View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting

TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2002 -- 7:30 P.M.

Proceedings had and testimony taken

in the matters of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, May 7, 2002.

Frank Brennan, chairman
Gerald Bauer
Brian Fannon
Sarah Gray
Laverne Reinke

Don Saven, building department
Thomas Schultz, city attorney
Sarah Marchioni, building department

Cheryl L. James, Certified Shorthand Reporter

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good evening, ladies

and gentlemen. Let's call this meeting to order,


Madam Secretary, will you read the

roll call.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan I

have absent excused.

Member Reinke?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi I have

as absent excused.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We do have a

quorum. The meeting is now in session.

A full board consists of six

members. Since there's only five members here and

-- four votes are needed for an approval. Any


petitioner that wishes to put their case off for a

full board has that option. You could give that

some consideration and want to come back next month

when we, potentially, have a full board, we'll give

you that option right now. Anybody that wants to

put off?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: We had some late


Ladies and gentlemen, we have a short

board tonight, meaning there are five members here,

not six, we need four votes, four yays for an

approval. If you wish to have your case delayed

for a month, you should indicate that now,

otherwise we will proceed.

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll point out that

there are rules of conduct. These are on the front

page of tonight's minutes.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Please review them and

adhere to them.

It takes a vote of at least four

members to approve a variance request, and a vote


of the majority of the members present to deny.

With respect to the agenda, are there

any changes, modifications?


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

at a previous meeting we had an issue that we were

dealing with with regards to 2105 West Lake Drive,

Mr. Kuhn. He was -- he was requested to go back

and see what he could do with his property. I had

the opportunity to meet with him after, and-

MR. COON: (Interposing) We can

delay this if you'd like.

MR. SAVEN: -the next -- following

morning in regards to his property. What took

place was that he was not favorable of moving any

of the buildings, he did not feel that it was

necessary, but he did come up with an additional

footage which was -- that he found by the

measurements on his property. It was requested

that he resubmit, but apparently that message was

not conveyed that well to him. He was slated to

come back before the board because it was tabled at

that time. Based on the fact that there was

miscommunications here, I'll request he be tabled


to the next following meeting, to June.

MR. COON: That's acceptable with me.

MR. SAVEN: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Talk to Sarah. Give

her a call tomorrow and (inaudible).

MR. SAVEN: And get your phone number

and we'll be able to get in contact with you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other changes to

the agenda?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, I move

for approval as submitted. All those in favor say


(Vote taken.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Minutes. We

have the minutes of March and April 2002. Any

changes to those minutes?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, move for

submittal -- approval as submitted. All those in

favor, say aye.

(Vote taken.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Public remarks. This

is a public remarks portion of the meeting. Any


comments related to a case on the agenda should be

held until that case is called; however, if anyone

wishes to address the board to a matter or a case

not on the agenda tonight, please come forward.

Any hands? Nobody?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Ladies and

gentlemen, we will call our first case. I will --

I'll point out that we've got a heavy agenda, so

let's try to keep to the facts and move along. All



MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll call

Case 02-011, filed by Joe Nutting, 621 South Lake

Drive. This is for construction up on

South Lake Drive.

This is a -- you're a comeback,



MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you're both

still under oath, okay?


MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got the floor.


Go ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED: Hello again. On our

second efforts, the house design, we have

drastically changed the design of the house;

however, still, the lot being -- not conforming

with the requirements of the City as a buildable

lot requires a rear end variance, and in this case

the rear variance we're going for is six foot

six-and-a-half, and we have maintained all the

other required setbacks as opposed to the previous

design, if you remember, and with that we are open

to your questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good, thank you.

There were -- originally there were four approvals.

We've got another four approvals, so a total of


Anyone in the audience wish to

address the Board on this case?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I had a

conversation with Mr. Nutting earlier based on the

fact that he had done everything possible to try to

reduce the amount of variances that was requested


by this Board. He will be required to go to the

Construction Board of Appeals for a side entrance

driveway variance based on the fact that on a side

entrance garage you have to maintain twenty-five

foot to a property line, which is twenty-two foot

yard surface and three foot of graded area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else, Don?

MR. SAVEN: That's it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? Sarah?

MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, I think

Mr. Nutting has done an excellent job. He came in

before us previously requesting five variances. He

got things down to one, and I think he's done an

excellent job. I can support the petitioner's


MEMBER BAUER: I have no problems.


MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. Can you

show me where your side entrance -- is this this

jog to the garage?


MEMBER GRAY: Will you be backing out

onto South Lake or will you have a turnaround in

front of your house so you can pull out?


UNIDENTIFIED: I plan on having a

slab continue along the side of the house so that

way I can back into that way, too.

MEMBER GRAY: Okay. Fifteen feet

isn't going to give you a whole -- room to do like

a T turnaround.


MEMBER GRAY: Okay. Thank you for

doing what we asked you to do.

And, if it's in order, I'd like to

make a motion-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Please.

MEMBER GRAY: -to approve the

variance requested based on the setback for the

rear -- in Case Number 02-011, move to approve

variance as requested due to lot size and

configuration and practical difficulty.


MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and

support. Any discussion?

MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask

that we qualify this also by the fact that he is

going to remove the garage in the rear.



MR. CHAIRMAN: So noted. Any other


(No further discussion.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, would you

please call the vote.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Good job. You've got

your variance request. See the Building




MR. CHAIRMAN: Case 02-019, filed by

Carl Engling. This is regarding property at

1389 East Lake Drive.


Sir, you're back before us again,



MR. CHAIRMAN: You're under oath as


MR. ENGLING: I had to back out the

last time last minute.

MEMBER GRAY: He was never sworn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Was not. Jerry --

Mr. Bauer. You want to raise your hand and give us

your name, we'll swear you in anyway.

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 02-019?


MR. BAUER: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you state your

name for the record, please.

MR. ENGLING: Carl Engling.

MEMBER BAUER: Please go ahead.

MR. ENGLING: Okay. Well, I'm here

before you -- I want to put an addition on my

house, my second floor, but the reason why I'm here

is because I can't just put a second floor on

there. I have to put a new foundation, and if I'm


going that far I might as well knock the house

down. So I'm coming before you to try to get some

side setbacks and front setbacks.

In front of you they have -- they

show the existing proposed and an overlap of the

existing and proposed, and as you can see, I'm kind

of actually moving the property line in a little

bit from what's existing on, let's see, the north

side and actually moving a little bit in on the

south side, too, and I'm removing the front porch,

moving away from the street, so actually I think

I'm improving the lot a little bit.

That's it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good, thank you.

There were 30 notices sent out. We did have a

previous approval back when this was before us


Anyone in the audience wish to

address the Board regarding this case?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department

wish to comment?

MR. SAVEN: Only for the fact that

you take a look at the existing structure, he's not


going beyond that footprint of the existing

structure. He's maintaining everything within that

setback as was previously approved.

MR. ENGLING: And moving about

six-and-a-half feet away from the front street.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? Sarah,


MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair, I've been

aware of this house for quite a while, and I know

that what Carl is proposing is going to be an

improvement. Like he said, he is decreasing the

encroachment to the front, which is something we

love to see, and actually decreasing, not a lot,

but decreasing the footprint, and I think this is a

real good plan and I think it's a big use of the

property. It's a 42-foot lot, and he's coming in a

little bit, so I don't see any reason why we

shouldn't approve this.

Thank you.

MEMBER FANNON: Mr. Chairman, in

Case 02-011, I would move that we grant the

variances as requested due to the fact that they're

minimal as compared to the previous variance and

will improve the property.



MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a

second. Any discussion on that motion?

(No discussion.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: If not, go ahead,

Sarah, call.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MR. CHAIRMAN: See the Building

Department for a building permit.

MR. ENGLING: Okay. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Next we will call

Case 02-024. This is also a callback, Dinser's.


This is all three parties that were here last


MS. BILETI-SKINNER: Actually, no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Why don't-

MS. BILETI-SKINNER: (Interposing)

This is Terry Burns that owns Acme Architectural

Signs. I'm Theresa Bileti-Skinner that is the

manager of Acme Architectural.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And that's Dinser in

the middle I believe.

MS. BILETI-SKINNER: And this is the

Dinser that we brought along before.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don't you all

raise your hands and we'll do it again.

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 02-024?

THE GROUP: Yes, we do.

MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. Please, go



just proposed that we would like to put a sign up

on Wixom Road.

The last time we met we had asked

permission to put it across -- east of Wixom Road


north of Ten Mile, a particular sign. There was a

discrepancy because of the fact that Sarah over at

the City had misunderstood what we had proposed,

and so did our neighbors around us because of


We have a sign out in Ten Mile --

Dinser's has a sign out on Ten Mile. We would like

to keep that sign remaining. We want to put an

additional sign up on Wixom Road, approximately a

thousand feet back from Ten Mile, north of

Ten Mile, and exactly 39 feet from centerline from

Wixom Road.

The sign just currently went in

because we got a little behind because of

Miss Dig. We wanted to make sure that it was a

proper position and everything to put the sign, and

we were able to put it in. And I'm not sure that

all of you have seen it, but this is the particular

sign we would like to propose to put up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were

eighteen notices sent. There were two approvals,

plus we had one previously.

Anyone in the audience wish to

comment with respect to the Dinser case?


(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands,

Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board members?

MEMBER FANNON: Why do you need this



particular, just for an example, we had five --

this gentleman had five customers on Sunday come to

him and say we never even knew you were east -- I

mean east of Ten Mile, and they were north of them.

And we just need them to be visualized because of

the fact that Wixom Road used to be Dinser's main

drive, and they are so accustomed to it, that they

thought they weren't around anymore.

So we would like them to know that

they're still here, after how many years?

MR. DINSER: Thirty-two.



And -- and it's a family-owned

business, and a lot of people everywhere knows

Dinser's, and I'm -- I don't know how many people


get flowers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What's the height of

the sign on Dinser Boulevard?



MS. BILETI-SKINNER: Presently it is

eight foot in the air, and it is proposed to be

seven foot. I'm not going to lie to you. There is

a lot of stone out there.

And I was out on the job site because

of the situation. If it is approved, we will be

more than happy to put it seven feet, but there is

just a tremendous amount of rock, and it is eight

feet in the air, and I'm not sure if the Board has

seen it. Since we're at the Board of Appeals,

would you approve eight feet? The only thing I'm

asking is -- you tell me eight feet, seven feet,

that's fine, but I will have to be out back on

location to cement it in because it is a temporary

sign. We have only put it in with the earth that

we took it out in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We can only consider

what has been posted-

MS. BILETI-SKINNER: (Interposing)



MR. CHAIRMAN: And sent out-

MS. BILETI-SKINNER: (Interposing)

Which is fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: -and sent out to all

the neighbors and such.

MS. BILETI-SKINNER: So seven feet in

the air will be fine with us, but just I need to

point out that because it was temporary-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) That's

fine. You did what we asked you to do.

Any other questions, comments of the


(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to clarify, and

Mr. Fannon did it but I'll just reiterate it for

those that are watching, what was Dinser used to be

Wixom Road for many, many, many years, and the City

straightened Wixom Road and renamed Wixom Road and

renamed Dinser, has caused some of your problem.

Board members?


MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Schultz, is this

in any way encroaching in the right-of-way for the


new Wixom Road?

MR. SCHULTZ: I don't believe the

proposal is to intrude into the right-of-way. If

so, obviously they would need a permit (inaudible).

MEMBER GRAY: Do we know what the

right-of-way is on Wixom Road, that stretch just

north of Ten Mile there, because if-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) I think

they're outside of the right-of-way, because I

think 66 feet, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm seeing the nod in the back from

the City engineer, so it's -- half of it's 33; so,

therefore, if they're asking for 39 they'll be

outside. They cannot project out into the


MEMBER GRAY: Do you have -- do you

own that property or do you have-

MS. BILETI-SKINNER: (Interposing)

Dinser's owns that complete property.

MEMBER GRAY: I saw the sign. It's a

great sign, and-

MS. BILETI-SKINNER: (Interposing)

Thank you.

MEMBER GRAY: I was very pleased with


seeing it. And when I went across Ten Mile

somebody was putting the letters up on the sign to

remind everybody that Mother's Day is Sunday.

MS. BILETI-SKINNER: We can't forget


MEMBER GRAY: So I thought it was --

it's a nice sign, it's a good directional, and

because of the fact that we, as a City -- I don't

want to say it's a City-imposed hardship, but I

think it's good that -- you need to advertise your

presence. I mean, the greenhouses do kind of give

it away, but --


about a month, you'll see a lot of forestry there.


