| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting
REGULAR MEETING -- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, December 4, 2001. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: MR. CHAIRMAN: At this time I would like to call the Novi Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order. Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Here. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have all members present this evening, so all cases that are heard will be final. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a board empowered by the City Charter to hear appeals
seeking a variance from the application of the Novi zoning ordinance. It takes at least four members present to approve a variance, and a vote of the majority of the members present to deny a variance. The Board consists of six members, and we have a full Board this evening and all decisions will be final. The rules of conduct that we govern our meetings under is: Each person desiring to address the Board shall have his or her name and address stated to the secretary. Individual persons shall be allowed five minutes to address the Board. An extension of time will be granted at the discretion of the chairperson. There shall be no questioning by the audience of the person addressing the Board; however, the Board members may question that person with recognition of the chairperson. No person shall be allowed to address the Board more than once unless permission is granted by the chairman. One spokesperson for a group attending shall be allowed ten minutes to address the Board. Board members, are there any
additions or corrections to our agenda for this evening? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: If none, the Chair will entertain to approve the agenda as presented. MEMBER BAUER: So moved. MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Opposed? (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We have no minutes for approval tonight, correct. MS. MARCHIONI: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Public remarks section. If there is anyone in the audience that would like to address the Board at this time that isn't pertaining to one of the cases before us, they have the opportunity to do that. (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we'll close the public remarks section.
CASE NUMBER 01-087 MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll call our first case, case number 01-087, filed by Dennis Cline of 24101 Nilan. MR. CLINE: Good evening. My name is Dennis Cline, 24101 Nilan, adjacent subdivision. What I'm -- I'm trying- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Sir, excuse me one moment. Would you be sworn in by our secretary, please. MR. CLINE: Sure. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the information you're about to give in the matter in the case before you is the truth and nothing but the truth? MR. CLINE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Please proceed. MR. CLINE: Okay. I've tried -- I've needed more space. As you well know, the garages are pretty well filling up anymore with bicycles and power washers and generators and et cetera, like that. I've run out of space in the garage with two cars and that. We'd like to have
somewhere to put bicycles and the other paraphernalia, yard equipment and that. We have no restriction in our sub as far as a shed goes. The problem with the shed is I've talked to a few of the neighbors around, and they really don't want to see me put a shed up. And I did stand in the one area that I have to put it, and I actually could look at nine houses that would be able to see that shed from the particular location where it's at. So what I've done is I made a little drawing, and I'm trying to add onto the garage and make it esthetically blending in with the house as much as possible on that. The reason why I came up with the oddball size is I do have an overhang that is thirteen-and-a-half feet long that sticks out at one side of the garage, and I want to keep it consistent with that so it really doesn't stand out on the rest of the house. I'm just trying to make it appealing and then put some landscaping around it after it's completed to blend it in with the structure. I did make a little drawing of some
degree, and I'm over, I think it is, six inches on the front corner on the thirty foot setback, and I am surrounded by two setbacks in the front and the side. And I -- on the back corner I believe it's around just under two feet that I'm over that variance on that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to participate or input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we'll close the audience remarks section. Building department? MR. SAVEN: Just what was pointed out by the applicant. He does have a front yard -- you'll notice that configuration of the road is not a straight line type of a range, and he does have a curvature to the road which gets him into the problem that he wants. MR. CHAIRMAN: There were thirty-three notices sent, we received two approvals and no objections. Board members, comments or discussion?
Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Like many expansions to subdivision sites, residential sites, I'm more moved by neighbors and their feelings. This appears to be a very minor variance request by a neighbor that has some needs, and without any objections from any of his neighbors, I have no objections. MEMBER FANNON: Mr. Chairman, was there any notices? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. There were thirty-three notices sent, two approvals. MR. CHAIRMAN: I -- you know, in what the petitioner has done, you really aren't going to hardly know that there's something there. It looks like almost something attached to the garage from the beginning, and it's really a minimum intrusive into the setback requirement, so I really don't have a problem with what he's proposing. Board members, further comments or discussion? MEMBER SANGHVI: Sir, may I make a motion? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please.
MEMBER SANGHVI: In the matter of case 01-087, I move we approve the petitioner's request for hardship regarding the story of necessities for living in a household in Novi. MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we grant petitioner's request. Is there any further discussion on the motion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance
request has been approved. See the building department for the necessary permits and we wish you the best of luck. MR. CLINE: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 01-089 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Next case, case 01-089, filed by Gregory Gratek of 2023 West Lake Drive. MR. GRATEK: Hi. My name is Greg Gratek. I live at 2023 West Lake Drive. Before I start, I do have a couple of- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Excuse me one moment, please. One formality we need to get out of the way. Would you please be sworn in by our secretary. MR. GRATEK: I'm sorry. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Raise your right hand. That's good. Do you swear or affirm that the information you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. GRATEK: Yes, I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you.
MR. GRATEK: Before I get started, I do have some pictures of the area that I'm -- I will be discussing, if anyone is not familiar with the area, to kind of give you a scope of the problem that I'm addressing, and I do also have a letter from a neighbor that was unable to attend at the last minute, if I'm able to still turn this in. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. MR. GRATEK: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. GRATEK: What I'm trying to do with the variance I'm asking for, is I'm looking to build an architecturally correct structure that will enhance the area, which is greatly needed, enhancing on that side of the lake. Any new structure on that side of the lake would help the slow moving development on that side of the lake, and the proposed garage that I have would only increase the number of cars I could park in front of my house from three to five. The variances I am asking for, the front yard setbacks, will give me the ability to park a large car or truck in front of my garage. It would also give me plenty of room between my
house and my garage, and the granting of my variance would not make my property different from my neighbors. The two side yard variances I am asking for are necessary for a two-car garage. The south side yard variance is next to an easement that will never have a structure built on it. What that is considered is a pedestrian easement. The setbacks that I'm asking for are -- on the south side are similar to what my house currently has as well. I built my house approximately five years ago. I spoke to Terry Marone in the building department. He recommended that I do add gutters to the plans to kind of control the drainage of the water. And I've just recently, in the last couple weeks, have purchased a couple additional lots on that section of West Lake Drive, and my wife and I have intentions of putting up new construction and improving that side of the lake as much as possible. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to participate or input into this case? Please step forward. For the record, could we have your name and address, please. MS. SIMON: My name is Debra Simon. I live at 101 Pickford. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MS. SIMON: It's across the street from the lake. MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, if you would -- you don't have to be sworn in. Go ahead with your comments. MS. SIMON: I don't have an objection to the garage at all except that the south side easement -- the south side variance is next to the easement that is our easement on Pickford Street. And if you look at the plans, I'm assuming that when he built the house he got a variance for that to be on the property line, but I don't recall that happening. I must have missed that. But when he -- he put a deck on, that was the last time we were here, when he put the deck on he wanted to put the steps out into the
easement and, thankfully, you didn't allow him to do that. He has encroached on the easement pretty much since he has been living there. He parked his boats on there, and we had a problem with that. We couldn't get him to remove them. So I don't mind him building a garage. I think a garage would be great for that house, but why can't he move it over. All that's on the other side of him is another garage. So I'm not saying move it over as -- to -- you know, all the way over but more centered so that it's away from our easement more than two feet. Maybe give us four feet on that side and three feet something on the other side, or even three-and-a-half feet, anything but -- you know, it's just so close that when he goes around the garage -- now, when he walks around his house he has to walk on our easement. He can't get past his house on that side without -- and that's how he puts his boats in and out of the lake. And, originally, when he moved in there there was a huge tree stump on the property curved out like a chair. You could sit and look
out on the lake. And he proceeded to go in and take that out on our easement without our permission, and what that has caused now is everybody around the lake uses our easement for a boat launch. They go in and out. We have a two-track trail running down our easement now where it used to be grass, and we used to use it just for the pleasure of going down to the lake and just being near the lake, and now it's -- boats are in and out all the time. I'm out there asking people, you know, do you live around here. I mean, it's people that I don't even know where they live. They don't live anywhere in our neighborhood, and they're taking their boats in and out, and that's because he removed that stump and allowed that area to be driven on. So I just don't want anymore encroachment on the easement. That's my objection. You know, move the garage over a little bit. I have no problem with that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to input into this case?
