View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting


Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matter of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, April 2, 2002


Don Saven, building department
Thomas Schultz, city attorney
C.J. Killebrew, building permit coordinator

Machelle R. Billingslea-Moore, Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen,

2 we'll call this meeting to order, and Madam Secretary,

3 would you call the roll?

4 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Bauer?

5 MEMBER BAUER: Present.

6 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Brennan?


8 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Gray?

9 MEMBER GRAY: Present.

10 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Gronachan?


12 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Sanghvi?


14 C.J. KILLEBREW: And Member Reinke?


16 MR. CHAIRMAN: We do have a quorum, so

17 this meeting is now in session.

18 Ladies and gentlemen, I'll point out

19 that we do have rules of conduct, and they are on the

20 front page of the agenda. I d ask you all to review

21 and adhere. And I d also ask Ms. Gray to keep an eye

22 on the clock, if things start to get a little long.

23 We've got a pretty full schedule

24 tonight, so let s try to be precise and brief.









1 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a

2 Hearing board appointed by the Novi City Charter to

3 hear appeals, seeking variances from the application

4 of the Novi Zoning Ordinances.

5 It takes a vote of at least four

6 members to approve a variance request, and a vote of

7 the majority of the members present to deny a

8 variance.

9 We do have a full board tonight, so any

10 decisions tonight will be final.

11 Agenda, I believe we have some changes,

12 modifications done. One that I have is regarding the

13 Dinser case. There s some question whether that was

14 properly noticed.

15 But I think I d like for that applicant

16 to come forward, if possible, if they re here tonight;

17 or we'll postpone it to a little bit later time, so

18 that we d have an opportunity to discuss this issue

19 with them. There was some concern as to whether or

20 not they were going to move the sign from its present

21 location to a new location. There s a lot of

22 confusion. There was some confusion regarding this

23 particular matter.

24 But I d ask that CASE NUMBER 7 to come









1 forward. We had a discussion earlier on regarding

2 1389 East Lake Drive, and there was concern regarding

3 some structural elements to the home, based on what he

4 wanted to do, even though the request is for the same

5 distance away from the property line; the intensity is

6 not just for a small portion of the house. It would

7 have to include a larger portion of the house.

8 Can you come forward and explain that

9 particular situation?

10 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wasn't really

11 prepared for this.

12 MR. SAVEN: Basically, he s requesting

13 to postpone the case to the next meeting, so that he

14 could properly give us the appropriate information.

15 So you can see that one particular side of the house

16 now doesn't encompass, but it s for the full length

17 of the wall.

18 MR. CHAIRMAN: So you got to rework

19 your submittal and you want to come on back next

20 month?


22 MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other changes?

23 MR. SAVEN: Thank you.

24 MR. CHAIRMAN: With those changes duly









1 noted, we'll move for approval as modified.

2 All those in favor, say aye?

3 PANEL: Aye.

4 MR. CHAIRMAN: All those opposed?

5 Minutes. We did have two sets of

6 minutes, the November, 2001 and the March 5th, 2002.

7 MEMBER REINKE: I think we should hold

8 off on the March.

9 MR. CHAIRMAN: You want time to review

10 that?


12 MR. CHAIRMAN: No other changes.

13 All those in favor say aye?

14 PANEL: Aye.

15 MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll move that we are

16 going to hold the March for another month to give

17 various members a chance to get into that a little

18 deeper.

19 Public remarks. This is the public

20 remarks portion of the meeting. All comments relating

21 to a case, should be held until that case is called.

22 So if anyone has a desire to address

23 the board on another matter or a case not on our

24 agenda, this is the time to come forward.









1 Anybody? Okay.

2 Let s get going. We'll call the first

3 case.


5 The first case is, CASE NUMBER 02-006

6 filed by Harold Chapman of Buffalo Wings.

7 This is a restaurant, new restaurant in

8 Fountain Walk

9 Mr. Chapman?

10 MR. HANDLING: No. My name s Michael

11 Handling. I live at 820 Cherokee Avenue, Royal Oak,

12 Michigan.

13 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

14 MR. HANDLING: And I am the principal

15 owner of the restaurant going in.

16 MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you raise your

17 right hand to be sworn by the secretary.

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Will you please state

19 that I swear to tell the truth in the matter before

20 me?

21 MR. HANDLING: I swear to tell the

22 truth

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: In the matter before

24 me.









1 MR. HANDLING: -- in the matter before

2 me.

3 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. What have you

4 got?

5 MR. HANDLING: Yeah, I do have Harold

6 Chapman and the sign contractor, Ann Blair, from

7 Belle Isle Awning with me. So basically, we

8 originally intended to just do a sign on the front and

9 the side, but after a couple of serious meetings with

10 PLC West and JPRA, the architects of the Fountain

11 Walk, they found it critical that we do much more,

12 because of the position that we have in the Fountain

13 Walk, for the mall, itself.

14 So we came back with basically what

15 they had suggested and they approved is some awnings

16 that match our basic new corporate and menu color

17 scheme. This is the first store in the Country that

18 we have done anything like this for.

19 Working with our marketing department

20 and our corporate office, our architects, JPRA , PLC

21 West, try to coordinate this look, and basically

22 locked into our overall menu look, our public

23 relations piece, and this is what we came up with.

24 So I guess that s why we re here in









1 front you.

2 MR. CHAIRMAN: I m sure we'll have some

3 questions for you.


5 MR. CHAIRMAN: There were 19 notices

6 sent out, no approvals, no objections.

7 Anyone in the audience wish to make

8 comment on this case?

9 Seeing none, building department?

10 MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir.

11 MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, it s wide

12 open for questions on the Petition, questions and /or


14 MEMBER REINKE: I don t think I've seen

15 anything in a long time with as many requests for

16 business, as this has.

17 In reviewing driving by looking at

18 everything, like that, and especially for what they've

19 proposed for the windows. I right off the bat want to

20 eliminate everything, except two, and those two that

21 needs to be working with, also.

22 I can t see any justifiable reason for

23 all the berments(ph) on the awnings. The banners,

24 which I call a banner, I guess, banner-type signs on









1 the facade of the building. It just I mean, it

2 almost looks like a menu.

3 MR. CHAIRMAN: Other comments?

4 MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair?

5 Last month, what came before us, I was

6 reluctantly prepared to support, and then when I saw

7 this, it was just -- I agree with Mr. Reinke s

8 comments. I could support the awnings. I don t like

9 the logo on the awnings. I can support the logo in

10 the windows, but not the writing. Absolutely no

11 banners. They are not allowed by Ordinance. We've

12 already turned down exterior facing banners at

13 Fountain Walk.

14 I don t now like to see the corporate

15 logo above the awning. It s just way too much. It s

16 one or two I could live with, but not this so

17 much.

18 Thank you.

19 MR. CHAIRMAN: I just have a quick

20 question for the Petitioner here. You re a little bit

21 familiar with the sign Ordinance in Novi? Have you

22 walked through it all?

23 MR. HANDLING: I m very aware of it,

24 and this was not my idea. This is I was forced into









1 this by JPRA and PLC West. Believe me, I fought this

2 tooth and nail.

3 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we re going to

4 make it a little easier for you.

5 MR. HANDLING: That s fine.

6 I can you know, obviously, one of the

7 reasons that we did pick the location was because of

8 the exposure to 96 and the front of the mall. So

9 obviously, we d like to have a sign.

10 MR. CHAIRMAN: Uh-huh.

11 MR. HANDLING: The awnings, if they

12 were plain I think it s a nice look, but obviously

13 it s gonna cost me a lot of money, and we re way-over

14 budget on this project anyway.

15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Let s keep this moving a

16 long. Let s start with sign A, and address these one

17 at a time. Specific comments on sign A?

18 What is accepted by what is allowed

19 by Ordinance as far as square feet, Petitioner has had

20 a request for a 96 square feet sign.

21 How does the board feel with this, with

22 respect to setbacks and the placement of this

23 building, where it s at?

24 MEMBER BAUER: It s too big.









1 MEMBER REINKE: Where the building sets

2 and everything like that, I guess I could give a

3 little bit more leeway on that. It is on the large

4 side, but I don t know. That s the one side I guess I

5 have a little bit more of a leeway working with, than

6 probably anything else that they re proposing.



9 MEMBER SANGHVI: I agree with

10 Mr. Reinke. They want this sign to be visible from I-

11 96. That is larger than what we have expected

12 accepted here, but it is something with which I can

13 live with, other than some of the other things they

14 have recommended.

15 I think you need to be identified. You

16 need to be visible, and not just the normal sign is

17 acceptable to me, but as we'll go by other ones in the

18 background, as far as we've accepted . I went over

19 there to the far end, as far back as I can go, without

20 going on I-96, and it was visible. You could read it,

21 and I don t think it is too large for the purpose for

22 which it is designed.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I concur with the

24 two previous speakers. I would support these two,









1 given the size of the building and the location of

2 the building.

3 MR. CHAIRMAN: And when you say these

4 two, are you talking about are you talking about

5 sign B?

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I m sorry. I got

7 ahead of myself. Sign A, the front.

8 MR. CHAIRMAN: Let s talk about sign B

9 now.

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Are we going to make a

11 Motion for each

12 MR. CHAIRMAN: I d like to get a feel

13 for the whole thing, that s worked pretty successful

14 in the past.


16 MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in

17 reference to sign B, I feel that sign B, for it s

18 direction, is really more of a directional for the

19 parking lot and everything like that. I don t think

20 it needs to be that size of a sign, to give that kind

21 of direction. If that could be reduced to a maximum

22 of 40 square feet, it'll still serve the purpose for

23 in that direction.

24 MR. CHAIRMAN: We've got a couple more









1 nods.

2 Let s move on to signs C through G,

3 which is the five awnings.

4 MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chair, in signs C

5 through G, I see no justifiable reason for it. It

6 makes the sign makes the building look like

7 billboard.

8 MR. CHAIRMAN: I see one nod, two nods,

9 three nods.

10 Let s move on.

11 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may?

12 MR. CHAIRMAN: I m sorry.

13 MR. SAVEN: Are we talking about the

14 sign and the awnings or are we just discussing the

15 sign?

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: We re just talking

17 about the sign on the awning.

18 MR. SAVEN: Thank you, sir.

19 MR. CHAIRMAN: And I guess the last

20 issue is the awnings, themselves.

21 MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Saven, are awnings

22 permitted without verbiage?

23 MR. SAVEN: The awnings are permitted

24 without verbiage, provided it meets facade









1 requirements of the City of Novi.

2 MEMBER REINKE: So we really don t have

3 to address the awnings, per se.

4 MR. SAVEN: That s correct. That s why

5 we re very careful to make sure we re not including

6 the awnings in this Motion.

7 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So we walked

8 through all. Are you kind of getting a gist of where

9 we re going with this?

10 MR. HANDLING: Yes, I do.

11 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

12 Any other discussion?

13 Okay. Let s try a stab at a Motion.

14 MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case

15 No. 02-006, I move that sign A be approved as

16 presented, 96 square feet; sign B, be a maximum of 40

17 square feet; and sign C through G, not be approved.

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Seconded.

19 MR. CHAIRMAN: We've got a Motion and a

20 seconded.

21 Any discussion?

22 Okay. Let s call roll.

23 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Bauer?










1 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Brennan?


3 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Gray?


5 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Gronachan?


7 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Reinke?


9 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Sanghvi?


11 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, with some

12 modification, your variance request has been approved.

13 See the building department for

14 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may

15 advise the applicant that are issues that deal with

16 window coverage up to 25 percent signage in the

17 windows. You may want to discuss this Mr. Amosh(ph)

18 regarding anything that you want to put in your

19 windows.

20 MR. HANDLING: Okay, good, thank you.

21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, board

22 members. We went through that one nicely.


24 Call the next one is, O2-014 filed by









1 Wayne Bullen, representing Rotary Park.

2 Mr. Bullen wants this sign on Nine Mile

3 for Rotary Park.

4 Want to raise your hand and be sworn?

5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Will you state that

6 you will swear to tell the truth in the matter before

7 you?

8 MR. BULLEN: I swear to tell the truth

9 in the matter before me.

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, at this

11 point, I being a president of Rotary, I would like

12 abstain.

13 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

14 You have the floor.

15 MR. BULLEN: Yes, my name is Wayne

16 Bullen. I live at 23980 East Verbose. The reason I m

17 here tonight is for several reasons, really, but just

18 a little brief background.

19 I joined Rotary in 1978. I m the past

20 president of the Rotary Club. One of our main

21 projects over the years has been the enhancement and

22 the building of the Rotary Park, located on Nine Mile

23 Road between Meadowbrook and Novi Road.

24 This park has devoted we've devoted a









1 lot of time and attention to this park over the years

2 in labor and manpower and organizing and funds. Some

3 of the things that we've been able to accomplish of

4 course, I m sure you've all been through there - but

5 we have a nice tennis court there. We have a

6 pavilion, for which the Rotarians have put the roof on

7 the pavilion. We have trails that meander through the

8 river area. Of course, we have a playground area and

9 picnic tables.

10 Each year in fact, twice a year,

11 Rotarians, a long with high school students, go into

12 the park area and prune the trails and clean up the

13 debris that s been left there over the months. In

14 fact, we'll be out there once again in late April

15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Let s get to the sign.

