View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting

REGULAR MEETING -- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY OF NOVI
TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 -- 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 6, 2003.

BOARD MEMBERS
Cynthia Gronachan, chairman
Gerald Bauer
Frank Brennan
Bob Gatt
Sarah Gray
Laverne Reinke

ALSO PRESENT:
Don Saven, Building Department
Sarah Marchioni, Building Department
Thomas Schultz, City Attorney

REPORTED BY:
Cheryl L. James, Certified Shorthand Reporter

MS. CHAIRMAN: Good evening everyone.

I would like to call the May 2003 Zoning Board of

Appeals meeting to order.

Sarah, would you please call the roll.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Present.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Here.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt?

MEMBER GATT: Here.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Present.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Present.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MEMBER REINKE: Here.

MS. MARCHIONI: And I have

Member Reed as coming late.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I have a few

rules of conduct that are printed on the front of the

agenda. Everyone in the audience has one. I'm

asking the participants to please review them,

particularly the new rule of no cell phones turned on

during the meeting.

 

3

The Zoning Board of Appeals is a

hearing board empowered by the Novi City Charter to

hear appeals seeking variances from the application

of the zoning -- Novi zoning ordinances.

It takes a vote of at least four

members to approve a variance request and a vote of

the majority of members present to deny a variance.

If -- we have a full board this

evening, so since we have all six members present

tonight, at least four votes are required.

Those petitioners who wish to -- you'll

understand that you need at least four votes for a

pass.

The agenda, are there any changes or-

MS. MARCHIONI: (Interposing) Yes.

Please remove the minutes. And also number five for

National Diagnostic Services, the length was going to

be from the date of the meeting until March 1st,

2004, not May 6th, so make that change.

MEMBER GRAY: I'm sorry. Remove which

one you said?

MS. MARCHIONI: Remove the minutes and

the National Diagnostic is until March 1st, not May

6th.

 

4

MS. CHAIRMAN: So there are no minutes

for approval this evening. And just so the board

members know, Sarah's working on those. There were

some problems with the minutes from March and April,

and Sarah's taking care of that.

Public remarks. At this time, if

there's anyone in the audience that wishes to make a

public remark in regards to anything other than

that's on the agenda this evening, you can do so now.

Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak

in regards to a subject?

(No response.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: No, okay. If that's the

case, we'll get this meeting underway.

CASE NUMBER 03-013

MS. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to call our

first case. It's 03-013, Miss White is it-

MS. WATT: (Interposing) Watt.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Watt, I'm sorry. Miss

Watt, Laura Watt, from Austin. This is a

continuation from last month. So you were already

sworn in last month and we'll carry over. Thank you.

MS. WATT: Thank you. At the last

 

5

meeting on April 1st, I was asked to look into other

options for the proposed garage that we would like to

add onto our home. In doing so, I looked at a

detached and also an attached in the backyard.

We have electrical wires running

through the backyard hanging low that would propose

problems to either/or. An attached garage would

block entrances and exits to the home. We have a

sump discharge in the back, which would also propose

a problem in those areas. The exhaust ventilation is

in the back, a problem with the attached garage.

Looked into getting in off the south

side of the home. We have arranged to put a bay

window in on the south side. It's a two-foot bay

window. That would make it quite tight to enter into

the backyard anyways.

A north side entrance to the backyard,

there's trees, there's drainage, and there's also a

cleanout on that side.

And putting a drive into the garage off

the north side, like a side entrance off the north

side, I have two large trees, like a two-foot tree

and a four-foot tree.

We have sent in a new proposed sketch

 

6

for a garage, making it a 20 by 24 versus the 24 by

24. It changed the variances.

I -- you know, I know there was an

issue of how many cars could go between the

property -- our property line and the garage.

Probably one car. I don't see a problem with that.

I'm ready for other options, if any

board member has any other options for me, but I have

looked into everything at this point.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, there were

thirty-seven notices sent again, because this was a

change. There were four approvals, no objections.

The approvals, just for the record, were from V.

Muscat at 2213 Austin, Mark Robbins at 2295 Austin,

Wayne Meister at 2290 Austin, Dean and pat Siskinnon

at 2296 Austin.

Building department, do you have

anything to add?

MR. SAVEN: Anybody in the audience?

MS. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. Is there

Anybody in the audience who wishes to -- Mr. Korte,

come on down.

MR. KORTE: Korte, Sherwood Lake,

Austin.

 

7

I was not -- I wasn't here the first

time because I figured it was not going to go

through. I have, as of today, looked into the City

paperwork, and of course the City has mentioned

electric wires in the backyard and potential drainage

problems.

There are no drainage problems in the

backyard. Any drainage problem in that backyard was

solved by Linda Oakler. Now, Linda Oakler owned the

house to the south, which is -- to the south, which

would be the garage side. That's where the electric

pole is. Linda Oakler solved all of those problems.

So a driveway going in on the 14 feet is certainly

not a problem.

Now, I always knew the house -- and

this house was new construction. It was a terrible

burnout. Thank God no loss of life. And I argued

the point when the house went in originally that it

was not correct.

And it is 28 feet, not 30. Didn't ask

that the foundations be moved. I just said please

don't tell me it's correct.

We have 56 feet in the back yard, 56 by

80. All of my properties are 40, and less than 40 by

 

8

a hundred and fifteen. There's almost as much room

in that backyard as I have on any of my properties.

Now, if one takes current code, and you

can go six from back and six from side and you nestle

the garage back, not under the power lines which the

City would -- not the City, Edison would be happy to

remove, and that's a hundred dollar charge and $2.70

a foot. Now, if we nestle the garage in the back and

follow all ordinances, we have an extra 16 feet.

Now, when you put the ten foot existing

from the house that we've made the ordinance, you got

an extra sixteen feet. So the garage would sit

twenty-six foot from the house in the back yard.

Now, no drainage problem. Sump pump

can easily be move and redirected around.

Now let's go to the front yard. And if

anyone drove by, you would see that there's a gas

meter problem. Gas meter has to be -- gas line has

to be removed, so that we remove the electric line,

potentially or not, which doesn't have to, or do we

have to remove the gas meter.

Now, the gas -- and this is as of the

gas company. That's a $500 charge and $7 a foot, and

in this situation we're talking 850, so technically

 

9

the electrical is a cheaper way out. And I realize

you don't look at monies, but the point is,

something's going to have to be moved.

When I bought my houses, first thing I

did was brought the electric up on where it should

be, and I put gas into two of my houses. Renovation,

it's not surprising that you have to move these

things.

Now, let's talk the integrity of 30

feet, and that's really what I'm here about.

Everything on the east side of Austin -- and, of

course, I can get to Austin and Old Novi Road, it's

not directly east but we'll call it east --this board

has stated 30 feet, 30 feet, 30 feet.

Now, that house comes in at an awful

point of the road where we go from a legal 60 to a

legal 40, and that's always going to be an

interesting commodity when somebody does something.

That's certainly not the petitioner's fault.

But there's more than enough room to

put it in the backyard without interrupting one

ordinance. And the 30 foot in this situation on

Austin, one of the earlier -- and on the first times,

and it's one of the houses just south of that, said

 

10

that the variance to the front is much less than

North Novi -- North Austin. That's me. I live too

close to the road. I didn't put them there. I have

no choice. It's awful.

And when we begin to interrupt the

integrity of that 30 feet when it's not needed --

garage, most recently went in on Pleasant Cove. They

had no backyard. I wish that that 30 foot had not

been intruded upon, but we need a garage. Everybody

needs a garage. There's more than ample space to put

it in the back without disrupting anything.

And I would ask you to please deal with

the 30 feet and do not interrupt it anymore than it

already is.

And final comment. Laura Watt -- and I

do not argue her right to represent -- is not on the

legal deed of record. And there is nothing in the

paperwork that says she has the right to deal with

this property. I do know she lives at the property,

I'm not arguing that, but I would like to know why,

if the legal deed of record, and she's not a

construction person, why does that person get to

speak and there's no letter saying that she has the

right to. It's a point of legality.

 

11

Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there

anyone else in the audience that wishes to address

this particular case at this time?

(No response.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: Seeing no one, now I'll

turn it over to the building department.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a couple issues. Number one, the owner of the

property is in the audience sitting right there; and,

number two, number two is that the board had gave --

had given me specific instructions to go out to this

particular site, evaluate the site based upon my best

findings, as part of being part of the City and all

the ordinances that are about the City.

And just as Miss Watt had concluded,

there were several issues that were brought up, and

the best way to try to handle the situation would be

presened before you tonight. It's up to you to make

that decision whether or not it's relative or not.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Board

members? Yes, Member Brennan.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I think

Miss Watt did everything we asked her to. We've got

 

12

four approvals. The parties that were here last

month are not here this month.

It would be nice to have a 30 foot

setback on any garage on that street, but that's why

we have variances. That's what happens in the game.

I think that she has demonstrated, as

well as Mr. Saven has with his letter, that this is

the best location of the garage. And I'm not driven

to believe that passage through that south side is

enough room to navigate traffic, so I'm prepared to

support her tonight.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else?

MEMBER REINKE: Madam Chairman, I can't

support petitioner's request because, number one,

there is sufficient property in the rear yard that it

doesn't need to intrude into the front yard. If

there wasn't sufficient property and access to that,

the wanting to put a bay window inside as a reason to

not use that as access to the garage to me is

insufficient.

I can't support it because we've got

too many problems up in that area where we're

intruding into the front yard setbacks that are where

they have sufficient property to do otherwise.

 

13

MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Member

Reinke. Anyone else? Member Gray.