Please step forward. MR. PATTERSON: John Patterson. I live at 1957 West Lake, which is a little bit down on the other side of another easement that people don't drive on. Greg's a neighbor, he's a good neighbor. He's always meticulously kept care of his house. His house is tastefully done, if you see the pictures. It's certainly one of the nicer structures around. Everything Greg does is nice. He takes care of everything. Obviously, he has a problem with someone across the street, but that's not our problem to deal with here. I'm just here to support -- I'm certain that the garage will be beautiful and his house is beautiful and there shouldn't be any problem authorizing what he wants because it's certainly not out of hand. All right? MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. PATTERSON: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we'll close audience participation.
Building department? MR. SAVEN: Just a couple questions of the applicant. Can you give me the reason why you couldn't move the garage back towards the house? MR. GRATEK: Well, I just thought that would be -- there is no reason actually. I mean, if it were to be -- if it were better for the building department, I wouldn't have a problem doing that. The only thing I was looking to do was kind of keep the same distance from the road to the garage as the majority of the garages have in that area. MR. SAVEN: We're talking about -- what I picked up on this, based on the fact you wanted to put a truck on that driveway. MR. GRATEK: Well, no. I had just made mention that if we were to park a truck out there that it would give sufficient room for that, because- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Ten foot, I don't believe, is sufficient. MR. GRATEK: Well, if you look at the plot plan, the ten feet is only on the very end of the garage. If you held the garage to the other
side, you're -- you have approximately sixteen to seventeen feet on that side, which would be adequate for any vehicle to be parked in. MR. SAVEN: Do you own a well, sir? MR. GRATEK: Yes, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Where is your well located? MR. SAVEN: Do you feel you're going to get ample service to that well should you -- your well fail? MR. GRATEK: I don't think I'd have a problem with that. MR. SAVEN: On five foot eight? MR. GRATEK: Well -- and as my neighbor and I, we kind of share that little easement down there, that little area down there, and he has a vehicle -- he's taken vehicles down there in the past as well as I have, just to get between our properties. MR. SAVEN: I just want you to be aware of that. MR. GRATEK: Yes, sir. I'm aware of that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were
thirty-seven notices sent out. We received four approvals plus the additional approval that the petitioner has brought in this evening. Board members? Mr. Brennan. MEMBER BRENNAN: My first observation was, why do we need this front yard setback to the extent that we -- that has been requested. I, frankly, would like to get that garage back farther off the street than closer to the street. And, as well, I also wondered why the garage wasn't centered on the parcel. It looks like we can have about a three foot eight on the south side and four foot even on the north side. MR. GRATEK: Well, there are reasons for that as well. If -- we live on a street where -- Pickford is a street that comes directly towards our house, and what we're trying to do is to block any type of lights or anything like that that are constantly shining into our house from people driving down Pickford. Getting into that angle would do best in that situation. If we were to center it anymore, that would kind of give straight line to our house from down the street. And the reason -- the actual reason I
did put it there was, because, just to give me a little more privacy. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? Miss Gray. MEMBER GRAY: Well, I'm very familiar with this part of the city and with this particular area, and I was very excited when this house went in because it's such a little gem. From the standpoint of setbacks, I don't know that I have a problem with the setbacks as much. Just because the neighbors do, it doesn't give cart blanche for everybody else to do it; however, I appreciate the applicant's reasoning for doing it. What I have a problem with is the size of the garage. And in understanding that basements may be a limited commodity with a high water table, and understanding that this is a very narrow lot, I would like to see the garage decreased in width from twenty-two feet to twenty and still keep the architectural interest. I think this is a wonderful look and it's going to tie in with the existing house. I'm a little concerned with the size.
Twenty-six feet seems awfully deep, but then again, we don't want him coming back in two years saying I want to put an addition for my storage. One of my other questions is, who owns the easement? MR. GRATEK: Well, that's actually an issue that I've been working with the ordinance officers on. It's really unclear who actually owns the easement. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. Knowing the area of the city as I do, I am presuming that it's a dedicated easement to off-lake owners, and one of my main concerns is not with moving the garage to either side but the future prospect of somebody putting a fence there, which I'm sure is a concern of yours as well, because if somebody puts a fence there to protect their easement, then, you know, you're going to have your house right on the property line, and there's too much of that in the entire north part of the city anyhow. MR. GRATEK: Right. MEMBER GRAY: Be that as it may, we're not here to discuss this. If this is a pedestrian easement, I was very disturbed to see
all the two tracks that have -- from people coming in and out of lake, so it would behoove the people who live in the area to do something to block the access to the lake. Other people have done it around the lake. I live off South Lake and we have done it on our dedicated access lot, so it's up to you to control your own property, whether you own it or not. The neighbors should be protecting it. Again, I have no problem with this. I think it's a lovely structure from an architectural standpoint. I would like to see it narrowed. I don't have a problem with the access -- or the setback on the south side because -- knowing that nothing will ever be built in there, unless a fence goes in, and I'm comfortable with five foot eight on the north side. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Miss Gray. Is there anyone else on the Board who wants input on this case? MEMBER FANNON: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Frank. I think this garage should be pushed back at least ten feet to give more room to the road, and I would -- now that there is a neighbor,
no matter why they're here, whether they own the pedestrian easement or not, but has objected to the garage being too close, I think it would only be fair to move it to the north by two feet, giving it four foot off the pedestrian easement, or three foot eight, whichever anyone would want to do, split the difference, and move the garage back. I have no problem supporting that, but I couldn't support it the way it is right here on the drawing. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'd like to, once again, ask the applicant, as to the location of the well. MR. GRATEK: If you take a look at my house, the little area right here, there's a porch area, and my well is right here in this area. MR. SAVEN: I would ask you to bring forward so -- I'm concerned with where the well -- the placement of the well so they can service the well. MR. GRATEK: The well is located approximately right here. MR. CHAIRMAN: If you move that back ten feet, you still have fifteen feet. MR. SAVEN: That's fine. If he can't
service the well based upon where the well location is -- MR. CHAIRMAN: In comments made by other Board members, I echo the sentiment exactly. Number one, ten feet is too close. I know we have buildings that are up that close, but to put a new building is -- just accentuates that problem all along the -- and I can look at two things. I can look at moving the garage two feet or narrowing the garage two feet, either way, but it's got to -- for my perspective there and everything, I can only support a minimum of twenty foot setback. MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd also want to point out that we sent notices out for the 5 point -- for that difference of 5.67. MR. SCHULTZ: Point 33. MR. SAVEN: For .33 feet, and if we happen to move this on over, we're not giving those applicants -- or people who had the notices ample opportunity to respond to that adjustment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. I understand your point, so I guess then if I were going to support a variance to this as presented, it would have to be reduced down to 20 foot in width and set
back 20 feet. That's my opinion and point of view. Board members, further comments or discussion? MEMBER BRENNAN: Good question of the applicant. If you moved it back another ten feet and you shorten it up twenty feet, is that acceptable to you? MR. GRATEK: Well, the question -- well, the shortening up 20 feet, I don't think that's a problem, but the problem that I may have is that I do keep landscaping and things of that nature in front of my home, and this would completely block any type of sunlight from getting to that nature, so what I would have to do is pull that out. I don't know what -- what would I replace that with? MEMBER BRENNAN: You mean setting back the garage another ten feet is going to have a negative affect? MR. GRATEK: Yeah. There is a line of trees on one side. I mean, it would get very little daylight as it is. And my other concern is, is being
within, you know, fifteen feet of the house, if that's going to be architecturally, you know -- what I'm trying to do is create a little bit of privacy but yet still have a little bit of yard there as well. And my question is, would you -- would twenty feet from the north side of the garage be adequate? MR. CHAIRMAN: No. MEMBER BRENNAN: That's only pushing it back four feet. MEMBER BAUER: South side. MEMBER BRENNAN: Just from my prospective, if any of these applicants came up with those photographs of those old garages and wanted to rebuild those old garages, I can assure you, sir, that we wouldn't be agreeable to a setback- MR. GRATEK: (Interposing) I mean, the one garage that shows in there, the brown one, is one that was built pretty recently. MEMBER SANGHVI: That's besides the point. MR. CHAIRMAN: I can understand that,
but the thing is, what we're trying not to do is to continue to promote the continued building of something like that- MR. GRATEK: (Interposing) Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: -for the simple fact there's not even enough room for him to stop in front of his garage without being out in the road. Board members, further comments or discussion? MEMBER BRENNAN: I'd like to ask the applicant again, hearing what we've heard, can you push that back another ten feet from the road? MR. GRATEK: Well, that's something I can definitely -- I can definitely take it to my architect to see what he can design or what he can do. You know, I don't know- MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) You want us to move on this tonight or not? MR. GRATEK: Will I have an opportunity, once this is moved on, to revisit this issue? MR. CHAIRMAN: No. You can table it to next month if you would like and come back with what you feel is a minimum you can live with.