16 MR. BULLEN: And the reason we want the

17 sign, is because this is such a beautiful park and

18 but we feel that it could be used more than it has

19 been used. And one reason we feel it s not being used

20 as much, is because people just aren't aware that

21 there s a park there. And it s you know, you re

22 driving down Nine Mile Road and you see a sign that s

23 kind of setback in the wooded area, and it s not

24 terribly visible to those people that are going up and









1 down Nine Mile Road.

2 And it really there s nothing other

3 than the sign that tells you, a motorist going by,

4 that there is, in fact, a park there. And we just

5 want to promote the park and make it more available to

6 the citizens of Novi.

7 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.

8 MR. BULLEN: Okay. You re welcome.

9 MR. CHAIRMAN: There were a total of

10 seven notices sent. No approvals, no objections.

11 I will note in the file that there is a

12 written comment in here that the building department

13 spoke with the chief -- the fire chief about the

14 location of the sign, and he had no issues with it.

15 Anyone in the audience wish to address

16 the board regarding this case?

17 Okay. Building department?

18 MR. SAVEN: That s not the final sign,

19 is it?

20 MR. BULLEN: That is not the final sign.

21 It s merely a mock-up. In fact, the proposed sign

22 would be constructed of materials nearly identical to

23 the existing sign.

24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members?









1 Sarah?

2 MEMBER GRAY: Well, I have a problem

3 with the size of the sign. What I look at, as I drive

4 across 12 Mile and I look at the directional signs

5 that we've put up directing people to the Town Center

6 area, to Main Street, to Fountain Walk. Those are

7 signs that are legitimate, not intrusive. And I think

8 that something like that would be much more

9 appropriate not only at this corner for Rotary Park,

10 but at any corner for any park throughout the City.

11 And I m just not happy with that big of a sign.

12 I realize Rotary Park is a lovely park,

13 but if you put one there; then the next thing you

14 know, we re going to want one at 13 and Old Mill at

15 the Lake Shore Park and so on and so on.

16 So I think it s inappropriate. I think

17 there are better ways to deal with it. And I would

18 not be in favor of such a huge sign on that corner.

19 Thank you.

20 MEMBER BAUER: Mr. Chair?

21 MEMBER BAUER: Is the sign in the exact

22 spot that you re going to put it?

23 MR. BULLEN: Well, it s in the general

24 location. I would say no, it s not in the exact spot,









1 but I would have to say probably within 20 feet or

2 where it is.

3 MR. CHAIRMAN: Would that exact

4 location be any closer to the road?

5 MR. BULLEN: Not necessarily.

6 MR. CHAIRMAN: I d like a yes or no.

7 MR. BULLEN: To be honest with you, I m

8 not sure. I can only say that the sign would be on

9 that corner, which would be the southwest corner of

10 that intersection.

11 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, it would be

12 required to be on the property, itself, not on the

13 roadway of that particular location, plus at a visual

14 distance.

15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, any other


17 MEMBER REINKE: Let me just ask a

18 question.

19 A directional sign would be of what

20 size, Mr. Saven?

21 MR. SAVEN: A lot depends on whether

22 it s for a project or if it s for a project, you re

23 looking at six square feet.

24 MEMBER REINKE: I don t think six









1 square feet is big enough to be identifiable. And

2 because of the travel and the traffic on the road, I

3 think people need to identify it a little quicker than

4 what they would on a six foot sign.

5 I really don t have a problem with the

6 sign, because of it s nature and of it s location.

7 And 24 square foot is not it looks big in respect to

8 Mrs. Gray s opinion, but I guess we have difference to

9 disagree at times, also.

10 MEMBER GRAY: Certainly.

11 MEMBER REINKE: So I can support the

12 request. I think it would function well, and help

13 people to get to the intersection and identify the

14 intersection before they re trying to stop and back up

15 or something of that nature.

16 MR. CHAIRMAN: I see a nod from Gerry.

17 Cindy, you got any comments?

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: None at this time,

19 thanks.

20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we'll entertain a

21 Motion, if we re at that point.

22 MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in case

23 02-014, I move that the variance as requested be

24 approved for identification of park location.









1 MEMBER BAUER: Seconded.

2 MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a Motion and a

3 seconded.

4 Any discussion?

5 You can call roll.

6 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Bauer?


8 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Brennan?

9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Member Brennan, yes.

10 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Gray?


12 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Gronachan?


14 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Reinke?


16 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, sir, your Petition

17 for variance has been approved.

18 MR. BULLEN: Thank you.

19 MR. CHAIRMAN: See the building

20 department for necessary permits.

21 MR. BULLEN: Thank you.


23 MR. CHAIRMAN: CASE 02-015, filed by

24 Mr. Coon. This is property on 2015 West Lake Drive.









1 You want to raise your hand and give us

2 your name and be sworn by Mr. Sanghvi?

3 MR. COON: Ronald Coon, 2015 West Lake.

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Coon, do you swear

5 that you will tell the truth in regards to the matter

6 before you?

7 MR. COON: Yes.

8 MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got the floor.

9 MR. COON: I guess this is just a

10 simple request. You have paperwork supporting it on

11 your desk, I suppose. The person most greatly

12 effected by it has written you a letter in support of

13 it. It should be your second page; that would be the

14 person that s on the side of this six foot setback.

15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that it?

16 MR. COON: Yes.

17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

18 There were a total of 40 notices sent.

19 There were two written approvals, three objections.

20 And then we've got the document that the Petitioner s

21 submitted with one, two, three, four, five, six,

22 seven, eight approvals.

23 I'll just read a couple of the

24 approvals here. No, I m not.









1 MR. COON: I thought you d agree.

2 That s kind of strange paperwork there.

3 Anyone in the audience wish to address

4 the board on this case?

5 MR. CURTIS: Yes, sir.

6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Come on up. Give us

7 your name, address.

8 MR. CURTIS: My name is Leon Richard

9 Curtis. I live at 101 Emerald Street, across the

10 street from where Ron is going to be building. About

11 two or three years ago, we put up a new home

12 ourselves, tore down the old one and upgraded. And

13 most of the neighbors are trying to do the same thing

14 throughout the area. There are a few people that

15 always object to everything in the neighborhood.

16 That s my comment.

17 MR. CHAIRMAN: A couple of the

18 objections also noticed that the notice may have been

19 incorrect with the wrong address? Two people made

20 that same comment, this notice has the wrong address.

21 MR. COON: No, it s correct.

22 MR. CHAIRMAN: It went out as

23 MR. COON: There were two pieces of

24 property that were combined in the past. So it









1 depends upon which address you d like to go with.

2 MR. SAVEN: There are two address for

3 that property, one is 2015 and one is 2018. The 300

4 foot notification is not affected by that particular

5 noticing.


7 Building department.

8 MR. SAVEN: Just a couple of questions,

9 Mr. Coon, regarding your existing home. That will

10 come down in it s entirety; is that correct?

11 MR. COON: The existing house that s on

12 the property, oh, yes, everything, footings,

13 everything.

14 MR. SAVEN: So we'll make sure that

15 we re not using any part of that property that s

16 already up.

17 MR. COON: No. That s a 70-year-old

18 home, and I don t wish to use anything.

19 MR. SAVEN: Okay. The other issue I d

20 like to point out,I is that because there s an

21 existing garage on this property, that once you attach

22 the proposed home to that garage, it now takes on the

23 same characteristics of a new house on a piece of

24 property, so you do have a 30 foot front yard setback,









1 so that was added to that request.

2 MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other comments from

3 the building

4 MR. SAVEN: No, sir.

5 MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members?

6 MEMBER REINKE: Okay. From where

7 you re taking the existing house down, what is going

8 to be your distance from the lot line on that side?

9 MR. COON: I m sorry. I don t know

10 off the top of my head. I submitted a plot plan

11 MR. SAVEN: 24.5 , 24 and a half feet.

12 MEMBER REINKE: My question is, why

13 can t that be shifted over to be ten foot off the

14 other lot line?

15 MR. COON: Because that would be my

16 access to the lake for launching the boat, etc.

17 MEMBER REINKE: How much access do you

18 need?

19 MR. COON: That s what I d like to do

20 there, you know.

21 MEMBER REINKE: I understand that. But

22 I mean, if you got 24 foot 24 and a half feet on one

23 side, and you re asking for a variance on the other

24 side, I don t see why that couldn't be moved four









1 feet, so that you wouldn't need that variance.

2 MR. COON: Well, I guess it s kind of

3 one of those things where the garage is already

4 established that the line going straight down

5 MEMBER REINKE: I understand that.

6 MR. COON: -- and you know, I d just

7 like to continue on with that line. It s kind of the

8 side of the house that is not used, and the neighbor

9 on that side has no problems whatsoever with the

10 thought and stuff like that.

11 MEMBER REINKE: Well, you know,

12 usually, the reason in the past had been that the lot

13 was such that the size of the house couldn't fit on it

14 without a variance on one side or the other. This

15 house can fit on it without a variance.

16 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may?


18 MR. SAVEN: Because of the fact that

19 you re attaching this to the garage, it becomes just

20 like a principal building would, he would still need a

21 variance for that particular side yard, because he now

22 because it was detached, it was six foot, which is

23 okay.

24 The fact that he s going to attach it,









1 the minimum side yard is going to be ten feet. So

2 he d still need a variance on that.

3 MEMBER REINKE: I understand that. I

4 don t see the reason to have that intrusive of a

5 variance for that whole building to be over that far.

6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah?

7 MEMBER GRAY: As far as Mr. Reinke s

8 comments, I m very familiar with this property. I

9 know that this is going to be a very big improvement,

10 but I couldn't support more than the length the

11 depth of the garage, 24 and a half feet, for that six

12 foot variance. It s just it s just I know that

13 aesthetically you d probably like to follow the same

14 line, but it just doesn't make sense.

15 If you move it over four feet, could

16 give it some interest, as well. You d still have 20

17 feet on the north. You d have plenty of room to

18 launch your boat down the north property line with 20

19 feet. And you know, I just couldn't support the

20 continuation of the variance on the south property

21 line.

22 And one of the other comments I have is

23 what my concern is, is that I don t want to see

24 between the garage and the street now, in that 27 foot









1 depth, if we grant that variance, which we would have

2 to. I know you re not going to move the garage. I

3 don t want to see the number of cars that have been on

4 your property in the past in that concentration,

5 between the front of the garage and the street.

6 Again, I m looking forward to this. I

7 know it s going to be a vast improvement to the

8 property, but I can t support the six foot variance on

9 the south property line, other than for the existing

10 garage.

11 Thank you.

12 MR. CHAIRMAN: Other board members?

13 Well, you got a couple choices. If

14 you re in a position that you want to make some

15 amendments to what you've presented, that s an option.

16 If you want to take some time to think about it and

17 resubmit a different layout, you can do that and come

18 back in a month. Or, we can vote on what you've

19 submitted tonight? I'll give you the option for what

20 you feel most comfortable with.

21 I think you can get a drift where we

22 are. I mean, there s certain parts of this design

23 that we re agreeable to. There are some other areas

24 where I think we've got a problem.









1 MR. COON: Well, I guess I don t fully

2 understand where all the problems are there.

3 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Coon, what the board is

4 requesting of you is that you take a look at taking

5 the principal building which you want to attach to

6 that garage, and slide it over an additional four

7 foot, so that you can maintain the ten foot side yard

8 setback along that line. Not the garage, the proposed

9 construction, so that it can meet the requirement of

10 that ten foot side yard, minimum side yard setback.

11 MEMBER GRAY: On the south property

12 line.

13 MR. CHAIRMAN: What we re dealing with,

14 sir, is this is new construction, so you've got the

15 building position this house with a very minimal

16 amount of variances. And we had noticed there was one

17 variance that you requested that can be eliminated by

18 moving the house over four feet.

19 MR. COON: Well, I d say for me being

20 able to use the north side of the property line there

21 and say the east side is on the water, for me to be

22 able to utilize my property to the best of its ability

23 and have yard space and stuff that is actually useable

24 it seemed like the most logical choice for me to just









1 continue the line down the side like that. But I get

2 the impression that you want us to pull it in the

3 center.

4 MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess we re going to

5 vote on this thing.

6 MR. COON: I get the impression that

7 it s going to be shot down, so I m not sure where to

8 go from here, to be honest with you.

9 MEMBER REINKE: Well, here s what I,

10 as a board member

11 MR. COON: I didn't expect --

12 MEMBER REINKE: -- would propose, and

13 what kind of a Motion I would make. And your garage

14 is not going to move. So I can support the variance

15 with a setback front yard setback for the garage.

16 The side yard variance, I would allow for only the

17 garage, and I would say that the house as to move four

18 feet to the north.

19 That s the kind of Motion I m prepared

20 to make. Now, if you want to take some time, re-look,

21 revisit what you want to do, if you don t agree with

22 that, we re giving you the option to table it and come

23 back with something different.

24 MR. COON: Okay. I guess that would be









1 what I would be doing.

2 MEMBER REINKE: Okay. I just didn't

3 want to start something, if you would rather look at a

4 different presentation than what you see that we re

5 trying to work with what we see the situation to be.

6 MR. COON: Okay. I was not prepared

7 for the side setback to be an issue. But okay, we'll

8 table this for a later date, if that s


10 MR. CHAIRMAN: I d encourage you to

11 look real hard at moving that house four feet. And it

12 sounds like at least what I heard that you've got

13 a lot of support for this, with that one issue. If

14 you want to come back next month, we'll probably

15 redirect it.