MEMBER GRAY: Ms. Watt, you've heard

some comments about the cost to move power lines,

cost to move gas lines, and when you -- if you get

the variance to put your garage in the front yard,

you are prepared to assume the cost of moving the gas

line and moving the gas meter I presume?

MS. WATT: Absolutely. I've already

spoken with Consumers Power. I'm dealing with Mike

Joblinsky.

MEMBER GRAY: I also want to thank you

for giving us information. I really felt last month

that what you were asking for was just saying I want

the garage in the front yard, and I didn't feel that

there was enough supporting evidence, if you will, to

say why you couldn't put the garage in the backyard,

and to prove your hardship.

Unfortunately, I still can't support

your request because of the problems with the front

yards and the variances granted in the area. But I

do appreciate you making the effort -- certainly

appreciate you making the effort and giving us

information on which we can base our decision, which

 

14

I feel we didn't have last month.

Thank you.

MS. WATT: Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Any other board members?

MEMBER BAUER: I can support it, with

what the City has come up with.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, it looks

like-

MEMBER GATT: (Interposing) Madam

Chair, I just want to concur with Board Member Reinke

there. I feel for you. I know you want to do this,

but I believe there's enough room in the backyard,

and it's been proven that there's enough room in the

backyard. The desire to have the bay window,

although I can understand it, I don't think that that

meets the hardship clause that I have to come to

terms with.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Just for clarification

maybe. Mr. Saven's report did not talk about a bay

window. Mr. Saven's recommendation was not to have

this in the backyard due to the electrical service

and drainage. It had nothing to do with any bay

window.

MEMBER REINKE: The petitioner brought

 

15

up the window. It was not referenced in Mr. Saven's

report. And that's what I was addressing, too, in my

comments.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Well, I would like to

add-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) May I

intervene.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Certainly.

MR. SAVEN: If I may, I'd just like to

clarify it. It was -- the bay window wasn't in the

report, as well as a three foot undisturbed area

which the driveway can't intrude in between the side

yard setback; in other words, from the property line

to a driveway there has to be three foot for drainage

purposes. You're taking that into consideration,

plus a two-foot, there's a five-foot intrusion into

that area.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Which leaves you with

a seven-foot wide driveway, right?

MR. SAVEN: It's a little more than

that.

MEMBER BRENNAN: What's the City's

recommendation for a minimum width on driveway?

MR. SAVEN: At least nine foot. At

 

16

least nine foot.

MEMBER BRENNAN: So the math says you

can't get it in the backyard.

MEMBER REINKE: Nine and five is

fourteen.

MEMBER GRAY: Yeah, it shows 14 on the

aerial survey, so which is the correct number?

MEMBER BRENNAN: I was going by the

petitioner's drawing here.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Saven?

MR. SAVEN: It will be tight. It will

be tight. As a projection for a window, I always

have concerns about mirrors and things of that nature

on the side of cars, and I'm not saying anything more

than that.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So without the

bay window, the driveway could go in there very

easily; is that correct?

MR. SAVEN: That's correct.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Am I understanding you

correctly?

MR. SAVEN: That is correct.

MS. CHAIRMAN: So to reconfirm what

Member Reinke said earlier, it comes down to the bay

 

17

window?

MR. SAVEN: Yes.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So-

MS. WATT: (Interposing) Do I have a

chance to speak?

MS. CHAIRMAN: I believe you can. Yes,

you can.

MS. WATT: I'm sorry. I just have a

final comment. When I came in to pull for the garage

I also pulled a permit for this bay window. I didn't

know that I was going to have problems. I mean, I

have a permit for this bay window. The bay window's

on order. We're ready to go forward on that. I --

what are we -- what do we do about that?

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, we

obviously have a board that's a little divided here

this evening with -- and both have brought out some

pretty good points at this point.

I'm not sure -- and I'm going to look

to my seniors for some guidance here, but I don't

even know if tabling it at this point, to go back to

the drawing board again -- it seems to me, given that

Mr. Saven has said that in regards to the bay window,

it could still be built in the backyard.

 

18

I mean, I understand that you ordered

the bay window, it's there, for whatever reason, but

Even at the time that you probably pulled the permit

for the bay window you knew you were going to need a

variance for the garage.

MEMBER BRENNAN: I think we're still

missing this issue on drainage. Isn't that a more

significant issue, Don?

MR. SAVEN: The property slopes from

rear to front on this property.

MS. WATT: Yes.

MR. SAVEN: And, first of all, you

cannot attach the garage to the rear of the home

based upon the fact that they have bedrooms in that

particular area, beside the fact the service line

runs there and whatever.

It's kind of a difficult situation.

You're dealing with half a dozen of one, six of the

other.

Yeah. We can snuggle the garage way in

the back six foot from the property line. Where's

that drainage going to go? It's either going to hit

the garage and go over to adjacent neighbors'

property, or potential for it to do it, and I think

 

19

that everybody here knows how sensitive everybody is

to drainage in this area.

So I'm a little cautious about that

particular issue. Sump pump discharge, yeah, it can

be rerouted. It's going to have to be rerouted

somewhere. Where is it going to be rerouted to?

There's a lot of things that are part

of this house that are very sensitive to what their

request is.

If you were to place the house in the

back 40, let's say, as to what Mr. Korte was

indicating earlier, on-

MR. KORTE: (Interposing) Fifty-six.

MR. SAVEN: Pardon?

MR. KORTE: Fifty-six feet.

MR. SAVEN: In the rear yard detached,

an area where it was not troublesome by virtue of the

overhead wires, that means that that garage is going

to sit in the back 40 with a gigantic driveway all

the way from the front of the road, all the way

around, behind her home to that particular house.

Now, I don't know about you, but I sure

wouldn't want this in my yard. And, I'm sorry,

that's -- driveways are not what you're looking at.

 

20

I mean, as far as I'm concerned, I thought this was

the best of all situations here as far as placement

of this garage.

There was discussion of even taking the

garage door in the front on that twenty-four foot

frontage and moving it over at least six foot from

the closest side of the front entrance to allow

parking, to have more -- for more distance and

parking as you park the car in the front.

We're trying to come up with all kinds

of options here.

So that's what's being presented to you

tonight.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anything else?

MEMBER GATT: Just so I'm clear, the

electrical service could be moved though; is that

correct?

MR. SAVEN: Absolutely. You could go

through -- anything that's man made as part of this

house can be moved and adjusted to whatever it is.

MS. CHAIRMAN: But it still doesn't

solve the drainage problem, which is, in your

opinion, the biggest-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Absolutely.

 

21

It May not seem like much to anybody, but I deal with

drainage problems every day in this city, and it's

really tough to -- it's really tough to resolve.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm going to add

my comments at this point, because when I first

looked at this case I was also very impressed with

the work that you did based on what we asked you for

last month.

And Don's report, as well, was

extremely helpful.

And I can support this, especially now,

even after hearing the rest of this. I do understand

the members that are against this to a point, but the

drainage is a big problem.

I understand up in this area it is very

unique. The road is very narrow. The north end is

its own little city within a city so to speak, and I

think that when we look at something like this we

have to take that into consideration. We certainly

don't want to cause some drainage problems for some

neighbors.

So based on that would be my reason

that I would support this.

Is there a motion anyone?

 

22

MEMBER BRENNAN: Let's see where the

board sits. I'll make a motion with regard to case

03-013, that petitioner's modified variance request

be approved as submitted this evening for the purpose

of lot configuration.

MEMBER BAUER: Second.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on the

motion? Sarah.

MEMBER GRAY: I am so torn on this one

because I really -- even with all the information,

especially with all the information, and the options

open to move any utility service, I still, at this

point, don't feel that a hardship has been proved.

Again, I will remind the board of my

comments a month ago, that yes, at some point the

roads in this area will be paved. I don't know when.

There -- that will probably include, at that point,

putting in some kind of storm drainage, with all the

other drainage issues we have in the area now that

are being totally ignored, and to cite this as a

reason for supporting this, I have a problem with it.

And I'm very, very sensitive to the

petitioner's request. If you have a bay window that

you want to put in, you have four or five other rooms

 

23

in which you can put that bay window, I'm sure, so

it's not going to be a total loss. If the garage is

in the back you can put it in the front there.

But -- I'm not trying to design your

house. I'm just -- I don't feel that the hardship

has been proved, and I -- again, I'm very, very

sensitive to the petitioner's request.

Thank you.

MEMBER GATT: Madam Chair?

MS. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MEMBER GATT: Mr. Saven, regarding the

drainage, I'm not an expert, if the garage is built

in the backyard, can the land be configured to avert

a drainage problem?

MR. SAVEN: It possibly can be, yes.

But remember, when you put a structure up there,

you're not -- you don't have the ground to absorb the

moisture. You're now dealing with runoff from a

garage that's going to be a forceful runoff. This is

not something that's going to be an issue of whether

it's going to be a slow runoff.

MEMBER GATT: Isn't there swales and so

on?

MR. SAVEN: Absolutely. The distance

 

24

where we're talking about is six foot from the side

and rear property line to the location of the garage

is ten foot away from the house. And this is what

Mr. Korte was indicating earlier. With a detached

garage, we'll put it in this back 40.

Again, if it's an issue where we're not

dealing with removing the lines to place this garage,

then you're putting this garage way in the back 40,

and I'm -- and as a homeowner I would really have a

problem with that location.

MEMBER GATT: Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Anything further?

(No further comment.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, would you please

call the roll.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt?

MEMBER GATT: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: No.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

 

25

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MEMBER REINKE: No.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Your variance has been

approved. Please see the building department.

MS. WATT: I thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

CASE NUMBER 03-024

MS. CHAIRMAN: We will get going and

call our next case, Case 03-024. Please forgive me

on the name, Siegal Tuomaala, representing Marty

Feldman Chevrolet.