There's no guarantee to say that you're going to get that, but if you want to take that time frame to look at the whole situation rather than dealing with it tonight, we'll table it to next month's meeting. MR. GRATEK: Okay. MR. SAVEN: I would probably give concern to what the Board had indicated. If you needed to adjust your application- MR. GRATEK: (Interposing) Right. MR. SAVEN: -you're going to do so prior to the next meeting so we can go through and notify the adjacent properties of that adjustment. MR. GRATEK: Yeah. I don't have -- that would be fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: You want to table that to next meeting? MR. GRATEK: Yes, I do. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board members? MEMBER SANGHVI: I move we table the case. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. That case will be tabled to the next meeting MR. GRATEK: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like your pictures back or do you want us to put them in the file from this point here? If you want them, you can take them. MR. GRATEK: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 01-090 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Next case, case number 01-090, filed by Don Marhofer representing Saratoga Circle. Sir, would you be sworn in by our secretary? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. MARHOFER: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: And for our records, could we have your name and address, please. MR. MARHOFER: My name is John Marhofer. I'm with S. R. Jacobson Development. My address is 7334 Peppermill Lane, Northville, Michigan. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Sir, would
you please present your case. MR. MARHOFER: We presently are under construction at Saratoga Circle on Novi Road between Thirteen and Twelve Mile. We have a construction trailer that we have had a permit for. We are requesting the extension for the construction trailer to remain where it's at. We're requesting this because I need a safe place to -- for my employees to be working while they're on the site. Along with that is we have to -- I have to curb the OSHA and MIOSHA regulations. I have to make sure that my people have access to telephones, bath facilities and a safe working condition. In the case there is an emergency, there is also fire extinguishers in the trailer in case there's a problem with one of the cites that are under development. You have in your possession some pictures of the trailer as it exists today. I also gave you copies of some of the bylaws and Master Deed work and the Purchase Agreements that all the homeowners have at the time of closing of the units, which basically states that we have the
right to put a trailer up, construction trailer, on site until the project is fully developed. Market situation, the way it is right now, we'd like to say we'd be out of that project, but unfortunately the market's a little bit slow, it's soft, and it's taking a little bit longer to develop that site as expected, which requires the extension that we're asking for. MR. CHAIRMAN: All set? MR. MARHOFER: Yeah. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to input into this case? Please come forward. Could we have your name and address for our records, please. MS. LEMAY: Christine Lemay. It's 43081 Emerson Lane, Novi, Michigan. I live directly across from this trailer. After living in Novi for sixteen months now, we built this new home, and I'm really tired of having to look at this unsightly trailer and vehemently oppose the requested variance extension. This trailer has already been there
for nearly two years. I was told before we moved in by Laurie, the salesperson for Jacobson, and John, the foreman on the construction site, that this trailer would be moved within a year to another site, the new part of Jacobson's building right -- just north of us a quarter-mile in Camden Court where there are spec homes and there are also model homes. When I called the zoning office back in September after a year had passed, I spoke to your zoning officers and asked them about what I could do to have this thing moved. She said she would check into it. The permit had already expired. Who knows how long it would have gone expired if I had not called. Also, the -- she called me and said that they had two weeks to renew it or move it. I didn't hear anything back and I just -- I figured maybe that, you know, they were going to move it or they had renewed the permit. So I called her back again and I spoke to -- I forgot the girl's name, in the zoning office, one of the zoning officers, and she said that they said they were going to move the trailer.
And it still was not moved. Several weeks passed and I called her back, and she said they changed their mind, they decided they wanted an extension on the variance and that they would keep it here, and that this meeting was scheduled tonight in December. My many concerns are as follows: The trailer has been vandalized and broken into, which was reported and investigated by Novi Police. This is a great concern to me as I am often home alone in the evenings as my husband travels frequently. At all hours of the night, people use the portable toilet next to this trailer, which is both disturbing and as a security issue. I'm also concerned about the safety of pedestrians and small children in the neighborhood as trucks often use this point as a turnaround and drive very recklessly. Once they plowed into and destroyed our mailbox. Also, it's a nuisance. There's a high-powered spotlight on the front of the trailer that is on all night, every night. I have two skylights in the front of my home that cannot be darkened and cannot be a real problem -- that can
be a real problem sometimes when trying to get to sleep. It's also a health hazard as the portable toilet has tipped over several times in strong wind, emptying some of the waste on the ground and street. This causes a grotesque and smell and it's extremely unsanitary. In the summer I was unable to stay outside when they would come to clean -- once a week they would clean out this portable toilet. Also, it's extremely unsightly. It looks like a dump. There's old tires piled up, pieces of old lumber, broken garbage cans, broken fencing, and other trash by the trailer. This trailer is seldom, if ever, used. I don't know what this gentleman was talking about. Maybe once a day I see this old man go in and get a broom and come out. There are many days that no one even goes in this trailer. When the door is open, I see hardly any contents in the trailer, and that -- I don't understand why it couldn't easily be moved to the model or spec home garage. There are only a few lots left in our
neighborhood, and there is no construction underway at this time, nor has there been for the last six months. On the other hand, the other place where they told me they were moving this trailer over -- they have, like, fifty-nine lots, and over the last year, almost thirty houses have been completed, and they don't have a trailer up there, so I don't understand -- he's concerned about emergencies, why they wouldn't have something up there. And as far as OSHA goes, I -- that lot backs up to a protected wetland, and with that portable toilet dumping over, I would think that OSHA would be concerned about that waste going into that protected wetland. Lastly, and certainly not least of all, I implore all of you to consider building a new home in Novi and having to live across the street from this mess. I feel that I've been patient and reasonable up to this point. I don't feel they were honest with me before we closed on this home when they said that they would, in fact, move this
trailer when the other construction site was underway. But I now feel it is time for this hobble to be moved. I'm sure that Mr. S. R. Jacobson and Mr. Marhofer in Northville do not have a broken down trailer across the street from their homes nor would they stand for it. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience -- please come forward. Can we have your name and address for the record, please. MR. SERROFFA: Michael Serroffa, 43099 Emerson Way. I'm Miss Lemay's neighbor. I'd like to identify myself with all of her remarks on behalf of all of our neighbors, especially those of us with -- whose front of our homes face the west and the trailer that she talked about. This is not a trailer that you might think of that would be in a new home development where people could go who are interested in buying a house. This is a trailer that looks like it belongs in the slums. Next to it is a port-a-john that she indicated that gets tipped over, that gets used by people that aren't working on the site nor
that live there. It is something that does cause, besides the visual, the esthetic displeasure of it causes foul smell and safety hazards to young children, of which I have two. This site -- this property that our homes are on has already been the subject of a fiasco by the leadership of this city, and you guys have a chance tonight to send a signal to the developer of this site, who I think has, frankly, fell below the mark of what we would expect as minimum expectations of homeowners and you should expect as leadership of this city. For the quality of service, the quality of the development, the quality of response time, we have a number of issues, I know from talking to my neighbors that have not been addressed by this developer. You have, apparently, an open-ended development agreement which I'm not privy to. The neighborhood association, which is still patrolled by the developer, is not much better than the Cangru Court. The homeowner representatives that we have on it outvoted on it almost every time there's
an issue that is controversial, and tonight we're here to ask you to send a message to this developer that the neighbors, that its customers, that your residents are not happy with the quality of their performance. This trailer does not need to be there. They're not using it. There's no construction that I can see going on on this site. The winter months are here. There will be no more basements dug I suppose. If I'm wrong I'll stand corrected, but if they were using it, if they were proceeding towards the end of the completion of this development -- we have a roadway, a driveway, that has not been completely paved. It's two or three inches below grade. We have floods, we have water that stands between the homes because the city inspector, for hire, approved grades that were apparently -- should not have been approved. There's standing water that caused mosquitoes. The site that is undeveloped -- and I understand that the economy is soft, that's true, but that does not mean that the vacant land has to be left with debris all over the place and