MS. BILETI-SKINNER: But we also want

to add that we wanted to kind of -- if you do

approve the sign, that we would like to put some

kind of landscaping around it, again, because they

do own that, they do own the property, and they

would like to enhance it.

But I also want to just note that

that sign there is the original Dinser sign and

it's just been rejuvinated, and for you guys


letting us put that up, it's turned into quite a

nice thing.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions,

comments, motions?

MEMBER FANNON: Mr. Chairman, in

Case 02-024, I would move that we approve the

variance as requested due to the fact that the road

has been changed and the business needs proper


MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a

second. Any discussion?

(No discussion.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Sarah?

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?



MR. CHAIRMAN: Good, congratulations.

See the Building Department for your permits.

MS. BILETI-SKINNER: Thank you very

much. Thank you very much. Have a good evening.


MR. CHAIRMAN: 02-025. This is

Carrabbas Italian Grill.

If you'll give us your names and

raise your right hand, Mr. Bauer will swear you


MR. SUTSCHEK: I'm Joe Sutschek, vice

president of development for Ramco-Gershenson,


MR. WYBO (ph): Mark Wybo, a partner

for Carrabbas Italian Grill.

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

in Case 02-025 to tell the truth -- or affirm that

you will tell the truth regarding this case?


MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the floor.

MR. SUTSCHEK: We are -- Mark and I


are aware of the lengthy agenda. We will try to go

through our presentation very quickly.

We know there's a long history with

the shopping center, which we think there are some

points which are germane to our request.

But to start out with, the request

tonight -- Mark, I think we need to push that over

that way so they can see this end of the board.

This is a request to continue the

revitalization/upgrading program that we started at

West Oaks One approximately five years ago. With

the demolition -- we'd like to demolish the

existing Pizza Hut Restaurant, which is the pink

block on the existing site plan over there. We'd

like to replace that restaurant with a brand-new

Carrabbas Italian Grill, at virtually the same


This would be the third phase of a

multi-phase program to continuously upgrade the

shopping center.

If you remember, phase one started

with replacement of the Kro -- grocery store with

Circuit City. The second phase was the elimination

of the small retail shops between


Service Merchandise and the existing Kmart building

with Office Max, the Garner Shoe Warehouse and

Half-Off Cards, which is still a card shop but just

under a different name.

This would be the third phase of that

ongoing upgrading program.

The replacement of Pizza Hut does a

number of things, makes a number of improvements to

the site.

As you can see, the -- as I

mentioned, the existing Pizza Hut is a very limited

pizza restaurant. It will be replaced with a more

full-line menu, family sit-down Italian restaurant

as opposed to a limited menu pizza restaurant.

The revised site plan makes a number

of improvements to the overall circulation on the

site. If you notice on the existing site plan, the

entrance that comes into the development off of

Sheraton Drive, there are parking spaces backing

out into that main drive off of both sides of the


On the revised plan with Carrabbas,

we install a landscaped eyebrow or boulevard on the

south side of that driveway, thereby eliminating


one complete row of parking spaces backing out into

that entry drive off of Sheraton Drive. Not only

does it improve the overall circulation, but it

also adds additional landscaping to the site, which

isn't there at the current time.

The plan that you're going to see

now, this plan over here, the areas that are shaded

in yellow, those areas are currently landscaped

today. The areas that are green, that's new

landscape over and above what's there now. That's

blacktopping, which gets removed, replaced with

landscaping. That represents a 47 percent increase

in the amount of landscaping that is within that

same defined area.

And I think you'll certainly agree by

looking at this rendering of the building -- this

is what it's going to look like -- we certainly

believe that Carrabbas Italian Family Grill brings

a much more aesthetically pleasing building to the

shopping center than does the existing Pizza Hut

restaurant in its present form.

We're pleased to be here tonight.

After coming from the Planning Commission on

April 3rd, we come to you with a recommendation of


approval of the site plan from the Planning

Commission to the city council, subject of course

to the waivers being granted by your body.

Operating and maintaining a shopping

center is just like maintaining any piece of real

estate, including your home. If you don't

constantly do periodic reinvestment you lose the

value of the asset. And, obviously, that's the

same with commercial real estate, including

shopping centers.

With changing market conditions,

changing habits of shoppers, changing demographics,

changing market conditions, you need to be able to

constantly reinvest and upgrade your asset. I

think we're all painfully aware of what could

happen if you don't. Witness what happened to

Montgomery Wards, to Crowley's and Kmart, of all

corporations here in our hometown. That's what can

happen if you don't continuously maintain your

asset and reinvest them and keep up with modern

technology and current market demand.

This reinvestment sometimes requires

that the existing footprints are outdated, they no

longer work for the state of the art commercial


retailers and, unfortunately, the older a center

becomes the more likely that is to happen.

West Oaks One was originally built in

1981, so it's in excess of 20 years old at the

present time.

Often, when you get into a

reinvestment program, renovation program, upgrading

program, you cannot do it and meet all the

regulations of the current zoning ordinances and

building codes. Obviously, construction codes,

zoning boards has changed as time goes on.

While the major site features of a

shopping center remain fixed, the buildings are

virtually fixed and placed, and the overall

circulation patterns are fixed. There's only so

much you can do with that and maintain the

integrity of the shopping center and honor the

lease obligations you have with your existing


Also what happens is that surrounding

properties get developed. There is no longer

vacant land available where you can actually expand

the site to accommodate any expansions. Obviously,

that's what's happened with West Oaks One. It's


completely surrounded by public rights-of-way,

West Oaks Drive, Donelson Drive, Sheraton Drive,

and, of course, the existing restaurants and hotel

developments that's immediately to the south.

The concept here is that sometimes

you need to request waivers from the strict

application of the zoning ordinance, waivers that,

however, are in compliance with the intent, purpose

and spirit of the zoning ordinance and, as such, is

the reason for the request tonight.

We have requested four setback

waivers and a parking waiver.

As I mentioned, West Oaks One was

built in 1981. Even though the entire shopping

center is owned by in Ramco-Gershenson, including

the Pizza Hut site, the Pizza Hut site, from day

one, was on a separate ground lease even though it

was owned by Ramco-Gershenson.

Technically, that means that the

setbacks have to be measured from the ground lease

limits as opposed to the perimeter of the entire

shopping center.

The state law dealing with

subdivision regulations treats a ground lease the


same as a property sale, so you're obligated to

have a separate parcel of land on a ground lease

even though you still own it in common but it's a

ground lease, and you're required to have a

separate tax parcel and a separate property line.

When the existing Pizza Hut was

developed, obviously it was developed as part of

the shopping center. Its access is from internal

circulation roads, not from any of the surrounding

public roads. There is no direct access to the

Pizza Hut site from Sheraton Drive, a public

right-of-way. Its access is from the internal

circulation roads within the shopping center. Its

parking spaces are shared in common with all the

other tenants in the shopping center, as is typical

with any shopping center.

And I believe in the application I've

submitted a copy of cost (inaudible) that guarantee

that that's the way that the shopping center


So even though the existing Pizza Hut

restaurant does -- this is the wrong plan I think,

Mark. No, it's not. I'm sorry, I stand



The existing Pizza Hut restaurant

doesn't meet any of the 100 foot setback

requirements measured from the ground lease

property line, which is the black line. It does

exceed the requirements if you measure it from the

real property line boundaries, which is the

perimeter of the shopping center, because it's part

of the shopping center. It's 300 and some feet

from West Oaks Drive, it's a hundred and some feet

from the south boundary line. It's hundreds of

feet from Donelson Drive, which is the boundary of

the shopping center way over to the east. The only

setback that it does not meet is the setback off of

Sheraton, which currently is at 75 feet, and that's

the way it was built in 1981.

What we've done to minimize that is

we've actually enlarged the perimeter of the ground

lease limits by approximately a quarter of an

acre. We've extended the limits of the ground

lease to this point, and also to this point, which

on this plan corresponds to here and here, so we've

attempted to enlarge the site as large as we could

and still comply with the restrictions we had in

the existing leases with the existing tenants.


The setback to the new ground lease

line from West Oaks Drive still exceeds the

ordinance requirements. It meets the ordinance

requirements to the south. Obviously, it far

exceeds the ordinance requirements over to

Donelson Drive. It still does not meet the

ordinance requirement setback off of Sheraton, but

it increases that setback from 75 feet to 93 feet,

so we've actually added 18 feet of additional

setback from Sheraton, which is really the key

setback because that's the frontage street.

In addition, the buffer strip which

is located along Sheraton today is only sixteen

feet deep at the narrowest point, which is four

feet shy of minimum. The Carrabbas plan extends

that at the narrowest point to twenty feet, so

we've actually gotten rid of that setback

nonconformancy and have made that comply with the

current workings.

Then the last waiver which we are

asking for is a waiver of 46 parking spaces. The

Carrabbas restaurant is approximately 3,000 square

feet larger than the Pizza Hut building. It's

about 1.4 percent more of gross leasable area than


the entire shopping center. It does require a

waiver of 46 feet -- of 46 parking spaces. We have

removed some of the parking spaces to increase the

landscaping on the site and to improve the

circulation, especially at the main entrance with

this landscaped arm.

Over the years, a number of

professional traffic consulting agencies have

studied parking requirements in conjunction with

all kinds of shopping centers. We ourselves have

done a number of parking counts at the center.

For example, in 1987 the

International Transportation Engineering Society

did a parking study of shopping centers all over

the country. Their conclusion of the study was

that shopping centers with gross leasable area

between 25,000 square feet and 400,000 square feet,

a parking ratio of four per thousand is more than


If you translate that to West Oaks

Shopping Center, we would need a little bit less

than a thousand parking spaces to meet that

requirement. The revised plan, including

Carrabbas, would have eleven hundred forty-six


parking spaces, considerably more than what that

study would recommend.

In 1989, the Barton Ashton, which

used to be the City's traffic consultant, updated a

traffic study that was done way back in 1965 in

conjunction with Urban Land Institute. They came

to the exact same conclusion, that a parking ratio

of four per thousand for shopping centers between

25,000 square feet and 400,000 square feet is more

than adequate. These results were published in a

1977 edition of Urban Land, which you also have in

material that was submitted.

And, lastly, 1980, a joint study was

done by the International Conference of Shopping

Centers and the Urban Land Institute. Conclusion

was exactly the same, four per thousand

consistently is more than adequate to satisfy the


We did counts ourselves in this

shopping center back in 19 -- about 1995. We

conducted parking counts on the entire shopping

center from November 26 to December 8th, obviously

peak holiday shopping season. We took counts at

five o'clock at night and eight o'clock at night,


the peak time, peak season. At that time there

were eleven hundred thirty-four parking spaces on

the site. At no time -- at no time was the site

ever parked more than forty percent of capacity.

That's less than half. Peak holiday shopping


This past July we took parking counts

through the entire month, and we also took parking

counts between December 15th and December 26th,

again, peak holiday shopping season, and we took

the counts in two pieces.

We counted the spaces from basically

Circuit City over, and then we took counts on the

rest of the shopping center. We wanted to see what

was happening in the area of the proposed new

Carrabbas Restaurant. At no time -- at no time was

the eastern portion of the center, the center that,

for all practical purposes, serves Circuit and the

Carrabbas site, was ever parked more than 67

percent of capacity. The balance of the site was

never parked more than 49 percent of capacity, so

it comes to an average of about 54 percent.

So -- I think -- I get the hint.

Thank you. So I think we have -- I think the


documentation to support all the variances we've

asked for, we think they are totally consistent

with the spirit and intent of the City's zoning

ordinance, and that simply really maintains the

existing restaurant, same location, improves the

circulation but brings a upgraded restaurant to the

shopping center with all the benefits that come

along with it.

Mark, I guess we've been told to sit

down, so I think we better sit down.

Thank you very, very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, now you'll get

to hear what we think.

Let me reiterate. Please, take a

look at this. We want to get out of here before

two o'clock in the morning.

There were six notices sent. You do

have an objection, and it's from a neighbor,

Too Chez. They have a concern that this is an

overbuild, they are concerned that the restaurant

is too large for the piece of property. They are

also concerned over parking. They are concerned

that excess parking will spill over into their

facility, and they're also concerned about what


will happen when a new major retailer takes over

the Kmart space. So that's your neighbor's


Anybody in the audience wish to make

comment on this case?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands

waving, Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: Basically, what Joe

indicated, it's -- how they were looking at --

how they were looking at the setback requirements,

which is very important. We're talking about the

ground area for leasable area as to how this was

looked at when the shopping plaza was originally

built versus what they're looking for as a leasable

area now. They did increase that leasable area to

allow for more setbacks in the area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else?

MR. SAVEN: No, that's it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members,

questions or comments for the petitioner?