Would you like to come down. And are

you Mr. Zimmerman?

MR. ZIMMERMAN: I am.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. And are you an

attorney?

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Architect.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Would you like to

be sworn in by our secretary, please.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Sure.

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-024?

 

26

MR. ZIMMERMAN: I do.

MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: I've brought some

visual displays to help everybody get a clear

picture, and I won't linger on them any longer than

we need to.

Grand River. The beige part of the

building is the existing Marty Feldman Chevrolet

building. The orange parts are the two additions.

This is a service, body and parts

located right in the back, and in the front, which is

the area that we're talking about, is going to be the

service writeup/reception area that we want to add in

the front here.

Let me switch over to the next board

briefly to tell you -- now, this is a blowup of the

plan of it. This is the sales area circled in

yellow, existing sales area. The gray areas are the

addition part. What is in red here is the existing

service with the new service added on. The blue is

the existing parts area with the new parts added on.

The green is the existing body shop with the new body

shop added on. The area in the front here, the part

that is to your right, is the existing service

 

27

writeup area.

I'm sure you've been there and you've

seen there are the two doors here. One drives in

this way, and then the people from the service

department will drive the car out that way.

The addition that we're talking about

is right over here. The orange represents the

approach that we're looking for.

This will be a service

writeup/reception area, and it's going to continue

all the way across here with the cars coming in --

this is in alignment with the drive to Grand River.

And there's a body shop office right here.

I will show you a bit about what it

looks like now. I'm sure that, again, you've seen

this, but let me just briefly show you. What we've

got right now, here is the existing writeup doors.

You drive in, make a left turn and you're there.

This is the existing body shop door.

When a car pulls in to get an estimate for body work,

it's done on the outside. There's no room in the

inside for any cars to park in there. It's strictly

a work area.

This shows that right-hand area in a

 

28

bit more detail. There's a pedestrian door and the

overhead door right over here.

Now, what we want to do and why we want

to do it. This is what we propose as the new area.

Again, we're sitting in front of the area that you

just saw. This is the body shop and body waiting

room for people on the inside, an all glass area

right here, and we have two overhead glass doors.

The material will match the existing

building completely, and the appearance in the inside

is completely drywalled. It's going to have no

visibility through to the inside of any kind of a

hoist or any kind of a service area. What you're

going to see is a completely drywall with an

acoustical ceiling inside of it.

Right now the existing building is

about 30,000 square feet. We're adding 3,000 in the

front in this area, and an area in the back is 7,000.

The basic goal is to try to prevent

exterior lines of cars from waiting there. We've

got -- with the new addition, we've got a hundred and

fifty linear feet across. With the two doors, that

let's them be open in the early morning when, of

course, the biggest rush is, and it lets the cars

 

29

line up inside for service so it won't back up

towards Grand River.

Our doors are going to be sitting 200

feet -- approximately 200 feet from

Grand River.

And during the course of the day, the

people will be able to use the right-hand door to

access body shop estimates, which come in generally

during the course of the day while the service is

generally early in the morning. As people line up

for the service, both doors can be used for that.

So then what happens is that because of

the single door and the visibility, cars can line up

in a double row and go right across here in the early

morning, a hundred and fifty feet, and then the

typical daytime when there isn't a line up, service

can be directed this way for a writeup, body shop

estimates can be directed this way, and this little

triangular area is that area that I was talking about

with the body shop office.

The existing site has really forced us

to do what we're doing in terms of the location of

this. The location of the existing body shop, as I

mentioned, is back here, and the existing service

 

30

area is here with the parts in between. There is no

connection between them, so you can't drive in one

spot and go internally to the other one.

So the result of that is that we've got

to find some way in order to clean this up, and as

part of the whole site plan, which we do, and this

whole renovation, we've added a lot of landscaping.

The whole purpose of this is to clean up the front,

eliminate the cars having to wait outside there.

Could we put an entry on the side?

That would probably be a logical question. The

answer is yes, you can put an entry here, but you've

got cross traffic then, which means that you've got

no way then of organizing traffic to go to the body

shop and then to the service area. Plus the fact

that you don't have the visibility and you've got to

kind of navigate your way around to less visible

areas.

This area faces towards the main

parking lot for the display of cars, and there could

be a real danger of interference here. This area,

because of the constriction of the site, would force

you around here and make a very difficult turn to get

into here. So that really, functionally, is a

 

31

problem with just how this thing was originally

located on the site.

We feel that the two doors gives us

better access to keep the cars out of the lineup onto

and towards Grand River. One door would constrict it

down and you'd have a traffic problem in the morning

where you've got only one line of cars that have to

separate off, and one car takes up two lanes and

you're back with kind of a backup through the doors

that we really hope that we don't have.

We feel that we've improved

esthetically from where we were in the beginning,

which was the goal of this. I mean, this, if we

didn't do an addition in the front versus this with

the glass. And, again, remember through the glass

you're looking at an improved area. You're not

looking into a workshop area for service or body

shop.

We know that other dealerships in Novi

have the overhead doors facing front; Mercedes,

Infinity, Jeep, Jaguar. It becomes basic to the

functioning of a dealership to have this visibility,

and we feel that we've taken every step we can to

create a better looking environment than what we've

 

32

got now.

And to tie this in, the blue color will

tie into the existing blue pattern that's there now.

It's going to, we think, work well with what we've

got on the site now.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you very

much. There were 14 notices sent; no approvals, no

objections.

Is there anyone in the audience that

wishes to offer any comments? Sir, please.

MR. DEUTCHMAN: My name is James

Deutchman. I represent Fountain Park Apartments, the

apartment project that is the neighboring project to

Feldman Chevrolet.

I'd like to speak out in behalf of

granting this Zoning Board of Appeal grant simply

because we feel that it's an enhancement to the

entire project. They've done a very elaborate job of

doing proper landscaping to create a buffer. They've

worked closely with us to make sure that we're

comfortable with what they're doing. We think that

this will be an improvement to the whole area.

I mean, certainly what you're doing is

you're updating a dealership that probably is 1970,

 

33

1980 vintage of design, and this is going to bring it

to the current century and certainly enhance it and

improve it.

So we are definitely speaking out on

behalf and in favor of this grant, if we can be so

bold as to suggest that.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you very

much.

MR. DEUTCHMAN: You're welcome.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else?

(No response.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Building

department?

MR. SAVEN: Just in the note that I

placed in your memo here. It says please note that

these two service doors will replace one overhead

service door that currently face the Grand River

Avenue. This will take care of one of the service

doors.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Board

members? Member Brennan.

MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm ready. Can you

tell me, will there be air conditioning in this area

so these doors will be closed in the summertime when

 

34

there's hot days?

MR. ZIMMERMAN: The plan now is not to

be cooling that area.

MEMBER BRENNAN: You may rethink that

because that just put a check on one side versus the

other side.

I've been in body shops, and if it's 95

degrees those doors are going to be open all day.

Secondly, I did make the point that

there is residential uses in the back, and that was

part of the discussions early on when the dealership

was built. So I have a check on the other side for

that.

I did note, and I'll point out, it's

probably obvious, the whole building is well below

grade from Grand River, and I would say that that's a

positive feature for your design.

I'm glad that you noted other

dealerships and what other dealerships are doing, and

I'll take this opportunity, because I know the

Feldmans are in the audience. I would love to see

this dealership get in compliance, as other dealers

are, with respect to signs. And I have brought this

up over the last seven or eight years, every time

 

35

Feldman's been in front of us we've given you guys

virtually every grant you've ever asked for, and I'd

like you to -- it's not before us tonight, but I

would sure hope that you'd think about getting in

compliance with your signs.

That's all my comments.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

Member Gatt.

MEMBER GATT: Mr. Zimmerman, can you

tell me how the dealership now compares to the other

dealerships in the area as far as bay doors?

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yeah, I can tell you

exactly. The Mercedes dealership has two doors

facing Haggerty, Infinity has two doors facing

Haggerty, Jeep has three doors facing Haggerty, and

Jaguar has one door facing Ten Mile Road. That's by

my count.

MEMBER GATT: Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else?

MEMBER REINKE: Madam Chairman, I think

they've done a good job on their addition. The

architecture of their door makes it fit in with the

building. It doesn't make it look like what is there

today. As much as I would like to not have the doors

 

36

there, I think it's the only feasible thing to do,

and I think the esthetics of it makes it look like

something I can support.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MEMBER BAUER: Madam Chairman?

MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Bauer.

MEMBER BAUER: I have used this

facility for my vehicles, so I must say this would be

quite an improvement to get service, and I don't

think -- by looking at the architect's drawing, I

think it would add great appeal to someone coming to

this location, and I am for it.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Anyone

else? Member Gray.

MEMBER GRAY: I'll echo the comments.

I also think this will be an improvement. I've also

bought vehicles there and sat in line for service

there, and I think this is going to be an

improvement.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is that a motion?

MEMBER GRAY: Certainly. In the matter

of Case Number 03-024, move to approve the variance

requested, noting that one door will replace an

existing door and the other door will facilitate

 

37

access to the building as necessary.

MEMBER BAUER: Second.

MEMBER GRAY: Will that do it?

MS. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion at the

table and a second. Is there any further discussion?

(No further discussion.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, could you please

call the roll.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt?

MEMBER GATT: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Thank you very much.

MS. CHAIRMAN: You're welcome. Have a

good evening.

 

38

CASE NUMBER 03-025

MS. CHAIRMAN: Let's call our next

case. We have Case 03-025, Blair Bowman for Central

Park Estates. Doesn't look like Blair Bowman.

