driveway, it rises six feet. So, since 3 this is zoned for heavy industrial, any 4 tractor-trailer or trucks pulling out 5 of the site will have to negotiate that 6 six percent climb up the driveway and 7 then not have benefit of the clear 8 vision triangle. 9 And then when it's pulling 10 out, especially if it's making a left 11 turn onto Novi Road, traffic coming 12 over the bridge and coming downhill at 13 a fairly good rate of speed, will be 14 presented with a truck trying to 15 negotiate a pull-out from that driveway 16 in front of that traffic. So, 17 certainly, this clear vision triangle 18 is a great concern to us. 19 The other issue, which is not 20 so much a zoning board of appeals, I 21 think it's a construction board of 22 appeals issue. But it's the relocation 23 of Genmar Drive of this location. The 24 city standards requires a separation of 25 200 feet between driveways in order to
131 1 avoid left-turn conflicts. In this 2 case, we have only 64 feet being 3 proposed. 4 Next issue, as was mentioned, 5 there was a ten-foot high 6 obstructing visual wall, screening 7 wall, that was constructed to screen 8 outside storage. Because of the 9 location of this new proposed retaining 10 wall, it was so close to that that it 11 was suggested that be removed. And we 12 certainly encouraged the removal of 13 that wall. However, in order to 14 continue the screening of that outside 15 storage, we would prefer to see a new 16 wall constructed rather than it just 17 being waived, because then all the 18 outside storage that takes place at the 19 rear of property would not be screened. 20 It may be screened to some extent from 21 the bridge, but the rest of the 22 property where you can have a view into 23 the property would not be screened. 24 Finally, as indicated, we are 25 concerned about the clear vision, the
132 1 safety aspect of this entrance and exit 2 into the property. We are concerned, 3 of course, about the left-turn 4 conflicts and the fact that this 5 proposed retaining wall is proposed 6 just five feet off the edge of the 7 proposed driveway. Being so close to 8 the edge of the driveway, we just don't 9 see that as being a safe design. 10 And, finally, if these 11 variances are granted, we ask that they 12 be granted so they run in perpetuity 13 and run with the land. With that, I 14 would be glad to answer any questions. 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, 16 sir. Anybody else from the public that 17 would like to speak on this particular 18 case? Sir, please state your name and 19 address. 20 MR. LE CLAIR: David Le 21 Clair, 3300 Old US 23, Brighton, 22 Michigan. 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Are you an 24 attorney? 25 MR. LE CLAIR: No, I'm with
133 1 Livingston Engineering. 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Raise your 3 right hand and be sworn, sir. 4 MEMBER SKELCY: Do you swear 5 or affirm to tell the truth? 6 MR. LE CLAIR: I do. 7 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you. 8 MR. LE CLAIR: Again, my name 9 is David Le Clair with Livingston 10 Engineering. Our firm prepared the 11 conceptual plan that I think you all 12 have in your packet. And when we were 13 asked to take a look at this site to 14 get a fresh look, one of the first 15 things we noticed on the site is 16 currently the Collex Collision building 17 has good visibility from the 18 site-finished floors. There is about 19 equal elevation with Novi Road. Safe 20 access getting in and out of there, 21 good visibility in both directions for 22 the building, traveling both north and 23 south on the site. 24 The plans for Novi Road, one 25 of the first things that I noticed is
134 1 the elevation for the new Novi Road is 2 going to be raised about four feet at 3 the south drive in this location right 4 here. You go further north, and at the 5 new proposed drive it's raised about 6 seven-and-a-half feet. When you go 7 even further north, you only have to go 8 about 250 feet, and the elevation of 9 Novi Road is raised about 10 14-and-a-half feet. So this puts the 11 eye level of a passenger about 18 feet 12 above finished floor. So, essentially, 13 a car driving south on Novi Road 14 approaching is going to be looking 15 right over the top of the building. 16 And, in addition, it sets this building 17 pretty much down in a hole. So I feel 18 that if there was ever a need for a 19 front yard setback, this is probably a 20 good site for it. 21 On the site plan that we 22 proposed, what we suggested is moving 23 the building back. And with our site, 24 we move it back about 120 feet. This 25 allows us to raise the elevation of the
135 1 building about two feet. And what that 2 does, it gives you much better sight 3 lines to the building, because 4 Novi Road is going up at such a quick 5 grade. And it also allows us to 6 flatten these slopes of the drive 7 coming into the building. Right now 8 there is about a six percent grade 9 coming downhill in the parking lot. 10 Under this new concept plan, we would 11 have a grade that's about four percent, 12 and a good flat spot out at Novi Road, 13 with an ample approach into the site. 14 So we feel that's a much more safer 15 aspect of the site, also. 16 And those are pretty much the 17 main differences. The other portions 18 of the site plan are mere ordinance 19 requirements. And, again, I would be 20 happy to answer any questions on this 21 site plan. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, 23 sir. Anybody else from the public that 24 would like to make a comment on this 25 particular case? Sir, state your name
136 1 and address. 2 MR. GAGLIANO: Robert 3 Gagliano, 48390 Harper Drive. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Get 5 sworn in. 6 MEMBER SKELCY: Do you swear 7 or affirm to tell the truth? 8 MR. GAGLIANO: I do. 9 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you. 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Go ahead, 11 sir. 12 MR. GAGLIANO: I'm the 13 tenant. I represent the tenant, Collex 14 Collision. We acquired this site or 15 moved into this site in 2004. We were 16 down the road a little ways. We ended 17 up in this site because it's one of the 18 few pieces of property in Novi that has 19 the zoning that we need for our 20 purpose. So, when we went into this 21 site, I spent considerable amount of 22 money, considerable amount of time, 23 $30,000 in architectural/engineering 24 fees to bring this building, that was a 25 pretty old, dilapidated building. You
137 1 may recall it was the old Cummings 2 Building that was vacant for about 3 eight or ten years, I believe, before 4 we moved into it. 5 So, we went in, spent 6 considerable amount of money, worked 7 with the city, drew up site plans. I 8 was required to upgrade all the 9 landscaping. If you have driven by my 10 site there, you will see that we have 11 nice trees all over the place. We had 12 to comply with all the rules and 13 upgrade the building. Do all these 14 things to bring the site up to snuff. 15 At that time, we met with the 16 Road Commission, and we asked them, 17 "What's going on with this road? What 18 can we expect? What are we in store 19 for?" At that time there was no design 20 on that road. They had no idea what 21 was going to happen with that road. 22 And we created driveways in the 23 property based on where we were at at 24 that time. 25 I'm at the heart of where