16 MR. SAVEN: Members of the board, could

17 there be additional direction with regards to the

18 final request for one percent?

19 MEMBER REINKE: I don t have a problem

20 with the one percent.

21 MR. SAVEN: Okay.

22 MEMBER REINKE: The only problem I have

23 is with the new construction being

24 MEMBER GRAY: The south property line.









1 MEMBER REINKE: -- being

2 MR. CHAIRMAN: Side yard

3 MEMBER REINKE: -- requesting hearing

4 a variance for that.

5 MR. COON: Thank you.


7 MR. COON: Okay, thank you.

8 MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, all of

9 those in favor of tabling this for next month

10 PANEL: Aye.

11 MR. CHAIRMAN: Come on back and see us.

12 MR. COON: Thank you.


14 MR. CHAIRMAN: Call the next CASE, 02-

15 016, filed by Ben Liu, attorney attorney for Gourmet

16 Buffet.

17 Mr. Liu, you re an attorney. We won t

18 ask you to be sworn, so you have the floor.

19 MR. LIU: Thank you.

20 Good evening. I represent Gourmet

21 Buffet. We are here to ask for a variance for the

22 sign that the restaurant put up by mistake. It s a

23 little bit larger than what is allowed at this point.

24 But we have submitted diagram and picture of the side,









1 and the sign is not an obtrusive sign. And in fact, I

2 think it fits in with the other signs in the shopping

3 center.

4 The front of the building is quite

5 large. I m here to ask to answer any other

6 questions you may have.

7 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. There were

8 seven notices sent, none returned, no approvals, nor

9 objections.

10 Anyone in the audience?

11 All righty.

12 Building department, you want to tell

13 us how we got here?

14 MR. SAVEN: What I can give you is the

15 following information. I know that Sarah put in your

16 packet a list of those signs which were approved for

17 the square footage associated with them. It s on your

18 blue sheet of paper that s part of your packet, as a

19 point of reference. As I understand, they put up the

20 wrong sign by mistake.

21 MR. LIU: The contractor s from New

22 York, and there was some communication, language

23 communication.

24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, questions









1 and/or comments?

2 MR. REINKE: My first comment is pretty

3 big mistake. And I don t know. I got a problem with

4 the size. I don t don t like to be put in a situation where

5 we got something there, and it s almost like it s

6 getting stuffed in front of us. I don t like that.

7 MR. CHAIRMAN: This isn't the permanent

8 sign. I mean, it s a permanent sign that was put up.

9 MR. LIU: That s correct.

10 MR. CHAIRMAN: You re business is

11 operational, you re open?

12 MR. LIU: Not yet. It s a brand new

13 restaurant.

14 MR. CHAIRMAN: If this sign was denied,

15 you d have to go back to your sign builder and have a

16 new sign made.

17 MR. LIU: That s correct.

18 MR. CHAIRMAN: I assume that if your

19 sign builder made the wrong sign, you wouldn't be

20 expected to pay for a sign that was properly

21 manufactured.

22 MR. LIU: Well, hopefully, we would

23 not. I would expect some allowance. But once a sign

24 is put up, I think that I if we have to go back to









1 the original sign or the sign that was approved, I

2 think it s just way too small for the face of the

3 restaurant.

4 MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members?

5 MEMBER REINKE: That s an issue that

6 should have been addressed before this. This is not

7 the point in time to get into that discussion. Just

8 because it s bigger and looks better by their opinion,

9 and now we're going to say we re going to negotiate on

10 size, I have a problem with that.

11 MEMBER BAUER: Mr. Chairman?

12 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bauer.

13 MEMBER BAUER: This, of course, was set

14 up back in 1986. The landlord knew about it. And I

15 image it was in every lease that was sent out and we

16 put into operation. And I think we re going to have

17 to have him live up to the square footage that's asked

18 and allowed in the 48 square feet.

19 MR. LIU: You know, for just for my

20 information, I was not I wasn't informed of this

21 problem until the sign was put up. But obviously, if

22 I had known about this what happened was, that my

23 client tried to put up a bigger sign, and it was

24 denied and then he got approved for the smaller sign.









1 But the order was already placed with the company for

2 the bigger sign.

3 And you know, if he would have come to

4 me, obviously, I would have told him, you know what,

5 let s go over and ask the Council for a variance. But

6 my client felt that, you know, when he looked at all

7 these other stores, their signs were bigger than his.

8 How did those signs get there? I assume they got

9 variances. And that s what my client should have

10 done. I admit that.

11 But you know, to say that it s in all

12 the leases, my client should be should have to live

13 up to that, all of the other stores apparently got

14 bigger signs.

15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we have -- that

16 same information was supplied to us by the building

17 department of variances given in that same complex.

18 MR. LIU: That s how they got them.

19 They got variances.

20 MR. CHAIRMAN: I d like to, perhaps,

21 have some discussion on the merits of this existing

22 sign if they would be forced not having built the

23 sign but making a case for a sign of this size, an

24 82.5 square foot sign. If it wasn't there and they









1 were in front of us tonight requesting a variance of

2 that size, let s have some discussion on that type of

3 scenario.

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, that changes the

5 whole perspective. And from that point of view, we re

6 looking at it fresh without any taking into

7 consideration the previous decisions and all that, I

8 might be looking at it differently.

9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think we have

10 to. And speaking for the Petitioner, which I don t

11 always do, but we listen to variances based on

12 hardship. And the Petitioner very quickly said that

13 his hardship was that there was a communication

14 difficulty between his client and the sign

15 manufacturer. And I can buy that. And based on that

16 being the variance or pardon me, based on that being

17 his hardship, I think that we should have some

18 discussion about what would we do if this case was

19 presented before us. The sign s not built, but he s

20 looking at an 82 and a half square foot sign.

21 MEMBER REINKE: Okay. Mr. Chairman, if

22 I was looking at that, first thing I would get rid of

23 is two things on the ends. And I would say it would

24 still have to be downsized somewhat from what it is.









1 I would maybe buy something a little bit bigger than

2 48 square feet, but I wouldn't go with the 82.


4 Thank you. Other board members?

5 MEMBER GRAY: I've looked at this both

6 ways from it wasn't there; if it was there. I would

7 like to see a smaller sign, but I also understand what

8 I understand to be a practical difficulty of taking

9 down a sign that was put up in error. Whether there

10 was a communication problem or not, I would be

11 inclined to grant the variance that s existing there,

12 but for this occupancy only.

13 I realize it was an error. I would not

14 want to penalize the applicant because the sign

15 company made a mistake. I would certainly hope that

16 if this board voted to deny it, that there would be

17 some kind of relief, financial relief to the applicant

18 from the sign company. But I m not so inclined to

19 say, no. This sign, it does seem to fit with that

20 facade there.

21 Thank you.

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, I have

23 two questions. Question number one, the sign you

24 already got here, is this a corporate logo or you have









1 changed those figures to the letters here on each

2 side.

3 MR. LIU: Let me ask my client. Your

4 Honor, the two Chinese characters on the side, they re

5 Chinese characters meaning lucky, good luck.

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. And the second

7 question was, how soon are you going to start your

8 business there?

9 MR. LIU: He would like I mean, he s

10 pushing it. He would like to open in couple weeks.


12 MR. CHAIRMAN: Other board members?

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: You still haven t

14 answered my question. What are the reasons by your

15 client, other than a good luck charm, but they're not

16 part of the sign?

17 MR. LIU: You mean the characters not

18 part of the sign?

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: The characters.

20 MR. LIU: Well, it is part of the sign.

21 I m afraid, yeah, it is.

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: It doesn't do anything

23 for advertising the business or identifying the

24 business, does it?









1 MR. LIU: No, but accept it does you

2 know, it is Chinese character that means good luck.

3 And a lot of Chinese they like you know

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Is Gourmet Buffet a

5 Chinese restaurant?

6 MR. LIU: That s correct. And it s

7 you know, a lot of Chinese people I don t believe

8 it, but a lot of Chinese believe it. It s still part

9 of the business.

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Oh, I have no problem

11 with that. Thank you.


13 believe that when I first looked at this, it was

14 basically a wrong interpretation. And what I have a

15 problem with is what kind of hardship would be created

16 by not approving this, in terms of expense. You don t

17 know if is there going to be delay by removing the

18 sign or ordering a new one, those kinds of those

19 types of things.

20 I personally don t have a problem with

21 this sign. In looking at it if it came before us

22 right now and it wasn't up there, I think I would

23 support it just the way it is. And I would support it

24 now based on the fact that I don t want to create more









1 of a problem, due to the fact that I don t believe it

2 was the Petitioner s fault; that he created this

3 problem. It s something somebody else created, in my

4 opinion.

5 So I would be supporting this request.

6 Thank you.

7 MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me ask a quick

8 question.

9 Can you ask your client if the Chinese

10 script is easily removed, if that could be removed?

11 And I ask that question because that may reduce the

12 overall visual aspect of the sign.

13 MR. LIU: It looks like it s part of

14 the sign, it s going to be kind of hard to remove it

15 because it s so connected with the electric.

16 MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman?


18 MEMBER REINKE: I just want to throw in

19 one comment. Now whatever we do here tonight, we re

20 not creating a hardship. The hardship, itself, was

21 created by what the Petitioner had done or did;

22 whether it be miscommunication, language

23 communication, or whatever. The hardship was not

24 created here.









1 MEMBER BAUER: Mr. Chairman?

2 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Gerry.

3 MEMBER BAUER: On the sign, did the

4 owner of the buffet give the sign permit to the sign

5 company?

6 MR. LIU: Yes. Well, no, they did not

7 give the permit. What happened was that the sign

8 you know, when the sign was originally designed that

9 was told to that sign company in New York. And my

10 client, you know we didn't even think that you would

11 have a problem because the other signs were big. But

12 then when he tried to get it approved, he could not.

13 And so he had to go back and reduce the sign. And

14 that s when the communication they were told they

15 needed a smaller sign, but then the people in New

16 York, they built this sign and transported it to here

17 and put it up.

18 MEMBER BAUER: You think they can

19 transport it back and put the right one up?

20 MR. LIU: It s not you know, they

21 haven t built a new one, but once it s up there, you

22 know if my client would have come to me I think it

23 would have been before and ask for a variance and put

24 up a mock-up sign to show you that a smaller sign









1 really would be too small for the facade of the

2 building.

3 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think we need to

4 get a Motion up just to see where the board sets on

5 this.

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Mr. Chairman,

7 I'll make a Motion that in Case Number 02-0116 we

8 approve the sign because of a very special type of

9 hardship presented by that.

10 MEMBER GRAY: I'll second.

11 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I d like to

12 point out something about findings regarding this

13 case. You could point out this is a self-created

14 hardship in this particular area. You give maybe some

15 direction in terms of where the building s placed,

16 position of the building, unusual features regarding

17 this particular matter.

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. I have no

19 problem adding to the Motion, because of the position

20 of the building and how far away he is from the main

21 traffic area, the size of the sign is acceptable.

22 MR. SCHULTZ: As a comment that Council

23 Member Gray pointed, we should probably limit this to

24 this particular









1 MEMBER SANGHVI: To this particular

2 leasing of the building, yes. I accept that

3 amendment, too.

4 Any problem with it?

5 MEMBER GRAY: No, sir. I continue my

6 support.

7 MR. CHAIRMAN: We've got a Motion and a

8 second.

9 Any discussion any further

10 discussion? It s been amended by

11 MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chairman, I would

12 like to see the Chinese characters remain on the sign,

13 because if they're not there, whether one s

14 superstitious or not, it would tell me that this would

15 be a Chinese restaurant --

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: A Chinese restaurant.

17 MEMBER GRAY: -- not just a Gourmet

18 Buffet, so I would you know, I would certainly

19 support we make

20 MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the Motion was

21 to approve as submitted.


23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion?

24 MEMBER REINKE: I can t support the









1 Motion for the reasons that it s been presented to us.

2 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Let s take a stab

3 and see where the board sits.

4 Call the roll.

5 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Bauer?


7 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Brennan?


9 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Gray?


11 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Gronachan?


13 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Reinke?


15 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Sanghvi?


17 C.J. KILLEBREW: That s four to two.

18 MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your Petition has

19 been granted. While the sign is up, you still need to

20 probably talk to the building department.

21 MR. LIU: Thank you very much.

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Good luck to you.


24 MR. CHAIRMAN: The next CASE is 02-017









1 filed by Ronald

2 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Nuechterlein.

3 MR. CHAIRMAN: -- representing the City

4 Center Plaza.

5 Sir, raise your hand and give us your

6 name and address and be sworn by Mr. Sanghvi.

7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Are you an attorney?

8 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: No, I m not.

9 My name is Ron Nuechterlein. I am the

10 original construction manager for this particular

11 project we have here tonight, and also representing

12 I m being the applicant representing the ownership

13 there.

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right, sir. Would

15 you kindly stand and swear that you will state

16 truthfully the matter which is before us?


18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

19 MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the floor.

20 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Thank you.

21 Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals,

22 we re here tonight to ask for three variances. As

23 I've detailed in my cover letter to you, along with

24 the drawings and along with an aerial photograph, City









1 Center Plaza was developed in 1997. And I think

2 you re probably all familiar with it. I m sure you

3 visit Panera Bread once in awhile, maybe Gateway 2000

4 and so forth.