MEMBER REINKE: I think the

petitioner has done a very good presentation. My

only question is in the increase in size -- is the


increase in size of this, in the layout,

landscaping and the direction of traffic flow, I

think it's a great improvement from what was there

where cars could back out into traffic flow, and

that was not a good situation at all.

So I guess the only question I have

is the size of the building, and I'll pass to other

members at this point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Other members?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll just comment that

I think it's a very nice change of scenery, looks

like a very attractive restaurant. It's a type of

restaurant that should draw well, do well. I like

the idea that we're going to see some greenery

around there, as that current building looks like a

big old box sitting there.

So essentially have my support.

MEMBER BAUER: Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Jerry.

MEMBER BAUER: I want to commend you

on a very good presentation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A little long.

MEMBER BAUER: I have no problem with


your case.

MEMBER FANNON: Is that in the form

of a motion?

MEMBER BAUER: In Case Number 02-025,

I suggest that we grant the variance for the north

setback, south setback, east and west as presented,

and also for the number of parking spaces proposed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Second the motion?


MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, reason?

MEMBER BAUER: Due to the unique

situation as far as the actual lot is concerned.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and

support. Any discussion on that motion?


MEMBER GRAY: I'm going to support

this, but I'll be -- I'll be -- I'm also concerned

with the proximity to Too Chez when I was driving

around there the other day, so I'll be watching not

to have your clients encroaching on Too Chez. They

do have a business to protect as well.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And Too Chez is

protected if there are issues, are they not?


Can they go to the Building


MR. SAVEN: Why not. I think we're

going to try to handle the situation.

MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, just a

note to go along with that also. I think in the

parking study counts that they've supplied us with,

it really shouldn't be a problem, and we hope that

it doesn't -- that there's adequate parking there

to cover all the businesses that are served.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion?

MEMBER FANNON: I figure they can

both only hope that every parking spot is full.

MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, you may

want to also acknowledge the fact that the hours of

operation may be a little different from those

within the center itself for evening operations; is

that correct?

MR. WYBO: This is a dinner only


MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We have a

motion and a second. Any other discussions?

(No further discussion.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, you want to


call, please.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


NR, SUTSCHEK: Thank you very much

for your patience.

MR. CHAIRMAN: See the Building

Department for your permits.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Case 02-026, Jaguar of

Novi. They're back.

Give us your name and raise your


MR. STOEPKER: My name is

Timothy Stoepker.



MR. STOEPKER: My address is

500 Woodward Avenue, suite 4000, Detroit, Michigan


MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.

MEMBER BAUER: You don't need to


MR. STOEPKER: There -- the

application before you consists of two signs, one

of which you previously dealt with, and basically

what we're asking to do with the one sign is to

relocate. What we're asking in reference to the

other one is create an interior directional sign

equal in size to the other directional signs that

were previously approved.

When we were here before, the sign

that was approved that said Jaguar, I believe

Jaguar of Novi, was to be located right where my

finger was. After we got that approved and after

the mockup was there, we realized that no one could

see that sign location coming down Haggerty because

of the invert of the property at this location, and

because of the dome. It's the exact same size,

it's not any different. And what we're asking to

do is relocate it to the north elevation of the



I previously talked with the

Building Department about putting it on this

elevation here, but, you know, that's a wavy

sandstone look, and we didn't feel it would be

appropriate, nor was it designed for that. In

fact, the sign has already been made up, and

instead of being located here on an elevation which

is slightly smaller than what's the rear elevation,

we're relocating the sign to this elevation.

The mockup that you saw out there is

the same mockup you saw before. It's actually

lower than what we submitted. We want it higher as

in the drawings to you for that location.

That's the one request. We're not

asking to make it any bigger, not anymore signs,

just relocate it to that location.

The other side -- the other sign is a

directional sign. And, again, the directional

signs that we're proposing is for this location.

That sign is permitted as a matter of right. What

we're asking for is a four foot variance in size


The sign that you actually saw on the


site, unfortunately, was located here. It needs --

the visual sign. It's needs to be here. In fact,

by not being here, the other day, even I'm really

familiar with the site, I actually drove in right

past here and parked in the medical office building

parking lot. And the purpose is to make sure that

you know that you turn here and you don't go over

here to park, that you turn in the inside.

That -- the actual sign is this one

right here. This says reception and service. It's

item D on the sign. It is the exact same size,

exact same height as the other directional signs

that were approved.

What amazes me is I come in here, I'm

asking for a four foot variance, but the text on

the sign, if you'll look, is probably only three

feet, and all the signs are that way, and the

background is actually white and you have the two

arrows and just the text.

We want to make sure that when the

customers come into the site they don't go to the

medical office building, that they take a

right-hand turn, that they can read the sign well

in advance.


And I actually drove by, because it

was misplaced, and parked at the medical office

building and cut across the new landscape to the

back side.

That's what we're asking for. And

the practical difficulty is, that we established on

the prior one, it's very difficult to read those

directional signs at the size indicated in the

ordinance, and we're just asking for the exact same

consistency with other directional signs on the

site. And the first variance is one that's been

previously granted. We're just asking to relocate

to the north elevation of the store.

That's the shortest I've ever been

before this body, ever.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. There were

11 notices sent; no approvals, no objections.

Anyone in the audience care to


(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands,

Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir.



MEMBER REINKE: Is this one that you

told us that you built the -- specifically designed

the building for that sign?

MR. STOEPKER: This was the one where

the -- it was actually -- the glass behind it was

-- the sign was prebuilt for that flat area and

then the glass block should be predrilled, and

after -- after the mockup went on, we realized you

couldn't see the sign. I mean, you could see it if

you were standing right out in front, but it's

completely blocked. You can't see it from Haggerty

at all. And so the sign was fabricated for a flat

location, in fact glass, and so was not -- even

though I talked to Mr. Saven about moving it to the

other sandstone area, we felt it would stick out

too far and was not designed for that wavy wall, so

we're actually taking it and moving it to the north

elevation so you can get the Haggerty signage

visibility, which was the intent of the sign to

begin with.

Unfortunately, you know, I was just a

lawyer, not the sign designer or the location

picker so --

MEMBER BAUER: It's called



MR. STOEPKER: But the whole purpose

of that sign was to give us exposure on Haggerty,

and, obviously, it was -- that was the intent, and

obviously you can't see it there.


MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Brennan, I went

around this site three or four times on Sunday, and

every way I looked at it it makes much more sense

to have it this way. I was sitting just kind of

looking to see how people were reacting to the

sign. A couple of people came in and asked me if

they could look at the cars.

You have a lot of people there

looking at the cars on Sunday.

MR. STOEPKER: It's been tremendous.

MEMBER GRAY: When are you going to


MR. STOEPKER: Well, it is --

UNIDENTIFIED: Well, it's open. We

opened a few days ago.


MR. STOEPKER: But it's not done, as

you can see.


MEMBER GRAY: Yeah. I think it makes

more sense to have the sign that we previously

approved on the east facade on the north facade,

because even though the leapers are there, you

still want a little bit of a name recognition

before you get right there.

I was real pleased to see that we

weren't coming back for another leaper. And I beat

up on you pretty bad the last time.

But I'd like to make -- I'd like to

move to approve this if it's -- nobody else has any


In Case Number 02-026, I move to

approve the variance requested by moving the

previously approved sign to the north facade and to

erect the new directional sign where proposed.


MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a

second. Any discussion?





MEMBER GRAY: Yeah, proper


identification and direction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So noted. Any


(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MR. STOEPKER: The planning

commissioners do want to know where the leaper is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: See the Building

Department for your permits.

MR. STOEPKER: Thank you very much.


MR. CHAIRMAN: 02-027,

Mr. Tanielian. This gentleman is from


1280 East Lake Drive. He's got some variance

requests for new construction.

Gentlemen, you both want to give us

your names and right your right hand and be sworn

by Mr. Bauer.

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 02-027?


MEMBER BAUER: Would you state your

name, please.

MR. TANIELIAN: Richard Tanielian,

1330 Rob Lane, Milford, Michigan.

MR. BROWN: Mike Brown,

13312 Daleview Court, South Lyon, Michigan.


MR. BROWN: Well, the reason we're

here, as I'm sure most of you already know, that

the property along East Lakeshore Drive -- excuse

me, East Lake Drive, the property is very narrow,

and if we were to follow the required setbacks that

are currently posted against this property, we'd

only be allowed to build a ten-foot wide home,

which would, obviously, look rather unusual.

What we're here to do is request that


a ten foot -- excuse me, a fifteen total setback

requirement be granted to this property so that we

can construct a twenty-five foot wide home.

Rick was here a year-and-a-half ago

requesting the same information and was granted

that at that time. Obviously, we understand that

there is only a six-month grace period, so that's

why we're here again, to request the same


MR. CHAIRMAN: Nothing's changed

other than you ran out of your six months?

MR. BROWN: Correct. Financing and

such wasn't available at the time, and that's why

it expired.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If I'm not mistaken,

the biggest issue we had was providing a driveway

or access to one of the lots?

MR. BROWN: Right, and there's-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Are the

conditions the same as what we had six months ago?

MR. BROWN: They're the same, and

we're presently working to remove the undesirable

garage that's on the property, and that's -- we've

actually also already worked with an architect. I


don't know if you're interested, but we do have

architectural plans for the house that we propose

hopefully to build on this home -- or, excuse me,

on this property, and we're definitely moving



MEMBER BAUER: Can I ask a question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to get

there in a second, Jerry.

Twenty-nine notices sent; no

objections, no approval.

Anybody in the audience? Sir, come

on down. If you'd give us your name and address,


MR. ANDREWS: Robert Andrews,

1262 East Lake Drive. I -- my property is just

north of the property in question, and I objected

the last time that this request was asked for.

I believe that the setbacks asked for

are -- I do believe that they should have a setback

because, of course, the lot is too small to build

on the way it sits, and those variances that the

City has right now are, you know -- they could not

build and they should be able to build, but I do


believe that what they're asking for is a tad

excessive, and I do have some concerns about -- we

do live in a -- we don't have much elbow room in

the area right now, and the most room we can get is

always appreciated. And that's it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Building


MR. SAVEN: If it's the Board's wish

to approve this -- grant this variance, I would ask

that, once again, that the petition -- based upon

the garage being demolished, and also just point

out that the house is twenty-five foot wide and you

have five foot on each side.

MR. TANIELIAN: The garage is gone.

MR. SAVEN: Thank you, sir.

MR. BROWN: Novi -- or East Lake

Drive looks a lot better.

MR. SAVEN: I'm sure it does.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members?

MEMBER REINKE: Well, the whole area

is a problem, with the lots. If you could go out

there and put a stretcher in between and add ten


foot to everybody's lot everybody would be happy

and we'd have all kind of space that we needed. We

can't do that.

What the gentleman has proposed is

what we have really tried to work with with each

lot in the area of going no closer than five foot

on either side so that we've got at least an

average of usually ten foot spacing between the

homes up there.

I don't think they can build much

different than that. The petitioner got rid of the

garage, which is a great asset and helped the area,

and I can support the petitioner's request because

of the lot size.


MEMBER GRAY: Well, I have a problem

with this. You own both lot seven and lot eight?

MR. TANIELIAN: I have sold lot


MEMBER GRAY: You've sold lot eight.

Okay. When you -- that answers that question.

When you build this house on lot seven and you have

taken down this garage, do you plan to live in this



MR. TANIELIAN: No, I don't.

MEMBER GRAY: You don't, okay. It's

still a giant step in the right direction because

it eliminates one of the illegal multiples in the area.

Personally, I'd like to see them all gone, but

that's one step at a time.

I'm not real happy with the five

feet, but it is a narrower lot so I would not have

as much a problem. I'm just not happy with five


How far is the house on lot eight

from the property line?

MR. TANIELIAN: Three or four feet.

MEMBER GRAY: Three or four feet?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anyone recall

what the fire requires between houses? If we grant

this one we only have nine. Let's hold that


MEMBER GRAY: I think you have to

have fire proofing and no windows if it's three or

less, so that's -- but this is new on this one.

This is a hard one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is a hard one.

This is a -- I mean, even with the variances you're


looking at a house that's 25 feet wide. It's a

piece of property to deal with.

MR. BROWN: We have a set of plans to

give you an idea of what the house -- if that's of

interest to the Board. I don't know.

MEMBER REINKE: It isn't going to

change the footprint. The footprint is what we're

dealing with.

MR. BROWN: Right, I understand that.

MEMBER REINKE: This is what we have

to address. And looking at the house, whether it's

one shape or another is not going to change the


MR. BROWN: Right.