unsightly trailer and port-a-john for use by anybody that comes by, whether it's a drunk, and the people -- high school kids using the bar or whatever. It's a nuisance to our neighborhood. All I would encourage you to do is go look at it and decide for yourself. They can move it. If they need to build homes in the summertime, the springtime next year, they can bring it back, because we all want out neighborhood completed. I'd ask you tonight not to approve their request for an extension. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to input into this case? Sir, would you step forward, please. MR. HOLCOMB: Good evening. My name is Dick Holcomb. I live at 43089 Emerson Way, also one of the neighbors that are directly affected by the trailer and the port-a-john. Everything that's been stated is true, and there is issues that go beyond both the trailer and the port-a-john. It's the usage of the port-a-john, and this is one thing that really
bothers a lot of the neighborhood because there are people using that at all hours of the night. For some reason they found it's a very isolated place that they can go if they have to go to the bathroom, and they use it all the time. We see people, we hear people coming in at 2:30, three o'clock in morning. As a matter of fact, it's been even frequented by the police force of Novi because they've used it several times on cold winter nights. Something that we -- this is traffic that does not help us for security of our neighborhood. We're lucky. We don't have any young kids, but during the summer, if you had young kids, they couldn't ride their bicycles or tricycles on the sidewalk in front of our houses because of the odor. In the very strong wind in September, the port-a-john was tipped up and blown half across the driveway in front of the trailer. The older gentleman who's in charge of, more or less, maintenance repair of the development came by on a Sunday and pushed it over sideways and dragged it up next to the trailer where it sat, and then on a Monday morning somebody
came along and set it back up and then bolted it into place. There is movement of dirt at the end of our development. Whether it's done as a ploy to say something is happening for this variance meeting or not, I don't know, but it all happened in the last week, and it just coincides with the issue that we were told nothing was sold and there was no sold placement on that lot and suddenly dirt was moved. There's adequate room on the upper development to move this trailer and to move it to an area that would not bother any of the houses that currently exist up there, and that's where all the action's been taking place. I walk every night. I try to walk two to five miles a night, and I spend time in both developments, and when you drive up Novi Road you'll see that most of the development work is in the upper development, and that's where the workers are, that's where the equipment are. There's one port-a-john and no trailer, yet there is probably four or five houses under construction up there, which means there's
work crews of twenty-five to thirty-five people. We see a work crew of one older gentleman who comes into the development and spends about forty-five minutes a day, so -- but what I recommend is if you want to really see what goes on, spend some time in our neighborhood and you'll see that it's a useless occupation, space and time for the developer to be there. He should be up where all the action is currently. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience with input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we'll close audience participation at this time. There were thirty-five notices sent out. We have received two objections plus the additional input this evening from here. One of the petitioners did have a response in writing also. Building department? MR. SAVEN: I would ask that you take a look at the plot plan that was submitted before you in regards to those units that were sold and
the location of where those units are that are sold in making your decision. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm assuming from the markings here that everything in orange are the sold units; is that correct? MR. MARHOFER: Everything you see there in orange is sold. There are -- in that orange section there are also three specs that are going in. We presently are under construction for another spec house on lot fifty-four. That's the dirt the gentleman was talking about. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board members? Mr. Brennan. MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, by code, the petitioner has a right to have this trailer there for 12 months, which he's had. He has a right to petition us for an extension, which is why he's here; however, I'm compelled by the evidence brought by the neighbors that it's probably time to move this thing, and I've heard nothing -- nothing of the contrary to change my mind. I would be, as a homeowner, equally perturbed with having to deal with this across the street, and the fact that there are still some 18
vacant homes, I think the development is underway to being fairly mature with 33 sold. We're approaching the 65 percent of development, and I'm not compelled to support the petitioner. MR. CHAIRMAN: Question. Could you step forward, please, sir. What do you really use that trailer for? MR. MARHOFER: That trailer is used by my superintendent. We keep files in there. There is a telephone in there for emergency purposes. There's some supplies in there to be used for the units. In regards to the other development, which is Camden Court, there is -- at this time we are using a garage over there for that particular development, so it's not -- we're using both locations, as I have one on Bristol Corners seven miles down the road also. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Board members, comments or discussion? MEMBER FANNON: What impact -- hold on. What impact would it have on your company if you didn't get this variance? MR. MARHOFER: If there were an
emergency on the site with one of my contractors and they needed a phone for instance, there would be a problem there. MEMBER FANNON: They don't have Nextel phones? MR. MARHOFER: I don't know if everybody has a Nextel phone. I mean, I can't- MEMBER FANNON: (Interposing) Well, okay. So a phone is -- if there was an emergency they wouldn't have a phone. And? MR. MARHOFER: There's a fire extinguisher in the site, at the location, for the site for any immediate problems. MEMBER FANNON: Okay. MR. MARHOFER: There are bathroom facilities there, a port-a-john, which is not unusual for any construction site. That's what I need it for. MEMBER FANNON: Okay. That's all I need to know. I cannot -- I can't support -- after hearing what we heard and the way that -- what it's being used for, it just doesn't seem to me that it's a major use of the project that it needs to stay any longer and be bothering all these
residents, so I would not support any variance on this trailer. MR. CHAIRMAN: My feeling was if it was real important, crucial to have -- speaking for myself and my attitude -- I would make sure that it was in a condition that it wouldn't be objectionable to the residents to cause a problem if it was that important for me to have. But what I see, the way it's been maintained and the attitude that's been taken with it, I could never support a variance request. Board members, comments or discussion? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I concur with all three of you. My first comment, when I opened this packet and looked at this picture was, those poor neighbors across the street, what they have to look at, and then to hear the stories, it's truly upsetting. I will not be supporting this motion as well for the same reasons that the other Board members indicated, and I'm being subdued this evening, so I will not be supporting this motion at all. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, further comments or discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, the Chair would entertain a motion in the case. MEMBER BRENNAN: Sir, I would make a motion with respect to case 01-090, I would move that the petitioner's request be denied due to lack of hardship. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and seconded that the variance request be denied. Is there any further discussion on the motion? MR. SCHULTZ: MR. Chairman, just adding onto the circumstances, it would probably be helpful, I would make the motion to attach some kind of statement to that, particularly finding the comments of the residents to be credible, factual, finding justification of the proponent to be insufficient, those kinds of things. MEMBER BRENNAN: Isn't that part of the minutes? MR. SCHULTZ: The maker of the motion needs to make sure that those -- those comments
which are all- MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) I don't want to argue with you. I will amend my motion to include the specific comments of the adjoining neighbors. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a affirmation- MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Interposing) Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: -of the second, please. Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion? Miss Gray. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Reinke, I would also suggest that the petitioner be encouraged to clean up the mess as soon as possible, whether the trailer's pulled immediately or not. There's old tires and stuff that's there. There are pictures of that I have seen driving by. It's a big mess and they should really clean up their act. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. This is something that I think is really -- since we're denying the variance, I don't think it's part of the motion. The point is well taken though.
Any further discussion on the motion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance request has been denied.
CASE NUMBER 01-091 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, case number 01-091, filed by Edgar Kent representing the Redford Baptist Church. MR. KENT: My name is Edgar Kent and I represent the Redford Baptist Church. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, could you be sworn in by our secretary, please. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear that, in the matter before you -- the information that you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth? MR. KENT: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. Would you state your name, please. Oh, never mind. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please present your case, sir. MR. KENT: A couple of years ago our church managed to be successful in negotiating the purchase of the land on Meadowbrook directly south of the Meadowbrook Elementary School. We achieved the permission of the planning commission, site plan approval and preliminary -- site plan approval and special land use permit.