5 It s been a very successful shopping

6 center, and it s created an image in the community,

7 which the developer certainly the developer and the

8 City can be proud of. Under the original Ordinance,

9 when we developed, the zoning was TC. The parking

10 requirements were considerably higher at that time,

11 than what they are now. Now, I believe it s one car

12 per 192 square feet of gross floor.

13 So consequently in the three or four

14 years of operation here, we found that the Center has

15 appreciably a greater amount of parking on the

16 northerly end, than what s really needed for the

17 operation of the Center. The Pineara Bread side,

18 obviously, is well utilized. I m sure you've probably

19 been there when it s very crowded. But on the north

20 side, we find that the parking off the north end of

21 that building and it s best illustrated on that

22 aerial photograph, which we have in front of us, that

23 parking is virtually vacant most of the time. It s

24 once and awhile we have a neighbor or two using the









1 property there, but for the tenancy of the Center, we

2 find that it s not really well utilized.

3 So this was our reason for initiating

4 the addition to this building to better utilize this

5 parking area and the make Center unilaterally more

6 functional from that aspect. We find that the

7 hardship we have here tonight is the planning

8 commission has unanimously approved this development,

9 and we had gone through the full parameters of the

10 entire design with all the consultants and in-house

11 people and related matter, and I think we've got the

12 project structured where it s ready to go ahead.

13 However, in view of the fact that the

14 zoning has changed since we developed from TC to TC-1,

15 we've realized that we've got certain issues here

16 which have to be addressed which require variances.

17 And the first variance, there s really not too much we

18 can do about do with that, with the maximum 7500

19 square feet of retail building. The original building

20 is non-conforming, since it s 26,000, and we re adding

21 and addition of about 6,000 square feet, making the

22 total square footage in the vicinity of about 30,000

23 square feet.

24 We've got a little bit greater than









1 that. And then the setback requirement on the

2 original TC zoning, we had a 50 foot minimum setback

3 requirement, which now due to the TC-1 zoning,

4 is non-conforming, because that has the range of 270

5 feet -- well, we re back 270 feet, but the Ordinance

6 requires 80 to 137 feet.

7 The loading issue is something, as you

8 can and I think it s real-well illustrated on that

9 photograph. We have a floodway and a flood plane at

10 the rear of this building. And you'll notice that the

11 rear of this building is designed with architectural

12 treatment to make it as beautiful as the front of this

13 building. And it was done that way because Flint

14 Street is someday anticipated to be part of the Town

15 Center District, and will become much livelier than it

16 is right now, with respect to development for the

17 downtown district.

18 And with there was really no way we

19 could accommodate the loading in the rear yard, so-

20 called. However, this particular building fronts on

21 three streets, fronts on Grand River; it fronts on

22 Novi Road; and it actually fronts on Flint Street, so

23 I don t know that there is a true rear yard here. But

24 in this particular case, we re backed up against the









1 drain, the floodway there. On the Pineara Bread side,

2 we've accommodated that with a loading facility; trash

3 and related matter, which is full-service for the

4 entire building. It seems to be functioning very

5 well.

6 The loading area that we've created on

7 the northerly end is purely for small delivery truck,

8 not semi. There s another transformer, rubbish

9 removal area purposed for that area. So we feel that

10 this is going to be adequate to service that northerly

11 end of the building. And may as well even compliment

12 additional loading for some of the tenants of the

13 existing building.

14 So with all of that, I m not going into

15 further detail on this. We re here tonight to request

16 three variances as I've requested in my cover letter.

17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

18 There were 32 notices sent

19 approvals, no objections.

20 Anyone in the audience care to make

21 comment regarding this case?

22 Seeing no hands, building department?

23 MR. SAVEN: I think Mr. Nuechterlein

24 presented quite a good case. He pointed out all of









1 his concerns. This was a TC district at one time,

2 which had different requirements for that particular

3 district. Technically, he s got two frontages off two

4 major arterials here in the front and the back. I

5 think there s all kinds of issues here with this

6 building, based on fact that we have an existing

7 building, additions going on.

8 MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members?

9 MEMBER REINKE: Very nice presentation.

10 Everything s laid out well.

11 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Thank you.

12 MEMBER REINKE: I think you have a nice

13 center there. You've maintained it well, kept it up

14 good. It this going to be another business or is this

15 an extension of an existing there, or what is the

16 plan?

17 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: This will probably

18 be new tenancy that we would be adding there. Could

19 be one tenant, could be two tenants. The likelihood

20 of a restaurant would be very little.


22 My other question is, what you have

23 designated on your drawing here as a loading area, is

24 that going to be also used for parking or strictly for









1 loading?

2 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: No, it s designed

3 for loading only. And then that s to comply with the

4 current Ordinances.

5 MEMBER REINKE: Because I I like that

6 very much because I hate to see a parking designated

7 area and cars get blocked in by a truck pulling in

8 behind them or something of that nature, so.

9 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: It s not intended to

10 be that.

11 MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, I have no

12 problem in supporting Petitioner s request. I think

13 they did a fine job. They've maintained that Center.

14 MR. CHAIRMAN: Other board members?

15 I see a lot of nods.

16 Let s hear a Motion.

17 MEMBER BAUER: No problem.

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: I just wanted to make

19 a comment.

20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Absolutely.

21 MEMBER SANGHVI: If we want the Civic

22 Center which you are trying to develop there as a

23 downtown Novi. We need to have more energy there and

24 more people coming in and out. And I have no problem









1 with getting away from the old box and breaking the

2 box and getting things moving in that area, so that we

3 are more successful than what we have been in the

4 past.

5 So I have no hesitation in supporting

6 it.

7 MR. CHAIRMAN: Spoken like a true

8 Rotary man.

9 MEMBER REINKE: Are you ready?


11 MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, Case

12 Number 02-017, I move that Petitioner s request be

13 granted due to additions to the shopping area.

14 MEMBER BAUER: Second the Motion.

15 MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a Motion and a

16 seconded.

17 Any discussion?

18 Hearing none, call the roll.

19 C.J. KILLEBREW: Okay.

20 Member Bauer?


22 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Brennan?


24 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Gray?










2 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Gronachan?


4 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Reinke?


6 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Sanghvi?


8 MR. CHAIRMAN: Your Petition for

9 variance has been approved. See the building

10 department.

11 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Thank you.


13 MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we can get

14 another one in here.

15 Quinn, Case Number 02-018 filed by

16 Matthew Quinn, appearing for the Tasmin Devco, Limited

17 Liability Corporation.

18 MR. QUINN: Very well said.

19 Good evening, everyone. Matthew Quinn

20 appearing on Tasmin Devco. Ted Menasian(ph), as you

21 know, is the owner of that company. And what we re

22 here for tonight is to obtain a very straight forward

23 variance, and that is to allow a second building on

24 this site, that we would like to split.









1 However, upon the split, there is lack

2 of frontage on a public or a private road. And if I

3 could show you on the overhead, the layout here is 11

4 Mile Road across the south. As you visit the area,

5 you'll know that this is the Pinnacle Office Building,

6 which is constructed and it s a class-A, very nice

7 office building. Also on this site, right through the

8 middle, is a very fine wetland, actually free-flowing

9 water.

10 What you have now, is a driveway with a

11 bridge crossing that wetland, and this is all approved

12 by the DNR and the City on the site plan. And this

13 rear building is now under construction. All the

14 steel is up. As you drove by, you saw that it s

15 covered with plastic, so they re working on the

16 interior.

17 Now, what the proposal is, is that this

18 second building is totally serviced by easements,

19 which we've provided to you. The easements allow this

20 building to have the rights of way over the front

21 parking area, both ways on both sides. That is a

22 document that s in a recordable form and ready to be

23 recorded.

24 Now, as you saw that this these two









1 buildings were approved on one site plan back in late

2 1999. Around that time or shortly thereafter, the

3 State changed the State Land Division Act. The State

4 Land Division Act now says that the City is required

5 to split a piece of property , as long as the piece of

6 property has an access to a roadway, via another

7 roadway or a public or private easement.

8 Now, when we presented the lot split to

9 the City, we presented it in a hypothetical manner,

10 saying if we presented this split to you with these

11 easements would you grant the lot split. The accessor

12 said yes, we would grant the lot split to you if it s

13 properly submitted on our proper forms.

14 So what Mr. Menasian is looking for

15 here today and the real reason here is the

16 background. With the change in the law, gives him the

17 opportunity to obtain a different financing. Also, to

18 be able to sell off these buildings independently,

19 which makes it easier than one particular sale on both

20 buildings.

21 And I m not sure if the Novi Ordinance

22 is in conflict with the State law, or if they re

23 mutually exclusive, but what we know is, one says you

24 can get a split, as long as you have easements to a









1 public road; and the City Ordinance says that the

2 buildings both must have access to a public roadway.

3 Well, we can never have access to a

4 public roadway for the second building, because this

5 wetland goes around it to the north. Back here, we

6 have Walsh College. Along this boundary line, is the

7 City property, with the big salt building there. And

8 immediately to the front is the old McSweeny House,

9 which is up for sale for development, as an

10 independent office building.

11 So there s no other way to build a road

12 to that second building.

13 Now, the all of the easements, this

14 bridge, the accesses, the building in the rear, is all

15 fully accessible by the fire department.

16 And as I said, the overall plan s

17 already been approved. So that s really not an issue.

18 So it s a conflict, I believe, between

19 the State law and the City Ordinance; and we re here

20 tonight to ask for a variance from the City Ordinance

21 that would allow this building in the rear to be on

22 its own separate parcel of property and not have

23 direct frontage on a public road.

24 Be more than happy to answer any









1 questions.

2 I would also say, this has no impact on

3 the surrounding properties, at all. It s kind of a

4 unique and isolated situation.

5 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

6 There were ten notices sent. There was

7 one letter of approval from a Mr. Phillips on Shelton

8 Drive. He just happy to see some development after

9 the road being there since 1991.

10 Comments? Is there any comment on

11 Mr. Quinn s comments?

12 MR. SCHULTZ: I m not sure I have too

13 much to add or disagree with it. I guess Mr. Quinn

14 ended his presentation with a statement there s a

15 conflict between the Land Division Act, the STAte law,

16 and the City Ordinance.

17 I guess I m not sure I would view it

18 the same the same way. I mean, the Zoning Ordinance

19 typically calls for any development parcel fronting on

20 a public road. What really is at issue here is we've

21 got a narrow parcel that s sufficient for two

22 buildings, but not a public road access to the get

23 back to the one in the rear.

24 I think the significant point which is









1 in this material is, without the lot split, this

2 development is permissible. The question is, are you

3 by splitting the parcel, you cause a problem that s

4 not functional, which really is kind of an ownership

5 question. It can also have the same set-up, develop

6 it the way that it is under a condominium form of

7 ownership.

8 So really what we've got here is, he

9 wants to have separate ownership for the parcels, not

10 separate the kind of development. This is a permitted

11 set-up, for which there s really a question of

12 ownership.

13 MR. CHAIRMAN: I neglected to ask

14 whether there s anyone in the audience that had a

15 comment?

16 And showing none, building department,

17 please.

18 MR. SAVEN: As far as the easements are

19 concerned, can they find the utilities, also, in this

20 particular area?

21 MR. QUINN: The easements to the road

22 for the sure.

23 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair, I d like to

24 raise one other issue. This is the first time that









1 we've saw the easement. We d like an opportunity to

2 review them. The way it s set-up now, it s an

3 easement from Tasmin to Tasmin. I m not quite sure

4 that that's something that is is going to work,

5 because there s certainly a mechanism that we can use

6 to make sure there is the proper easements or

7 agreements creating the easement of ownership

8 transfer.

9 MR. QUINN: Absolutely.

10 Those would become important upon

11 submittal to the accessor s office, and the attorney

12 would review those at that time.

13 MR. CHAIRMAN: Members?

14 Sarah, go ahead.

15 MEMBER GRAY: Tom, can you address I

16 know philosophically the City has never approved a

17 flag lot. We don t like those. In the last split to

18 create a flag lot residentially that came before us a

19 little while ago, we turned down.

20 I would like to know what the

21 difference is between residential versus non-

22 residential on a flag lot, because that is what this

23 would address.

24 And the other question I have, is are









1 there any examples of other of non-residential flag

2 lots in the City that you re aware of

3 Or that you re aware of, Mr. Quinn,

4 that would support something like this?

5 MR. SCHULTZ: I look at this a little

6 different from a flag lot because it can be developed

7 in two ways, exactly, as configured. It can be in

8 single ownership. You can have the one building

9 behind the other. Flag lots are generally objected to

10 from a planning standpoint residentially, because of

11 the relationship between front yard and rear home.

12 This is a commercial development,

13 essentially an office development. This is a

14 permitted set-up. This if he retained ownership of

15 the entire parcel, this is permitted and approved.

16 You can also cite he can split the

17 ownership essentially through site (unintelligible),

18 but that s kind of a cumbersome process and sometimes

19 makes it more difficult to market. Really, I think

20 it s that s what s driving the request for a split,

21 keep the ownership perfectly separate and not related

22 to each other.

23 And I guess the questions for the board

24 is, if it can be done, do you mind the ownership









1 aspect of it, and does that present enough of a reason

2 to call it practical difficulty.

3 In terms of other development from a

4 non-residential standpoint, I would think there are a

5 number of developments throughout the City that have

6 several office buildings or more than one office

7 building or commercial buildings on a lot that s been

8 probably has been site condominiumized(sic), some

9 other agreement, for example.