MR. BOWEN: Good evening. It's John

Bowen representing Central Park Estates. I'm pitch

hitting for Blair tonight. I'm a licensed Michigan

attorney who represents Central Park Estates. He

had a conflict for tonight.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. Did you say

you are an attorney?

MR. BOWEN: Yes, I am.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So then you get

waived on getting sworn in this evening, and if you'd

like to begin.

MR. BOWEN: Thank you. This is an

application to request that we extend for a one-year

period of time an existing sign that is out in front

of Central Park Estates which is located on Beck Road

just south of Grand River.

The project is under construction right

now. It's about 60 percent complete, 254 units. The

clubhouse that we're currently building, the large

 

39

structure with pool, is about 70 percent complete.

Lease up is going very well, and we expect that we

can complete the project probably in the next year

and would like permission from the Zoning Board of

Appeals to continue with the existing 32 square foot

construction sign out front.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the

audience that has anything to offer on this case?

(No response.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: Seeing no one, building

department.

MR. SAVEN: No comment.

MS. CHAIRMAN: There were twenty-nine

notices sent; two approvals. I will say they were

from the same person, Edith White, on Beck, so she

must be real happy about the sign.

Board members?

MEMBER REINKE: I don't have a problem

with a one-year extension. I think they're making

good progress, and I'd like to see them given the

assistance that they need to continue on.

MEMBER BAUER: I agree.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else?

MEMBER BRENNAN: I just had a quick

 

40

question. It's 60 percent built. Of that 60

percent, how much of that is leased?

MR. BOWEN: I -- right now, when I say

it's 60 percent built, that -- those are the actual

structures. I think we have 90 residents right now

of the 254, so we're about 50 percent there.

But as far as units that are ready for

occupation, I think we've only got five or six that

are -- have got C of O's that are not occupied right

now, so it's moving along pretty well.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Thanks.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? Anyone

care to make a motion?

MEMBER REINKE: Madam Chairman, in Case

03-025, I move that petitioner's request for a

one-year extension be granted to support the

build-out of the project.

MEMBER GRAY: Support.

MS. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a

second. Any discussion on the motion?

(No discussion.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, Sarah,

please call the roll.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

 

41

MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Yeah.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt?

MEMBER GATT: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You're all set.

Thank you.

CASE NUMBER 03-026

MS. CHAIRMAN: All right. Moving right

along here, we'll go to our next case, 03-026 filed

by Laura Golze of Caribou Coffee. Is she here? Come

on down, Laura.

UNIDENTIFIED: Laura's not here.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, we have

someone here from Caribou Coffee. They're requesting

a variance for outdoor temporary seating, located at

47490 Grand River at Westmarket Square.

 

42

So could you state your name, please.

MS. RUSSO: Doreen Russo.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Would you raise your

right hand and be sworn in by our secretary, please.

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-026?

MS. RUSSO: Yes.

MEMBER BAUER: Please continue.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MS. RUSSO: We're just requesting

permit for three years, from April 1st to

October 30th, for temporary outdoor seating.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is there anyone

in the audience here to -- wish to speak on this

case?

(No response.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: None. There were 21

notices sent, one approval from -- I apologize on

this -- Bart Winglass, Farmington Hills. I'm going

to think that that's an address of an office and

probably a business.

Building department?

MR. SAVEN: Just to note, this was a

case that was before you previously. It was our

 

43

policy of the board to have them come for one year

the first time, if there weren't any problems, that

they come in and take a look at three years. I have

not received any complaints regarding this matter.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Board

members, any questions?

MEMBER REINKE: Madam Chairman, I'm

assuming that you're calling for the same layout of

tables and arrangements-

MS. RUSSO: (Interposing) That's

correct.

MEMBER REINKE: -that you had on the

previous-

MS. RUSSO: That's correct, no changes.

MEMBER REINKE: Okay, thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Gatt.

MEMBER GATT: Just a comment. I've

been -- I've visited your establishment many times,

and it's a top-notch facility, and there's no

problems with the outdoor seating, and I can approve

this, no problem.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a motion to

move things along if you like.

 

44

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay, yeah.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Any other comments?

MS. CHAIRMAN: Just that I frequent it

often, and I agree -- I echo Member Gatt's comment.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Case Number 03-026, I

move for approval of the variance request for the

purpose of outdoor seating. The applicant has

Demonstrated that she can run her business without

any issues.

MEMBER GATT: Support.

MS. CHAIRMAN: There's been a motion

and a second. Is there any discussion? And I have a

question. Regards to the time period, do you want to

put any time period?

MEMBER BRENNAN: It's three years, from

April 1st through October 31st for the next three

years.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You're all set.

You need to call the roll.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt?

MEMBER GATT: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

 

45

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Now you're all

set. Thank you.

CASE NUMBER 03-027

MS. CHAIRMAN: Case 03-027 has been --

okay. National Diagnostic Services,

Mike Ketslakh of National Diagnostic Services, LLC,

is requesting a variance to allow placement of a

mobile medical diagnostic service trailer.

Would you like to raise your right hand

and be sworn in, please.

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-027?

MR. KETSLAKH: Yes, I do.

MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

MR. KETSLAKH: We're requesting to

provide medical diagnostic services at this location

 

46

for one day a week. It's particularly a test that's

looking at blood profusion into the heart and

significantly improves the ability of the physician

to treat the patient with any kind of problems.

We're looking to basically bring the

trailer in around five o'clock in the morning and we

will move it out in the afternoon.

That's really it.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is there anyone

in the audience that wishes to address this case?

(No response.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: No one. There were

twenty-three notices sent and nine objections, a

petition to deny placement of the mobile trailer, and

it appears that most of these objections were -- are

at the address of 39555 West Ten Mile in various

suites.

Basically, their concern is that the

trailer is unsightly and presents a public safety

hazard.

I'll just read some of them. As

professionals, we depend on our business for not only

our livliehood but also for the livliehood of our

staffs, many of whom live here in Novi. Presentation

 

47

of our places of business is critical to our success.

We feel that the placement of this trailer

significantly negatively impacts the public

perception of the quality and standards of the public

as they enter or pass by our office. Additionally,

the placement of this trailer in the main access

roadway of the Holly Hills Professional Village is in

such a location that it compromises traffic flow and

presents a public safety hazard. The roadway was

designed to allow emergency vehicle access to the

complex in an unimpeded fashion. This is not the

case with this trailer parked in the main entrance to

our complex.

We hereby respectfully request that

this petition be presented as non-supporting of this

motion.

Building department?

MR. SAVEN: Basically, this issue came

before us for a temporary use permit, I believe a

little over a year ago or so, and they had the

temporary trailer placed in this particular position.

I do know that they had some concerns in terms of the

length of stay of the trailer because it was only

supposed to be for one day. It's kind of extended

 

48

out a little bit more than normal, and that was the

only concern that they had. And then we just -- we

started receiving complaints regarding this matter.

I could not bring this back before a

temporary use hearing based upon what my jurisdiction

was in terms of the ordinance; therefore, it had to

come before the board.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Board

members? Member Brennan.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I'm always sad

to hear or sorry to hear that there's so many people

against it because I have just the opposite

sentiment.

I had an MRI done three weeks ago in

one of these portable trailers on Grand River, which

is there for two or three weeks at a time and then

moved somewhere else. I think that this is a

wonderful service for the community. It expedites

timing for medical care; otherwise, if I hadn't gone

to this place, I'd still be waiting for knee surgery,

and it takes a tremendous load off the hospitals,

local hospitals, staffing and facilities. I think

that this is an important addition to the community

and community medical services.

 

49

I have just one question for you, sir,

and maybe you can't answer it. I think that there is

a mistake in this layout which shows the trailer

location between these two suites and twenty-seven

inches between the trailer and the wall. I suspect

that that's twenty-seven feet?

MR. KETSLAKH: It is 27 feet.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Which is certainly

navigable.

MR. KETSLAKH: Yeah, it is.

MEMBER BRENNAN: We've already had this

map previously. If you got ten, twelve feet, you got

plenty of room for a car.

I have -- I had, before coming here

tonight, complete support for this, and I still have

it, complete support for this.

MEMBER BAUER: Madam Chairman?

MS. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Member Bauer.

MEMBER BAUER: Don, what was the main

problem with the trailer?

MR. SAVEN: I believe-

MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing) Time?

MR. SAVEN: Yeah, the time of stay that

it was there. I believe there were other concerns in

 

50

regards to -- I believe the sightliness of the site,

how this portrays with the whole complex, and I think

both of those together created a problem.

From a safety standard, I do not see

this as a safety standard at the time. I don't know

where they place it now, how close it's going to be.

It's shown, given the spacing that's necessary for

maneuverability around the buildings.

But again, too, like I said, this is

for a temporary use request. It is before you now

for one day a week for a specific time, from five

o'clock in the morning to be removed at night, and

not going to be there for any extended stay, two,

three days, because this is the problem that they ran

into.

MR. KETSLAKH: Sir, also-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) We become a

little bit lax in that area.

MEMBER BAUER: I just want to ask the

petitioner a question. Do you have authority by the

building owner?

MR. KETSLAKH: Yes, I do.

MEMBER BAUER: That should be part of

our-

 

51

MR. KETSLAKH: (Interposing) Yes, sir.

It's Paramount that owns that building.

MEMBER BAUER: How close is that to the

one building?

MR. KETSLAKH: It's completely -- it's

a little bit adjacent to it. It's probably within

four feet to -- parellel to the building. It's right

adjacent to it, next to the sidewalk.

MEMBER BAUER: You're talking one day?

MR. KETSLAKH: Yes, sir, only one day

every week.