Our people became rather exuberant because we think we have a very beautiful piece of property there for our new church. We now have a sign up on the property, and we have found that sign is not legal, so we are asking, at this point, for a variance to allow us to leave the sign on the property for the purpose of letting the neighbors and the neighbors to come in the area, know that we are, indeed, coming with our church. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, we will close audience participation. Building department? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Kent's exuberance did get him into a little bit of a problem. What I can point out is that, as you're well aware, this is a site plan process, and this is a vacant parcel of land. What they, in fact, had done is, if there was a building permit issued for this particular project, they would have
been allowed to put up a sixty-four square foot sign. The only thing that's closest to what he has here is a real estate sign, which would have been sixteen square foot, which is over that particular size, so what he's attempting to do right now is to petition the Board to maintain that sign that he has, that eight by four, thirty-two square feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me also indicate, there were 24 notices sent, we received no response. Where -- this question is for information. Where do you stand on your program to start construction? MR. KENT: We are in the process of completing our phasing arrangements. We intend to build in four to five phases. We are looking for our final financial approval and backup of our own church council in January, for completion of funding in the late spring or summer, and hopefully beginning construction the following summer. In the meantime, we are looking to -- for a spot where we can begin to hold services and become a part of the neighborhood as early as next spring.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan. MR. BRENNAN: Let me ask Laverne's question in another way. How long do you need the sign? MR. KENT: I beg your pardon? MR. BRENNAN: How long would you like to have the sign? Let's put some time lines on it. At some point in time you are going to go through planning, you're going to get some approvals, and you can put up an official "we're building a church here." How much time do you need between now and that period do you think? MR. KENT: I would think that the maximum time would be 18 months. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, further comments or discussion? MEMBER BAUER: Eighteen months or earlier if they start. MR. CHAIRMAN: Once they -- correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Saven, if they get a permit is- MR. SAVEN: If, in the event a building permit is issued, that sign could remain,
but I think you've got to bear in mind, there's a lot of flexibility to- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) I understand. MR. SAVEN: -construction identification sign. It talks about owners, the architect, things of this nature, described in the project itself, which is a very possibility, could be approved, and approve a 64 square foot at that time. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have no problem with the 18 month time frame. I know what they're going through and what -- there's a lot of things they have to do on both their part, their group and as well as meeting the City requirements and everything of that nature. MEMBER BRENNAN: Want a motion? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MEMBER BRENNAN: Case number 01-091, I would move that the petitioner's request be granted for a period of 18 months or less as required. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and
seconded to grant the petitioner's request for a period of 18 months for the sign that they have presently. Is there any further discussion on the motion? MEMBER FANNON: I would only request the petitioner, if they could, when time permits, or the weather, to paint the posts that it's on the same color as the sign if it's going to be up there for 18 months. That's all I would ask for. Do you know what I'm saying? MR. KENT: We've got youth groups that would like that project. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, further comments or discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. GRONACHAN: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your permit has been approved. Wish you the best of luck. MR. KENT: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 01-092 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Next case, 01-092, filed by Mathias Keck representing Eberspaecher. MR. KECK: I'm Mathias Keck. The address is 1670 Mercedes in West Bloomfield, and I representing Eberspaecher. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Sir, would you be sworn in by our secretary? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. KECK: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Present your case, please. MR. KECK: The point is we are 136-years-old, still family-owned company, and we developed over the years three divisions. Ten years back, our owner, Hans Eberspaecher, gave -- he ordered that we have a special sculpture in front of our headquarter in Germany, and that's -- because of the three divisions, that's a triangle shape, so the shape of the tech center in Eslinger (ph) has a triangle. As you might recognize the shape of the tech center in Novi will have three triangles, so that's all representing the three divisions. And the signage -- or we see it more as a sculpture in front at Haggerty Road, that's our important link for us to our mother company in Germany, so we would like to have that. That's a picture from our headquarters in Eslinger in Germany. That's the triangle shape we have there, and these are -- and this is the sculpture representing the three divisions of Eberspaecher. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. KECK: And that may be hard to
see. That's what we -- the signage, the logo on the building. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the audience with input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we'll close audience participation. Building department? MR. SAVEN: Okay. I'm going to try to attack this the best way possible, and I don't mean attack that way. What they're presenting to you are basically almost three pylon signs on one pedestal, okay, and taking a look at this, it basically has -- each individual pylon has a triangular shape to it and then they each represent a phase, because they are more than two foot apart. I know that this variance seemed extremely large that's being presented tonight, but if we were just to take a look at the faces of those signs alone, as you'd be looking at them, even though they have the name on each one of them, you would be looking at something that should probably be one-third of that request, okay.
This is rather unique because there's different heights to each one of the signs and then each one represents the company's logo on the design. MR. CHAIRMAN: Nice job. MR. SAVEN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were four notices sent out and we received no response. Board members? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify something here. Why is this just one variance -- maybe this question needs to go to Don -- as opposed to three? This is just going to be one column or is it going to be three columns? MR. SAVEN: No. Because it's on one pedestal- MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Interposing) Okay. MR. SAVEN: -this becomes an issue as the sign -- if you took a look at the sign, when they talk about a two face sign -- remember you go back into the sign ordinance. If that sign is less than two foot apart, okay, that would be considered
one sign- MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Interposing) Right. MR. SAVEN: -but in this case, because the configuration -- this is really something that we've never had before anywhere in the city of Novi -- this arrangement represents uniqueness in the fact that the square footage certainly is different because of the height requirements. It's how you're taking a look at that front and the particular angle creates the difficulty. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Reinke? MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Gray. MEMBER GRAY: When I first got this ordinance -- this application, I looked at it and I went they want how big a sign and boy, are the boys going to have a field day with this one. When I went out and looked at the site, it's nothing. I mean, it's going to be very nice. It's going to be very elegant. My only concern is, is the name and the logos, are they going to be on all three faces of each column in -- on the pylon? MR. KECK: I mean, I was --
unfortunately, I was not the architect or the artist on that, but it should be like you see here, so on two of them that's only the logo and the one there's the name. MEMBER GRAY: So it's only on one side? MR. KECK: Yeah. MR. SANGHVI: The name is on one side. MEMBER GRAY: The name and the logo is only one side on a face? MR. KECK: One triangle, yes. MEMBER GRAY: And the rest of it is plain- MR. KECK: (Interposing) Yeah. MEMBER GRAY: -on the back? On -- the other two sides is plain? MR. SAVEN: I think we need to really concentrate on what you just said. In other words, Eberspaecher is not going to be on the other -- on the opposite faces of that pylon. MEMBER BRENNAN: Sir, can you pass that poster- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Let's
pass that around so we can get a closer look and it can be a lot more definitive. MEMBER GRAY: You still can't tell from looking at this, although it's lovely, it is. Will it be -- when we see it, is it going to be on all three sides; it's going to say the name on all three sides, it's going to have the logo on all three sides? MR. DHARIA: My name is Haresh Dharia, architect for Ghafari Associates, 17101 Michigan Avenue in Dearborn. This sign- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Can you be sworn in, too, please. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please. The information that you -- do you swear that the information that you're about to give in the case before you is the truth? MR. DHARIA: Yes, it will be all true. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. MR. DHARIA: As Don pointed out, it's a very elegant sign, not only the presenting -- the corporate, three divisions, but also the shape of
building will be off to the side. As you'll see, the main building is designed also to compliment the signage, too. What you see on these three signs, to answer your question specifically, Eberspaecher name, which is on one of the signs, would be on all three sides, so you read from south/north. West you see the same thing. I have a small picture in front of me which you have. The logo will also be showing up on all three sides. MR. CHAIRMAN: So what we're seeing on the one is going to be on all three sides? MR. DHARIA: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: But it will be -- what we see will be the same on each panel? MR. DHARIA: That's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board members, further comments or discussion? MEMBER GRAY: The other comment I wanted to make is the stylized logo with the E is very -- I think it's very architecturally pleasing. I think it adds a nice touch to the building. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I agree with Miss Gray in that when I first looked at this I thought will we be able to see the building past the sign. And when you see it in perspective there, it gives you a much better understanding, and I think it looks great, and I can support what they're doing because it really isn't what they're asking. Board members, further comments or discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We've addressed the one sign. Are there any comments or discussions on the -- on the height of that? I don't see that to be anything that -- that would all be covered under the same thing. Further comments or discussion? MEMBER SANGHVI: No, sir. May I make a motion? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MEMBER SANGHVI: In the case of number 01-092, we accept the request for variance by the applicant because of the clarification we received regarding the size and also because of the
elegance and esthetically superior design of the sign. MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and seconded to grant the petitioner's request as requested. Is there any further discussion on the motion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance request has been approved. See the building
department for the necessary permits. We wish you the best of luck. MR. DHARIA: Thank you so much. MR. KECK: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. At this time we're going to take about a five, ten minute break and we'll be back and continue with the rest of our cases. (A short recess was taken.) CASE NUMBER 01-093 MR. CHAIRMAN: Call our next case, which is case number 01-093 filed by Lawrence Trepeck representing the proposed gas station at 43601 Grand River. MR. JACOBS: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'm Robert Jacobs. I'm an attorney representing Mr. Trepeck and G. L. Enterprises. With me is Charles Lauer, our architect, here today. If the Board would permit us, we would like to make a combined presentation before you. We have some graphic presentations to show you, some pictures to show you. Also in attendance is Mr. Gus Campbell, one of the owners with Mr. Trepeck of the subject property.