10 I m not sure that I can point to too

11 many examples, but it s a fairly typical set-up in

12 this day and age.

13 MEMBER GRAY: That s what I wanted to

14 know, those two issues.

15 Thank you, sir.

16 MEMBER REINKE: What s you re trying to

17 do, I don t really have a problem with. My question

18 is in the front lot where you re granting the

19 easement, what s the width of that area between those

20 two parking rows?

21 MR. QUINN: The width between the two

22 parking entrances?

23 MEMBER REINKE: Right. Where you re

24 showing as your entrance, exit, to that lot.









1 MR. QUINN: Well, I believe the

2 property s about 407 feet wide.

3 MEMBER REINKE: No, no. I m talking

4 about, what s your granting as an easement for your

5 traffic flow through there, what s that width between

6 those two rows of parking?

7 MR. QUINN: Oh, I see. Pretty much the

8 full aisle width, approximately 22 to perhaps 24, 27

9 feet. Some of the aisles are wider or narrower than

10 the others.

11 MEMBER REINKE: Do you have parking

12 deficiencies in the front, or do you have excess

13 parking?


15 have the right amount of parking for the front

16 building. When the bridge went in, we lost, I

17 believe, four spaces, so we put five spaces on the

18 north site, to make up the deficiency that was

19 created.

20 MEMBER REINKE: Okay. My next question

21 is, how many parking sites do you have on the north

22 property?

23 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don t remember

24 the total number, but it s at least five in excess of









1 what was required for the north building.

2 MEMBER REINKE: Give me a rough

3 estimate?


5 MEMBER REINKE: Okay. So you've got

6 130 vehicles coming in and out between two rows of

7 parking; that s what I've got a problem with.

8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, with the

9 MEMBER REINKE: If you got a car just

10 inching out and a car that s pulling through there, he

11 isn't going like somebody that s looking for a parking

12 place. He s going out.

13 MR. QUINN: Well, Mr. Reinke, we

14 already have that going there.

15 MEMBER REINKE: I understand.

16 MR. QUINN: That s nothing new.

17 MEMBER REINKE: I understand.

18 MR. QUINN: That was already approved

19 by the planning commission.

20 MEMBER REINKE: I m just voicing my

21 comment about it. And that s where I have a problem.

22 Everything else about the split, I have no problem.

23 But I see that traffic going in and out between two

24 rows of parking, and that s like say giving somebody a









1 thorough-fare through West Oaks or any other place,

2 where you've got rows of cars that you re going to

3 have cars backing in and out.

4 And I guy going through there, isn't

5 five, ten miles an hour looking for a parking place.

6 He s going 25 or more. That s a potential problem

7 that I see.

8 MR. QUINN: If I could just address

9 that one particular issue.

10 If we didn't have the wetland, the

11 street going through, I could build one building that

12 was could have been 80, 90, 100,000 square feet, we

13 would not have been required to have the two entrances

14 off the road. We chose to have to entrances off the

15 road. That s to get more flexibility. So

16 MEMBER REINKE: Oh, I understand that.

17 But I m it would be nice if you had a

18 little bit more space on the on the other side, that

19 the easement could be shifted to where that last row

20 of parking is; that you wouldn't have the potential of

21 cars backing into this thorough-fare for the back

22 building.

23 MR. QUINN: I understand what you re

24 saying, however, the traffic expert has already









1 approved the layout, as being satisfactory and meeting

2 the City s Codes. Also, it meets the fire standards

3 for the fire and emergency accesses. So it meets it

4 meets the City Ordinances a hundred percent.

5 MEMBER REINKE: I don t doubt that it

6 does, access-wise.

7 MR. QUINN: Okay.

8 MEMBER REINKE: But I m saying

9 functionality, safety-wise, I see a problem.

10 MR. QUINN: I understand.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Are you going put any

12 speed bumps over there?

13 MR. QUINN: No, sir. The City doesn't

14 like speed bumps.

15 MEMBER SANGHVI: It would slow the

16 traffic down.

17 MR. QUINN: I think there s such

18 there s a drop-off going back through the parking lot

19 to the bridge. It s a very beautiful area back there.

20 That will slow people down.

21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Other board members?

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: I have particular no

23 problem granting this, being in support of the

24 application.









1 MEMBER REINKE: Oh, I have no problem

2 supporting the Petitioner s request, except I see

3 this I feel uncomfortable wit that part of it, but

4 that s a part we really have no control over.

5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, Mr. Chairman, if

6 I may, I would like to make a Motion.

7 In Case Number 02-018, that we approve

8 their request because of a very special kind of

9 hardship.

10 MR. CHAIRMAN: You might ask for a

11 little help from Mr. Schultz.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Can you give any help

13 on the Motion?

14 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess again, just a

15 reference to a practical difficulty.

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Oh, I beg your pardon.

17 I keep using hardship. It seems somewhat of

18 semantics, but we'll use the correct terminology and

19 call it practical difficulty.

20 MR. SCHULTZ: And I think it would be

21 sufficient under the circumstances to say that the

22 proposal is no different than the site had it been

23 developed without the split. And it s really a

24 question of meaning of ownership, as opposed to a









1 development issue.

2 MEMBER SANGHVI: I agree with you, and

3 only temporarily, I m a man of very few words, ha-ha-

4 ha.

5 MR. CHAIRMAN: Strike the ha-ha s.

6 Can we have do we have a second to

7 the Motion.

8 MEMBER GRAY: Seconded.

9 MR. CHAIRMAN: We do have a second.

10 Any discussion on the Motion?

11 Call the roll.

12 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Bauer?


14 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Brennan?


16 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Gray?


18 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Gronachan?


20 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Reinke?


22 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Sanghvi?


24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You have a









1 approval for your variance request. See the building

2 department.

3 MR. QUINN: Thank you, and good

4 evening.


6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, you want

7 to take a quick three, four minute break?

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: I think that s a super

9 idea.

10 MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll be back very

11 quickly, okay?

12 (Brief recess taken.)

13 (Back on the record.)

14 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We are back in

15 business.


17 Call the next CASE, 02-019, filed by

18 Carl

19 MEMBER GRAY: That was a postponement.

20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I m sorry. I m

21 sorry.












1 All right. We re going to go, 02-020

2 filed by John Carroll representing Cost Plus World

3 Mark out in Fountain Walk.

4 Mr. Carroll has a request for a sign a

5 little bit bigger than the Ordinance requires or

6 allows.

7 Hi, if you both want to give us your name

8 and raise your hand to be sworn.

9 MS. STANSBURY: I m Debra Stansbury.

10 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

11 MS. STANSBURY: With Global Sign. I m

12 representing Cost Plus World Market and signage for

13 the last five years. And I m here to go over the

14 hardships for the sign.


16 MR. CARROLL: John Carroll of Carroll

17 Installations.

18 MR. CHAIRMAN: You want to raise your

19 hand to be sworn?

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Would you like to

21 raise your hand, and state that you swear to tell the

22 truth in the matter before you?

23 MR. CARROLL: I do.










1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

2 MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the floor.

3 MS. STANSBURY: First of all, Cost Plus

4 World Market is looking forward to coming into Novi,

5 and we hope you guys are excited to have them, also.

6 I m here to address their standards and

7 hardships for Cost Plus World Market by only have the

8 40 square feet.

9 Their standard sign, which is 324

10 square feet, so we re so we are asking for

11 substantially less amount.

12 As you drive down the Interstate, the

13 building sits a substantial distance down off of the

14 Interstate. That is the only access that people have

15 to being able to see Cost Plus World Market. They

16 travel past that location at 70 miles an hour. They

17 need to be able to see the building and be able to

18 identify it easily, without having to guess what

19 they re looking at.

20 Usually, when you allow the typical

21 store of this size when they have their standard

22 signage of 324 square feet, they produce five and a

23 half million dollars. When you have a typical store

24 this size with 160 square feet, they produce three and









1 a half million dollars per year.

2 You can see a difference in volume that

3 that generates.

4 The typical store with 40 square feet,

5 they do not have any records to show because that is

6 absolutely not adequate signage.

7 A typical store with two standard signs

8 may produce six hundred -- $6 million worth of

9 signage(sic). So there s a difference with just the

10 one sign and two signs.

11 And by having the size that we propose,

12 the traffic going down the Interstate will be able to

13 see that very clear. There s only one primary road,

14 and that primary road will direct people right in to

15 Cost Plus World Market, because it does sit down

16 lower.

17 The Great Indoors, right next door,

18 does have six foot letters, so we are asking for a

19 substantial, you know, smaller sign than what they

20 have.

21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.

22 There were 19 notices sent, no

23 approvals, no objections.

24 Anybody in the audience that wants to









1 make comment?

2 Seeing none, building department.

3 MR. SAVEN: Just basically everything

4 she indicated is the only concern that we have.

5 MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members?

6 MEMBER REINKE: What is the sign for

7 the Great Indoors?

8 MR. SAVEN: The Great Indoors sign is

9 367 square feet.

10 MEMBER REINKE: I understand that.

11 What s the signage?

12 MR. SAVEN: Oh, I can find out for you.

13 It appears about 150 feet.

14 MEMBER REINKE: What s the frontage on

15 the World Market?

16 MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you know off hand

17 what the frontage of that building is?

18 MS. STANSBURY: I believe it s 110.

19 MEMBER REINKE: Thank you.

20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, any

21 questions of the Petitioner?

22 MEMBER REINKE: We have no problem

23 identifying that from the expressway. I can be way on

24 the other side of the expressway and still see it.









1 You need some identification there. We

2 agree with that. I think you can accomplish that

3 I m doing something wrong all the time.

4 I think that could be accomplished with

5 something not quite that big. It would be easily

6 identifiable from the expressway, even going 70 miles

7 an hour. When you come up on Fountain Walk, you can t

8 help but look at it.

9 MS. STANSBURY: One thing by coming

10 down smaller, they do lose their corporate, national

11 prominence. They are a national account, and they do

12 go all over the United States. And their standard

13 signage is 324 square feet. We re asking for 160.

14 And that brings down substantially in their volume.

15 And when you go down in volume, obviously there s some

16 concern about loss of revenue and keeping the store

17 open.

18 MR. CHAIRMAN: What we re dealing with

19 is what is Ordinance.

20 MS. STANSBURY: Uh-huh.

21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Not, what is the

22 standard for a corporation.

23 MS. STANSBURY: Correct.

24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.









1 MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chairman, I have a

2 question.


4 MEMBER GRAY: Ms. Stansbury refers to

5 160, and I thought we were looking at 180.

6 MS. STANSBURY: We are, 180, I m sorry.

7 MEMBER GRAY: Because I think if you

8 keep coming down 20 square foot every comment, then

9 we re going to get to where we want.

10 MS. STANSBURY: Hey, we re going to get

11 there, huh? 180.

12 MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions or

13 Petitioner comments?

14 MEMBER REINKE: Well, 40 foot s too

15 small. That s one point we agree on, the size.

16 I really don t think it needs to be

17 180. I feel it can be adequate if we re talking in

18 the range of 120 to 140.

19 MEMBER GRAY: Even though it s visible

20 from the expressway, there s still all the directional

21 signs that are going to be in and around pointing to

22 the direction, so people will know how to get there.

23 So 120 to 140 would be what I d like to see max.

24 MEMBER BAUER: NO larger.









1 MR. CARROLL: Do you feel the banner

2 that s up there now is overbearing, too large?


4 MS. STANSBURY: The banner is the

5 standard for

6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Ma am, you've said that.

7 We've already heard that.

8 MS. STANSBURY: And it also sets a

9 precedence with that fact that the Great Indoors

10 we re asking for substantially less --

11 MEMBER REINKE: Ma am, I still I

12 don t want to get into a debate with you, so we'll

13 just leave it at that.

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: What is the smaller

15 sign you can live with?

16 MS. STANSBURY: Well, actually the one

17 that s on the location

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: That s not going to be

19 acceptable from what I hear from the board.


21 MEMBER SANGHVI: I mean, we might as

22 well come to the point.

23 MR. CARROLL: Do you have a formula

24 that you re using to what you allowed the Great









1 Indoors to what you re allowing us?

2 MEMBER SANGHVI: 140 is just about

3 right.


5 MS. STANSBURY: How did you base

6 MR. CARROLL: Well, it s not

7 proportionate with the Great Indoors.

8 MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, we what s the

9 other Cindy, Gerry, have any observations?

10 MEMBER BAUER: I saw it from the

11 expressway, and it s too big. It doesn't have to be

12 that big.

13 MS. STANSBURY: It s essentially a

14 traffic sign, also.

15 MR. CHAIRMAN: You re here for a

16 variance in size, not for I think if you heard a

17 couple of real quick comments, you don t have a lot of

18 support. Now, we can continue on and discuss your

19 request for 180 foot sign or you can give some

20 consideration to something different.

21 MS. STANSBURY: You want us to 140

22 square feet. Is there anything else that you look for

23 in the 140 square feet?

24 MR. CHAIRMAN: I think if you were









1 getting it down to that size, we re looking at the

2 sign that you presented tonight

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: You re talking about

4 changing the

5 MS. STANSBURY: Between 120 to 140.


7 MEMBER REINKE: Well, this is in the

8 range that we re talking about, because I there s no

9 question in my mind that size sign, that distance from

10 the expressway, is very recognizable.