MEMBER GRAY: I live in a house

that's twenty feet wide on a forty foot lot, and

it's not horrible. I mean, there's a lot of ways

to be creative with what you're doing and add some

architectural interest and do things with open

space, so it's not the end of the world to have a

twenty foot wide house, and I've got a forty foot

lot. This is a thirty-five foot lot.

We've seen them come in and we've

given variances on thirty foot lots, too, but they


haven't -- I mean, I don't know that we've seen

anything five and five, especially so close to

another house.

MR. BROWN: Well, there's -- the

house two lots to the south, that same -- it's a

thirty-seven foot wide lot, and that was granted.

MEMBER GRAY: It's two foot wider.

MR. BROWN: But it's still a five

foot setback on each side.


MEMBER FANNON: I'd like to wait

until Don gets back.


MEMBER FANNON: Says here, 2000,

that Don said I don't -- somebody asked this

question, what does the fire department usually

like between houses, and Don said I don't know

about the fire department but the Building

Department has a minimum of five foot of fire

separation on each side, which this won't meet if

your measurements are right.

MEMBER GRAY: It will meet five on

each side.

MEMBER REINKE: Five on each side.


That's what he's proposing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Five on each side for

a total of ten is -- wouldn't that be -- he's got

no control over that.

MEMBER REINKE: He's got no control

over that. He's looking at five on each side of


MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Right.

MEMBER REINKE: -which is what Don's

addressing there.

MR. SCHULTZ: I guess from the

Board's perspective tonight, you're looking at what

the zoning ordinance requirements are. When he

comes in for a building permit, he's going to have

to meet whatever the standards for one- and

two-family homes are, whether it's ten feet.

Now we have the person who can tell

you what that-

MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Ten to

fifteen for new construction.

MR. SCHULTZ: But if he doesn't meet

that, then there's a separate board he goes before

to get that, if he needs it. And maybe Don can

address that.


MEMBER FANNON: See if you can

remember what this says, especially what is Bauer's

question to you, that -- right in the middle of

that page. That was from the case a couple years

ago where -- about fire protection.

MR. SAVEN: Okay. Fire -- what it's

dealing with is the exterior wall construction,

fire rating. The closer you get to the property

line the more fire protection is needed. Under the

new -- the current building code requires three

foot requirement now. Used to be five feet but now

it's lenient.

But still, in all, depending on how

many openings there are on that wall, certain hour

waiting needs to be met. So more openings in the

wall, more protection is necessary.

MEMBER GRAY: So rather than have a

house that's 25 feet wide with virtually no windows

on either side-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) That

probably would be what you're looking at.

MEMBER GRAY: Is probably what you're

looking at, so maybe what we need to see is maybe a

narrower house proposed.


MR. SAVEN: Very possible.

MR. BROWN: Well, I have a problem

with that. The determination of how many windows

go on the side of the house is not for this Board

or for us to decide. It's for the homeowner to

decide, and the Building Department.

If we are granted the five feet on

each side, then we have to take it to the next step

and make sure that we do meet the requirements of

the Building and fire department, so there's

obviously ways to achieve fire rated wall systems.

MR. SAVEN: I understand what you're

saying, but what the Board's looking at is, not

only from a zoning standpoint, even practicality,

but also from a safety standpoint to make sure our

residents are taken care of no matter who they are.

Okay. They're basically saying they're looking at

that as a guideline for fire protection as far as

how close the building gets to the property line.

MR. BROWN: I -- how is safety an

issue here then? I'm confused.

MR. SAVEN: It's the rating of the

exterior wall.

MR. BROWN: Right. But I mean, we


can -- worst case scenario you require a two hour

rated wall system, I -- it can be achieved.

MR. SAVEN: Okay. I understand what

you're saying, but I'm telling you that the Board

is looking at it from a standpoint of view what is

necessary to try to achieve the best result as far

as safety is concerned.

MR. BROWN: Okay.

MEMBER GRAY: I can't support a five

foot setback on either side. I could probably go

with seven-and-a-half on either side, but that's

not my call.

Thank you.


MEMBER BAUER: Is this going to be

built for rental?


MEMBER BAUER: You have a buyer for


MR. BROWN: Yes, sir.

MEMBER BAUER: So -- since he's

buying --

MR. BROWN: And he's here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, as I recall, and


I read the minutes from the earlier time this

gentleman was before us, and our biggest concern at

this time was this parking on the -- or access

parking to the lot eight, and that's not before us.

So now we're back with an adjoining property owner

and new construction, and I'm a bit compelled to

agree with Sarah, that we should seek to get a

little bit -- a little bit wider -- or narrower

home in order to give some relief to the existing

homeowner next door, given it's new construction.

MEMBER GRAY: Both homeowners on

either side.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Other board members,


MEMBER REINKE: Well, it would be

ideal to have something narrower. There's no

mention to it.

MEMBER GRAY: Make I suggest that

maybe we ask the petitioner to speak to the buyer

and come back to this case after another month, as

we've done in the past, rather than try to come to

a consensus that-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) That's

on option for you guys. If you want to take a


little break and review the possibilities of

narrowing this up a little and we'll take another

case and then call you back after you've had a

chance to discuss it.

MR. BROWN: Well -- right. This is

lots that were plotted back in 1940s, and we all

know that. I understand that. This is the

narrowest of all the lots on this section of

property within Novi that's on that lake. It's

thirty-five feet. There's obviously property

that's been granted that's wider. At those other

properties in the last few years you've granted the

five foot setback as a minimum. We have the

smallest lot, restricting us to the smallest

envelope in width, and now you're going to retrain

it even more versus where you've allowed other

people with wider lots the ability to make their

home wider.

I think twenty-five foot width of a

house is actually a very narrow home, and to make

it twenty would be even less desireable.

So I don't think the homeowner would

be really excited about having to narrow it up an

additional five feet.


MEMBER BAUER: We can vote on it now.

MEMBER FANNON: I was trying to think

that if this wasn't new construction and the house

was already there and we go through, it's not going

out of the building envelope-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) It's an


MEMBER FANNON: -it's going straight

up, that we-

MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) Well,

you have -- you can't --

MEMBER FANNON: I'm just going

through my mind.

MEMBER REINKE: Yeah, I understand

your point, and I think maybe just to kind of help

the whole situation, and maybe kind of help the

Board evaluate it, it might be a possibility of

really a constraint for both of us -- all of us to

relook -- revisit this situation, table it to next

month, you look at different possible solutions to

get closer to what we want, and we, you know, kind

of revisit the whole area and the whole situation

again and try to really give it a total evaluation

of the lot situation, the configuration and


everything that's there.

MR. TANIELIAN: Nobody went out this

time to review the property?

MEMBER REINKE: Oh, we went out.

MEMBER GRAY: We went out.

MEMBER REINKE: We went by. But I

mean, we're trying to really --

MEMBER GRAY: If there had been a

house on this property that was being changed, our

position would probably be different. There are

smaller lots on East Lake Drive that have been

built. There was a 30 foot lot on East Lake Drive

that was just built recently. There are odd shaped

little lots all around the lake -- on the lake with

lovely little houses on them that people have

gotten very creative, and this was also new

construction where we had to basically say, you

know, ideally setbacks are going to be 15 feet with

new construction. Practically, it doesn't make

sense because of the lots, and I live on one of

those lots, so I know what you're up against, but

this is new construction and it's the difference

between night and day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. I think


you've got a gist from just about everyone who's

made comments here. You've got a couple options.

You can look at refiguring this, trying to get --

trying to get some width out of that house. You

can take a recommendation and talk to your

potential buyer, or you can have us vote on this as

it is presented tonight.

Again, you need four yays.

MEMBER GRAY: I would also like to

suggest that you talk to the neighbors on both

sides and see what's the most workable for them,


MR. BROWN: The neighbor to the south

is already in agreement to the situation.


MR. BROWN: We have it in --


MEMBER GRAY: You have other

neighbors around, too, so --

MR. TANIELIAN: Can we skip a turn

here, talk to our client and come back?





MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's go ahead and

call the next case, Vans Skatepark, 02-028.

Sir, you want to give us your name

and raise your right hand and be sworn by

Mr. Bauer?

MR. LEADERS (ph): John Leaders.

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 02-028?


MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

Please, go ahead.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You got the floor,


MR. PRIEUR: Vans Skatepark is asking

for a variance for the second sign to be located on

the west side of the new Fountain Walk Square. The

proposed sign is two hundred and four square feet

versus the forty square feet, and the reason for

the request is for lack of identification on that

side of the building. That side of Vans Skatepark,

the building is about three hundred feet long, and

it is the only one on that side that has an

entrance on the west side.


I drove along the -- Twelve Mile from

the west, and until you get to the first traffic

light west of the square -- of the development, all

you can see is the very top of the building, given

the existing landscaping. And when you get to the

traffic light you're really hard-pressed to see

even a sign of that size, two hundred and four

square feet.

The mockup is on the south elevation

right now. You've had a chance to see it. And

given the size of the building, it really looks

quite -- for lack of a better word, I'd say puny,

even that size, let alone what a forty square foot

one would be, so for that reason the company would

-- has requested this variance for the particular


MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were 19

notices sent; no approvals, no objections.

Anyone in the audience?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: I have no objection, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? I'll

point out that when I went and looked at it Monday,


most of it was down, the wind had ripped it off, so

I couldn't get a real good perspective of what you

had proposed.

MR. LEADERS: It is up now again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other comments

from Board members?

(Inaudible discussion is held.)

MS. MARCHIONI: Great Indoors.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's the one facing

Novi Road was smaller of the -- right. I forgot

what sign that was.

(Inaudible discussion is held.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Very similar.

MEMBER FANNON: How long is this

building again at that point?

MR. LEADERS: I stepped it off. It's

95 steps for me, so almost 300 feet from corner to


MEMBER BAUER: Excuse me? Three

hundred feet from where?

MR. PRIEUR: From the north to the

south end of the building.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's the only sign

that's going to be on that wall?


MR. PRIEUR: Well, it looks like it,

sir. Well, I take that back. For Vans Skatepark,

yes. It is the only entrance to the building on

that side of the building, even on the north roads.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It was a little

difficult to navigate back in there. It's a bit of

a maze.

MEMBER FANNON: Just seems that that

square footage seems to be reasonable in

relationship to this whole 300 feet, knowing that

there is no other entrances-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) No

other signs.

MEMBER FANNON: No other signs would

be coming in saying I need to get in here.

MEMBER GRAY: He said on that side.

What's going to happen with the south, where the

mockup is?

MR. LEADERS: The south has one. I

don't think that was an issue, is it?

MR. SAVEN: The ones that are facing

internally were not governed by our ordinance.

MEMBER BAUER: Just the outside ones.

MR. SAVEN: Just the exterior facing



MEMBER GRAY: Unless it can be seen

by -- from a?

MR. SAVEN Twenty-five foot -- within

twenty-five foot of the edge.

MEMBER GRAY: Because if the mockup

over the south door that -- was there, if that sign

is going to be the same, and that's clearly visible

from Cabaret Drive on the south entrance.

MR. SAVEN: Okay.

MEMBER GRAY: So I realize that we

kind of -- you know, we had a discussion about

internal signs, but what he's saying is this is the

only sign facing the west.

MR. SAVEN: That's what we're looking

at tonight.

MEMBER GRAY: I realize that's what

we're discussing, so if it's going to be a sign in

the same place facing internal, I might not be as

inclined on the west, the point I want to get to.

Because there are going to be all the

directional signs and there's going to be the signs

in the front with the name on them, too, so --

MEMBER FANNON: If the sign on the


south is able to be seen, it wouldn't qualify for

the internal. It would have to be coming-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) The

qualification for the internal sign was based on a

dimension which we arrived at, and I believe it was

25 feet from the exterior wall sign, so if that

sign is anywhere within that area, that's going to

be something we should be considering as part of

the ordinance consideration.

We needed to start with something.

We needed a line drawn in the sand. That's

basically what we chose.

MEMBER FANNON: So I think the

question is whether that south sign is an external

sign or not. I mean, it isn't, but --

MR. SAVEN: I really can't -- I

really can't answer that question, other than the

fact if we're looking at a dimension, it's probably

something that doesn't qualify for a sign.

I'll check this with Allen, find out

where we're at with this thing, and I'll probably

be investigating this even more, but I think

(inaudible) act on the sign as what was presented



MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions, comments,


MEMBER FANNON: I don't want to

belabor this, but just so I understand, we're only

looking at the west side. It has nothing to do

with the south side, even though the mockup is over

there, because that will be a separate issue and

will either qualify or not, and if it doesn't they

have to come in here and ask for it. Is that what

we're doing?


MEMBER FANNON: So we don't have to

think about the south side, it's just up there to

show us kind of what this looks like?