138 1 this road construction is. You heard 2 from the other applicants tonight; the 3 economy has been tough. It's been 4 tough on us, also. This road has got 5 us scared to death. We don't know what 6 we are going to be in store for through 7 this construction project. 8 With what they are proposing, 9 I get 10 to 20 delivery trucks in and 10 out of our driveway a day. The thought 11 of a truck pulling up a hill trying to 12 get out with zero visibility to the 13 right, just -- Novi Road, as you 14 already know, the reason why the city 15 is expanding that road with the Road 16 County, because it's a busy road, and 17 we need to get more traffic through 18 there. I understand the road needs to 19 get widened. However, what they are 20 proposing is just a disaster. It's 21 going to leave us in a ravaged 22 situation. I have had virtually zero 23 communication from the Road Commission 24 through this project about when things 25 were starting, who is doing what. So I
139 1 have been already ravaged tremendously 2 through this project. And we haven't 3 even started tearing up the road yet. 4 Now they want to propose this site plan 5 that's going to give me a driveway 6 that's going to be eight feet above the 7 current one, going on a slope. 8 Handicap parking spaces that 9 are literally right adjacent to an 10 overhead door that we drive cars in and 11 out of our shop. And to drive them 50 12 feet further, there is going to be a 13 hill there going over to where the cars 14 are parked. They want to remove a 15 screening wall that is part of our 16 security for the cars that we have on 17 the property. 18 We could go on and on here. 19 But, you know, we are petrified of what 20 we are going to get in store for going 21 through this construction project. Are 22 people going to be able to get to me? 23 I'm right at the heart of it. I'm 24 right at the railroad tracks. I'm not 25 a Walmart that people come window
140 1 shopping. I'm a business; people come 2 for a specific need. And if they can't 3 get to me, they will just as soon go 4 somewhere else. 5 So, we are already in a tough 6 spot with the economy. The last thing 7 I need is some help like this to make 8 it even worse. So we were asking that 9 the board decline the variances 10 requested by the Road Commission, that 11 we look at the alternative site plan 12 that's been proposed. And consider 13 that the Road Commission is doing this. 14 I understand with the variance 15 requirement cannot be looked is a 16 financial situation. Well, this is a 17 financial situation they are looking 18 for these variances, because the right 19 situation with this road is to do what 20 we are proposing. 21 So, if you have any 22 questions, I will be more than glad to 23 answer them. 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, 25 sir. Anybody else from the public
141 1 would like to make a public comment on 2 this particular case? 3 MR. ACKERMAN: May I? 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You may, 5 Mr. Ackerman. 6 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you. 7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Since you 8 are an attorney, you don't have to be 9 sworn. 10 MR. ACKERMAN: My name is 11 Alan Ackerman. Sorry I was dressed 12 like this; I was told to come tonight. 13 I just shot a seven on a par-three 14 hole, and I just decided I better 15 come. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You are 17 more than welcome. 18 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you. 19 Now, the reality is that I'm the 20 condemnation lawyer, which is usually 21 the devil. As I look at this, if you 22 want to approve this, the statute 23 requires you to find that this -- all 24 the variances you grant will be in 25 perpetuity for this property for us and
142 1 for all future users, and won't be 2 considered as violating the statute. 3 We are -- the court ordered 4 us to present the best plan we could 5 produce. We told them this plan was 6 devastating for us in two fashions. 7 One is our personal security and 8 safety, without having any real 9 protection of vehicles. And of greater 10 importance to us, we are concerned 11 about the security of our customers 12 coming in. Putting that handicap 13 parking right next to the building with 14 the gradation variations that they 15 have, we felt was devastating. I know 16 this came forward and the court ordered 17 us to present something to you. 18 Just so you understand, they 19 took I think it's 8,000 feet at $10 a 20 foot; I think it's $80,000. They paid 21 the people 550,000 already, fully 22 knowing they were pretty well 23 destroying that building. And yet they 24 are coming here and trying to stick 25 them with the struggle of the building.
143 1 The money is not the issue. 2 The thing is, these people 3 want to survive in the business. And 4 it's a lot of problems, and when we 5 come back and see you after, but 6 hopefully our signs will be something 7 you will accept in the future. Right 8 now I think you are going to be giving 9 us a 26 foot sign or something like 10 that, 28 foot sign. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you. 12 Before you sit down, I just have a 13 question for the city, if I could. I 14 know part of the request was to make 15 some kind of statement that it runs in 16 perpetuity. That goes without saying, 17 does it not? 18 MS. KUDLA: Unless -- it 19 does, unless you limit it like we have 20 seen on some of the -- 21 MR. ACKERMAN: It's not to be 22 considered in any future variance 23 applications. What it is, it's a 24 waiver and it's a variance that's 25 treated as something under the
144 1 variance, under the statute, so it's 2 not to be considered as a variance for 3 the future. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: What do 5 you mean by that? 6 MR. ACKERMAN: The fact is, 7 you are giving us a permanent variance 8 as to this use. But if we come back 9 and want to do something else and seek 10 a variance at some future date, you 11 aren't going to be in a position of 12 saying, "Well, these other variances 13 exist; you have to disregard them under 14 the statute." 15 MS. KUDLA: That's 16 understood. 17 MR. ACKERMAN: Our 18 preference, of course, is that you 19 don't approve this, because I don't 20 think we can survive even if you do. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Wouldn't 22 not approving them hurt you even 23 further, your client? You are saying 24 granting these variances would hurt, 25 but wouldn't disapproving them hurt
145 1 you, also? 2 MR. ACKERMAN: The reality 3 is, even if you approve them, I don't 4 think we can survive with that 5 building. The biggest single problem 6 in my view is the handicap. The 7 handicap ramps -- we can get lot of 8 variances. We can't get the variances 9 on the handicap ramps that we now have. 10 We are not safely parking people with 11 their handicap parking. After the 12 fact, where you put the handicap 13 parking will be one of the bays, so 14 close to the bay that it won't be safe. 15 I just can't imagine we are going to 16 survive with this. And that's -- I 17 think they knew that when they paid 18 $550,000 for the taking of 8,000 feet 19 of vacant land. 20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, 21 sir. Anybody else from the public like 22 to make a public remark in this case? 23 Seeing no others, I will close the 24 public remark section and ask the 25 secretary to read any correspondence.