MR. KETSLAKH: And, furthermore, on

that, we also purchased the trailer from a different

company. They had it -- sublease their trucking,

which we do not. We have our own trucking. And we

absolutely guarantee the trailer will be out of there

by the evening, 100 percent, because we are not -- we

don't subcontract with anybody.

MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Gatt.

MEMBER GATT: Madam Chairm, a couple

questions, security related. It will be delivered at

five o'clock in the morning, the trailer?

MR. KETSLAKH: Yes, sir, right around

 

52

five o'clock.

MEMBER GATT: Does somebody maintain it

from five o'clock until the time it's opened?

MR. KETSLAKH: Yes. We have a staff

person there at all times actually. The staff arrive

there right around 5:00, 5:30, so they're there at

all times.

MEMBER GATT: So it will never be a

vacant trailer with medical supplies?

MR. KETSLAKH: No, sir.

MEMBER GATT: What's kept in the

trailer?

MR. KETSLAKH: It's actually medical

diagnostic equipment. Its' a diagnostic camera that

takes a look at profusion of the blood from the

coronary arteries into the heart, so there is no-

MEMBER GATT: (Interposing) Will there

be any drugs?

MR. KETSLAKH: There are no drugs in

the trailer.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Does it work like an

MRI?

MR. KETSLAKH: It works essentially --

it works exactly like an MRI, and it's -- from the

 

53

site of it, you've been into it, they're almost

identical.

And that trailer is a brand-new

trailer, it's brand-new, they're white and they're

washed all the time.

MEMBER GATT: Another question is,

how -- if you can answer, how loud is this device

when it's set up at five O'clock in the morning?

Just south of there is a street, essentially people

sleeping.

MR. KETSLAKH: The device makes no

noise whatsoever. It's pulled up, the truck pulls it

up-

MEMBER GATT: (Interposing) I meant

the trailer itself.

MR. KETSLAKH: It's a brand-new

trailer, it's a brand-new tractor, and the trailer

itself is not -- the only thing that is operating on

the trailer at that time is just the HVC, the lights,

and that's it. The camera does not make any kind of

noise whatsoever.

MEMBER GATT: What about the truck that

delivers it? I imagine it's going to be a semitruck

that pulls it and parks it in-

 

54

MR. KETSLAKH: (Interposing) That's

correct. We try to be very quite. We've never had a

complaint from the people.

He pulls in, he sets it up and he just

pulls right out.

MEMBER GATT: That would be my only

concern. Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Reinke.

MEMBER REINKE: My only question is, if

they're talking about the sightliness of the trailer

there, is there any feasibility that this could be

located in the rear parking area for that one day so

that it's not visible? Because this is what -- this

seems to be the major part of the complaints of the

objections. To eliminate the visibility, to me,

makes this objection that were filed go away.

MR. KETSLAKH: Yeah. We have no

problem. In fact, actually, we are subleasing -- we

just signed the sublease with the landlord for the

remainder of the building, so we are -- our company

will actually occupy -- we'll occupy three-quarters

of the building. So we have absolutely no problems

pulling it on the back and basically putting it

adjacent to our own suite whatsoever.

 

55

MEMBER BAUER: One problem. That wall

does not go up to the top of a semitrailer. You have

homes that back right up to that brick wall.

MEMBER REINKE: Well, if they're going

to see it from there they're going to see it from

where it's at now.

MR. SAVEN: I think you need power to

get to that unit?

MR. KETSLAKH: Yeah. We have plenty of

power to do it because we're be right adjacent to

Dr. Sax's suite.

MR. SAVEN: You were talking about

placing this unit directly behind the office

building.

MR. KETSLAKH: We could. We have no

problems with it whatsoever.

MR. SAVEN: I have to think that's a

problem.

MEMBER GATT: Plus it's closer to the

homes, and I'm concerned with the noise at

five o'clock in the morning. I mean, people call in

at that time, they're trying to sleep. It's -- I

don't think that's conducive to a good neighbor.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Gray.

 

56

MEMBER GRAY: Well, I was -- I was

going to say that I thought that if there was any

other place that this could be put, then maybe we

should consider that, but with -- I think it's a

catch 22 situation. And I don't think we want it in

the front parking lot either, so I'm in support of

granting the variance.

I think this is a very necessary -- I

don't want to call it an evil. It's a necessary

service, and I can certainly support it.

Like Mr. Brennan's having waited and

waited and waited at other medical facilities for

services, and as the petitioner said, an emergency

comes in and you get bumped and it may be for hours

and hours and hours, and I think we're seeing more

and more of these. And, in fact, we're seeing them

all over the community when they do free screening

for anything and everything, so I would have no

problem supporting this.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: I just have a

follow-up comment. And I appreciate Bob's comments.

If there are problems, the building department's

going to hear about it, if it's reported and it looks

 

57

like a problem. Maybe this motion be tendered that

we-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) That's

basically what I was trying to say.

MEMBER BRENNAN: If we start to have a

problem we may call you back. All right?

MR. KETSLAKH: Absolutely.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Maybe you have to get

a different kind of truck, but I think that that may

satisfy Bob's problem or issue.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Took the words right out

of my mouth. I think that part of that -- I think

part of this is that -- I also am in support of this,

but I think that the one day only, and if we put some

conditions on this, and that if there are any further

problems with the residents or in the area, then you

would have to come back and visit us.

MR. KETSLAKH: Thank you, ma'am.

MS. CHAIRMAN: So is there a motion?

I'm sorry.

MEMBER REINKE: I just wanted to allude

to just one day a week, that you did in your summary,

that you put that in.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Is there someone that

 

58

would like to entertain a motion?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Sure. Let me try.

Case 03-027, the petitioner's request be approved as

submitted, this is one day a week on Fridays, that

the building department will maintain jurisdiction,

if there are issues by adjoining residents we may ask

you to come back and address any complaints.

MEMBER REINKE: Support.

MS. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and

second. Is there any discussion on the motion?

MEMBER BRENNAN: I probably should

define the time, because it was changed during --

what is it, May 6th to-

MS. MARCHIONI: (Interposing) March

1st, 2004.

MEMBER BRENNAN: May 1st of this year

to March 1st of '04.

MS. CHAIRMAN: We have the second?

MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

MEMBER GATT: Madam Chairman, just one

more. The building department will monitor that. I

think the police department should, too, because

sometimes the calls for disturbance will come in

through the police and the building department may

 

59

not even be aware of that, the residents are

complaining.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Don, is that true?

MR. SAVEN: Absolutely. I just wanted

to re-emphasize continuing jurisdiction in this

particular case based on past experience, and we'll

have to do the investigation, and if we find any

problems we'll bring it back to the board. If you

notice, you had nine concerns, so I think that you're

probably going to be hearing from somebody sooner or

later.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schultz.

MR. SCHULTZ: I guess I just want to

confirm what the intention is with regard to

continuing jurisdiction. If it comes back as a

result of complaints, I understand the motion to be

essentially reviewed as a new application rather than

simply addressing issues, and I guess I want to make

sure that we're clear that if it comes back, you have

the right to act on it to either remove it or approve

it with different conditions.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Correct. Thank you for

the clarification. Anybody else?

(No further comment.)

 

60

MS. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, would you like to

call the roll, please.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt?

MEMBER GATT: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

MS. CHAIRMAN: You have your variance.

MR. KETSLAKH: Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

CASE NUMBER 03-028

MS. CHAIRMAN: All right. Let's go to

our next case, 03-029, filed by Daniel Carrier,

Ledgeview Drive.

UNIDENTIFIED: You missed number six.

MEMBER GRAY: Picasso Cafe.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. I apologize

 

61

for that. Let's try this again. Case 03-028,

Picasso Cafe on Grand River, is requesting a variance

to allow temporary outdoor seating for the property

located at

39915 Grand River. This -- the applicant's

requesting for a three-year length variance running

from April 1st until October 31st, sorry.

And he was before us previous, correct?

MR. ATTEE: Yes. Well, my father was,

Gerald Attee. My name is Allen Attee from Picasso

Cafe at 39915 Grand River.

MS. CHAIRMAN: All right. Would you

like to raise your hand, please, and be sworn in by

the secretary.

MR. ATTEE: Sure.

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-028?

MR. ATTEE: Yes, sir.

MEMBER BAUER: Please state your name.

MR. ATTEE: Last year the board was

kind enough to allow us a one-year variance for

outdoor seating at our restaurant.

To my knowledge, there have been no

complaints or problems with anything. In fact, a lot

 

62

of the customers tell us how much they like it.

So this day I'm here before you again

to ask for a three-year variance. There will be no

changes in any of the plans that we have, be the same

seating as last time, same amount of chairs and

tables.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the

audience that wishes to make comment in regards to

this case?

(No response.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, there were

seventeen notices sent, one objection. It was by DSI

Growth and Income Fund, the managers, Mini-U Storage,

39670 Grand River. I object to this business. There

will be paper, plastic cups, et cetera, blowing

around. I try to keep a clean place, and I assume so

much trash -- I have so much trash in my backyard

now, I don't need anymore added to it.

Building department?

MR. SAVEN: Madam Chairman, I have not

received any complaints regarding this particular

business. It is very well kept, very clean, orderly,

and I have no objection.

MR. ATTEE: Thank you. I've never

 

63

gotten a complaint. I have a bus lady who goes out

about every ten minutes and helps. I have, you know,

trash dispensers everywhere. None of my other

neighbors have ever complained. I try to run a real

clean ship, so I would know about it.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Board members? Member

Brennan.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, if there aren't

any comments, I'll make a motion, and move this

along, since we haven't had any complaints. It's a

good, well run business.