MEMBER REINKE: Yes. Is that a


MEMBER FANNON: That's a motion,

because I think this sign is big enough on this

side, so I would make a motion to approve the

variance as requested due to the size of the

building on that side and for identification to

Vans Skatepark from the west.


MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion. Was


that a second, Jerry?



MR. CHAIRMAN: And support. Any

discussion on the motion?

(No further discussion.)


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MR. CHAIRMAN: You have a variance.

See the-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Just a

point of clarity, Mr. Chairman. I want to make

sure that this is addressing the west side sign-

MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing) Only.

MR. SAVEN: -only.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Correct.

MR. SAVEN: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Even though the mockup

was on the south side.

MR. LEADERS: It was there because

the wall was already on the west side.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Let's take one

more case before break.


MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll call the Curtis

case, 02-029, William Richard.

MR. CURTIS: Yeah. William Richard

Curtis at 101 Penhill Street.

MEMBER BAUER: Would you raise your

right hand?

Do you solemnly swear or affirm to

tell the truth regarding Case 02-029?


MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

MR. CURTIS: Okay. Well, we'll start

out, two years ago when I was here because my

builder didn't buy the building permit, so we had

to come back again, and then I added a deck then,


which was smaller than what I got -- I'm proposing

now, only because I had a set of plans and I didn't

know how big the house -- where the windows were.

So now I'm asking to put up a little larger deck.

There's a little bit difference in the variance but

not a lot.

My old original porch stuck out even

farther than my new proposal, and it's going to be

probably made out of cedar wood with railings.

That's about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were

forty-eight notices sent. We got two approvals, no


Anyone in the audience wish to

comment on this case?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. State your name

and address, please.

MR. KUHN: Ronald Kuhn,

2012 West Lake. Being a neighbor of his, and when

he first started the project several years ago I

was rather apprehensive about what he was building,

although he has built a very nice place, very

tasteful, and if he's going to continue this line

of building it's going -- whatever it is he's going


to build will be very nice. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else in the


(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, this is

dealing basically with open unenclosed porch,



MR. SAVEN: Where the porch is going

to be projecting into the front yard. He does have

several front yards.

The other issue I have been informed

through the ordinance division that there is a

certain ongoing issue about both the utility -- or

the trailer that's on the property.

MR. CURTIS: That will all be gone by

this week.

MR. SAVEN: Okay. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members?

MEMBER GRAY: Well, Mr. Chairman,

this is -- this is a -- the house that's been

built, I believe that the original house was torn



MR. CURTIS: Yeah. It's the same

place where the garage was-

MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Yeah.

MR. CURTIS: -which you see now, the

same offsets.

MEMBER GRAY: The house itself is a

major improvement, and you've done a nice job on

it. Unfortunately, living on a corner you have two

front yards, and-

MR. CURTIS: (Interposing) I found

that out.

MEMBER GRAY: -if you look in the

picture that the ordinance department -- or those

of you who went out there, there's a survey across

the street for another case we're going to be

getting probably next month, and -- to the road.

The road right of way on this --on West Lake Drive

is 30 feet, and these stones are roughly right on

the property line within -- just a little bit.

Having a porch, a deck, that close to

the property line, that close to the road, is a

major concern. At the northeast corner of the

house it's only 18.22 feet off the property line,

and the variance Mr. Curtis is asking for is to be


two feet -- basically two feet off the property

line at the north end of the deck, and then a

straight line, so it would be wider from the road

-- the distance from the road would be wider at the

south end of the deck than it would at the north

end. It's only going to be two feet off the

property line, according to-

MR. CURTIS: (Interposing) Well, not

the property line. That would be the setback line

that was granted.

MEMBER GRAY: The setback line?

MR. CURTIS: Yeah. That's what you

see, where that dotted line is for the beginning of

the garage. The property line would be where the

rocks are and the silk fence was originally.

MEMBER GRAY: No, I understand that.


MEMBER GRAY: I understand that. If

you were more -- you're closer than -- maybe I

wasn't reading it right then. It's going to be

closer than four feet. How close is it going to be

from the road?

MR. CURTIS: Plus -- I think it's 13

point something on the drawing there.


MEMBER GRAY: At the north corner?


MEMBER GRAY: The northeast corner?


MEMBER GRAY: I see. I'm sorry.


thirteen-and-a-half feet.

MR. CURTIS: Originally, my old one

was about ten feet off the road, you know, before

we tore the house down, and the drive -- the

walkway went out into the street, so that's all

been removed since then. I've been waiting to-

MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) I had

not seen this, I'm sorry, even though I went

through my packet. I was out there. I talked to

your wife.

MR. CURTIS: Yeah. I tried to make

the drawing to show a rough idea what -- originally

the smaller 14 foot that I was granted, when you

put any kind of a table and chairs and the door

opens I didn't realize how small it was. I didn't

know where the windows were, so that's why this

newer porch is a little longer and a little wider,

so you have a little more room.


MEMBER GRAY: I'm much more

comfortable with this. I'm sorry. I honestly did

not see the second sketch in here. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a tough piece

of property to work with.


MR. CHAIRMAN: It narrows down on the

north end, you've got two streets you're abutting.

I can certainly see the need and desire to have --

this is a relatively small deck. I think he's

doing a lot with what he's got to work with. I

guess I'd be a little bit more concerned if there

was a lot of people in the front row throwing a

fit, but his immediate neighbors seem to think it's

a nice addition.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.

MEMBER REINKE: I -- also, as

Miss Gray pointed out, with the tapered back that

he has on that, it really kind of follows along the

road edge so you don't have a point going out that

much closer.

I think the petitioner's tried to do

everything he could to accommodate keeping it back


as far as possible but yet giving himself some room

to be able to turn around.

MR. CURTIS: I tapered both ends so

that it would look more uniform rather than having

one squared at the other side.

MEMBER REINKE: Thank you. You did a

nice job.

Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-029 I move

that petitioner's variance request be granted due

to a corner lot and lot size configuration.


MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a

second. Any discussion?

(No further discussion.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?



MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got your

variance. See the Building Department.

MR. CURTIS: Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's take about a

five minute break. We'll be back at nine o'clock


(A short recess was taken.)


MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to recall

the Tanielian case. For the record, it's 02-027.

Were you guys able to work out


MR. BROWN: Yes. To be quite honest,

we're actually surprised at the resistance we're

receiving from the Board with this particular


I've never used this before, but can


MS. MARCHIONI: (Interposing) Yes.

MR. BROWN: This is something -- it's

the survey that I think all of you received a copy

of. And Rick misspoke. The house that's to the


south that he had said was three feet off the

property line you can see is actually, at its

closest point, at 4.4.

The homeowner to the north that just

recently walked up here, who's asking for some

variance on his -- less for us so that he has more

room, you guys granted him a variance of five feet,

which actually encroached a little bit on the


MR. ANDREWS: That's not true. It's

not five feet, it's six feet.

MR. BROWN: Okay. Well, at any rate,

he was -- received a variance as well, and we also

know that there's other projects, new construction,

in Novi that have been granted a five foot

variance, and we're surprised that this particular

property is receiving such resistance towards it,

so we would prefer to have you vote on it and be as

gracious to us as you've been to the other

properties in the past.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board members,

any discussion or motions? Petitioner has asked


MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) I'm


going to say this, that, you know, the Board tries

to work with each petition, and I'm not too pleased

with the attitude that the petitioner is presenting

us with.

MEMBER BAUER: I agree with you.

MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair, in the

matter of Case 02-027, I would move to deny the

petitioner's request for the variances requested.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Want to give us a

reason as well?

MEMBER GRAY: Well, because it is new

construction, and although it is an originally

platted and deeded lot, I don't feel that there is

adequate attempt made to decrease the -- to

decrease the variances at our request.

Is that a legitimate reason?

MR. SCHULTZ: Essentially your

statement is that you believe that petitioner could

explore a lesser variance-

MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Yes.

MR. SCHULTZ: -and might be able to-

MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) It has

not been demonstrated that this house cannot be



MR. SCHULTZ: With a lesser


MEMBER GRAY: With a lesser variance.

MR. SCHULTZ: That's fine.

MEMBER GRAY: Thank you.

MR. SCHULTZ: You're leaving it to

the petitioner, if he chooses, to come back with


MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing)


MR. SCHULTZ: -lesser-

MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing)


MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.

Any further discussion?

(No further discussion.)


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Move to deny, yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?



MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, but your

appeal has been denied.

MR. BROWN: Okay. We'll be in touch.


MR. CHAIRMAN: We will call 02-031.

This is another case of Fountain Walk,

Cinema Hollywood.

Give us your names, gentlemen, and

raise your right hand to be sworn.

MR. SLEMER: My name is Carl Slemer.

My address is P. O. Box 841, Troy, Michigan. Our

-- the theater address is 44425 Twelve Mile Road.

MR. GLANSE: I'm Paul Glanse from

Imagine Entertainment, same address.

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 02-031?


MR. SLEMER: We're requesting a


variance for two wall signs, one on the north and

one on the south side of the theater building to be

located in Fountain Walk. We're requesting it on

the grounds of hardship.

Although a lot of retail venues are

proximity based, where people who go to one

business will, in turn, go to another business.

We're destination specific. If people don't know

where we are, they're going to have a hard time,

and will have a hard time, operating.

The ordinance allows us to have a

ninety-three foot -- ninety-three square foot wall

-- single ninety-three foot -- square foot wall

sign. We're requesting two 361.6 square feet

signs, one on the north, one on the south.

I've got a picture here that shows

the elevation, which -- as you'll see, the banners

that are up there to -- for mockups have a tan

background. They are accurate as to overall size

for the sign.

As you can see, when the signs are on

the north and south, they're rather dwarfed by the

scale of the building.

I'd also like to point out that our


sign on the south side is three hundred sixty --

just a little under three hundred sixty-two feet

while the Great Indoors sign at the south side is

over four hundred square feet.

The only other thing I'd like to

point out is that we're somewhere in excess of a

thousand feet from Twelve Mile Road on the north

side, which, to be visible at all from

Twelve Mile Road, we need a fairly large sign.

MR. GLANSE: I'd simply like to add

that we're establishing a new brand name with this

development. It will be new to the community.

We're striving to develop a first class

entertainment venue at this location, and we

believe that the need to establish name recognition

via signage is imperative to the success of the


MR. CHAIRMAN: That it?

MR. SLEMER: That's it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good. Nineteen

notices sent, no approvals, no objections.

Anyone in the audience wish to


(No response.)


MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, Building


MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members?

While everyone is gathering their thoughts, I give

mine. I didn't seem to have any issue with the

I-96 side sign, which seemed to look relatively

proper on that large wall. The north side sign

though struck me as overwhelming, although I must

admit I wasn't looking at it from Twelve Mile. I

was looking from the parking lot.

MR. SLEMER: Yeah. One thing I will

point out is the north and south -- the width and

height of the north and south sides of the building

are identical, and the signs are identical, and the

walls they're on are identical as well, so -- just

to point that out.

MEMBER GRAY: I looked at it from

Twelve Mile and from Donelson and Cabaret, and all

the other points, and I think -- I really think

that both of the signs, presuming that they're also

going to be lit, so that's going to have them

standing out from -- with the different contrasting

color, I think the signs are too big, quite


frankly, and even though this may be a destination,

when I drove over to the movies over at the

Town Center, their sign is minuscule, other than

the banner with the show -- different shows that

are up, compared to what's being proposed in some

of -- well, in this specific case.

I also drove up to Fourteen and

Haggerty to the theater up there, and I just -- and

that's much farther off Fourteen Mile than this is

off Twelve, so -- I think they're too big. I think

they should be no more than 200 square foot each.

I may not be saying it right. I

don't -- they're -- I think they're too big. I

can't see the size on there.

MR. SLEMER: Well, just again,

although you looked at the size of the sign, the

Great Indoors sign is much larger than ours. And,

in fact, one of the things that makes the sign --

the square footage of our sign a little larger is

the way it's calculated for the ordinance, which is

the bounding box.

If you look, there's a magic wand

with stars above the name and a small tag line

below, which is very small. Those significantly


increase the area of the sign. The main letters

are less than -- if you took just the main letters

of the sign-

MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) That's

true, but that is how we measure the signs-

MR. SLEMER: (Interposing) Yes, I do

understand that.

MEMBER GRAY: -in all cases, so --

you know, I mean, this ten by six by thirty-four,

five-and-a-quarter is three hundred fifty-six and

change for each sign, and I just think it's too


MEMBER FANNON: How long is this

building on the north and south?

Do you know the measurement of the


MR. SLEMER: It's approximately 270


MEMBER FANNON: So -- maybe you just

sat here earlier. It was 300 feet I think, and it

was a 200 square foot sign. It seems to really

kind of fit right into the size.