My address is 380 North Old Woodward in Birmingham, Michigan, and with your permission I will just give a brief introduction and let Mr. Lauer do his presentation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Being an attorney, you don't need to be sworn in but I'm going to ask your associate to be sworn in, please. MR. JACOBS: Thank you so much. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. LAUER: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, if you would please proceed. MR. JACOBS: Thank you so very much. This property is a unique property, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. It comes to you as a nonconforming use in the valid building nonconforming use. It is a legally nonconforming use that has gone through the planning commission and is -- was used as a gas station. The basis why it is nonconforming is the basis that there has been a TC-I or TC-1
district established in the Town Center, and, therefore, it makes this property nonconforming. We have gone before your planning commission, and we have worked with it, to present a site plan that conforms to the TC-I district in all particulars. I'm talking about landscaping, I'm talking about paving, I'm talking about amenities and structures and everything that we can possibly do. But we have some physical problems with the property, and that's why we are before you today, because in order to conform -- we can conform with 99.9 percent, but we are asking for three variances, and those variances Mr. Lauer is going to point out to you and show you explicitly where they are. But this isn't a self-imposed or self-induced variance that we are requiring. It is because we are in this district that we came subsequent to the use of this property, and we are working with the City to conform to that use that we are here. The property, we can't move, it is what it is. So, with that in mind, there are
these practical difficulties that we have here. There is a hardship. We want to be able to utilize this property. We don't want to just build and continue to use the gas station in this, which we could as a nonconforming use, but that isn't our intent. So we are before you to ask for your permission to grant these specific variances. And I'm going to ask Mr. Lauer if he would please show you at this time specifically what we are asking for tonight. I will address you again after his presentation. I thank you. MR. LAUER: Will our audiovisual people get the monitor going so -- there we go. This is -- it's along the old stretch of Grand River. These are the legacy lots from long before the Town Center. This -- the lot is about three-quarters of an acre, and today you wouldn't find any commercial lots that small, but as you can see from this vicinity map here, this is stuff that, in some cases, been there for fifty years, and that's a big part of what we're trying to work with here. The -- this is the existing
conditions. Right now, the two pump islands, total of four pumps, eight fueling stations, this is where they were before. There were two curb cuts on Grand River, and essentially the entire lot was paved over, and this is the existing building. This is the creek running across the back here. What we're proposing to do is bring the esthetics of the site up to the Town Center standard. We are abandoning the westerly curb cut on Grand River, just having one curb cut on Grand River with a hundred foot separation from the corner. We have one curb cut out on Flint, also a hundred feet back. The entire front facade is landscaped to Town Center standards with the berm and retaining wall, street trees, brick splash strips, pedestrian lights, bike racks, plaza benches. I mean, the entire collection of Town Center amenities is now on this site. Where we had run into problems is in fitting all this into the site with the hundred and fifty by two hundred foot dimensions. So we have three specific areas that we're asking for variances on here.
The -- this part here would be built during the reconstruction of the site, and what's happened is the -- because Flint Street is considered a collector under the Town Center ordinance, sidewalks are required to be twelve-and-a-half feet wide on collector streets. For some strange reason, the sidewalk on Grand River is only required to be eight feet, so this was a technical interpretation of the ordinance that Ron Royo (ph) said hey, there's nothing we can do about this, you have to go to the ZBA. What we determined is that the best interest of esthetics would be served by keeping an eight foot sidewalk to line up with the eight foot sidewalk we have on Grand River, put the brick splash strip in and get the variance of the extra four feet of sidewalk that would go right here, and have it part of the landscaped area. So that is the first variance we're requesting. The second part of that equation is right here. Because Flint Street right now is gravel from Grand River back, part of our commitment to the town -- I'm sorry, to the City
was to pave Flint Street to the edge of our curb cut, curb and gutter both sides. And so we're paying for all the cost of this improvement, but the extension of Flint Street will not stay in the same place that it is right now. The master plan indicates that Main Street would go west and bend north about another five hundred yards west of this, and Flint Street would T into it at that time, so whenever the last leg of the Main Street ring road comes in, at that point this would be redone, and what we would do at that point is put the rest of the sidewalk in along our property line, and one of the conditions of the planning commission was that we escrowed an amount to be determined by the City to pay for those sidewalk improvements. It's just we simply can't do it until the rest of the road is done. The final element of our variance request is over on the other side of the property for the request for a substandard driveway width. What's happened is we have a loading area over here, and this is -- this is when -- this is the loading for the convenience store items that are
going into the store. This area back in here is the employee parking. The way the convenience store works, the employees are helping off-load all those goods as they're coming in, and so in the first case we wouldn't see a circumstance where the employees would be leaving when the delivery truck is showing up, and the delivery trucks are only there for fifteen minutes every other day. It's not a constant sort of thing. So when the delivery truck isn't there, we have a twenty-four foot wide driveway that narrows down, at it's narrowest point here, to twenty feet. So while the ordin -- while the request is for a waiver of fourteen feet of driveway from a standard twenty-four to a ten, the reality is it's a dual use area that is a loading zone and the driveway into the employee parking area. So we think that these are the minimums that we need in order to make the site work, and we feel that the esthetic levels before and after will be significantly enhanced by this, seeing the landscape details there. And I believe
you have copies of these in your packages as well. Finally, this is the afterlook of the building. The building will be completely skinned in brick. We will have a stucco canopy with brick columns, no metal anywhere really, and extensive landscaping all the way around the building. I assume that you know what the existing building looks like, and we consider this to be a big step up and is really part of -- the end part of what, for me, has been about a six year process working through multiple iterations with staff and consultants over this time trying to figure out how to make this work, and we would appreciate the support of the ZBA on getting this thing finalized so that we could get the renovations going. Thank you. MR. JACOBS: Mr. Chairman, I think that -- just adding to what Mr. Lauer has said, it is obvious that there are practical hardships here that we can't address without your good offices. And, obviously, we have attempted and have implemented, I think, almost a hundred percent of the TC-I requirements within this district to
satisfy these requirements and to make this something that is compatible with that. We are constrained only by the shape of the land, where it is and how it is. If there are any questions, Mr. Lauer or myself are here and we thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to input into this case. (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we'll close audience participation. There were 19 notices sent. We received no approvals or no objections. Building department? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out, or as the attorney pointed out earlier, that this is a legal nonconforming issue, I want to verify that, from Mr. Schultz' office, and -- number one. Number two is that this is in a Town Center district. There has been a zoning change in that district since the time that this building was built. And, number three, I would just like to ask the applicant, have the existing
tanks been removed from that site? MR. JACOBS: Yes, they have, they have. MR. SAVEN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else, Mr. Saven? MR. SAVEN: Only that the petition -- the second petition is place the money in escrow for that until such time that Flint Street has been redone, whatever. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to make a general comment before opening discussion, how long has that facility been sitting vacant? MR. SAVEN: Well, from my eyes, it's too long when we need to have something done with it. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's really immaterial, Mr. Saven. MR. SAVEN: I realize that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just my point is, I would like to see something done there, and I think the petitioner has done a magnificent job in what they're proposing to do, and I think, really, the variance or deviations they're asking for for what
they've done are minimal. At this time I'll open up the floor to Mr. Brennan. MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, you stole my thunder, Laverne. The Red Wings weren't on TV that night, so I watched the planning commission meeting, and you got to be absolutely nuts not to support this. That site is a dump, and what you guys have proposed is beautiful. I have no objections. I only have -- and you've already confirmed that, that the one variance petition is to defer, and with that I have no problems with what you've asked for. MEMBER BAUER: I'll second that motion. MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sanghvi. MEMBER SANGHVI: Can I have some comment from our attorney about this nonconforming -- MR. SCHULTZ: I think both our office and the previous city attorney have reviewed as much evidence as we could find in the files and determined that this appears to be a noncon -- a
lawful nonconforming use that has not been abandoned, and a nonconforming site that, theoretically, could be used in its existing condition, so I think the key issue for the Board to consider is the obvious one that you've all spotted, that you have a number of improvements that comply with the ordinance and they're down to a few that simply can't be made, so that's the difficulty they allege. MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Gray. MEMBER GRAY: I have one question, and I, too, watched the planning commission meeting that night, not because the Red Wings weren't on, although I'm an avid hockey fan as well. I remember watching the meeting and I read through the minutes that we got, the draft copy, and I know this is not under our jurisdiction, but I have a question. Can you tell me, either of you gentlemen, how the tanker truck is going to pull in and deliver with the three underground tanks at the curb cut on Flint Street? MR. LAUER: Yeah. The --
MEMBER GRAY: Is the truck going to fit under the canopy? MR. LAUER: Yeah. The canopy is fourteen six clearance, so they come right through to here and tank into it. And the way the gas station servicing business works, you can order up different size of tankers, so it would be the short-bed tankers, and you have the clearance to get under it. MEMBER GRAY: That was the only question I had, and it wasn't addressed anywhere by anybody else, so I wanted to ask. I thank the Board's indulgence. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Board members, further questions or comments? MEMBER FANNON: Mr. Chairman, in case number 01-093, I would move that we grant all three variances due to the fact that it would be a great improvement to the site, and the petitioner has shown a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements in the TC-1 district. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and seconded to grant the petitioner's request. Is
there any further discussion on the motion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance request has been approved. See the building department. We wish you the best of luck. MR. TREPECK: Thank you so very much.