MR. ATTEE: Thank you.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Case 03-028, I would

move for approval for the purpose of outdoor seating

from May 6th until May 6, 2004.

MS. CHAIRMAN: You have the wrong one.

MEMBER BRENNAN: You're right. April

1st through October 31st for three years, and it's

the same layout and configuration.

MR. ATTEE: Yes, sir.

MEMBER GATT: I support.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So we have a

motion and support. Is there any discussion on the

motion?

 

64

(No discussion.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, would you like to

call the roll, please.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt?

MEMBER GATT: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

MS. CHAIRMAN: All right. You're all

set.

MR. ATTEE: Thanks a lot.

CASE NUMBER 03-029

MS. CHAIRMAN: Let's see if we can get

the right case number now for 03-029 filed by Daniel

Carrier of 42746 Ledgeview Drive, is requesting a

five foot rear setback variance for the construction

 

65

of a proposed kitchen.

MR. CARRIER: And a three season room

on the back.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to raise

your hand, please, and be sworn in by our secretary.

MR. CARRIER: Oh, sure.

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-029?

MR. CARRIER: I do.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.

MR. CARRIER: Yes. We are requesting a

five foot setback variance from the rear for the

purpose of the kitchen and a three season room, and

then also adding an addition to the upstairs and

proportionate to the lower level addition. The

addition would extend off the back 14 feet by 20.

And we have association approval and I

believe neighbors have been notified.

We back up to a wetland, so we hope not

to impede on anybody visually.

We're on a pie-shaped lot because of

our cul-de-sac situation there.

And I believe you have the plat plan

and the building elevations and drawings in your

 

66

material.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. All set?

MR. CARRIER: All set.

MS. CHAIRMAN: There were seventeen

notices sent; three approvals; Elmlawn on Ledgeview

Drive, 42789; Mark and Amy Jost,

42767 Ledgeview Drive; and Adell and Sue Cossi at

42859. Those were the three approvals.

MR. CARRIER: I do -- excuse me. I do

have one more, for the record.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Is that from your

homeowner's association?

MR. CARRIER: No. This is from another

neighbor at 42790.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a letter

from your association?

MR. CARRIER: Yes, we do.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan, it's

on the table.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Oh, okay. Okay, yes.

Is there anybody in the audience that

wishes to make any comment in regards to this case?

(No response.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: None. Building

 

67

department.

MR. SAVEN: Only this is an unusual

piece of property, and my biggest concern was really

the 20 foot storm easement in the back. And they're

not in that particular area.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Board members?

MEMBER GATT: Madam Chair,

Mr. Carrier, I just want to commend you. When I went

out to look at your house, it's very beautiful, very

well kept. I'll have no trouble supporting this

variance.

MR. CARRIER: Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else?

MEMBER REINKE: Madam Chairman?

MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Reinke.

MEMBER REINKE: I can support the

petitioner's request.

I have a problem with the writeup. I

don't preferably like to see a note that the

underlining zoning district for this project has

previously received ZBA approval to be consistent

with the rear yard setbacks in R-4 zoning district.

I think each project, each request,

stands on its own merit, and just because a favorable

 

68

approval is given to a previous request, I don't

think that this is a statement that should be

included.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anyone else?

Building department.

MR. SAVEN: I need to respond to

Mr. Reinke's concern. One of the things that I've

been charged with is getting as much information in

regards to this project as is possible.

I'm hoping -- one of the reasons why

this was in here, this was part of the Vistas

concerns a long time ago to which before us we've had

several variances as related to this project. You've

had two zoning districts, one being an R-A and one

being an R-4, and it was very difficult to go through

each individual line of description for these

projects.

For example, this section was in an R-A

zoning district, but what the approval was for was

for the R-4 zoning district, which was the underlying

zoning district. So if you look at your map and you

seen R-A and you said wait a minute, this is R-A,

this is not R-4, and that's why I want to bring to

your attention that this is what it was all about,

 

69

not to be construed as you gave the approval but it

was one that the approval was granted for the R-4.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Member Gray.

MEMBER GRAY: I don't have a problem

with this variance request because it is, as

Mr. Saven said, staying out of the easement area.

I think it's going to be a nice

addition to their house, and I like the fact that

it's not encroaching any closer to, I believe it's

the north property line, than the line of the house.

So that having been said, if it's all

right, I would move to approve this variance. In

Case 03-029, move to approve the variance of five

feet due to lot configuration and layout.

Would that be it, Tom?

MR. SCHULTZ: Sure, yes.

MS. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion. Do we

have a second?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Second.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on the

motion?

(No discussion.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, could you please

call the roll.

 

70

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt?

MEMBER GATT: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MEMBER REINKE: No.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Your variance has been

approved. See the building department for your

permit, and you're all set.

MR. CARRIER: Thank you very much.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

CASE NUMBER 03-030

MS. CHAIRMAN: Case 03-030 filed by

Singh Development for Waltonwood at Twelve Oaks.

Would you like to come on down, please.

Requesting a sign extension.

MR. PHAM: Khanh Pham, Singh

 

71

Development.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to raise

your right hand and be sworn in by the secretary?

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-030?

MR. PHAM: I do.

MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

MR. PHAM: Good evening. Lynn couldn't

make it today, so I thought I would pinch hit, since

I have an item after this one.

We are here to ask for an extension of

a sign -- two signs actually.

This is an old aerial. We were before

you a month ago asking for a variance on our phase

two, which -- right here is the grass where we're

planning to build our second phase. This is Twelve

Mile. Here's the finger road right here. It comes

down. It's hard to see through the contrast of the

overhead.

We have currently two signs right now,

one on Twelve Mile and one on the finger road right

in front of our project.

The reason why we're here today is

currently, right now, Twelve Mile, there's a gap

 

72

project under construction.

We are the owner of this property right

here, as well as this property in Waltonwood.

In order to further the construction of

this site, we have allowed a six six -- a concrete

batching plant, which is about three stories high, to

be located on this property right here. With that

concrete batch being there, and its obstruction to

our facility, we would feel strongly that the

extension of the sign would allow us to continue

marketing, even from Twelve Mile, even though there

is a construction site, and still further the cause

for the general that Twelve Mile would be constructed

and that there would be a location for the concrete

batch plant.

That's why we're here tonight, to ask

for that extension for both signs.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were 11

notices sent; no approvals, no objections.

Is there anyone in the audience that

wishes to make comment in regards to this matter?

(No response.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: Building department?

MR. SAVEN: No comment.

 

73

MS. CHAIRMAN: Board members. Member

Gatt.

MEMBER GATT: Madam Chair, with all the

construction and disruption up on Twelve Mile, I

think the hardship speaks for itself, and I have no

trouble supporting this.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: I have a note here

that the last time we saw you, the percentage leased

out was around 60 percent. Do you know what you're

leased out at?

MR. PHAM: Yeah. We are a little bit

over 80, but we're about to start phase two, so those

signs are still necessary for us to start our phase

two leasing.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Other board members? If

there's no other discussion, Chair would entertain a

motion, please.

MEMBER GATT: I'll try it, my first

motion.

MS. CHAIRMAN: All right.

MEMBER GATT: I move that Case Number

03-030, requesting an extension for Singh Development

for two signs for the Waltonwood Development at

 

74

Twelve Oaks be granted for one year.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Is there a second?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Second.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on the

motion?

(No discussion.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, would you please

call the roll.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt?

MEMBER GATT: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. See the building

department and your variance has been granted.

MR. PHAM: Thank you.

MEMBER GATT: Madam Chair, I know we

 

75

were going to take a break, but Mr. Pham is here for

the next matter, too.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I see that. We might as

well just-

MEMBER GATT: (Interposing) Go on

through the next one.

MS. CHAIRMAN: -go on here. And I

don't know if he needs to be sworn in for the

different case. Does he need to be sworn in again?

MR. SCHULTZ: No.

CASE NUMBER 03-031

MS. CHAIRMAN: You're still under oath,

I'd like to remind you, in Case 03-031, Seeley

Sanctuary. I'm not going to read all those numbers.

MR. PHAM: Well, thank you again.

Singh Development has been asked by the Indian

community to help them take their sanctuary through a

site plan process.

Mr. Graywell, the owner of our company,

has gladly obliged them and has asked us to work with

that community to bring through the sanctuary that

the Indian community would like to be located on

Thirteen Mile west of M 5.

 

76

We've gone through the site plan

process. We've worked through the planning

commission and staff, and we now are at a point where

we have designed a project that we think meets the

intent of the ordinance in every fashion. We think

that it is a great design that maximizes the

topography, the land.

And one of the features that attracted

the Indian community to this property is the the

water feature, which is a very strong element in

their religion and culture.

So -- and through the design process we

have helped them design a site plan right here

where -- this is the sanctuary right here. Why it's

located here is that we have a drop off area in

front, and that we're caught with -- there's a 2.9

acre wetland right here, and a regulated wetland

right here, and a wetland over in the corner right

over here.

We worked through the staff and the

consultants through the planning process, and the

location of our driveway through -- for safety

reasons were fixed at right here, so that would be

safe offsetting from the new life drive over here,

 

77

and then across the street is new Fox Run Drive for

the retirement community.

So we've placed our building right here

overlooking the water.

Why do we place it here is that in

ordinance for churches and places of worship you need

to have a 75 foot setback and that no parking can be

in the front yard setback.

Furthermore, we -- when we designed

this we found out that this property has irregular

right-of-way lines -- and I think this is a little

better -- where the right-of-way lines right here, it

jogs down about 20 feet, goes a little further, jogs

down another 20 feet, and then comes across toward M

5. With those right-of-way lines, and also trying to

meet the front yard setback of the ordinance, the

building was placed to not encroach in the setback in

terms of building location itself, and the only thing

that goes over that is an overhang, and this overhang

is an architectural feature that serves --

complimented the architect of the building, and also

allows for users to have a little protection from the

weather when they're getting dropped off and picked

up.