MR. SLEMER: I will -- also, off of

96, we're almost a thousand feet off of 96 as well.


The -- I think it's 900 some feet to the -- I'm

estimating that we're 900 some feet I think to the

edge of the property and detention pond, and then

the road right-of-way is significantly larger as


The Vans area should be -- the Vans

building should be somewhere in the vicinity of 400

feet off of Cabaret Drive, which is the road to the

west of that, if that makes any difference.

MEMBER GRAY: Most people, when

they're going somewhere these days -- I know I

certainly do this quite often, but most people,

when they want specific directions to go somewhere

usually get on the Internet and find out exactly

where they're going. There are a lot of people who

don't do that I realize, but for destination --

plus the fact that there will be people calling to

get directions, the other signs in the area, the

directional signs in the area, I think that's -- as

Mr. Fannon said, I think a 200 square foot sign on

each facade is pretty fair.

MEMBER REINKE: I'm trying to look at

it from -- excuse me, Mr. Brennan. I'm trying to

look at it from all angles, and I really -- if


you're planning on reading it at seventy miles an

hour going down the expressway, yeah, it's a good

job, but a guy going seventy miles down the

expressway isn't looking for your show in the first


I think that -- and Brian and

Miss Gray had mentioned that two hundred square

feet is adequate, especially with it being lit and

everything, it's going to show up and going to show

up very well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anything?


MEMBER FANNON: I was just wondering

if you can go back to the drawing board and try to

come up with something a little smaller.

How important is it to say "The Magic

of Movies and More"?

How much does that create in the

measurement, do you know?

MR. SLEMER: For us, we thought it

was important since Imagine is a name that no one

recognizes at this point as a movie theater, and

without that, people driving down 96 would see

Imagine and they wouldn't know if that's a soft


goods store or a, you know, a bowling alley, so for

us we thought it was important for them to


MEMBER FANNON: They could sort of

imagine what it is.

MR. SLEMER: Yeah, correct.

MEMBER FANNON: It's a little joke.

I'm trying to bring a little humor here because I

know you guys are all upset.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It looks like there's

about -- to have your wand and your stars, that's

about a seventy square foot penalty just for that,

if I take this measurement as being close,

thirty-five feet long by approximately two foot

high. So that's of your own design, seventy feet

of it.

MEMBER GRAY: I could see more

keeping the stars and the wand than The Magic of

Movies and More, but I think some -- something's

got to give on here.

MR. SLEMER: Would it be looked at

more favorably if we reduced the size of the sign

on the north side, so at least from 96 it would be

visible from 96, down to a 200 foot sign on the


north side? At least there the people would

already be driving in the center and be able to see

it, but from 96 we'd like to have people be able to

see that it's a movie theater.

MEMBER BAUER: You know, may I make

an observation?


MEMBER BAUER: When we go to -- my

wife and I, or anyone that I know of, when we want

to go see a movie, we look it up in the paper and

see where it is, then we go there. Signs don't

make any difference, just to know where it is,

that's the show I want to go to to see that

particular movie.

So I think they're -- they're too

large. I think 200 on both sides would be enough.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Lavern, you had a


MEMBER REINKE: When are you planning

on opening?

MR. SLEMER: I'm sorry, pardon?

MEMBER REINKE: When are you planning

on opening?

MR. SLEMER: Hopefully August.


MEMBER REINKE: How much lead time do

you have to have to order your sign?

MR. GLANSE: Like now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you can read

where the Board is going here. Again, as you've

heard with other cases, you've got a couple options

here. You can look at revisiting this, trying to

shrink it down -- because I don't think there was

lot of sentiment, certainly not four votes for what

you've proposed. There's a lot of sentiment to get

it reduced to something closer to two hundred, and

if there's a -- if you'd like to take a look at

that --

MR. GLANSE: With all due respect,

I'll follow on Carl's comment. It might be looked

upon more favorably if we could preserve the size

of the sign facing 96 and go down to a hundred and

fifty square feet on the north facing wall.

And we think it's critically

important that we achieve recognition in the trade

area in order for the business to prosper. We

think that we have an important responsibility as

an anchor tenant of this development to assist in

that process.


MR. SLEMER: Just -- again, we're --

this is just to tell you how we feel how important

the sign on 96 is for us to be visible. And,

again, we tried to reduce it some from what the

Great Indoors size was, just their 406 or 407

square feet in recognition. In fact, we didn't

think all of that was necessary, but to be visible

we thought we needed a fairly large sign on the 96


MR. CHAIRMAN: Isn't the

Great Indoors a substantially larger building


MR. SLEMER: Actually, the length of

the building -- the square footage of the building

is significantly larger, the -- because it's two

stories, but the width of the building is

approximately the same, or a little less. I think

it's 250 feet, 252 feet wide.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But as far as its

place in the landscape, it's twice the size of what

your property is, because it's two stories,


MR. SAVEN: Just the basic.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what I'm


talking about.

MR. SAVEN: Two stories.

MEMBER GRAY: What they're proposing,

if they want two signs at three sixty-one each,

that's a total of seven hundred and twenty-two

square feet of signage, versus what we're saying

we'd like to see, around four hundred.

Now they say if they do the

three hundred and sixty-one square foot sign on the

south facing the expressway and a hundred and fifty

square foot on the north, that's down to five

hundred eleven, so we're ahead two hundred eleven

square feet; however, I think it's more important

to have the bigger sign on the north than it is the

south because the freeway traffic is not going to

be looking at the sign, be that as it may.

MEMBER REINKE: I understand, and I

think the figure -- and I think you're right in

line, but my thoughts are, 400 square feet -- I

just throw this out because I guess we're playing

kind of a -- trying to find a mutual ground here

between this and everything.

A thought I have that I'm just

throwing out for your consideration, since you seem


to feel that the 96 sign size is more important

than Twelve Mile -- am I correct?


MEMBER REINKE: Thought I have in

looking in lines of what we're looking at would be

a two hundred forty square foot sign on the 96

side, a hundred and sixty square foot on the

Twelve Mile side, be a total of four hundred square

feet between the two signs.

MR. SLEMER: At this point I would

say that's much better than no signs, and I would

like that very much. I am just slightly concerned

that, again, we may not have a sign very visible

from 96.

It -- is there a way to adjust that

even more in the other direction and go, say, to

three hundred on the south side and a hundred on

the north? At least we'd get enough sign so it

would be visible from 96.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Why do you think that

the -- 96 is going to be more important than

Twelve Mile?

MR. GLANSE: Because your major

traffic count is on-


MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) But

they can only get to your store when they're

heading east.

MEMBER GRAY: Unless they get off of-

MR. SLEMER: (Interposing) Yeah, but

they're --

MEMBER GRAY: And they're at-

MR. SLEMER: (Interposing) You have

to understand-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) No.

Follow my train of thought here. They can only --

they can only access your store by exiting

eastbound because currently there is no exit --

well, yes, there is. They could get off at Beck.

MR. SLEMER: One of the things that a

lot of people do is they see a location or a store

and decide they're going to go there. Not --

without having visibility, the traffic counts and

the people that will go by on 96, just knowing that

we're there will make a huge difference for us.

I can relate an experience we had

with our facility in Birch Run. We opened very,

very poorly initially, and we were trying to figure

out what the problem was, and Paul here went to


shopping centers in the community surrounding the

theater, gave out coupons for free popcorn and pop

to try and get people to come into the facility,

and the first question he would ask is, do you

know -- have you been to the new theater; oh, we

heard about it, you know, is it opening soon. They

didn't even know we were there or open.

We opened without our sign there.

The sign is visible from I-75, but without people

knowing that we're there, it's very easy for people

to just not pay any attention to it.

When you look for a movie do you look

for new theaters when you look through the-

MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing) No. I

look for the picture.

MR. SLEMER: You look for the

picture, okay.

MR. GLANSE: The criticality of the

sign facing I-96 is rooted in consumer psychology.

If you see something, you see it consistently,

it then -- you're then able to recall it when

you're looking in the movie guide to discern where

you're going to the show. And with the substantial

traffic along 96, we think it's -- it's critically


important to the success of the business that we

have adequate identification, signage, so the

folks, in fact, will think about Imagine when

they're thinking about going to the show.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Bauer

wanted you to get somewhere closer to 400 square

feet. You've got to 400 square feet with a mix of

300 and 100. That's what's on the table.

MR. SLEMER: We had the privilege of

-- hearing earlier about working with the Board,

and we've proposed, I think, 720, and you've

proposed 400, and we thought that 500 compromise

was a very fine way to demonstrate our desire to

work with you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: However, what's

permitted is a hundred and eighty, so if you want

-- let's start at a hundred and eighty and see

where we've come.

MEMBER GRAY: I didn't say I was

happy with that.

MR. SLEMER: I don't want to argue

with you on that point, but I will tell you that

not even a hundred and eighty is permitted, so --

ninety-one is permitted, so -- I will point that



MR. GLANSE: And we very much

appreciate your consideration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board members,

movement by the petitioner to get closer to what

we're looking for, this strong sentiment on their

case that they need the additional square footage

on the 96 side.


MEMBER REINKE: Well -- okay. You're

saying 300 and 100?

MR. SLEMER: 300/100.

MEMBER REINKE: That's 400 square

feet for me. I don't like the big sign, but if

they're going to stick it someplace, stick it on

the expressway. I don't have to look at it from

Twelve Mile.

MEMBER GRAY: Is that a motion?

MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in

Case Number 02-031, I move that the variance be

granted for a 300 square foot sign on the south

elevation and a 100 square foot sign on the north

elevation for business identification.



MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.

Any discussion?

(No further discussion.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?


MR. SLEMER: Thank you very much.

MR. GLANSE: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you've got

a revised variance. See the Building Department

for your permits.

MR. SLEMER: Thank you very much.

MEMBER REINKE: Have a nice evening.



MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case is 02-032

filed by Emanuel Malles the second, with respect to

property at 135 North Haven.

MR. MALLES: Correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to raise

your hand and be sworn?

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

to tell the truth, or affirm, on Case Number


MR. MALLES: Yes, I do.

MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. Please go


MR. MALLES: I'm requesting a

variance on the north side, which is 13 feet.

Do I just keep going?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. We know what

the variance requests are.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Just tell us a little

bit about the property, why you need this.

MR. MALLES: I've got more stuff

going in around me that's worth a whole lot more

than mine. I have to update so to speak,


especially now that they're tearing the northwest

side of the North Haven Woods, and what's the other

one, Summersville or something like -- Summer



MR. MALLES: Summerling. 4 and

$500,000 houses going in there, I figure I better


MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Well,

we've got some questions we'll ask you.

There were thirty-seven notices sent,

and, sir, you have three letters came back that

were very -- approval.

MR. MALLES: I have one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have another one


MR. MALLES: Yeah. Would you like


MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. You have

Charlotte Asam (ph), Michelle Wood, and another one

here, Gary Gratsville.

MR. MALLES: Gratsaw (ph).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. It's my -- do

we have any -- anybody in the audience have any


input into this case?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: Chairman of the Board,

you'll note that the addition -- there's two

proposed additions that are looked at as far as the

building is concerned. You're looking at basically

staying within the parameters of the building.

You're not increasing, going any farther into that

nonconformance. He was staying in line with that,


MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) Well,

it's just --

MR. SAVEN: And the other issue is

that he is within six foot of the existing garage

which was there, which requires ten foot setback.

That's what he's here for.

I worked with Mr. Emanuel in terms of

this particular project, and I think he understands

very well what the concerns are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members?

MEMBER REINKE: Okay. The addition

-- the ten by sixteen addition on the home is

basically just squaring the house off.


MR. MALLES: Correct.

MEMBER REINKE: It's really not going

further in any direction as far as an encroachment.

MR. MALLES: You're correct.

MEMBER REINKE: The new ten by thirty

addition, the only problem is he's going six foot

into the garage. There's not a problem in any

other respect as far as that. I don't have a

problem with what the petitioner is asking to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else?

MEMBER BAUER: Not a problem.


Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-032, I move the that

petitioner's variance request be granted due to

building configurations.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion and supporting.

Any discussion?

(No further discussion.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Sarah?

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?



MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, you've got your

variances. See the Building Department and put all

those nice additions on your house.

MR. MALLES: Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.




MR. CHAIRMAN: Case Number 02-033.

You want to raise your hand to be sworn?

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

to tell the truth in Case 02-033?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.

MR. HARTT: Hi. My name is

Zachrey Hartt, and I'm here -- my company is

One Superior Group.


About ten months ago we -- I

submitted -- I came to the Planning Department here

at the City to submit the drawings you have in

front of you for this front entrance, to renovate

it for better traffic control and security.