11 MS. STANSBURY: Uh-huh.

12 MEMBER REINKE: And to me, it s just

13 overbearing.

14 MR. CHAIRMAN: That s the other purpose

15 of putting up mock-ups, is it does give you a real

16 perspective of what up until six or seven years ago,

17 we didn't have any mock-ups, and we got burned on a

18 couple signs that looked okay on the piece of paper


20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Do I get a sense that

21 140 is something you can do now?

22 MS. STANSBURY: I can work with 140.

23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.

24 All right.









1 MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case

2 02-020, I move that the variance be granted to a

3 maximum 120 square feet


5 MEMBER REINKE: -- 140 square feet, due

6 to building and business recognition.

7 MEMBER BAUER: Seconded.

8 MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a Motion and a

9 second.

10 Any further discussion?

11 Call roll.

12 C.J. KILLEBREW: Okay.

13 Member Bauer?


15 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Brennan?


17 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Gray?


19 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Gronachan?


21 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Reinke?


23 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Sanghvi?










1 MR. CHAIRMAN: You have a variance.

2 See the building department for a sign.

3 MS. STANSBURY: Thank you.

4 MR. CARROLL: Thank you.


6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Next case is 02-

7 022, filed by Richard Kligman representing the

8 homeowners of 50861 Applebrooke in Park Place.

9 Gentlemen, you want to give us your

10 names to be sworn by Mr. Sanghvi?

11 MR. KLIGMAN: Richard Kligman of 4307

12 Amherst in Royal Oak.

13 MR. STONE: And I m Chris Stone, 23184

14 Misty Forrest, Novi, currently and looking to move to

15 the Applebrooke address.

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Gentlemen, do you

17 state swear that you will state the truth about the

18 matter in front of you?

19 MR. KLIGMAN: I do.

20 MR. STONE: I do.

21 MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the floor.

22 MR. KLIGMAN: Okay. The zoning for RA,

23 which is average in this community, Park Place

24 Estates, requires a 45 foot front yard setback.









1 Unfortunately, there was an error made on the plot

2 plan, and 45 feet was marked, but it was shown for the

3 wrong location, not from the front of the property,

4 but from the curb.

5 We submitted that. It went through the

6 processes and then it wasn't discovered and brought to

7 our attention until we had the foundation in partial

8 framing completed. At which point, we informed the

9 Stones of the situation.

10 In light of the mistake that was made,

11 in order to come to resolution, our first option with

12 the Stones was to tear down the house and build it

13 pushing it back the additional approximately 15 feet

14 that it was off.

15 The Stones concern at that point was

16 in light of the mistake, not to significantly impact

17 the surrounding woods, which wrap around the east and

18 southern property, and it s a pretty significant

19 portion which both on the east side and in the back.

20 So we worked together to come up with a resolution, a

21 compromise, where we would shrink down the original

22 three-car garage, to a two-car garage, and add an

23 additional two-car garage, splitting the original

24 garage, so that you would minimize impact on the









1 surrounding woodlands, mitigate the impact of the

2 encroachment and the front yard setback.

3 We'll still have approximately 58 feet

4 from the street, so that we feel that visually and

5 aesthetically there s negligible impact from this

6 modification; and architecturally, it would conform

7 substantially with the Stones original plan of what

8 they wanted to accomplish.

9 MR. CHAIRMAN: There were 19 notices

10 sent. There was one objection and a somewhat asporous

11 approval by the Park Place Estates.

12 The objection is from Mr. Niche, is he

13 here tonight?

14 Okay.

15 I think it's your time to come down to

16 the microphone.

17 Mr. Niche also resides on Applebrooke,

18 and expresses some concerns. Basically, he believes

19 there is a resolution that would allow the house to be

20 built without this variance request. Is that just of

21 your --

22 MR. NICHE: Yes. Attached to my letter

23 was a sketch I produced simply to show that there was

24 a full compliance scenario, and that I think that









1 should be explored thoroughly before --

2 MR. CHAIRMAN: You know what, why don't

3 you put that up here, and walk through this.

4 Have you presented this to the

5 Petitioner?

6 MR. NICHE: Yes.

7 MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, why don't you show

8 us how your plan works, and then we'll let the

9 Petitioner make comment on it.

10 MR. NICHE: The Petitioner hasn't seen

11 this exact sketch, but it was a free-hand version that

12 we did kind of at a meeting that we had. And it's

13 simply a matter of taking the garage -- the dash line

14 you see here, is where it's presently proposed, and

15 shifting it in its exact shape and size over to the

16 back and to the left.

17 It's approximately a hundred and some

18 feet of setback between the house and that easterly

19 property line. So the only real difficulty with this,

20 is shown by this line here, is that it impacts the

21 protected woodland. The driveway would encroach into

22 the tree protection line there, which is presently

23 this line here.

24 There's two regulated trees, which









1 would be -- have to be cut down to build the driveway.

2 And I'm in no way showing this as a proposal, other

3 than to show that there is an option for full

4 compliance.

5 And any other scheme that would be

6 equal in that regard, would be acceptable to me.

7 Now, since I wrote my letter, the

8 subdivision also wrote another letter, which shows

9 some support for the six foot variance. In the spirit

10 of cooperation, I would support that, providing all

11 the subdivision requirements were met. The most

12 significant being the requirement for side entrance

13 garages.

14 Obviously, that side entrance garage is

15 what pushes the driveway into the woodland. It's the

16 driveway that causes the problem. So, I guess I would

17 amend my letter to some extent with reservation, and

18 agree with their position; that is, that providing the

19 drive is where -- side entrance rather than front

20 entrance, and all other issues were met, that being,

21 architectural consistency with their original design.

22 It's very nice. I'm not in favor of make-shift

23 solutions and odd shaped things. They tend to look

24 just like what they are. It's kind of half-board.









1 So I really just came tonight to be

2 here to answer any questions. I don't want to become

3 an obstacle here. I hope that if there's a happy

4 medium drawn, I'd just like to be here to help that

5 happen.

6 Also, I'd like to state for the record,

7 that I'm employed by JCK and Associates, and I'm here

8 only as a resident tonight. We reviewed these plans,

9 so there's an awkward situation here for me. We did

10 not review the aspects of the question tonight. We

11 did not do the setback issue. So but the

12 architectural issues are something that we reviewed,

13 so I'm here as a homeowner, not as a JCK person.

14 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, stick around. We

15 may have some questions for you, as well.

16 Any other from the audience? Any other

17 people that want to make comment?

18 Well, Don?

19 MR. SAVEN: Well, the question I would

20 have is the garage that you're moving to the back, is

21 that a side entrance garage or is that a front

22 entrance?

23 MR. STONE: That is yet to be finally

24 agreed.









1 MR. SAVEN: Okay.

2 But you're just -- you're taking a two

3 car garage, putting it off to the side --

4 MR. STONE: I suppose we're going to

5 get into details here --

6 MR. SAVEN: Well --

7 MR. STONE: Maybe we can show you --

8 MR. SAVEN: Well, there are a couple of

9 things that will have to be resolved, as a matter of a

10 decision here tonight. Number one is that, if the

11 board was going to make a decision, you'd have to

12 comply with the woodlands issues here, too. Now, I

13 want to make sure that that issue is resolved. In

14 some cases, if this is a front entrance garage, then

15 we're not dealing with something that we're taking a

16 way from the wooded area.

17 MR. STONE: I had spoken with Mr.

18 Prince --

19 MR. SAVEN: Okay.

20 MR. STONE: -- and he is very much

21 adamantly opposed to going into the woodlands. We

22 worked very closely with Mr. Prince and the woodland

23 board to develop a house design and location of the

24 property and everything else; notwithstanding this









1 major oops.

2 MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else, Don?

3 MR. SAVEN: No. I was concerned about

4 the woodlands issue, where the driveway was going to

5 be is certainly the effect --

6 MR. STONE: Yes, we're strongly opposed

7 to this.

8 MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members?

9 MEMBER REINKE: If he has a second

10 garage in the back as you have it denoted there on

11 your proposed layout, you're saying that the entrance

12 hasn't been determined yet?

13 MR. STONE: We -- I have proposed to

14 make it a side entrance to comply with the subdivision

15 covenants. We have not got a firm decision one way or

16 another yet from Mr. Harris, who is the subdivision

17 developer; and therefore, being that he owns 75

18 percent of the lots still, he is the decision maker.

19 MEMBER REINKE: Because if you're going

20 to have a side entrance garage, you're going to be in

21 the woodlands anyway.

22 MR. STONE: Absolutely. And pretty

23 much no matter what we do, unfortunately, other than

24 moving the garage, involves getting in the woodlands.









1 The alternative, to pick the house up and move it

2 back, would essentially result in getting into the

3 woodlands, as well.

4 So I'm between a rock and a hard place,

5 here, guys.

6 MEMBER REINKE: It looks like you're

7 going to get into them one way or another.

8 MR. STONE: Yeah, well, it's entirely

9 up, essentially to --

10 MR. KLIGMAN: We're working on to

11 minimize the impact, including the woods, and there's

12 a couple options that the Stones and Mr. Harris are

13 exploring.

14 MR. CHAIRMAN: Personally, I would

15 prefer to see the side entrance garage at the cost of

16 a minimum impact into the rear woodland.

17 MEMBER REINKE: To me, it seemed to be

18 a little more practical --

19 MR. STONE: There is a wetlands area

20 back there, yes.

21 MR. SAVEN: If it's a preserved

22 wetland, you can't get into it.

23 You were talking about coming around

24 the side or a side entrance or coming in off the back









1 side, and he can't be doing that.

2 MEMBER REINKE: No, I'm not talking

3 about the backside. I'm talking about what Mr.

4 Niche's drawing showed of having a garage altogether

5 with a side entrance coming in there. It wouldn't be

6 a problem in building into the wetlands, right?

7 MR. SAVEN: I don't believe so.

8 MR. STONE: No, there's no wetlands

9 where Mr. Niche proposed for the house.

10 MR. KLIGMAN: We do have some

11 photographs of -- there is -- well, they're not many

12 designated marked trees in that area. There are quite

13 a few trees in -- depending on the seasonal time, they

14 would provide heavy coverage on the east side, which -

15 - to shift the entire garage over and have no impact

16 on variance, we're substantially moving a large

17 portion of that cover. So that's -- on the other

18 side, we're trying to avoid that.

19 MR. STONE: Just to give you an idea,

20 just to say an aerial picture I pulled off the net, to

21 see that we've scratched in the house and the entire

22 wetland finger here that we're talking about that

23 would be effected. And this has been reduced slightly

24 to accommodate the house to meet the setback









1 requirement on the side. So these woods aren't quite

2 as thick as they might be.

3 If I scratch some pictures here, first

4 and foremost, I'd like to point out -- this is view

5 from the western side of the subdivision. The trees

6 that would be lost are -- this is really two trees.

7 It doesn't really look like it. These trees would be

8 lost. So essentially what happens is that now,

9 everybody in the subdivision suddenly gets a much

10 better view of a power pylon.

11 If you look at it from the eastern side

12 of the subdivision, you'll find that once again, these

13 two trees here are the trees in question that would be

14 lost to a side entry going through the woodlands. And

15 all of a sudden, a neighbor would get now, a wonderful

16 view of two -- really two side-entry garages, plus

17 they would get the view of the house. I'm not really

18 sure that's what neighbors are looking for.

19 A few other views. This once again

20 showing the trees that would be lost. The other one,

21 unfortunately we really can't tell, specifically.

22 MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to point out

23 something in Mr. Harris' letter of yesterday, or no, a

24 couple days ago. It said our support of the variance









1 request for the setback, our support is contingent

2 upon subsequent review and approval, da-da-da. And

3 with specific attention being given to our requirement

4 to side entry garages.

5 MR. STONE: Yes. And we've discussed

6 this, and this is essentially what I asked him to put

7 in the letter, because obviously, the discussion here

8 is primarily centered around the variance, rather than

9 around the side entry garage. And being as it's Mr.

10 Harris' requirement to develop the covenants

11 restriction of the subdivision, that area of decision

12 should remain with Mr. Harris, the design of the house

13 -- the architectural appeal of the house, should

14 remain with Mr. Harris.

15 That's why I asked him to do it that

16 way.

17 MEMBER REINKE: But in your analogy of

18 saying you took two trees out for the side entry

19 garage, well, that's part of the covenants of the

20 subdivision, correct?

21 MR. STONE: Right.

22 MEMBER REINKE: I don't understand it.

23 MR. STONE: We -- what this essentially

24 means is we were required to get deviation from









1 Mr. Harris subsequent to this meeting.

2 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to

3 bring a point of order here.

4 We have a situation where we're dealing

5 with subdivision restriction right now, where the City

6 of Novi does not get involved in subdivision

7 restriction requirements. Although we're bringing it

8 to the forefront here, as a matter of discussion we

9 would have to address -- we still have to comply with

10 all the other Ordinances of the City that need to be

11 addressed.

12 MR. CHAIRMAN: But we do as a board

13 consider adjoining property owners' concerns about a

14 variance request, what we have to take into

15 consideration.

16 MR. SAVEN: Yes, sir.

17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Niche, are you right

18 next door?

19 MR. NICHE: I'm across the street.

20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Across the street. So,

21 you'd be the one looking inside his garage.

22 Any other questions of the Petitioner?

23 My personal feel is that, I don't have

24 a problem with the variance request. I do have a









1 problem with a front entrance garage, specifically

2 because the homeowner's sitting there, and I take a

3 great amount of consideration into new construction

4 when it affects adjoining neighbors.