146 1 MEMBER SKELCY: Nine notices 2 mailed. There were zero responses, and 3 one mail returned. And then we also 4 have the letter dated April 8, 2011, 5 from Gagliano Enterprises, which is 6 part of the record. It's two pages, 7 and it's signed by John Gagliano, the 8 president of Gagliano Enterprises, LLC. 9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Any 10 comments further from the city? 11 MS. KUDLA: I will let 12 Charles, Mr. Boulard, initiate the 13 comments. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 15 MR. BOULARD: I will go 16 first. I wanted to make sure that 17 everybody knows, as you mentioned in 18 the letter and the information that was 19 provided by the Gagliano -- by 20 Mr. Gagliano and Cliff Seiber's letter 21 was included in the packet. It came in 22 late; I apologize not getting it out to 23 you, but it is included at your packet. 24 I also wondered if I could be 25 so bold as to I think Mr. -- one of the
147 1 questions is the issue of the corner 2 clearance. And there is -- my 3 understanding there is -- the Road 4 Commission has a requirement and the 5 city has a similar or parallel but 6 somewhat similar requirement that's 7 measured from the property line and so 8 on. And I wondered if it would be 9 worthwhile -- I believe Mr. Rollinger 10 has brought a gentleman from the Road 11 Commission that might be able to speak 12 on that. I thought that would be 13 helpful, if I could request that. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Sure. 15 Come on forward, sir. 16 MR. ROLLINGER: If it please 17 the board, yes, I brought with me Jeff 18 O'Brien, who is the design engineer for 19 the Road Commission and is intimately 20 familiar with all the terms and 21 requirements for clear vision sight 22 distance for the Road Commission 23 projects, and he's here to speak to 24 those issues. 25 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. If
148 1 you could step forward, sir. Raise 2 your right hand and be sworn. 3 MEMBER SKELCY: Do you swear 4 or affirm to tell the truth? 5 MR. O'BRIEN: I do. 6 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you. 7 MR. O'BRIEN: My name is Jeff 8 O'Brien, design engineer for Road 9 Commission of Oakland County. If you 10 excuse me, I have a cold, so I'm trying 11 to storm through it. 12 With regards to corner sight 13 clearance, the Novi ordinance itself is 14 measured along the actual right-of-way 15 line itself, which is generally offset 16 from the travel way portion of the 17 road. From the Road Commission's stand 18 and perspective, from the corner sight 19 distance, that is measured from the 20 edge of traveled way. Both distances 21 are similar. However, when you measure 22 from the corner sight distance on the 23 Road Commission, as part of our 24 standards, to observe for corner sight 25 clearance and to be sure there is no
149 1 obstructions within that sight triangle 2 for a vehicle exiting the driveway, it 3 meets Road Commission standards, the 4 driveway does. 5 So, with that, it meets our 6 requirements also for slope of the 7 driveway with regards to our current 8 requirements, which would provide 9 ingress and egress to the particular 10 site in question. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: What about 12 Mr. Ackerman's comments about the 13 handicap issue? 14 MR. O'BRIEN: The handicap 15 regulations are stated somewhat loosely 16 where they say the handicap spots 17 should be located as close as possible 18 to the entrance to the building. With 19 regards to this particular site and 20 where the handicap spots are proposed, 21 it is adjacent to the building. It is 22 the closest proximate spot for those 23 spots to be located. And in all the 24 ADA requirements and our safe ingress 25 and egress into the building are proper
150 1 itself. 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You don't 3 see any safety issues with what you 4 propose? 5 MR. O'BRIEN: No, I do not. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anybody 7 have any questions? Member Skelcy. 8 MEMBER SKELCY: Can you 9 address the slope indications? You 10 said one of the driveways would be a 11 six-foot slope. The next would be I 12 think -- 13 MR. O'BRIEN: The main 14 entrance -- they have two approaches. 15 Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. 16 They have two approaches to the site. 17 One is what appears to be a secondary 18 rear-type access that is, I believe, 19 currently gated. And I think it's 20 primarily closed most of the time. 21 The other is the primary 22 entrance, which is on the north side of 23 the building, which is their primary 24 ingress and egress. That particular 25 driveway would be at a six percent
151 1 grade, which, as Mr. Seiber indicated, 2 it's a fall of -- I'm approximately six 3 feet tall. So if you could visualize 4 100 feet away from me at a zero ground 5 elevation, that would be the slope of 6 the particular driveway. 7 The standard cross slope, to 8 give you some other, I guess, 9 references, if you will. The standard 10 cross slope of any particular road is 11 approximately two percent. So it would 12 be three times greater than a cross 13 slope of a particular road. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member 15 Gedeon. 16 MEMBER GEDEON: One of the 17 concerns of the property owner had to 18 do with truck delivery and truck 19 traffic onto the property. Do the -- 20 are the Road Commission requirements 21 based on average vehicle traffic, or is 22 it based on the particular traffic that 23 could be expected at that property? 24 MR. O'BRIEN: The six percent 25 maximum grade is based on commercial
152 1 drive access, which would anticipate 2 commercial vehicles. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Mr. 4 Boulard, did you have any questions? 5 MR. BOULARD: I was just 6 going to suggest that the map behind 7 that one or the drawing that might be 8 used to describe it for the folks at 9 home. 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anybody 11 else have any questions for this 12 particular witness? Okay. Thank you, 13 sir. Any other comments or -- 14 actually, any other comments from the 15 city? 16 MS. KUDLA: I just wanted to 17 remind the board that the proposal 18 that's put together by the property 19 owner, Mr. Gagliano, and on behalf of 20 Collex by Mr. Seiber is not before the 21 board for consideration today. It has 22 not been submitted for site plan 23 approval, so that that is not a plan 24 that's being considered. You are 25 looking at the variances as being
153 1 presented only by the Road Commission. 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 3 MS. KUDLA: And based on the 4 standards. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I will 6 open it up to the board for any further 7 discussion. Member Sanghvi. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. I 9 think one of the main issues raised 10 about the safety and visibility, what 11 is the normal height for visibility 12 purposes for say a tractor-trailer 13 truck or commercial vehicle going 14 through that slope? And a (inaudible) 15 on one side, how does it interfere with 16 the visibility of the height of that? 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Can you 18 answer that, sir? 19 MR. O'BRIEN: Sorry. With 20 regards to the height of an actual 21 driver, the standard height is 22 three-and-a-half feet is the height of 23 the eye. That's what we call it, 24 essentially eye height of the driver. 25 That's for a passenger vehicle.