CASE NUMBER 01-094 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, case number 01-094, filed by Craig Hofeldt representing Midas. Sir? MR. Hewitt: Good evening, sir. Good evening to the Board. My name is Harry Hewitt. I am with Midas International Corporation. I'm an employee with them. I'm the real estate development manager for Midas. My address is 1300 Arlington Heights Road, Itasca, Illinois. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, would you be sworn in by our secretary? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. HEWITT: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Please present your case. MR. HEWITT: Thank you. Good evening. I know the hour's late. I understand there's a hockey game on television, so I'll keep my remarks brief. We've been at this site as Midas far
the last twenty-four years, along with our franchisees that are here tonight, Jerry Philmore and his son, Chris. We've tried to be good citizens over the last twenty-four years, good taxpayers, good neighbors. There's been numerous changes, of course, in the character of the neighborhood, the streets, and, in fact, Midas over the last twenty-four years. We are no longer just a muffler shop. In that regard, we've done a number of things recently to try to upgrade our image, getting away from the old image. If you all have booklets -- I believe they've been passed out to you. Within those booklets there is a rendering, I believe, of what the building appeared to be before and what we're in the process of trying to complete for the signage variance this evening with our upgrade program. The signage, quite frankly, along with the landscaping that we have submitted, in fact, has been approved by the City, we believe will, again, be the final piece in our upgrade plan for this facility, and we would certainly request
your favorable approval of that this evening. The two items that we're requesting variances for really have to do with a piece of building signage which, if you look at the rendering that we have, would consist of the words Auto Service Experts on the facility. We believe that is an important part of our upgrade program, and also to express to the public the changes that have taken place in Midas. Again, mufflers are a very small part of our business now. We have gone to some additional services which, you know, are essential for us to be profitable, and for Jerry and Chris to be profitable in the future, and so -- really, that's an important part to express that to the consumer, that we are, in fact, involved in those services at this point. And the second aspect, of course, is the second piece of the signage, which is the small monument mounted sign that would be at the corner of Novi and Twelve Mile Roads. This, of course, would be a significant decrease in the pylon sign that we have there, and we think, quite frankly, an enhancement as far as the appearance of the sign.
It will be on a masonry base, attractively constructed, and will be at eye level so the consumer can, in fact, see that as they come up the road. I believe, if you've been by the site, there is a small cardboard rendering of that sign which, I believe, is, in fact, actual size for that, so at least you have an idea of what the sign would appear to be when it is, in fact, constructed if, in fact, approved by the Board. With that, I really have no other comments. We again, certainly appreciate your favorable consideration of the application, and I'm open for questions if there are any. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we'll close audience participation. Building department? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I don't know how familiar you are with the Midas site, but most of us are. We've been here -- been
around for a while. You're all aware of the ground -- or the pylon sign which is there. We have an opportunity to get this sign down and certainly deal with a ground type of monument sign which is in line with what the ordinance dictates. The two Midas signs which are on this building, one which is facing the north and one facing the east are permitted signs according to the sign ordinance. The problem is that we have issue where you have more than one sign, it does require that we have to go through it and address that particular issue. The signs, what you're looking at, Automotive Service Center, is going to be in place of the Muffler, Shocks and- MR. HEWITT: (Interposing) Brakes. MR. SAVEN: So that's basically what we're dealing with. And I found that working with this company in the past was certainly helpful when approaching improvements around Twelve Mile Road. They certainly worked with us very well. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Brennan. MEMBER BRENNAN: Just one question for the petitioner. In addition to the signage, is
there a general overhaul of the entire building as we see with this with different colors? MR. HEWITT: Yes. That's already been mostly completed. At this point we've replaced bay doors, we've painted the building to the colors you see there. Yes, that -- again, this signage request here, along with landscaping we'll be performing next spring, when it's appropriate to do so, will be the final phase of our upgrade program here. MEMBER BRENNAN: My general feeling is that it's very obvious that that's a 24-year-old Midas Exhaust facility there. I think what the petitioner has tossed at us is a good deal for us. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well -- I'm sorry. Are you finished, Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I only had one clarification. The ground sign is -- on the agenda is noted as 25 feet, and I guess that's because we're taking that dimension down at the bottom and squaring that off? MR. SAVEN: That's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. I echo Mr. Brennan's sentiments, except for one thing.
Being with the road development there and everything that has changed around that area, it's actually brought the building closer to the road. The Auto Service Experts I think looks better than the three individual signs that were up there, but I feel that, somehow, that could be reduced in height of letters because it's right on top of the road. My -- and this is one Board member's opinion that, really, a 12 inch high letter at that point could be very significant, would give the exposure, but kind of reduces the, I don't know, the size magnitude of what I'm looking at. Board members, comments or discussion? MEMBER FANNON: Mr. Chairman, is there a sign -- is there a Midas sign on the west side of the building? Is there a Midas sign on the west side of the building? MR. HEWITT: On the west? No. There is nothing at all on the west side. That would be the back of the building facing down Twelve Mile Road, if I'm correct.
MEMBER FANNON: Right. I was in there tonight, and there wasn't a Midas sign? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Excuse me, sir. There is a sign on the west side. MEMBER FANNON: So the question is, is there a black sign on the west side of the building? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. MEMBER FANNON: There is? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. And that's where we would like to put the two signs. That's where we're putting the two signs that are going up right now. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The property that they're taking is on Twelve Mile, the north side, and the Auto Service Experts will remain on the east facing side. MEMBER FANNON: How many wall signs are up on Midas right now? There's one in the front. Let's say this is Twelve Mile. Looking at Novi Road, is there a Midas sign that looks at Twelve Mile Road right now? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, there
isn't. MEMBER FANNON: There isn't? It's really on the back of the building? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Correct. MEMBER FANNON: Okay. I was sitting in the parking lot and I was really feeling bad when you said that there wasn't. MR. CHAIRMAN: We're not addressing the Midas sign on the building. All we're addressing on the building is the Auto Service Experts, and we're addressing the pylon sign on the corner -- ground sign on the corner. MEMBER FANNON: Okay. MR. SAVEN: Pylon sign being gone. MEMBER BRENNAN: Any time we can get rid of a pylon sign- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) I think it's better for them, and esthetic wise, it makes everything look better, and if you make it better -- the whole thing is a drawing package that way. My only feeling is that I believe the other sign could be reduced to a one-foot high letter and still suffice the same thing and not jump out at such a high magnitude.