5 MR. STONE: We have also reviewed with

6 Mr. Harris, if I can get the picture, a proposed plot

7 plan that would create the situation where a front

8 entrance garage is essentially invisible, where the

9 driveway wraps around the side. And with ornamental

10 trees placed here and trees placed along the street,

11 plus addition trees in and around the area. And Mr.

12 Harris even indicated that he would be willing to

13 provide some of these trees. This could provide a

14 situation where the front entrance garage is

15 essentially invisible to anybody.

16 MR. CHAIRMAN: Personally, I don't buy

17 it.

18 MEMBER BAUER: In the summer, not in

19 the winter.

20 MR. KLIGMAN: And ultimately, you know,

21 a lot of the esthetics that we're speaking of are

22 subjective, and certainly we don't want Mr. Niche

23 uncomfortable with this. What we have proposed, we

24 have a house that we built in another subdivision, it









1 was 7.6 million, this garage door is actually a

2 fiberglass door, that stains up like wood.

3 The impact is aesthetically attractive,

4 where you're making the garage, you know, something

5 other than what you typically look at with garages.

6 We also have photo, I'm sure you've

7 seen, Cambridge Homes. This is 3.3 million. They

8 have the same scenario that the Stones are in

9 discussion with Mr. Harris on, where you see -- here

10 there's a front car garage, and then a side car, which

11 is basically the same thing that we're speaking of.

12 And we have additional photos from other homes in the

13 one and half to two million dollar price range. So

14 it's not that it's uncommon, but it's something that

15 we're working to resolve. I guess the question that

16 we're proposing today is that we'll get that result to

17 the satisfaction of the association, and in an effort

18 to mitigate impact on the woods, we're requesting a

19 variance, as opposed to doing something as opposed to

20 moving the house back or substantially loading the

21 house on to one side of the house.

22 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I tell you, sir,

23 personally, until that guy is nodding his head, yes,

24 I'm not buying it.









1 Now, what we have done in the past,

2 even though you're both here tonight, you guys want to

3 take ten minutes and go out and see if you can work

4 through this. We'll call another case and bring you

5 right back in.

6 Is that something you want to consider?

7 As long as both parties are here, see if you can work

8 it out for a couple minutes out in the lobby. We'll

9 listen to another case. Flag you in when you're

10 ready.

11 MR. KLIGMAN: Just in terms of th board

12 consensus at this point, and the issue of the

13 variance, is this -- maybe you can elaborate a little

14 bit, in terms of direction.

15 MR. CHAIRMAN: I told you want my

16 personal feeling was, until we've got some agreement

17 with the neighbor who's already there who's the one

18 most impacted by this.

19 MR. STONE: Yes, he is the one most

20 impacted from one view. However, there are a number

21 of other neighbors.

22 MR. CHAIRMAN: You're not listening.

23 Other board members?

24 I mean, we have a number of options if









1 they want us to move on this, I suppose we can do that

2 right now.

3 MR. STONE: Specifically, with respect

4 to the variance or are we talking the whole package

5 here?

6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that's your call.

7 We just gave you an option of trying to make it a

8 little bit more palpable with the neighbor that's most

9 affected. I identify that as a trouble issue for me,

10 personally.

11 Now, if other board members don't have

12 that same sentiment, they can voice that now.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Most of the board

14 members feel the same way. It can be known as my

15 practice and by tradition. We have always taken

16 neighbors point of view and give it a great deal of

17 consideration. Here is a proposal. You can resolve

18 something right now in here, or if you like you cant

19 take it away. I don't know which way it's going to

20 come at this point.

21 MR. STONE: I would like to make a

22 change.

23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon?

24 MR. KLIGMAN: We would like to show --









1 there's one other option.

2 Originally in your proposal it shows

3 the garage being front entry and then the side car

4 here. Another option that we discussed with Mr. Niche

5 was to create sort of a swing back of the garage, as

6 opposed to loading everything on one side, and having

7 the garage come all the way down here. And this isn't

8 necessarily to scale. We'll have to have our engineer

9 draw something sufficient for cars to enter in, but

10 that would be side-car-side-car.

11 And at the meeting we had with the

12 developer and Mr. Niche, we had a preference to the

13 other way, but he was open to this and accepting this.

14 MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any

15 objection in reviewing these -- what I see now, three

16 different proposals.

17 MR. STONE: We have one significant

18 objection to the proposal from Mr. Niche, and it also

19 requires the absolutely significant redesign of the

20 house, because the second floor bedroom actually

21 overhangs the garage. So it we eliminate that garage

22 there, then we have to redesign the whole house.

23 MEMBER REINKE: Okay. With this

24 proposal -- these are both side entrance?









1 MR. STONE: Both side entrance.

2 MR. KLIGMAN: So it conforms with the

3 subdivision requirements, and then we just have the

4 variance issue.

5 MEMBER REINKE: That's the setback

6 issue --

7 MR. STONE: Six foot.

8 MEMBER REINKE: It would be an A-flat

9 wall.

10 MR. KLIGMAN: There would be windows,

11 I'll propose here --


13 MR. KLIGMAN: Aesthetically, it would

14 draw the eye across the house, and would comply with

15 the subdivision requirements.

16 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Niche, it's your

17 call. Have they, indeed, come up with a proposal that

18 satisfies your requirements of side entry garage?

19 MR. NICHE: Yes. This is full

20 compliance with the exception of the six foot front

21 yard variance, and I think it meets the intent. I

22 would, as the subdivision letter says, reserve final

23 judgement pending actual drawings of the house; being,

24 that only requiring that it be consistent with the









1 design he already has.

2 Obviously, this affects the proportions

3 of the house pretty significantly, and that would have

4 to be done in a craftsman like manner, I guess.

5 MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not before us.

6 MR. NICHE: I know.

7 In trying to see those drawings now as

8 part of this proposal, they may exist and they may

9 not. I'm not sure. But this is acceptable to me,

10 yes.

11 MR. CHAIRMAN: I can tell you that I

12 would think that we are going to make a Motion that we

13 so move, and it's going to be conditional on a side

14 entrance garage.

15 Any more conversation from board

16 members?

17 Sarah?

18 MEMBER GRAY: I can appreciate the

19 concern to save the trees, but there's already going

20 to three trees lost with the construction of the

21 driveway, the farthest back. Not the one that has

22 second floor overhanging on it.

23 MR. STONE: The trees shown there --

24 MEMBER GRAY: On the plan?









1 MR. STONE: -- on the plan in the

2 driveway area, are no longer there. They were

3 removed.

4 MEMBER GRAY: So three trees are gone

5 already. You're going to be encroaching on the

6 woodland area.

7 MR. STONE: This tree for sure.

8 MEMBER GRAY: What species are those?

9 MR. STONE: That is, I believe, a 16

10 inch hickory; and there's also a 12 inch ash.


12 MR. STONE: Very beautiful trees.

13 MEMBER GRAY: Yeah, they are. And

14 that's really too bad.

15 MR. STONE: And it's a shame to lose

16 them for --

17 MEMBER GRAY: Right. The consensus

18 being that in the subdivision there's certain

19 restrictions that require a side entry garage.

20 MR. STONE: Right.

21 MEMBER GRAY: And no matter how many

22 tree huggers may be sitting on this board, you know,

23 the consensus may be, you know, you're going to have

24 to give up a tree to get the side entrance. And I









1 would certainly encourage you to plant more trees to

2 make up for that. I mean, I can see here that the

3 size of your lot -- you basically don't have a whole

4 lot of your property to use for your purpose. I think

5 this is a good compromise, and I think you should

6 seriously investigate that.

7 Thank you.

8 MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other comments?

9 Otherwise, we'll take a Motion.

10 MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, Case 02-

11 022, I move that the Petitioner's setback variance be

12 granted, on the condition that the garage is to be a


13 side entrance.

14 MEMBER BAUER: Seconded.

15 MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a Motion and a

16 second.

17 And comments by Mr. Schultz?

18 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess in the woodland

19 discussion, I think it would be appropriate to

20 consider a condition that your grant of the variance

21 be subject to any further woodland approval through

22 the City, if those are not to obtained, obviously.

23 MR. CHAIRMAN: So amended.

24 Any other discussion on the Motion?









1 MEMBER GRAY: May I suggest that that

2 be done post-hast so that Petitioner can pursue

3 construction.

4 MEMBER REINKE: I would presume that he

5 would be pursuing that.

6 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We have a

7 Motion and a second.

8 Let's call ll.

9 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Bauer?


11 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Brennan?


13 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Gray?


15 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Gronachan?


17 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Reinke?


19 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Sanghvi?


21 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. You have a

22 variance as a condition, and see the building

23 department.

24 MR. STONE: Thank you.









1 MR. CHAIRMAN: This CASE is 02-023

2 filed by Jeff Johnson representing Chuck E. Cheese.

3 This is a request for sign variances.

4 Sir, we'll have you sworn in and then

5 we may -- before you present, ask a couple questions.

6 Would you give your name and raise your

7 hand?

8 MR. JOHNSON: My name is Jeff Johnson.

9 The address is 24808 Thomas, Warren, Michigan.

10 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Johnson, do you

12 swear to state the truth in this matter?

13 MR. JOHNSON: I do.

14 MR. CHAIRMAN: Before you get into a

15 presentation, it was brought before us, and parties on

16 the board know that there were not mock-ups put up.

17 They're there today?


19 MR. JOHNSON: Those mock-ups were

20 actually installed last week Thursday.

21 MEMBER SANGHVI: I've seen them this

22 afternoon. The cartoon character is on there.

23 I had to find the place, and ask people

24 where is Chuck E. Cheese located.









1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don't you go ahead

2 and present the case, sir.

3 MR. JOHNSON: We're requesting

4 permission to install individual illuminated channel

5 letters, in compliance with what the Center has

6 requested. The area square footage for the actual

7 channel letters is 40 square feet; and we're also

8 requesting additional square footage for the corporate

9 logo, and also a graphic on the canopy.

10 We ask your consideration.

11 The original plan for this building was

12 considerably more grandiose than we've attempted,

13 having weighed out to stalus(ph) talley proportion to

14 try and bring it into closer conformity.

15 Part of your hardship of finding the

16 location, can also be the difficulty with anyone who

17 wanted to actually visit the business. I did not

18 bring the photographs the day they were installed.

19 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, some people saw it

20 and some people didn't.

21 There were 19 notices sent out, no

22 approvals, no objections.

23 Is there anybody in the audience?

24 No hands, thank you.









1 Building department?

2 MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir.

3 MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, what's

4 your pleasure?

5 MEMBER REINKE: Okay. We're looking at

6 three signs now, correct?

7 MR. JOHNSON: Two logos and one sign.

8 MEMBER REINKE: Chuck E. Cheese. We're

9 looking at the corporate logo; and we're looking at an

10 awning sign, correct?

11 MR. JOHNSON: Yes.


13 MR. SAVEN: 40 square foot is within

14 the Ordinance. Chuck E. Cheese is on the sign,

15 itself.

16 MR. JOHNSON: The lettering, itself,

17 yes. It's within the Ordinance.

18 MEMBER REINKE: Okay. So he doesn't

19 need a variance for that.

20 MR. SAVEN: No.

21 MEMBER REINKE: Okay. So --

22 MR. SAVEN: He needs it for the

23 additional sign and for the character.

24 MEMBER REINKE: For the character on









1 wall.

2 MEMBER REINKE: Okay. What is the size

3 of the character on the wall?

4 MR. JOHNSON: 16 square foot, 18 inch

5 --

6 MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll make a quick

7 comment. You may have heard some of the cases

8 previous that we have some issues with signage on the

9 canopy or on the awning?

10 I personally don't have a problem with

11 you having the mouse up there. It's a relatively

12 small sign, and the given the corporate sign, it's

13 within the Ordinance. Other than the canopy sign, I

14 don't have a real problem with what they've requested.

15 MR. JOHNSON: The purpose for the

16 graphic on the canopy, itself, is you can see there's

17 an arch way that separates the top of the building

18 from the bottom. When you graphics, any foot traffic

19 that's traveling and comes upon the building, will not

20 have benefit of knowing where there entrance to the

21 store is or what is the business. From the parking

22 lot, it's not an issue. But foot traffic back and

23 forth across the front of the property, there's

24 nothing that will be visible because of that









1 architectural arch that goes across the front doorway.

2 MEMBER GRAY: Is there going to be

3 hanging signs on the side walk area, like there are?

4 No? I have a problem with having the two. I mean, my

5 comment initially is one or the other.

6 As far as the corporate mouse goes --

7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Can I ask a question?


9 MEMBER SANGHVI: As far as I can see, I

10 don't see this side of door over there when I went

11 there. I didn't see your corporate logo, only on this

12 side. I don't see this at all, because your logo --

13 it's over here. I didn't see anything over there.

14 MEMBER REINKE: Well, I totally agree

15 with canopy sign I can't go with. The other one, I

16 could possibly. I don't like getting into logo

17 situations, but it has -- if we couldn't find the

18 sign, then they need some help.

19 That character logo situation helps

20 some direction at that point, I guess I could bend

21 through that, but I can't support the canopy sign.

22 MR. JOHNSON: Okay.

23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other board member

24 questions, comments?