154 1 Off the top of my head, I 2 don't know what it is for a commercial 3 driver or commercial vehicle, but it's 4 substantially higher than that 5 generally. If I had to put a number to 6 it, probably in the order of five, six 7 feet, depending on the type of 8 commercial vehicle. 9 With regards to the height of 10 the wall, the wall does come within 11 close proximity to the particular 12 driveway in question. However, with 13 that it was stated that the wall is 12 14 feet high. Well, the driveway is also 15 coming up approximately eight to nine 16 feet as well. So the difference in 17 height between the top of the wall and 18 the grade of the driveway is 19 approximately three feet. So, from a 20 passenger -- and from a passenger 21 vehicle perspective, they are out 22 within the corner sight clearance from 23 the Road Commission standards and can 24 see in both directions. The wall is 25 actually outside of that corner sight
155 1 drive. 2 If it's a commercial vehicle, 3 they are actually sitting higher, then 4 they have an increased sight distance 5 because they are sitting up higher. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other 8 questions? Member Skelcy, you have a 9 question for this witness? 10 MEMBER SKELCY: What about 11 when people come up over the hill of 12 the bridge and travel downward, is 13 there going to be a nearby stoplight 14 that's going to kind of regulate some 15 traffic so there will be gaps for 16 people to turn left onto Novi Road? 17 MR. O'BRIEN: The gaps will 18 be regulated. The closest one to the 19 north is Main Street. 20 MEMBER SKELCY: Right. 21 MR. O'BRIEN: The other one 22 to the south would be the post office. 23 And, so, with those, and with it being 24 five lanes and increased capacity, 25 there will be sufficient gaps that
156 1 folks can pull in and out, whether 2 turning left into the property or 3 turning left out of the property. 4 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: 6 Member Krieger. 7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Just a 8 comment right now. If I was driving a 9 truck, and with my experience going up 10 and down Grand River over the train 11 track, you never see the cop on one 12 side of the hill or the other. So if 13 you are flying, you are in trouble. 14 So, I think the same thing is going to 15 happen here. Instead of -- of course, 16 instead of getting hit by a train, with 17 your experience with CVS trucks, people 18 don't look on the other side of street 19 letting trucks in and out, that with an 20 increased speed, I know if I was 21 driving a big semi, I know I would kill 22 somebody. So I'm -- with the slopes 23 and everything, I guess that's where 24 I'm at right now. 25 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay.
157 1 Just a couple comments. Number one, I 2 understand the county's position is 3 they want to help the landowner. The 4 landowner does not want your help. I 5 understand there is ongoing litigation, 6 which really has nothing to do with us. 7 I think that's very important. Our 8 question is in this unusual 9 circumstance, given this condemnation 10 of partial land, what's the best 11 alternative for, you know, this 12 particular property in terms of 13 variances? We have one proposal before 14 us. It seems reasonable. Certainly, 15 we have testimony that conflicts about 16 safety issues and everything, but, the 17 object is, given the scenario that's 18 not caused by the landowner, it's 19 caused by the condemnation of certain 20 lands. And I don't think there is any 21 dispute that the County Road Commission 22 can petition on the landowner's behalf. 23 The question becomes, do 24 these meet our standards? It appears 25 to me, based on from what I have seen
158 1 and what I've read that's been 2 submitted, it seems that it is helping 3 the landowner have use. To what 4 extent, you know, I understand 5 Mr. Ackerman says that they may not 6 have use either way. We can't predict 7 that; that's beyond our purview. But 8 it seems that some relief is requested 9 and certainly required under the 10 circumstances. At least I view the 11 petition as being reasonable under the 12 circumstances. 13 Any other comments or 14 questions from the board? 15 MR. SEIBER: Mr. Chairman, 16 may I make one comment in response? 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: In 18 response, I will go ahead and allow you 19 that, sir. 20 MR. SEIBER: Just as a point 21 of clarification, Mr. O'Brien indicated 22 the height of the wall right at the -- 23 adjacent to the driveway would be three 24 feet or so. The 12 feet that I 25 suggested is the extension of that
159 1 clear vision triangle to where it 2 intersects that wall. At that point, 3 that wall is about 12 feet in height. 4 I measured that off the construction 5 drawings. So, within the clear vision 6 triangle area or the extension of that, 7 we are looking at a 12-foot high 8 retaining wall that certainly helps 9 obstruct that vision. 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Any 11 other comments, questions or motion by 12 the board? Ms. Skelcy, you want to 13 make a motion? Please go ahead. 14 MEMBER SKELCY: I move in the 15 case of 11-010, the address of 25100 16 Novi Road, Collex Gagliano, or Galiano, 17 Enterprises, Inc., located east of 18 Novi Road and south of Grand River 19 Road, that the requested variance for 20 the front yard setback of 92 feet, two 21 inches, be granted; that the requested 22 corner clearing area variance of 25 23 feet be granted; that the right-of-way 24 landscaping between parking lot and 25 Novi Road variance of 17 feet -- 17
160 1 feet, two inches, be granted; that the 2 requested waiver of four required 3 canopy and eight required sub-canopy 4 trees be granted; that the requested 5 variance for waiver of the screen wall 6 or landscape berm requirement be 7 granted; that the temporary sign 8 request be granted; that the required 9 minimum parking front yard setback of 10 32 feet, two inches, be granted; and 11 that the proposed waiver of the berm be 12 granted. And that temporary signs may 13 be erected in accordance with the use, 14 area, height and placement regulations 15 of Section 28-6. 16 This is based on the fact 17 that the request is based upon 18 circumstances of features that are 19 exceptional and unique to the property, 20 given the fact that the road is under 21 construction and will include a new 22 bridge, and do not result from 23 conditions that exist generally in the 24 city or that are self-created. This is 25 also based on the fact that the failure
161 1 to grant the relief will unreasonably 2 prevent or limit the use of the 3 property, based on the new construction 4 and installation of the bridge. And 5 will result in substantially more than 6 mere inconvenience or inability to 7 obtain a higher economic or financial 8 return for the property owner. 9 And, finally, that the grant 10 of relief will not result in a use of a 11 structure that is incompatible with or 12 unreasonably interferes with adjacent 13 or surrounding properties, or will 14 result in -- and will result in 15 substantial justice being done for both 16 the applicant and adjacent and 17 surrounding properties, and is not 18 inconsistent with the spirit of the 19 ordinance. 20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Do 21 I hear a second? 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any 24 further discussion? 25 MEMBER IBE: Perhaps you want
162 1 to touch on some of the factors of the 2 variance because that was mentioned, 3 all the dimensions. I think you might 4 want to include that as part of your 5 motion. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: If you 7 want to include it, you can add an 8 amendment. 9 MEMBER IBE: If you don't 10 mind. That the petitioner has met the 11 standards required for granting the 12 dimensional variances here in that the 13 problem here is not self-created. And 14 that there are adequate lights and air 15 for the property owners; it is not 16 impaired in any way. There is no 17 increase of fire or danger to public 18 safety based on what we heard from the 19 engineer for the Road Commission. And 20 although there is some conflicting 21 reports (inaudible) to it, but based on 22 what we heard so far, it definitely 23 meets the standard required. And, 24 also, that the properly values in the 25 area will not be diminished by the
163 1 construction that has been proposed 2 here. In fact, I think the opposite 3 will happen; it might actually enhance 4 property values in the area. 5 Considering the fact that as it is 6 right now, that place is not conducive 7 enough to attract more businesses. But 8 with the new construction, it might 9 actually enhance and, in fact, it will 10 enhance our property values and not 11 diminish it. 12 And that, finally, the spirit 13 of the zoning ordinance will be 14 observed by granting these variances. 15 Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Is that 17 accepted by the motioner? 18 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: And the 20 second? 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any 23 further discussion? Okay, 24 Ms. Marchioni, can you please call the 25 role?