 

78

We'd like to show you a little bit of

some of the architecture and why we think this would

be a positive to the community.

This is the rendering of the facility.

As through the planning commission, they thought that

the design warranted the extra overhang, and as

through your minutes, commissioners tried to rotate

the building to avoid this setback issue, but with

the pond being there, the irregular right-of-way

line, the need to keep the building further forward

so that parking is not in the front yard setback has

necessitated us to ask for this variance.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were 13

notices sent, zero approvals, zero objections.

Is there anyone in the audience that

wishes to speak on this case?

(No response.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Building

department?

MR. SAVEN: No comment.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Board members? Member

Brennan.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Boy, this is a tough

parcel. This is -- you got more water and swamps on

 

79

this parcel than I seen anywhere else. I think

they've done a good job in planning and working with

the City.

The fact that this front yard variance

is really the result of an overhang I think is a

minimal variance condition, and the fact that this

landscaping, a berm, sometimes it's just smarter to

do it a different way, and I think this is a good

example of the smarter way to provide some breakup

between the Thirteen Mile and the property, so I'm

regretfully supporting both of your projects tonight.

And I thought I'd run you out on one or the other.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Gatt.

MEMBER GATT: Well, I concur with

Mr. Brennan. I think you're doing a great job with a

tough piece of property.

And, you know, I've worked in the City

for many, many years, and I've seen Singh Development

start Turtle Creek on up to where they're at today,

and every project they do is just better than the

rest. I think this one speaks for itself.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anyone else?

Member Gray.

MEMBER GRAY: I also support this

 

80

project for the reasons stated, and also because when

we're looking at a variance for the berm, what we're

doing is we're actually preserving the wetlands and

the woodlands by granting that waiver. And for that

reason I am in support of the variance.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anyone else?

MEMBER BAUER: Great planning.

MR. PHAM: Thank you. I didn't get a

chance to present my berm speech, but that's okay.

MS. CHAIRMAN: See how well you're

viewed already?

MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a motion,

Case 03-031, the petitioner's request for two

variances, one front yard setback, and the other

elimination of the berm, be approved as submitted

due to lot configuration.

MEMBER BAUER: Second.

MS. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and

second. Is there any discussion on the motion?

(No discussion.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: None. Sarah, could you

please call the roll.

MS. MARCHIONI: I'm sorry. Who

seconded that?

 

81

MS. CHAIRMAN: Jerry Bauer.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt?

MEMBER GATT: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You're all set.

MR. PHAM: Thank you. Good night.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Having done that case, I

think what we'll do, being it's

nine o'clock, the board's going to take a five minute

break. We'll be back here at 9:05 and finish off the

rest of these cases.

(A recess was taken.)

CASE NUMBER 03-032

MS. CHAIRMAN: I'll call the meeting to

 

82

order, and we'll go with Case Number 03-032 filed by

Platinum Signs representing Putting Edge at 44125

Twelve Mile Road in Fountain Walk.

Are you Mr. Manno?

MR. SALVO: No. My name is Paul Salvo.

He was unable to attend. His wife is actually due to

have a baby any day now, so he's on standby.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Would you raise your

right hand and be sworn by our secretary, please.

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-032?

MR. SALVO: Yes. The variance that

we're requesting is for a large sign that is being

put on the building. The reason we're requesting for

the larger sign is permitted -- more than is

permitted by the the City of Novi is we're looking to

attract a larger client base to the complex itself.

What we're doing is, by adding the

larger sign, will be having a more family clientele

being drawn to the community and that complex.

In addition, the sign that's being

proposed is also a corporate identity, brand

identity. The logo that's being used is used on all

storefronts across Canada and the U.S. The logo

 

83

that's being used is also used on all advertising

media, the website. It's used to identify Putting

Edge.

By changing the logo, what we'd be

doing is comparable to changing a Coke, Nike, Shell,

any one of these logos. By changing the look of the

logo would -- you'd be infringing on any brand

recognition or loyalty that that company's built up

over the years.

And, finally, the facade committee for

the City of Novi has approved the signage as it

currently stands on the building. And it is

proportional to the building storefront and it

compliments the existing businesses in the community.

And that's all.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were twenty

notices sent; zero approvals and one objection from

Pico Investment Company at

7145 Sheraton Drive. I believe their objection is

they feel that the sign is extremely large, will open

the door for many other types of variances. The City

has very good reasons for establishing a regulation,

and this variance would destroy the intended

integrity of the appearance of the community. We do

 

84

not want to see a large sign in the Novi community.

I apologize, but I'm not sure -- Sarah,

who -- what business is this, do you know?

MS. MARCHIONI: I'm not sure where it

is.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Pico Investment is the

owners of the hotel, West Oaks, and also the

restaurant who was before us six months ago for a

large sign.

MS. CHAIRMAN: So they're not in

Fountain Walk?

MEMBER BRENNAN: No.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Okay.

Anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on

this?

(No response.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: No one. Building

department?

MR. SAVEN: I'd just like to bring to

the board's attention the determining height and

width of the sign and square footage of the sign, the

maximum height and width. In determining the sign

size, it is to the extremes of the length and width

of the sign function itself. And as you can see,

 

85

there is two -- actually two signs. One is

glow-in-the-dark mini golf underneath the original

sign, and it helps contribute to the size of the

sign.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Board members? Member

Brennan.

MEMBER BRENNAN: I wasn't too much

concerned about the size because we've addressed

issues like this at Fountain Walk before, and we will

tonight.

I'd like some comment back from

building regarding the second item, regarding -- for

the proposed sign. That's not a common style

consistent with the other signs at Fountain Walk.

What's so different about it?

MR. SAVEN: Okay. When Fountain Walk

started, there's an issue regarding different types

and styles of signs. It's just like when you start

Town Center. Town Center, you had certain type of

lettering and it had to be consistent throughout.

This project was designed a little bit differently

for its uniqueness and everything that's there.

Bottom line is, it is different, and

because this is part of the ordinance it has to be

 

86

addressed.

MEMBER BRENNAN: But with that -- and

we've -- not to diss you, sir, but we've had large

corporations make modifications to signs to meet

ordinances, and if that's what the board is moved to

and compelled to, believe me, we may ask you to do

that as well. That's probably not your issue. It's

more the owner's issue.

But with respect to their request on

the square footage, I think it's in line with what we

have moved for other businesses in that.

I'd like to have more discussion

personally from other members regarding the style.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else. Member

Reinke.

MEMBER REINKE: The style, I really

don't -- it's a unique sign, I agree with that, but I

really think that the size of it and what it's

projecting is larger than it needs to be. I think it

needs to be larger than 40 square feet, but I have a

problem jumping up to a hundred and fifteen.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. SALVO: May I make a comment on

that note?

 

87

MS. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. SALVO: The Putting Edge logo

itself is only 78 square feet. Once you add the

glow-in-the-dark, now it jumps to -- the way you

calculate the square footage, it jumps to a hundred

and fifteen feet.

MEMBER REINKE: I understand that.

MR. SALVO: That's where the big jump.

MEMBER REINKE: I know exactly how it's

calculated. Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else.

MEMBER BAUER: Is glow-in-the-dark mini

golf part of their emblem?

MR. SALVO: No.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MEMBER GATT: Just to speed things

along, my comments, when I went out to look, is why

would we approve this. I'm not getting any reasons

why we would so far, so --

MEMBER BRENNAN: I think what we've

established right off the bat (inaudible) reduces the

size of the sign is if the glow-in-the-dark mini golf

is removed, that makes the sign 78 or something, so

that's a reduction in the overall square footage.

 

88

Again, I'd like to hear some feedback

from others on this issue of design. Laverne didn't

feel too troubled with it.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I don't either. I'm not

-- I don't have a problem with the design. I think

in this -- Fountain Walk is just so massive to me

when you're driving through there sometimes, and this

is just a different -- and it's just different, and I

can't -- I think on that building, just the Putting

Edge though, is good. I think Jerry's on to

something here with -- I don't know that glow-in-the

dark mini golf has to be on it, just to add to that.

You know, it's basically -- for me I'm

trying to locate a business, I already know what I'm

looking for.

So if somebody wants to start making

suggestions, perhaps -- Member Gray.

MEMBER GRAY: I'm also not averse to

the style of the sign because this whole project has

been a real -- it's been a whole lot of fun, hasn't

it, folks.

I think if you want to keep the

glow-in-the-dark mini golf sign, that you have to

reduce the size of the logo, or if you want to keep

 

89

the size of the logo, Putting Edge, then you have to

eliminate the glow-in-the-dark. I think to have both

of them is a bit much.

And so what are you willing to

compromise on?

MR. SALVO: We can eliminate

glow-in-the-dark.

MS. CHAIRMAN: You can?

MR. SALVO: If we can keep the existing

sign as is, Putting Edge, keep the logo -- if we're

going to keep the same size on the Putting Edge and

eliminate the glow-in-the-dark.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam Chairman, did we

already ask the audience for participation?

MS. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Because there's

somebody there in the back that's waving his hand

frantically.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Are you part of this?

Come on down.

MR. VANDERDUSE: My name is Carl

Vanderduse. I'm the construction manager for the

Putting Edge Corporation, and I happen to be in Novi

because I'm meeting with our general contractor there

 

90

tomorrow, so I thought I'd come by tonight.