The Planning Department directed me

to take my plans to JCK, because -- well, I have

not done any work through the City of Novi, so they

gave me the number for JCK, which I called and JCK

directed me back to the Planning Department and

referred -- and told me that they weren't doing

work at that time for the City for payment problems

with the City of Novi.

So I took this information back to

the Planning Department and they reviewed my plan

and they directed me to Haim Schlick in

right-of-way, said it was a right-of-way issue

because I wasn't doing any existing work to the

actual facility.

So I submitted my plans Haim Schlick,

paid for the right-of-way permit, and three, four

weeks went by and I got approval on everything --

or on my plans and my right-of-way permit.

After approval, I had an additional


condition I had to meet, which pointed out the east

curb, that I needed a ten foot minimum radius for

the curbing, which if I had to keep a ten foot

minimum radius, you could see by the railroad

tracks -- next to the railroad track is a retaining

wall. I couldn't go into that area because it's a

railroad area.

So at this point I went to

Nancy McLain, and she was the point person on my

project, any concerns or any questions, and I

pointed it out to Nancy, and she had told me at

that time I could do my best to make it as big as I

can. And I'm only looking at about a two or three

foot curb.

I asked her the question, I asked

Haim Schlick the question, about is there any other

curbing I have to do because I've been directed out

of Planning to right-of-way, and I was told this

was it.

So my project's basically almost

done. The only thing I need to do now is put my

footings in for my building, for this guard house

that was existing already.

I've got electrical -- three


electrical trench inspections done and approved by

the City. We're ready for final hookup to the

guard shack. I've got -- I had an approval from

Ken Elphinstone in Building to go ahead and pour my

footings, and at this point, when Ken -- I think

it's -- it's Kevin or Ken Roby. He was doing the

final inspection of my plan, and at this point he

found out that I didn't have a site plan approved

by Planning.

So I wrote a letter to Don telling

him basically -- this is the short version, too, of

what happened -- to Don on what happened throughout

the whole process, and they told me I had to come

in front of the Zoning Board in order to get

approval for this variance.

Same thing. Fire didn't look at it.

Nobody looked at it, and it was all approved.

Building approved it, forestry, water and sewer.

We had the water department out there.

And, basically, I'm asking you now

for a variance on this guard house, that was an

existing guard house prior to me asking for this

project to get approved, and we're just moving it

about ten feet further off the east setback. And


-- my plans originally called for twenty-five foot

setback off the right-of-way line.

Prior to this problem with the

electrical, we were doing a final installation of

the conduit throughout the -- through the parking

lot. I came into Nancy McLain and asked her if I

could move the guard house four foot -- four to

seven foot closer to the right-of-way line, which

Nancy, at that time, approved that also. This was

a verbal approval.

Then everything happened with the


Before I got my -- and one last

thing. We met last week with the Planning

Department, Nancy, myself, Don -- Dave I think, and

Planning had said that I shouldn't even have gotten

an electrical permit unless I had a site plan

approved by Beth Brock Well, obviously, everybody

missed my whole project.

And prior to me coming in to do this

project on CVS's behalf, I came in and asked every

question, what I could do to do the proper

permitting. If I needed to come in front of the

Zoning Board ten months ago, I would have done


that, what I'm doing today, to figure out if this

would be granted or not.

Mike Evans from the fire department

approved this design better than moving -- having

the entrance for the trucks right on the fence

line, because right now the semis, when they pull

in -- if you're familiar with the street, the semis

have a tough time pulling into the parking lot as

it is right now. They're running into the fences

that they have, and the barrier posts that have

been installed. It would be even a worse scenario

if they had to pull in with the tight curve that

they are with the railroad track because they would

probably be hanging over the retaining wall because

it's just a -- it's just a tough -- it's just a

tight turn.

So I'm here and -- asking for the

variance on the guard house to be set back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We did have 50 notices

sent. There was an approval and there was an

objection, and I'll hold that objection for a

minute or so.

Anyone in the audience that has input

on this case?


(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, this man

has been through the mill, and I'm serious about

this. He has done everything -- he has done

everything he possibly could. He took every

direction from everybody that he possibly could,

and this case basically fell through the cracks,

and I'm really embarrassed that he has appeared

before us today.

I will indicate to you that he has

made many attempts to try to rectify what he was

supposed to take care of.

And the issue of the setback was

never an issue.

Basically, on his particular project,

he was dealing with issues which were dealing with

right-of-way concerns. Part of the right-of-way

issues are signoffs from various departments. We

recognize that this is now a problem because

people can assume certain things in this particular

-- on this particular job, but in this case the

gentleman has even asked questions to try to take

care of his problem.


And, again, this is dealing with an

accessory structure, and -- I don't know what else

to say other than I'm embarrassed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The one letter that we

do have that was an objection -- without saying

anything about this letter, I have to ask the

question, is there any history of building

citations at this-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) I will

indicate -- building citations with this use? No.


MR. SAVEN: With CVS, yes, but that's

being handled. This is a separate entity than

what's going on right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because the neighbor

is making issue about hours of operation.

MR. SAVEN: That is an issue that's

being handled right now, and it's not part of what

you're supposed to be --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board members,


MEMBER GRAY: Does Nancy have

comments, since she's here?

MS. MCLAIN: I'm here basically to


answer any questions you may have.

MEMBER FANNON: Mr. Chairman, I have

no problems with this. Seems to me like this is

going to improve the traffic flow, will be safer,

it's an accessory building, like Don was saying,

guard house, so I would propose to make a motion,

unless anybody objects, to Case Number 02-033, to

move approval of the variance as requested in order

to improve the traffic flow and the safety of those

that are using this entrance.

MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.

Any discussion?

MEMBER REINKE: Just one brief

comment. It's unfortunate the gentleman tried to

do everything he was supposed to do and ended up in

a circle going around getting -- hopefully things

are rectified in the future.

I'll support the motion. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Sarah, you want

to call the vote?

MR. SAVEN: Can you hang on one

second, please.



MR. SAVEN: May I confer with Tom for

just a second?

(A brief discussion was held off

the record.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything new to add,


MR. SAVEN: Yes. I just conferred

with legal counsel here regarding the process.

Even though he's approved today, he still,

administratively, must go back to the Planning

Department, administrative department, and seek the

approvals through them once -- unless they get

(inaudible). You need to make that a condition of

the approval.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you follow what

needs to be done?

MR. HARTT: I've got nothing -- to


MS. MCLAIN: We can't do it until

they do it.

MR. HARTT: We met last week and it

was upon this, and I don't know --

MR. SCHULTZ: It doesn't affect your



MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you understand what

he's saying? It doesn't affect your motion. We've

got a motion, a second. Any further discussion, if

not, Sarah, call.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MEMBER FANNON: Can I just add, Mr.


Do you know what you need to do now,

is it clear?

MR. HARTT: Possibly.

MEMBER REINKE: See Nancy. She'll

take care of it.

MEMBER GRAY: Is there anything we

have to do to hasten this?

MR. SAVEN: Thank you.


MR. HARTT: Thank you, Don.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. 02-034,

Mark Karinen, 49550 Nine Mile. He's got a couple

of variances for adding a attached garage I

believe, right?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to raise

your hand and be sworn by Mr. Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 02-034?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.

MR. KARINEN: I filed for a variance

for, I guess, 4.3 feet of setback, and I guess my

case would be, architecturally, it would be

asthetically pleasing to the eye.

The hardship would be that I have a

retaining wall that would have to move back five

feet. That was, actually, the natural lay of the


And as far as the second variance, on

storage footage, my existing garage right now is


ten steps down from my living room, three steps up

from my basement. I was considering that a part of

my basement. I don't know if my thinking is wrong

or I just don't understand what storage area is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, the zoning law

allows for a thousand square feet in an RA zoning,

and I guess you have proposed this garage a little

bit bigger than that.

MR. KARINEN: Well, I think they're

counting my existing garage as a storage area,

which would -- is that correct?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know. We'll

have to ask Mr. Saven.

MR. SAVEN: If you're converting your

existing garage, then that's not an issue, but we

have to take a look at the sum total of all

accessory structures on your property.

You have aluminum shed, and you have

-- in the back, and you have one on the side of

your property. It encompasses all of the accessory


MR. KARINEN: The sheds will be moved

-- yeah, removed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Moved or removed?


MR. KARINEN: Removed.

MEMBER REINKE: What are the sizes of

the sheds?

MR. KARINEN: One's ten by ten and

one's eight by eight.

MEMBER REINKE: That makes about 128,

so we really don't have to deal with the square


MR. CHAIRMAN: Just the setback.

MR. SAVEN: Just dealing with the

setback requirement now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's get back on our

schedule here. Does that pretty much present your



MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were

seven notices, one objection, Mr. Williams. Is

that a neighbor, C. Williams?

MR. KARINEN: I'm not sure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: 49750?

MR. KARINEN: Must be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody in the

audience wish to make a comment?

(No response.)


MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Back to

Building Department. We've addressed, clarified?

MR. SAVEN: Clarified a thousand

square foot. It's not required.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does it look like now

the second variance request is not needed if he's-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) The second

variance request is not needed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because you are

removing these two sheds, you are now within the

allowable square footage with the plan as you've

presented, so all we have now in front of us is the

4.3 foot setback.

MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman?


MEMBER REINKE: Unless there is

further discussion, I think the motion and answer

is pretty much what I'm proposing. In Case 02-034

I move that the petitioner's variance request for a

4.3 foot setback variance be granted and

conditioned that the two accessory sheds be



MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion and support.


Any discussion on the motion?

(No further discussion.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: If not, you clear with

what's going on here?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Sarah?

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MR. CHAIRMAN: See the Building

Department for your permits.

MR. KARINEN: Thank you for your



MR. CHAIRMAN: 02-035, Mr. Mamola

representing Collex Collision.


Lee, I'm sure that you are well

familiar with the rules of the Board and you're

going to summarize this in five minutes or less.

MR. MAMOLA: Mr. Chairman, the Board

has my letter of -- sorry.

MR. BAUER: Would you raise your

right hand?

Do you solemnly swear or affirm to

tell the truth regarding 02-035?

MR. MAMOLA: Yes, I do. With me

tonight is Mr. John Gagliano from Collex Collision.

If the Board has my letter of

April 17th in their packet, I believe in that

letter I summarized the basic facts of this matter,

and as you -- as well as the hardship.

This was before the Board back in

1993 with another applicant, Protech Collision, and

the nature of the hardships are still the same


But I'd like to highlight -- and I

won't go into details or repeat anything in the

letter, but what I would like to highlight for the

Board is the geometry of the development. The

existing development is basically north and south


-- I'm sorry, perpendicular to Novi Road.

The applicant currently, in the light

shade or medium shade area, has about 6,000 square

feet or so of existing facility.

All their overhead doors face

inwards. They are proposing a 6,000 square foot

addition in the darker color where the overhead

doors would face the rear yard. The south wall

would be all face brick matching the brick of the

existing building, with a few window demonstrations

in that area.

This is cause for two reasons. One

good reason, in that Collex Collision business is

doing quite well. We have a happy and satisfied

customer base in Novi; and, two, there is a

condition previously granted that Collex would

still wish to -- they understand they have to abide

by that, they are not allowed to have outdoor

storage, cars that are banged up and under repair

cannot sit outside overnight. They might be

outside from time to time as they are in transit of

course, sit out there maybe for a brief period of

time during normal business hours, but that -- if

this addition were to be granted, those cars would


be sitting in the rear yard totally obscured from

view from Novi Road, whereas now they're in

basically the side yard, some of them -- even

though this business is about 400 feet off of

Novi Road as it is.

Another fact that relates to this

case is that if this variance is not granted,

extension of a use variance, it won't be much

longer that Collex would be forced to move out of

the city of Novi. There are no other locations

available in the city of Novi for businesses such

as this without some other variance.

The Board may remember that about two

years ago, it was Auto Metrix came in and sought a

variance, got a variance to renovate a building at

Grand River and Meadowbrook. They have since

decided not to pursue any development at that

location, for various reasons, so there is no other

viable location for this use.

There is one other similar type use,

one other business with this type of use in the

city, I believe that's (inaudible) Collision at

Haggerty and Grand River neighborhood, and this is

the other one.


With that, I guess we'll stand for

any questions, and Mr. Gagliano's here to answer

any questions.

I'm sorry, there is one other thing.

There have been from time to time periodic, very

sporadic, notices or concerns expressed in some --

one form or another from ordinance enforcement

people that there was outside storage here. I

think it was ultimately proven that the cases that

were in question -- the cars that were in question

were not really pertaining to Collex, they were

pertaining to another tenant in this building.