164 1 MS. MARCHIONI: 2 Member Skelcy? 3 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 4 MS. MARCHIONI: 5 Member Sanghvi? 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 7 MS. MARCHIONI: 8 Member Krieger? 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: No. 10 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Ibe? 11 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 12 MS. MARCHIONI: Chairman 13 Ghannam? 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes. 15 MS. MARCHIONI: Member 16 Gedeon? 17 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 18 MS. MARCHIONI: Motion 19 passes, five to one. 20 MR. SEIBER: Mr. Chairman, I 21 didn't catch that, did the motion 22 include any action on the signs? 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: It 24 approved all the variances as requested 25 basically to summarize.
165 1 MR. BOULARD: I believe that 2 it did not include the pole sign. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 4 MR. BOULARD: It did not 5 include the pole sign. 6 MR. SEIBER: Temporary sign 7 and permanent sign. 8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: We will do 9 a separate -- we will do a separate 10 motion on the sign. 11 MR. BOULARD: I believe it 12 included the temporary sign, according 13 to the ordinance restrictions. 14 MR. GAGLIANO: There needs to 15 be a pole for the sign, the pole sign 16 needs to be changed. There is a 17 request for a variance with a pole 18 sign. 19 MEMBER SKELCY: I did mention 20 it in the motion, but I didn't 21 specifically state that it was a 22 proposed pole sign. 23 MR. BOULARD: Mr. Rollinger, 24 I believe one of the things based on 25 the hearings we have had in some of the
166 1 other cases, your original written 2 request was for a pole sign. And we 3 had several discussions about putting 4 the sign on the building. Would you 5 care to -- the way that it was 6 published, I believe it was without 7 that, without the pole sign. 8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: But we did 9 cover all the variances as requested, 10 is that accurate? That's what I 11 thought I heard in your motion. 12 MR. BOULARD: There was 13 not -- there was not a specific motion 14 on the pole sign. So, if you would 15 like to do that. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: We have to 17 address that, obviously, one way or the 18 other. 19 MR. BOULARD: That would 20 probably be best. 21 MS. KUDLA: You can address 22 it as a separate motion. 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You want 24 to make a separate motion on the sign? 25 MEMBER SKELCY: In the case
167 1 of 11-010 for the address of 25100 Novi 2 Road, Collex/Galiano Enterprises, 3 Incorporated, located east of Novi Road 4 and south of Grand River Avenue, I 5 motion that we grant the requested 6 variance regarding signs permitted 7 according to the district, and that 8 would include the installation of a 9 pole sign. 10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Hold on. 12 MR. BOULARD: Pole signs are 13 not allowed. 14 MEMBER SKELCY: I believe 15 that's what was being requested, I 16 thought. 17 MR. BOULARD: That was what 18 was requested, but the business sign -- 19 the allowed sign would be a ground 20 sign, wall sign or canopy sign. The 21 pole sign was proposed. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Do we 23 grant -- so do we -- 24 MR. BOULARD: So the pole 25 sign would be a variance.
168 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Right. 2 MR. BOULARD: But it wouldn't 3 be -- it wouldn't be in accordance with 4 the requirements of the district. 5 MEMBER SKELCY: I understand. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Either you 7 are moving to approve a pole sign or 8 disapprove a pole sign. 9 MR. BOULARD: Yes. 10 MEMBER SKELCY: You know, I 11 don't feel that we have had adequate 12 discussion on the pole sign, because I 13 know that was an issue with Strickland 14 Paint. 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I have no 16 problem with it as they proposed it, 17 you know, in their petitions. I don't 18 know if anybody else has any comments. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: You don't 20 need any dimensions on the signs, the 21 pole sign? 22 MR. BOULARD: I think it 23 would be -- if you were inclined to 24 grant a variance for the pole sign, I 25 think it would be appropriate to have
169 1 dimensions on that. 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Was there 3 a specific -- wasn't there a specific 4 proposal for the size and locations and 5 so forth? What item was that? 6 MR. BOULARD: It's the second 7 from last in the application. The 8 proposal, as I understood it, was for 9 the existing sign. Original proposal 10 was for the existing sign to be placed 11 on a pole that would be visible. I 12 don't know what height that would be. 13 I don't believe there was a height. 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thirty-four 15 square feet. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Well, 17 that's the size of the sign before 18 that's proposed. 19 MR. BOULARD: Yes, 34 square 20 feet, which I believe is the size of 21 the existing sign, is that correct? 22 MR. SEIBER: That matches 23 (inaudible) that is correct. 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: And it 25 says to be located, minimum of 35 feet
170 1 east of the right of way; is that the 2 request? 3 MR. ROLLINGER: A minimum, 4 yes, to allow that to be the new 5 location, but allow it to be elevated 6 at that location of height, so that it 7 can be visible northbound and 8 southbound. 9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: But you 10 didn't have a specific elevation 11 request? 12 MR. ROLLINGER: I did not. 13 What I ended up, I did provide to the 14 board were copies of the letter 15 visibility chart for signage, because I 16 do not personally know the sign 17 lettering height. It has different 18 heights depending on the height of the 19 letters, anywhere from four inches up to 20 57 inches in height. And I truly can't 21 tell you what the current height is of 22 the letters on the Collex sign. 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I 24 appreciate that. Given the notice that 25 was given out, what would be the
171 1 maximum we can grant? Given the 2 advertisement, what's the maximum we 3 can grant? What are the parameters? 4 MR. BOULARD: There wasn't a 5 limitation on that. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. You 7 are saying, sir, the maximum that would 8 be necessary under the circumstance is 9 what? The height, in terms of the 10 height? 11 MR. ROLLINGER: Yeah, that's 12 why I was going to refer to the letter 13 visibility chart that I included with 14 our applications, because that does 15 provide the sight distance in terms of 16 feet based on the lettering height. 17 And I was going -- as I say, I do not 18 personally know what the height is of 19 the Collex sign in terms of the actual 20 lettering. But based on the visibility 21 chart, it gives the board measurements 22 for sight distance based on the height 23 of the letters. 24 MR. SEIBER: Because of the 25 obstructive view of the bridge, the
172 1 owner is asking for a height of 30 2 feet. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Is that 4 unreasonable? 5 MR. ROLLINGER: No. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Is that an 7 issue with the city, do you think, a 8 maximum of 30 feet? 9 MR. BOULARD: Is that to the 10 bottom of the sign or the top? 11 MR. SEIBER: That's the top 12 of the sign. 13 MR. BOULARD: What's it 14 measured from, the existing grade? 15 MR. SEIBER: Existing grade. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You don't 17 see any issue with that? 18 MR. BOULARD: No. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: And that's 20 if it's granted. And then the sign is 21 still for 34 square feet; you have no 22 problem with that? 23 MR. ACKERMAN: Could you 24 place it as above -- three feet above 25 the bridge?