MEMBER BRENNAN: Should we try a motion? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Sir, that sign is only 18 inches. MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I believe that's the smallest one we can get right now that is made for us. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Eighteen inch sign on that size building is small. I mean, we normally have twenty-four to thirty inch signs on the building, so -- I'm just -- I'm just saying, when you look at it, it's not a large sign really. MEMBER BRENNAN: Just to move things along, let's see how the Board sits and I'll try a motion. With case number 01-094, I would move that petitioner's request be granted, that the pylon sign come down, and the two renderings that we have fulfill the purpose of identification of the site. MEMBER FANNON: Support. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and seconded to grant the petitioner's sign request variance as presented. Any further discussion on the motion?
(No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: No. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance request has been approved. See the building department for the necessary permits and we wish you the best of luck. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Other matters? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Saven.
MR. SAVEN: Okay. What was distributed today before you was the -- again, the interpretation of the sign ordinance which is dealing with Fountain Walk signs. At one of the previous meetings there seemed to be a concern relative to the banner signs. I was hopeful that -- again, that this interpretation regarding signs would put things to bed for those banners which were located on the interior of the project. I believe Miss Gray brought this up before as a concern at one of the last meetings that we had. I pointed it out that there was an interpretation opinion from our city attorney regarding this matter, and we should probably keep this as a matter of record for any future use regarding this particular issue as far as the signs for Fountain Walk. So what it did address is three basic conditions. One were the conditions were the signs would be facing outward to a public area. Number two, those signs which were facing inward, as far as like a courtyard type arrangement; and, number three, is those signs which were fronting on that
internal private road, it's not a public road, it's a private road, okay. So these were the signs which were going -- and areas where banners can be placed without being subject to the sign ordinance. Now, one of the things that was brought up as far as an opinion goes is whether or not -- where would we consider that view from a public area, and part of this opinion addresses the condition of twenty-five foot back from the leading most edge of that external wall, which would give us something as a figure we could use as far as a place to go for -- does it need comply or does it not. I think this is a good approach, and I just hope that the Board does concur with that twenty-five feet. As a problem with that, do we need to beat this up with the developer and try to come back to the Board, but I think this is reasonable. MEMBER SANGHVI: These 25 feet is regardless of the size of development? MR. SAVEN: Regardless, regardless. MEMBER SANGHVI: Shouldn't it be proportionate to the size?
MR. SAVEN: I think what we can do is if we have any question in regards to whether or not this could become a problem, we can bring it back to the Board. And I think if there is a question, it certainly or -- may be a point of visibility that we can't see from an area which may be a problem, but just to have something as a point of reference that we could use would be very important. I'm not saying we're going to go back and hide behind a bush and look at something and say I can see that. We want to try to be reasonable. MEMBER BAUER: Give us a guide to go by. MEMBER SANGHVI: This is a basic parameter you are setting up? MR. SAVEN: Right. That's -- this is a basic parameter. We're going to keep this as something -- because I do know that we're probably going to be dealing with some pretty wild signs coming up pretty soon, so just kind of keep it available for you. The second thing is that we have now
had a court reporter for some time, and I just need to know from the Board as to what your opinion is relative to a court reporter continuing at every meeting, or would you want to see her at specific meetings. This is part of our budget now. I'm just being honest with you. I have to deal with budget items here. And do you feel that this is being very helpful to you, should we continue with this process, or looking at it in a position where we might have sensitive cases and bring them onboard. MR. CHAIRMAN: If -- this is something -- rather than make a snap decision, I would suggest two things: One is that we take home the information we were given about the banners and Fountain Walk signage, take a little bit of time to read through that and just for general -- if there's any questions in general the Board members have on it, I think it should be brought to our next meeting. Rather than make an impromptu decision as to the court reporter, I suggest the same thing, that we take and give it some thought, and at our next meeting that we will -- each one
have a response that we can verbally discuss under other matters and bring that point up and have a general discussion. Be prepared to discuss that rather than to start tonight without actually giving it some more thought, which I think we need to take a little more time to do. MR. SAVEN: It was my idea for a hasty decision in this area. I just want to bring it to your attention, based on the fact how have things been going, is it what you're looking at, is this something that we want to possibly change or is it something that we look at potential -- like this case tonight, I didn't -- I wasn't aware they were coming in with a court reporter. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have no problem with that, but rather than discussing it tonight I would like to defer it to the next meeting, and that way when people have had the opportunity to think it over and they can really raise all points and cover everything at one point in time. MR. SAVEN: Sounds good to me. MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, I just would like to make my own point here because I don't know if I can be here at the next meeting,
and I just like it to be known that I think it's a wonderful idea to have a court reporter here taking detailed minutes. In this day and age, with super litigation, in my practice as an orthopedic surgeon, every patient is a possible litigant, and we always kept extensive, exhaustive records just for that case, for that situation, because you never know which one is going to turn up to be what, so to have detailed records and detailed minutes I think is a wonderful idea, and I'm sure the building department thought it was a good idea to have great records, and so this should be really -- instead of taking minutes should be a routine in every meeting so that we have excellent records for future reference. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Reinke? MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Gray. MEMBER GRAY: In addition to those two items to be thought about and brought back to our January meeting, you made reference a little earlier about whether we want to continue to receive complete planning commission minutes or if we wanted to receive an action summary. Could that
also be something that we think about and bring back to that meeting as well? MR. CHAIRMAN: What I would like to do, and I mentioned this to Sarah, and I guess I should have brought it up to the Board, I suggested that we try an action summary, and in that way we have, really, a chance to look at it, and we can go back the other route if we feel we need to. But I think -- it's still a point that can be discussed, but I'd like to see the next planning commission minutes be in an action summary, then we can see, really, what we get out of it and do we want to go this way or do we want to the other way, but it can be a discussion point and topic at any time. MEMBER SANGHVI: You mean we should have both at the same time so we can see the difference? MR. CHAIRMAN: No. I want to see an action summary. MEMBER SANGHVI: That's it? MR. CHAIRMAN: That's it. Then we've had a chance to work with that and we can give our opinion on whether we feel we want to continue with
this or we want to have the full minutes. MEMBER SANGHVI: One of the problems about action summaries is it is the perspective of the person who prepares the summary, and that doesn't necessarily tell you exactly what went on. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think this is why I'd like to take one and just work with it. If it doesn't suffice for what we need -- MS. MARCHIONI: Mr. Reinke? MS. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Perhaps we could just distribute the action summaries, and to those who are interested, the full minutes, we can put you on the planning department's list of people that get the full set of minutes, because I know not all of you want to read the sixty pages of full minutes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, let's try one month of an action summary and see what happens, and if we find out it doesn't work, we need additional information, we can request it. MEMBER BRENNAN: Are they prepared already? MR. CHAIRMAN: You'll have to ask Sarah that.
MR. BRENNAN: Is the planning commission meeting minutes already summarized into action items? MS. MARCHIONI: Yeah. MR. BRENNAN: It's already done, so it's no big deal. MS. MARCHIONI: The problem is that they've got kind of a backlog of minutes, so you'd be receiving August, September and October right now, which would be the size of the ordinance I think, so- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) This -- I'm assuming if we get on action summary, we would get the minutes or whatever information was on those a lot quicker than we would, am I correct? MS. MARCHIONI: The action summaries were like ours. They just state the motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fine. I would like to try it. MR. SAVEN: I would think that if you're getting your minutes ahead of time, or your packet ahead of time, if you have a question in regards to the action summary, certainly you could contact Sarah, we can get you a copy of those
planning commission minutes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Because it would save a lot of time and a lot of trees. MEMBER SANGHVI: I agree, save a tree. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's try that and go from there. Any other items to be brought up before the Board? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we'll adjourn the meeting. (The meeting was adjourned at 9:24 p.m.) Date approved: January 8, 2002 ___________________ Sarah Marchioni Recording Secretary - - -
C E R T I F I C A T E I, Cheryl L. James, do hereby certify that I have recorded stenographically the proceedings had and testimony taken in the above-entitled matter at the time and place hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify that the foregoing transcript, consisting of 103 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript to the best of my abilities.
________________________________ Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786 ____________ Date
|