But, in any event, again, the

geometry of this particular proposed arrangement is

such that if given that short period of time cars

must be outside the business, they will be in the

rear yard. The geometry of the proposed addition

would go to hide that.

And, finally, we -- this is an appeal

or request amending our initial use variance back

in 1993, and should you feel so to accept this

request, we have to go to the Planning Commission

and abide by all the site plan regulations and

landscaping, screening, lighting, et cetera,


et cetera. So this is just the first step in that.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There were 12 notices

sent, no approvals, no objections.

Anyone in the audience?

(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department?

MR. SAVEN: This is a difficult

issue, it really is. I think he's done a fantastic

job explaining what's happening.

Again, this is an extension of that

use, which we looked at earlier on.

Certainly, our ordinance division has

a lot of concerns, and notices have been issued

based on the outdoor storage in that particular

area, but what I was -- believe he was attempting

to do was take the outdoor storage and utilize it

in the building itself; is that correct?

MR. MAMOLA: That's correct. There

is no longer any room to maneuver or do anything in

the existing approximate 6,000 square feet. There

are work bays, there are paint booths, there are

some special rooms to store the paint and so on.

The addition would house some


additional work bays, but there is also additional

area to bring cars that need to be brought in from

time to time, pretty banged up, that will stay

under roof until they're fixed and so on.

MR. SAVEN: The issue, Lee, is the

outside storage, and I want to make sure the Board

does know about this before any action is taken on

this thing.

Is it going to have outdoor storage?

MR. GAGLIANO: John Gagliano from

Collex Collision, Novi Road. We don't store

vehicles. You know, the only time that they're

really sitting on the premises is if they're in

transit, or if a customer drops it off prior to our

opening hours or -- but other than that, we don't

-- you know, we don't store vehicles or

intentionally park cars to, you know -- so at night

our intent would be to bring everything in, you

know, as much as we can and fill the building up.

MR. SAVEN: If it is the Board's

desire to grant this variance, I would add to the

fact that it has to comply with all the ordinances

of the City and approval from the Planning



MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members?

MEMBER REINKE: How large of an

outdoor storage area are you proposing?

MR. MAMOLA: Well, there is no-

MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) The

whole area behind the building is what you're

talking about?

MR. MAMOLA: There is no outdoor

storage area. There is a parking area, there is

maneuvering, obviously, and there needs to be some

maneuvering right in front of the overhead doors,

which face the rear yard.


MR. MAMOLA: So there may be some

time from time to time that a truck may -- a

carrier may place a car down. That car may be

outdoors for a relatively short period of time, but

during the course of that business day it's brought

inside, then whatever they do -- it's not taken

back outside until it's repaired or finished,


MR. GAGLIANO: But I think to your

point though is that there is an extension to the

parking lot directly behind it. Apparently, that


sight was a dump at one point, and that property is

basically not being used at all, so what we're

proposing is to actually grade that out and convert

it to a parking lot so that there's additional

parking that would actually be way behind the

building, or even during the day to screen off any

kind of, you know, offensive looking vehicles or

anything like that, because we do get, obviously,

you know -- that's our business, and we do get some

cars that don't look very good, you know, when they

initially come in.

MR. MAMOLA: Right now what happens

is the overhead doors face the side yard, which is,

obviously, very wide and visually open to

Novi Road, Road, even though it's 400 feet back.

That activity goes away from the side yard and goes

to the rear yard now with this addition.

MEMBER BAUER: Weren't you really

wanting to make sure that nothing is parked outside

at night?

MEMBER REINKE: Well, the thing is,

if there's going to be -- we keep talking about

going back to outdoor storage, and if there is

going to be that, I want to know, you know, just


exactly what we're looking at, and in the terms

that you're defining it, it might be on a temporary

basis, overnight, or maybe possibly on a weekend,

something gets dropped off or something of that


MR. GAGLIANO: That's correct.

MEMBER REINKE: But, you know, that

is where I'm looking for, something defined. I

wanted to know what the area and what grounds you

were talking about, and you defined that for me.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The addition does

actually make the use of the business better in

that it gets all of that -- all the loading docks

-- not loading docks, but --

MEMBER REINKE: Well, gets all the

doors really away from traffic flow and visibility.

And like you say, they're going to be parked by a

door or dropped off by a door-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) They're

going to be moving in and out all day.

MEMBER REINKE: So it's not visible

or something that you got Y or X sitting in a line,

go in there, going through a carwash. You know, I


think you've done a nice job in putting it together

in that fashion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If there's sentiment

on the Board, make sure that the condition and the

approval based on Don's recommendation that they

need to follow all ordinances.

UNIDENTIFIED: I can support.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any further

discussion or a motion?

MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in

Case 02-035, I move that the petitioner's variance

request for additional 6,000 square foot to the

building be granted due to business expansion and

that they comply with all ordinance and

requirements, including previously mandated or not

permitted outdoor storage.

Anything else I need to add?

MR. SAVEN: Planning Commission


MEMBER REINKE: And seek Planning

Commission approval.


MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a

second. Any further discussion?


MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I just

would like the petitioners to be aware that this is

not the only variance that may be required for this

particular project because they still have to go

through the planning process, but I'm sure -- I'm


MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Do you

see any additional variances, you're going to have

to be back?

MR. MAMOLA: I hope not. If we do,

it will -- count on it being-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) How are

you with your setbacks on the right-hand side?

MR. GAGLIANO: There's plenty of

setback on the east side of the property. And,

again, to the back side of the building there's, I

think, eight or nine acres.

MR. SAVEN: Just a use approval that

we're granting, extension of use. Still have to

comply with all the ordinances and approval from

the Planning Department.

MR. GAGLIANO: And, personally, I've

enjoyed being here tonight, so if we have to come

back again, we don't --


MR. CHAIRMAN: You're having fun,

that's what's important.

Okay. We got a motion and a second.

Sarah, you want to call the roll, please.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MR. GAGLIANO: Thank you very much.

MR. MAMOLA: Thank you.


MR. CHAIRMAN: John Kozlowski, come

on down. Mr. Kozlowski lives at 45144 Nine Mile,

and he's got some additions he wants to put onto

the property.

MR. KOZLOWSKI: Well, eventual




MR. KOZLOWSKI: Eventual additions.

Right now we're just concerned with the garage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You want to raise your

right hand and be sworn?

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear

or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 02-036?



MR. KOZLOWSKI: I'd like to thank you

first and foremost for fitting me in this month.

What I wanted to clarify though is

that we're asking for a variance on paper here of

1,032 square feet, but I'm demolishing 679 square

feet of existing building and replacing it with 672

square feet of building. So I'm actually reducing

the building footprint on the property by seven

square feet. And then I think pretty much

everything else I covered in the plans that I

submitted to you.

If there's any questions --

MR. CHAIRMAN: There were 49 notices

sent; no approvals, no objections.

Anyone in the audience that wants to



(No response.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Building


MR. SAVEN: This gentleman has done a

fantastic job, and -- I mean, he took into account

every concern.

Basically, like he said, he's taken

down two old buildings that's right by -- one is

probably going to penetrate that wall pretty soon,

and he's trying to stay in line with what he has

existing right now, and I think he's doing a great


MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members?

MEMBER FANNON: (Inaudible), so I'll

make that motion, if nobody doesn't mind, to

approve the variance as requested in Case 02-036

with the condition that the two buildings that have

been submitted here will be demolished-

MR. KOZLOWSKI: (Interposing) Yes,


MEMBER FANNON: -as part of the


MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on the


motion -- or a second-

MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing) Second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now discussion.

Sarah, do you have a problem?


MR. CHAIRMAN: You want to call the


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?


MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?


MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got your


MR. KOZLOWSKI: Thank you very much.

MEMBER BAUER: Good luck.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other business?

MR. SAVEN: You have an issue on

other matters.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Conferences and


MR. SAVEN: I am the bearer of bad


MR. CHAIRMAN: The budgets have all

been slashed.

MR. SAVEN: You got that right. It

even affects -- it even -- as far as it affects the

council and other boards and commissions, unless

it's mandated by law, reducing conferences and

workshops, mostly close to $8,000, so it is -- I

don't want you guys to feel like you're being

slighted or picked on. These are issues that

are -- that have to be taken care of. That's

basically what -- if there's something that's free

and available at the time, we'll try to get you

notified that there's something going on and you

can have the ability to attend those. I just wish

things were a little bit better. Conferences are

always good, they're always productive, you always

learn new things, but, unfortunately, in this

particular case we need to do something and be a

little more responsible.

MEMBER BAUER: I heard council and I


-- I understand.

MR. SAVEN: I just want you to be

aware of that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is another piece

of news, and I'll start with thanking Mr. Fannon

for his time. His business is -- he had to resign,

and he was good enough to come tonight because we

were -- the Board was a little short.

I'll ask anyone who is still watching

at home, if you're interested in ZBA, go down to

the City Hall and get an application and you will

get an audience in front of council. We'd like to

have fresh blood on the Board.

Any other new business?

MR. SAVEN: Other than the fact that

I will probably be presenting a case on behalf of

the City at the next meeting, and it has to deal

with at least two properties on Grand River. This

has to deal-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing)


MR. SAVEN: Yes, very much the same.

Be kind. That's basically where we're at.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anything else?


MEMBER REINKE: Just one thing. I

think -- I must say that I take my hat off to

Don Saven on the type of work he's done for us and

for the City.


MR. SAVEN: But it seems every once

in a while we run into problems where -- people

coming into Building, Planning Department, got a

merry-go-round that they can't seem to get off. It

would be nice -- and I know -- I think we're trying

to work towards this. Nobody likes to see people

get into that. If we had, somehow, a center point-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) We have --

we do have it available now. It's becoming better

and better each day. It's just going to take a

matter of time.

We have new people onboard, and it

takes some time to learn the ordinances, and it

takes time -- I can't tell you the transition and

the change of personnel that we just went through

in the City.

It -- yes, it is critical, and yes,

we got to do something about it. It's just that

when you're dealing with something as small as the


CVS issue was -- and assumptions can be made. We

are changing that. I mean, after this particular

issue, I can see where things could have steered

wrong, but it's after the fact. It doesn't do us

any good.

Yes, I'm embarrassed on behalf of my

department, and I'm embarrassed on behalf of the

City, and we should have caught it. We should have

been able to do something a little bit better, but

it's not going to happen again.

MEMBER GRAY: It's a learning


MR. SAVEN: It's definitely a

learning experience, and we will venture to do


And everybody that's now part of the

plan review center that we have is now aware of

these little things that we're doing. And we're

catching things ahead of time and taking much more

of a proactive role in dealing with a lot of

problem areas, and this is very much a plus, very

much a plus.


MR. SAVEN: And I like the idea of


having them readily accessible, that I can hike

around there and ask the questions, and if there's

somebody that comes with an issue that's dealing

with a commercial or a problem area, that we have

the ability to address it right now. That happens

to be a very positive feature.


MS. MARCHIONI: One more thing. Will

everyone be here next month?

(Inaudible) vice chair. Do you want

to do election for that next month?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I missed that.

MS. MARCHIONI: Do you want to do the

election for vice chair since Mr. Fannon is


MEMBER REINKE: I think we should,

you know, make every attempt to have a full Board


MS. MARCHIONI: (Interposing) Do it

next month?

MEMBER BAUER: Make one request

also? Our gal right over here has an ultimate wish

to become permanent, and I think if she does we

should have a -- the City council has to-


MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) Very

good point, Jerry.

MEMBER GRAY: I would be very

interested in applying for permanency as opposed to



suggestion, Sarah, that you might want to maybe

attend a council meeting-

MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Sure.

MEMBER REINKE: -and make a

presentation to that point.

MR. SAVEN: Would she need to do




MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) I think

a supporting letter from the members of the Board

would be great. I'll write a letter.

MEMBER GRAY: Thank you very much.

MEMBER REINKE: I think you have the

unanimous support of the Board for-

MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Thank

you very much.

MEMBER REINKE: -for the permanent



MR. CHAIRMAN: So we need to fill an


MEMBER GRAY: Thank you very much.

MEMBER BRENNAN: All right. I'll

write a letter tomorrow.

Any other topics?


MR. CHAIRMAN: Meeting is adjourned.

(The meeting was adjourned at

10:07 p.m.)

Date approved:

July 9, 2002 __________________________

Sarah Marchioni Recording Secretary

- - -



I, Cheryl L. James, do hereby

certify that I have recorded stenographically the

proceedings had and testimony taken in the

above-entitled matter at the time and place hereinbefore

set forth, and I do further certify that the foregoing

transcript, consisting of 149 typewritten pages, is a

true and correct transcript to the best of my abilities.



Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786