173 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Speak in 2 front of the microphone, if you don't 3 mind. 4 MR. ACKERMAN: The rational 5 way to do would be so it's three feet 6 above the height of the bridge's fence 7 line. Because the fence line is 8 blocked. What you want to do is have 9 it three feet above that. I think 10 that's 27 feet. What we would want to 11 have is the bottom start at three feet 12 above. Because that's really what you 13 can have. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You are 15 saying the bottom you want 30 feet? 16 MR. ACKERMAN: Bottom to be 17 30 feet. As I understand it, assuming 18 the top of the bridge is five feet 19 above the bridge floor, which is 22 20 feet above the ground. The problem is 21 going to be, is there will be a grade 22 change. If the road is built up, it 23 may end up being four feet more or six 24 feet more than it is now. 25 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Can we
174 1 condition it upon the line that he's 2 talking about? In other words, have 3 the bottom of the sign start a certain 4 number of feet above? 5 MR. BOULARD: I guess it 6 depends on where the sign is compared 7 to the crest of the bridge. I'm sure 8 Mr. O'Brien could give us a dimension 9 at the top or an elevation at the top 10 of the bridge. 11 MR. ACKERMAN: Crest of the 12 bridge is fast. 13 MR. BOULARD: The railroad 14 tracks are actually lower than the site 15 of this building. 16 MR. ACKERMAN: They are 17 building the road up. See, because the 18 way that no one realizes, there's two 19 hills. There is a hill that goes up 20 and then down before you get to the 21 bridge. So what they are doing is they 22 are trying to make it so it's a more 23 even grade and straightening out at Ten 24 Mile. They were all built as a hill. 25 This area had some slope to it. What
175 1 they do is because of the speed, they 2 go about 45 miles an hour, they 3 straightened out the road so it only 4 goes up and down. I think it's 5 two-and-a-half percent or maximum of 6 three percent. It's supposed to be 7 five percent commercial. They are 8 pushing us to six percent in this case. 9 And that's the reality of what you have 10 here is a situation in which -- because 11 they are moving the road itself, there 12 may be a need for us to have three or 13 four more feet than even 30 feet. And 14 that's why I would like you to place it 15 about three feet above the peak of the 16 bridge cover, which is the side 17 fencing, which would probably be 18 enclosed. And it's not like you will 19 be able to see out in the road. Make 20 sense to you, sir? I'm sorry. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Do you 22 want to comment on that from the 23 county? 24 MR. O'BRIEN: From the 25 county's perspective --
176 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Speak in 2 front of the microphone. 3 MR. O'BRIEN: From the 4 county's perspective, the crest -- I 5 will give you proximity, if you will. 6 The crest of the bridge is 7 approximately 900 feet north of the 8 center of the Collex's building, which 9 would be approximately where the sign 10 location is at. I want to say that's a 11 45 mile an hour posted speed out there. 12 Stopping sight distance for that is 13 roughly about 450-ish, 500 feet, 14 something like that. So, visibility, 15 you have to realize from a visibility 16 perspective, that if the fellow was 17 sitting on top of the bridge, he's 18 looking down on the property. As the 19 grade comes down, he's looking down on 20 the whole top of the property. The 21 sign should be visible with what's 22 being requested. 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Which is 24 according to what Mr. Ackerman just 25 indicated?