1 MEMBER SANGHVI: This is the only thing

2 that is going on the wall, the east side, right?

3 MR. JOHNSON: That's correct.

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: There's nothing else.

5 There's no other entrances for the east wall --

6 MR. JOHNSON: That's correct.

7 MEMBER SANGHVI: -- for this structure.

8 Chuck E. Cheese is the only thing there.

9 MR. JOHNSON: Yes. They have a 90 foot

10 frontage.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: So I mean, seeing that

12 place -- absent to anything else, it would be a great

13 difficulty to find that place without your canopy sign

14 here? I don't see that.

15 MR. JOHNSON: If you view the location

16 from its front, no, absolutely not

17 MEMBER SANGHVI: And if you're coming

18 from the side, the big logo and everything is there.

19 I don't see very, very difficulty -- it's not really

20 an absolute necessity to have this canopy sign here,

21 is it?


23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Plus, there's going to









1 be 3000 kids going in and out of that place every day,

2 just look for the mob.

3 Maybe we have the basis for a Motion,

4 if somebody wants to move along.

5 MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case

6 02-023, I move that the Petitioner's request for a

7 variance for the corporate logo on the wall of the

8 building be granted, due to business identification.

9 MEMBER BAUER: Seconded.

10 MR. CHAIRMAN: We've got a Motion and

11 support.

12 Any discussion?

13 No? Okay.

14 Call the roll, please.

15 C.J. KILLEBREW: Okay.

16 Member Bauer?


18 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Brennan?


20 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Gray?


22 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Gronachan?


24 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Reinke?










2 C.J. KILLEBREW: Member Sanghvi?


4 MR. CHAIRMAN: So you've got a variance

5 modified as it is, okay, see the building department.

6 MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

7 MR. CHAIRMAN: Last case is Dinser,

8 this is Case Number 02-024.

9 Give us your name, if you will, and

10 raise your hand and be sworn by Mr. Sanghvi.

11 MS. BILETI-SKINNER: Good evening. My

12 name is Theresa Bileti-Skinner, and I'm representing

13 Dinser's Greenhouse. And this is Mike Dinser and Gary

14 Dinser.

15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Ladies and gentlemen,

16 do you swear that you will state the truth about this

17 matter?

18 MS. BILETI-SKINNER: Yes, we do, thank

19 you.

20 MR. DINSER: Yes.

21 MR. DINSER: Yes.

22 MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the floor.

23 MS. BILETI-SKINNER: First and foremost

24 I must ask if all of you have received the current









1 notice that our board of appeals went out and

2 incorrectly -- I spoke with Sarah. Sarah's now on

3 vacation in Paris, and Sarah hopefully got word to all

4 of you, stating that in our records it indicates that

5 our permanent sign on Ten Mile was to be removed and

6 put on to Wixom Road. It is incorrect.

7 What our object is is to maintain that

8 sign there, and also additionally put a sign up on

9 Wixom Road. The reason being, and to explain our

10 hardship for it, we understand that it exceeds our

11 limit for signage, but at the same token, four years

12 ago -- which we'd like to explain, as you all know

13 here in Novi, they re-routed Wixom Road. Dinser's has

14 been around for 31 years, since 1971.

15 In way, Wixom Road used to be there

16 address. Now it is called Dinser Drive. We put -- we

17 came here to your board in 1998. I recognize about

18 five of you here. You granted us the sign up there to

19 reposition the sign on Ten Mile.

20 We also want to put up just as nice of

21 a sign over on Wixom Road, equivalent to the one on

22 Ten Mile. It's a four by eight. The only thing we

23 request is that we have some directional differences

24 on this sign, compared to the one on Ten Mile. It's









1 exactly the same sign, but it has a difference on

2 direction.

3 As far as east on Ten Mile, just

4 indicating that we are no longer on Wixom Road, which

5 just east of Ten Mile. And -- do you have all --

6 MR. CHAIRMAN: We've got some

7 questions. I'd like to jump right ahead to the

8 building department.

9 MS. BILETI-SKINNER: Sure, no problem.

10 MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't -- as I

11 mentioned earlier, I don't think this was noticed

12 properly.

13 MR. SAVEN: I have to agree with you.

14 There are a couple of other questions that I need to

15 ask.

16 Replacement of the sign -- the one that

17 we're looking at on Wixom Road, we differentiated the

18 fact now you want two signs, instead of relocating the

19 one sign off of Ten Mile to that particular location.


21 MR. SAVEN: You've indicated that you

22 want it on Wixom Road, but along the same lines, are

23 you planning on having an entrance to your place off

24 of Wixom Road where the signs are?









1 MR. DINSER: Not at this time.

2 MR. SAVEN: Not at this time.

3 MR. DINSER: It's in the future.

4 MR. SAVEN: You used to have a smaller

5 sign up front, the front of your building.

6 MR. DINSER: Yeah, right in the

7 driveway.

8 MR. SAVEN: Now, that is no longer

9 there?

10 MR. DINSER: That's no longer there.

11 MR. SAVEN: And you don't plan on

12 putting that sign --

13 MS. BILETI-SKINNER: We would love to.

14 Excuse me, we would love to.

15 MR. DINSER: If it's allowed.


17 neighborhood has asked us to put one in there,

18 honestly.

19 MR. SAVEN: Well, that's one of the

20 concerns that I had, the fact is that you did have a

21 sign there out front at one time --


23 MR. SAVEN: But that was part of three

24 signs on the property. There's a lot of confusion.









1 The board in itself, has a policy and procedure to

2 deal with that; that a mock-up sign has to be

3 installed, so they can see exactly where the sign's

4 going, the size of the sign, the width of the sign,

5 what-have-you, in that particular area.

6 I question the area where you're

7 putting it on Wixom Road, I was thinking at that time,

8 thinking ahead that there might be an entrance coming

9 to your site. And that was one of the other things.

10 So based upon the fact that you did not

11 properly notice this, I really believe you have to

12 come back before the board.

13 MR. CHAIRMAN: You mean, it's got to be

14 re-noticed.

15 MR. SAVEN: It's got to be re-noticed.

16 MR. CHAIRMAN: The only question -- I

17 guess I just answered it myself -- the proposed sign

18 on Wixom Road is on your property.

19 MR. DINSER: Correct.

20 MS. BILETI-SKINNER: I spent like 45

21 minutes with Allen on the phone, indicating the error

22 in which Novi -- the City of Novi, Sarah, wrote up our

23 procedures wrong.

24 Do you have the application that I sent









1 to you?

2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, I have it.

3 MS. BILETI-SKINNER: Do you see where

4 she made -- I mean, is there a discrepancy in there?

5 To me, there is. And the discrepancy, she thought we

6 were taking the existing sign and moving it to Wixom.

7 Now, that you have received notice as to a correction,

8 it's really -- I feel it's not our fault.

9 MEMBER REINKE: Well, I don't think it

10 is.

11 MR. CHAIRMAN: But we have to notify

12 adjoining properties.

13 MEMBER REINKE: What needs to be done,

14 is it needs to be re-advertised correctly, and then

15 this will be tabled to next month, that the correct

16 advertisement would have gone out.

17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Right now, we have two

18 approvals for removing your sign, but that's not what

19 you want to do. So we've got to re-notice and have

20 you come back.

21 MS. BILETI-SKINNER: May I ask a

22 question.

23 You did mention that -- and Sarah also

24 mentioned that we just put the sign up so you can see









1 it and where it's at. And may we do that and come

2 back to the Board of Appeals next month?

3 MR. CHAIRMAN: A mock-up.

4 MEMBER REINKE: A mock-up. We're not

5 saying to go ahead and put a permanent sign up there.

6 We want to see something -- a piece of plywood, that's

7 the size and where you want to put it. And if you

8 want to put it like a paper banner or how you want to

9 -- we don't want you to go ahead and do a complete

10 sign at this point.

11 MS. BILETI-SKINNER: We do have an old

12 sign. Back in '98, we took that old sign off, stating

13 that it was too dark and this and we wanted to change

14 it --

15 MEMBER REINKE: If you want to put that

16 one up --

17 MS. BILETI-SKINNER: Do you want us to

18 put that one up, so you can see where it's at?

19 MEMBER REINKE: That would be fine.

20 MS. BILETI-SKINNER: And then --

21 MR. CHAIRMAN: It's got to be the size

22 that you are proposing to put in.

23 MR. DINSER: Right, it is.

24 MS. BILETI-SKINNER: And actually, it









1 is.

2 MEMBER REINKE: If you want to put that

3 one up, any position, any where you'd like to have it.

4 MS. BILETI-SKINNER: And then there

5 would be a public hearing spread out again. I feel

6 really bad because Dinser's -- it's their prime

7 season, and --

8 MEMBER REINKE: Well, you've got the

9 benefit of the mock-up.

10 MS. BILETI-SKINNER: Yes, thank you so

11 much.

12 MR. CHAIRMAN: You can have that mock-

13 up and still accomplish what you want.

14 MR. DINSER: On that third sign we're

15 talking about.


17 But could we add that to that, because

18 it was an issue?

19 From my -- from the sign company's

20 point of view, it has been an issue brought up with

21 the neighbors and people around there. They are set-

22 off back from Dinser Drive. They are set-off. Could

23 I add that to --

24 MR. CHAIRMAN: You can add a variance









1 for whatever you want.

2 We had someone who came in here tonight

3 with 15 signs. I think you saw how many he walked

4 away with, too.

5 MS. BILETI-SKINNER: Thank you very

6 much. I appreciate your time.

7 MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we have a Motion to

8 table this until next month?


10 MR. CHAIRMAN: And call Sarah and get

11 at the front of the agenda.

12 MS. BILETI-SKINNER: I talked to C.J.

13 and Allen, they were the ones who corrected you and I

14 really appreciate that myself, thank you.

15 MR. DINSER: Thank you.

16 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. That does it for

17 our agenda, not bad.

18 Any other business?

19 Don, no?

20 Okay.

21 MR. SAVEN: I have a conversation --

22 just so the board's aware, I had a conversation with

23 some people at the Town Center at a meeting. I turned

24 out to be quite fruitful, based upon the fact -- I









1 don't know so much -- how many people were here

2 before, but we had quite a few concerns about the

3 businesses which are located within the Town Center,

4 that are not really part of Town Center. They can't

5 be visible off of Novi Road or Grand River.

6 And in the course of the meeting that

7 we had with the Town Center people, it appears as

8 though we've come up with a pretty good resolution.

9 They're going to bring it back before the board. It

10 has to deal with the existing Novi Town Center sign

11 that's there. It had already -- by raising the

12 letters up and giving other verbiage to maybe, Windham

13 Garden Hotel. And Windham's been a sore spot with us

14 for a long time.

15 But by incorporating the business that

16 are around that area on to this sign, not so much that

17 we're going to have five or six different signs or

18 people coming in and wanting these types of signage.

19 It appears as though we can do it very tastefully, and

20 yet I think it's something that's a possibility there.

21 They need to be represented. They need to go through

22 the stuff.

23 I'm not trying to sway the board by any

24 means, but I know --









1 MR. CHAIRMAN: They're coming in next

2 month.

3 MR. SAVEN: The change may be coming

4 next month.

5 MEMBER REINKE: There's a problem. I

6 made a note to it, and what you're talking about -- it

7 looks like it's something that can be done tastefully,

8 not intrusive, not something sticking up way in the

9 air.

10 MR. SAVEN: Just the people we got out

11 there. Just the basis of the sign, and then whatever

12 can be done to negotiate the height requirements to

13 identify the Town Center will give you the ability to

14 get the major tenants in there. They're just

15 constantly screaming about this. They need to

16 advertise.

17 MEMBER REINKE: The other thing is, I

18 think every one on the board concurs that now we often

19 look at ideas and concepts and so forth like that, and

20 we'll work with that, if they bring it before us.

21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else?

22 Tom?

23 MR. SCHULTZ: Yeah, actually, two

24 things. I've got some information for you. On the









1 first of last week, the Ensions(ph) filed an appeal

2 from decision that the board made on the berm --

3 actually, on the proposed Novi Promenade. It's an

4 appeal from the DBH decision, and also two additional

5 Counts taking claim and something called a trespass

6 usage claim, unrelated to the berm issue. It has to

7 do with water on the site from the Novi Promenade

8 parcel.

9 So that's just some information. I can

10 give you a copy of that, if you are interested.

11 And one other thing is, I just gave it

12 to C.J., and the briefs are in. Everybody's filed

13 their briefs and we're ready for oral argument on the

14 (unintelligible) That's probably going to take some

15 time in May or June. And again, if you want the

16 briefs to find out on that one, I'll send a copy of

17 it.

18 MR. CHAIRMAN: That's been ongoing for

19 years, that whole corner.

20 Any other comments by board members?

21 Don, are you done?

22 The meeting is closed.

23 (The meeting was adjourned

24 at 10:03 p.m.)

Date approved:

May 7, 2002 __________________________

Sarah Marchioni Recording Secretary











3 I, Machelle R. Billingslea-Moore,

4 do hereby certify that I have recorded stenographically the

5 proceedings had and testimony taken in the above-entitled

6 matter at the time and place hereinbefore set forth, and I

7 do further certify taht the foregoing transcript,

8 consisting of (123) typewritten pages, is a true and

9 correct transcript to the best of my abilities.



12 ________________________________________

13 Machelle R. Billingslea-Moore, Reporter.


15 4_-_1_0_-_0_2_

16 Date