177 1 MR. ACKERMAN: Whatever the 2 visible height is, three feet above 3 that would be the bottom point. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: How would 5 we phrase that? You want the bottom of 6 the sign to be three feet above what? 7 MR. ACKERMAN: The bottom 8 point of the highest point of the 9 bridge. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Maximum 11 height of the bridge. 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Does that 13 make sense to you? 14 MR. O'BRIEN: I'm sorry, I 15 missed that. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Go ahead 17 and explain it, Mr. Ackerman. 18 MR. ACKERMAN: Three feet -- 19 the bottom of the sign would be three 20 feet above the bottom point or the 21 highest point of the bridge, including 22 the cover, the side fence. Because the 23 fence is going to be enclosed at some 24 point, if not immediately. 25 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Does that
178 1 make sense to you? 2 MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, it does. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member 4 Sanghvi, you have a comment? 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: I will just 6 say, they can have a limit of maximum 7 five foot above the highest point of 8 the bridge. 9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 10 That's true, we would have to 11 consider -- that's what you want, the 12 bottom to start, but what about the 13 top? 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: It depends 15 on the dimension. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: 17 Thirty-four square feet, what are the 18 dimensions? 19 MR. ACKERMAN: It's a 20 four-foot high sign. Four feet by -- 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: How about 22 if we put -- if we can phrase it -- I'm 23 sorry, Ms. Kudla. 24 MS. KUDLA: What we are going 25 to request I think of the Road
179 1 Commission, the applicant, to do here 2 is to provide us some specificity on 3 this and sever off this variance 4 request, if they would, and come back 5 with this pole sign request as a 6 separate variance, separate from the 7 ones that have already been listed in 8 the motion. We were asking the 9 applicant if that would be acceptable 10 to them. 11 MR. ROLLINGER: If we came 12 back with more -- 13 MS. KUDLA: Specificity of 14 the actual height of the pole and what 15 it would need to be, a specific number 16 that we can publish so we are not just 17 making up a number here today. 18 MR. ROLLINGER: Well, I did 19 attempt to provide a visibility chart, 20 which would, again, based on the 21 measured height of the existing letters 22 on that sign would give you a sight 23 distance measurement. I just do not 24 know what the height of the existing 25 letters on that sign is. The measured
180 1 size of the sign is already fixed; it's 2 34 square feet. 3 MS. KUDLA: Is that 4 something -- information that would be 5 available, though, so that we can make 6 that calculation? 7 MR. ROLLINGER: This was 8 already part of the application. 9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: If we made 10 a proposal to put the top of the sign 11 at seven feet above the highest part of 12 the bridge, that would make sense to 13 everybody? 14 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes, sure. 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You want 16 the three plus the four? 17 MR. ACKERMAN: That would 18 make sense. 19 MR. BOULARD: I guess I -- my 20 thoughts are this: The center of the 21 sign, assuming that the sign is 22 centered more or less on the building, 23 the sign is roughly 900 feet from the 24 crest of the bridge. The height of the 25 bridge is not -- and the bridge rail is
181 1 not 27 feet or 30 feet at the point the 2 sign is. I don't believe that -- I 3 personally -- the ordinance does not 4 support pole signs. I think there is 5 other ways to do the signage for the 6 building. And I understand there is 7 difference of opinion on that. 8 I'm particularly concerned 9 about making an assumption or making 10 the stretch without having some kind 11 of -- that a sign is 900 feet from 12 about a fifth of a mile, somewhere in 13 that neighborhood, fifth and -- little 14 less than a fifth of a mile, maybe 15 sixth of a mile, from the crest of the 16 bridge, needs to be above the rail at 17 the crest of the bridge. By the time 18 the road gets to the sign, a lot of 19 that road will be gone. And I would 20 hazard to say that depending on where 21 it is on the site, there may not 22 actually be rail at all adjacent to the 23 sign. I guess that's just my 24 thoughts. 25 MR. ACKERMAN: I would sense
182 1 that you may be right, except for the 2 fact that assuming people are only 3 going 45, the 900 feet is 16 seconds to 4 make a pretty sharp left turn into this 5 location off the bottom of a bridge. 6 In other words, anybody goes there the 7 first time is probably going to pass by 8 the first time and come back. That's 9 why we were concerned, to continue to 10 be concerned about the safety. 11 But if you have it further 12 down, I sense that you won't have the 13 visibility. We are trying to make it 14 so it's sensible so there is some sense 15 of safety for people. And the farther 16 apart the sign is, the safer it is. 17 That's why we suggested it that way. 18 If you want us to go back and have some 19 cuts for you, you know, this will have 20 to be done. You make your decision on 21 how you want us to do it, and we will 22 use the talent of people (inaudible) 23 can get done here or somewhere else I 24 suppose. So, with that in mind, what 25 is your choice, sir?
183 1 MR. BOULARD: It's up to the 2 board. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I 4 understand it's up to the board, but 5 what are your comments from the city? 6 MR. BOULARD: My thoughts are 7 if the board is inclined to consider a 8 pole sign, that it would probably be 9 helpful to have some cuts across the 10 road at the location of the sign, and 11 then perhaps used down the road that 12 would accurately -- if the board was 13 inclined to grant the sign, it could be 14 high enough to serve the purposes that 15 you desire without being any higher 16 than necessary. 17 MR. GAGLIANO: 18 Mr. Chairperson, with the variances you 19 granted them, you effectively put us in 20 a hole with no visibility. So, if you 21 are going to grant these other 22 variances, the pole sign is the only 23 way that people are going to find us. 24 Coming over a bridge, a retaining wall 25 to your left-hand side, you are coming
184 1 southbound, a wall sign is not going to 2 do it. We are going to need to have -- 3 we have a ground sign currently; we 4 have great visibility. We purchased 5 property that has Novi Road frontage. 6 I no longer have Novi Road frontage. 7 The board must understand I don't have 8 Novi Road frontage anymore. Now I've 9 got a driveway. I don't have my whole 10 frontage. Now you are giving me, you 11 know -- we need to have a pole sign. 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Sir, it's 13 understood, I think, and that's the 14 unusual nature of this particular case, 15 and this is complex, and that's why we 16 are allowing more time for the 17 discussion. I guess the question 18 becomes, the height of the sign, the 19 distance away from the top portion and 20 doing that analysis, I guess what you 21 are recommending, is to simply table 22 this for a future date until we can get 23 those analyses. 24 MS. KUDLA: That's what we 25 would be recommending, severing that
185 1 one, come back with specifics on where 2 the sign would be located and the 3 height. 4 MR. ACKERMAN: At that time, 5 we would like to have ample opportunity 6 to come back. 7 MS. KUDLA: That's -- 8 MR. ACKERMAN: I don't think 9 we are done. If we are stuck with 10 being in a building we are in, I think 11 we will be asking for a number of other 12 walls you are going to have to put up. 13 We have to have our users on the site. 14 The berm is not going to be secure 15 enough for us. So we are going to come 16 back and hope you provide us the other 17 variances. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I guess 19 you can do a couple things. You can 20 ask us to either table this for a 21 future date or you can simply forego 22 this particular one and bring back 23 whatever request. 24 MR. ACKERMAN: I would 25 suggest, given clearly there has been a
186 1 lengthy discussion about this before we 2 showed up today. I wish I hadn't made 3 the effort, because it was already 4 decided. I would suggest to you if 5 this is really what you want to do, in 6 your city, that we have -- we are going 7 to have -- if we decide we want to stay 8 there, which I'm not going to guarantee 9 we will do it at all. And if we do try 10 to stay there, I think we have to put 11 up our own security fencing to figure 12 out to what to do with our own 13 property. And we have to figure out -- 14 and we are going to want approvals, 15 because we are going to remodel that 16 building, and it's going to cost more 17 than a new building because of what you 18 have done here. We don't mind. We 19 want to get it approved. We don't want 20 to just get paid compensation and be 21 out of business. Because that would 22 be much more expensive anyway. 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: So what's 24 your pleasure as to the sign? 25 MR. ACKERMAN: I think it
187 1 would be best if you table this and 2 have it done in an organized fashion. 3 MS. KUDLA: It's the Road 4 Commission's application. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I 6 understand, but I'm still asking their 7 preference. 8 MR. ACKERMAN: Of course, 9 it's their application, but I'm not 10 even sure they are really asking for 11 the pole sign variance. That's the way 12 that it's understood where the pole 13 sign was going to be, so there is 14 ambiguity in the application, I 15 suppose. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: That's why 17 we are getting that discussion. Can we 18 table without a date, or no? 19 MS. KUDLA: June 14th. 20 MR. ACKERMAN: I don't think 21 we will be prepared by June 14, to be 22 honest. We have to sit down, now that 23 this plan has been accepted, which we 24 are in a state of shock about today. I 25 think we have our own stuff to provide.
188 1 I think you have to look at the two 2 left turns. I think you were 3 misrepresented today, but that's fine. 4 MR. ROLLINGER: I would ask 5 the board can we come back on that date 6 strictly for the sign? 7 MS. KUDLA: That's correct. 8 That would be the request. 9 MR. ROLLINGER: Certainly, if 10 the owner wishes to make other variance 11 requests, that's -- they are certainly 12 free to do so. We would like to get 13 that process going for you. 14 MS. KUDLA: That's correct. 15 If there is additional variances 16 requested by a separate applicant, that 17 request would have to be made by a 18 separate applicant and separate 19 application. 20 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: We haven't 22 finished yet. Any other discussion? 23 Member Gedeon. 24 MEMBER GEDEON: Just 25 procedurally, there is a motion on the
189 1 table that was never seconded. 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: We will 3 deal with that. We are just trying to 4 finalize this discussion, and we can 5 decide how to proceed. Any further 6 discussion? 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: No. 8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: No. Do 9 you want to amend your motion? Do you 10 want to continue the motion or amend it 11 to adjourn? 12 MEMBER SKELCY: I'd like to 13 withdraw the motion at this time. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. So, 15 no motion on the table as it pertains 16 to the pole sign currently. Does 17 anybody want to make a motion to table 18 to the June 14th? 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: I make a 20 motion we -- 21 MS. KUDLA: Was there a vote 22 on the initial motion without the pole 23 sign? 24 MS. MARCHIONI: Yes. 25 MEMBER GEDEON: Do we need to
190 1 make a motion to table? We approved 2 the request that's granted. They did 3 not specifically request a pole sign. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: 5 Mr. Chairman. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Hold on, 7 is that inaccurate or accurate? I 8 believe that's inaccurate from what we 9 previously discussed. 10 MS. KUDLA: The 28.51C 11 variance, it says, "Pole sign 12 proposed." Is that the variance we are 13 discussing? 14 MR. BOULARD: Yes. 15 MS. KUDLA: Was that part of 16 the current motion that was passed? 17 MR. BOULARD: My recollection 18 is that that motion included the 19 language regarding the -- as was listed 20 here in that the business sign, ground 21 sign, wall sign or canopy sign. I 22 don't seem to recall that the pole sign 23 was mentioned. I don't believe that 24 was the case. 25 MS. KUDLA: Okay.
191 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member 2 Sanghvi. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: My 4 suggestion was to delete the pole sign 5 segment from the earlier motions and 6 make another motion to table for a 7 future date. Only the pole sign is the 8 main issue; we can table it to another 9 day. 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Was it as 11 part of the original motion? Because I 12 thought she mentioned all the different 13 aspects, including a sign. That could 14 still be a pole sign. 15 MS. KUDLA: Okay, so it's a 16 separate variance for the sign. The 17 pole sign was not discussed, so you 18 don't need to abandon that first 19 motion. You need to decide if the pole 20 sign is part of this request, it needs 21 to be tabled and to a date certain. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Right. 23 She started to make another motion, but 24 she withdrew it. So now the question 25 is do we want to table it or take some
192 1 action on it, correct? 2 MS. KUDLA: Correct. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Do you 4 want to make a motion to table? 5 MEMBER SKELCY: Yeah. In the 6 matter of Case No. 11-010, address of 7 25100 Novi Road, Collex/Galiano 8 Enterprises, Inc., I move that the 9 requested variance under Section 10 28-5(1)(C) regarding signs permitted in 11 this particular district, and the 12 request for the pole sign be adjourned 13 to June 14th, 2011, and heard at that 14 time. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any 17 further discussion? Seeing none, 18 Ms. Marchioni, can you please call the 19 role? 20 MS. MARCHIONI: Member 21 Skelcy? 22 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 23 MS. MARCHIONI: 24 Member Sanghvi? 25 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
193 1 MS. MARCHIONI: 2 Member Krieger? 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 4 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Ibe? 5 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 6 MS. MARCHIONI: Chairman 7 Ghannam? 8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes. 9 MS. MARCHIONI: Member 10 Gedeon? 11 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 12 MS. MARCHIONI: Motion 13 passes, six to zero. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: And if you 15 can, at that time, please have 16 specifics to have us make a decision as 17 to height, location, things like that, 18 that would be greatly appreciated. 19 Thank you. 20 Being the end, are there any 21 other matters to be discussed on the 22 record today? Seeing none, I will 23 entertain a motion to adjourn. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: So move. 25 MEMBER IBE: Second.
194 1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any 2 further discussion? All in favor, say 3 aye. 4 THE BOARD: Aye. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All 6 opposed, no. Seeing none, we are 7 adjourned. 8 (The hearing was 9 adjourned at 10 9:50 p.m.) 11 - - - 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
195 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 I, Sherri L. Ruff, do hereby 4 certify that I have recorded 5 stenographically the proceedings had 6 and testimony taken in the 7 above-entitled matter at the time and 8 place hereinbefore set forth, and I do 9 further certify that the foregoing 10 transcript, consisting of (134) 11 typewritten pages, is a true and 12 correct transcript of my said 13 stenographic notes. 14 15 16 ________ ________________________ Date Sherri L. Ruff, CSR-3568 17 Certified Shorthand Reporter
|