And Platinum Signs, who we have

contracted, has been authorized to drop the

glow-in-the-dark portion of the sign to meet approval

of your committee.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Board

Members? Member Brennan.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam Chair, if

there's no other people interested in inputting, I'll

make a motion, that with this case, 03-032, I would

move that the sign as presented be approved with the

elimination of the glow-in-the-dark mini golf, making

this approximately a 78 square foot sign, and that we

approve the style as presented.

MEMBER REINKE: Support.

MS. CHAIRMAN: There's been a motion

and support. Is there any further discussion?

(No discussion.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, Sarah,

could you please call the roll.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

 

91

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt?

MEMBER GATT: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. See the building

department.

CASE NUMBER 03-033

MS. CHAIRMAN: In the next case,

03-033, Moufid Leon, Leon's Restaurant. Would you

like to come on down. Are you Mr. Leon?

MR. LEON: Yes, I am.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to raise

your hand and be sworn in by our secretary, please.

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-033?

MR. LEON: Yes, I do.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Why don't you go ahead.

MR. LEON: I'm here in front of you

asking for a sign facing Ten Mile. In exchange was

 

92

taking 80 square feet sign down for 36 square feet

sign facing Ten Mile, so I would like to -- I have a

nice logo, will fit perfect on my new elevation, and

that's one of the reason I'm giving up 80 square foot

sign for 36 square feet sign.

So if you please consider that issue.

If not, we can keep the 80 square foot sign.

MS. CHAIRMAN: There were 17 notices

sent; one approval. It's a lengthy approval, so I'll

try to give you the highlights here. Jean Grant

lives on Cherry Hill in Meadowbrook Glens, a big

supporter of your restaurant, says many fine things

about it.

She has some concerns about the second sign,

visibility, large trees.

Is there anyone in the audience that

wishes to make a comment in regards to this case?

(No response)

MS. CHAIRMAN: No. Building

department?

MR. SAVEN: Just a couple issues.

Mr. Leon is going through some changes in facades and

going through renovation of his building, and these

were the issues that were brought up.

 

93

He would like to place two signs on

this building, one on the front facing Ten Mile Road

and one facing west at the entrance. One of the

concerns was, of course, the ground pole sign which

we have there, and these were one of the issues that

we were negotiating at that time. Hopefully the

negotiation is that he was going to take that large

sign down.

And that is still the understanding; is

that correct?

MR. LEON: Correct.

MR. SAVEN: And -- which is something

which is 80 square foot.

Now, he's got one sign that there --

there were going to be two signs less than 40 square

foot, one 36 on one side and I believe one the same

size on the other. What he's asking for tonight is

one additional sign providing he takes the other one

down.

If this is the board's decision to

approve this, I would ask that that issue of the sign

coming down be placed in the motion.

Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Board members.

 

94

MEMBER BAUER: Don, what size would

that be?

MR. SAVEN: The sign that's 80 square

feet is 10 by 8. It was about 21, 22 feet tall, and

it doesn't meet the size of the ordinance as it

exists right now.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Brennan.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Boy, number of

comments.

Mr. Leon, I'm thrilled to see that that

big pole sign is coming down. You probably heard my

comments about Feldman, trying to get him to do the

same thing.

I understand the need for a new sign.

It's a new business. Tell us why you think you need

this sign on the west end when you haven't had one

for 30 years there.

MR. LEON: Well, the tree line, as you

coming east on Ten Mile, it's completely blocking my

view, and you would not see it until you pass it.

And after you pass it there's all the traffic on Ten

Mile and Haggerty. You're not going to turn around

to come back to me.

MEMBER BRENNAN: East heading west?

 

95

MR. LEON: If you coming east on

Ten Mile, going East on Ten Mile, you can't see the

sign until you pass it. That's why I'm asking for

sign facing Ten Mile.

MEMBER BRENNAN: My first reaction was

this is a good deal. We've got an accumulation of

square footage that's less than what is currently

there.

This is one of the staples of our

community, great guy, and I think that that's part of

my rationalization. And I met my wife there 25 years

ago. She was waitress.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Anything to add to that?

Member Gatt.

MEMBER GATT: Well, I didn't meet my

wife there. I've had dinner with my wife there many

times, so -- I just want to add to what Mr. Brennan

said. I've known Mr. Leon for 28 years, and his

whole family, and that restaurant is just part of

this community now, and I don't -- it's a first class

restaurant all the way. Mr. Leon and his family are

first class people. Living in the area, I know

exactly what he's talking about when you're driving

down

 

96

Ten Mile. If you don't know where it is, sometimes

you can miss it, and since we're going to take down

that big sign, I can support this motion without

batting an eye.

MEMBER BAUER: Congratulations.

MR. LEON: Thank you.

MEMBER BAUER: I go for this 100

percent.

MR. LEON: Thank you very much.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Well, we have a lot of

heads shaking positively here. Sarah.

MEMBER GRAY: Well, I don't know the

Leons. I've eaten there several times. I don't know

anybody who hasn't.

I also feel that this is going to be

more of a destination place and the clientele will

find it.

I'm wondering if the sign -- and I know

it's a net win. I'm wondering if the sign on the

west has to be quite so big. Maybe it could be a bit

smaller. Are you willing to reduce the size of the

sign on the west side?

MR. LEON: Well, I'm giving up 80

square feet sign for 36 square-

 

97

MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) I

understand that, but our ordinance says one sign.

MR. LEON: I go along with that. I

mean, that's why I'm here in front of you.

MR. BRENNAN: Madam Chairwoman?

MS. CHAIRMANA: Yes, Member Brennan.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Just based on some of

the discussion we had, I'd like to give a shot at

this and see where the board sits.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to add a

comment though in regards to the previous speaker. I

-- coming down Ten Mile, I have to concur with the

other two members. It is very difficult to find that

building on Ten Mile. When I first looked at this, I

immediately thought that that sign wasn't necessary.

When I was going back out I could not find the

building, and I'm hoping that that sign is helping.

And I've been here 23 years, so I certainly know

where your restaurant is, so it is -- maybe that will

help, especially the newcomers, in the area.

So, given that, sure, Member Brennan.

MEMBER BRENNAN: In Case Number 03-033,

I would move that the petitioner's request for two

signs, each 36 square foot, be approved and the pole

 

98

sign removed for the purpose of a new business

establishment/business identification.

MEMBER BAUER: Second, but I think it's

a variance for one.

MEMBER BRENNAN: It's a variance for

one. I'm sorry. You're going to get two but the

variance is for one.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion?

(No discussion.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, would you please

call the roll.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt?

MEMBER GATT: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: No.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Your variance has been

 

99

approved.

MR. LEON: Thank you very much.

MS. CHAIRMAN: See the building

department.

MEMBER REINKE: Madam Chairman, just a

quick note, and I'm just trying to recall, the

condition of that motion to remove the pole sign?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

MEMBER REINKE: That's all I wanted to

know.

CASE NUMBER 03-034

MS. CHAIRMAN: Case Number 03-034,

filed by Kip Sheward Motor Sports. Mr. Sheward is

requesting a use variance to allow sale of cars,

wholesale, located at 24404 Catherine Industrial

Drive.

You are Mr. Sheward?

MR. SHEWARD: Yes, I am.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Would you please raise

your right hand and be sworn in by our secretary.

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-034?

MR. SHEWARD: I do.

 

100

MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

MR. SHEWARD: What I'm here for, I sure

most -- or everybody's gotten the letter that I

typed, I hope.

I'm kind of unique to the point that

I'm not your average car dealer. I'm not asking to

have a car dealership on Catherine. I understand

it's not the proper zoning for it. But considering

the way I do business, we're not really open to the

public. I'm actually a wholesaler.

My license is held in Keego Harbor at a

store that I've closed, but I'm able to keep my

license but I'd like to keep everything under roof,

so my request is to be able to transfer my license to

Catherine Industrial Drive.

Everything's pretty much stated in the

letter. There's no outside storage, it's not open to

the public, there's no flags, there's no cars

outside. We're not really even -- really unlock the

front door. It's more or less office and storage.

I've drawn a little map of how many

cars actually fit inside the building. It's very

small. It's two people, myself and an assistant.

That's it.

 

101

So my request is to be able to transfer

my license. It would help me a lot. I wouldn't have

to run back and forth. I'm registered at the

Secretary of State over in

West Bloomfield. I'd like to be registered back with

the Secretary of State here at Drake and Grand River

in Farmington Hills. It's much easier for me. It

would be a big burden off of my shoulders, that's for

sure.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were nine

notices sent; no approvals, no objections.

Is there anyone in the audience that

wishes to speak on behalf of this case?

(No response.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: Building department?

MR. SAVEN: How many cars do you

anticipate maximum in storage?

MR. SHEWARD: Storage?

MR. SAVEN: Yeah.

MR. SHEWARD: It can go to 20 on peak

season. That's between November, my slow season of

course. I'm mostly sports cars and specialty cars.

If I were to store cars all winter long, which is

really November to April, 20 to 25 cars, if I really

 

102

shoehorn them in there.

MR. SAVEN: Second question is, again,

to reiterate, there's going to be no signage in

regards to your business?

MR. SHEWARD: No. There's my name on

the door, but that's-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Everything

will be conducted within the building; in other

words, you're not going to have any outside storage

at all?

MR. SHEWARD: No, no. There's none.

Everything's locked up. If you come by, you don't

even really know I'm there, other than I had to put

my name on the door. That's part of the agreement

with the landlord that owns the complex, for

identity. I'm unit 306. But my name is on the

window, and that's it.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Board members. I have a

question. Go ahead.

MEMBER BRENNAN: I had a number of

questions. Are you already established, are you

leasing this facility and have cars in there now?

MR. SHEWARD: Yes. I can't do the

sales out of there is the problem. I can do the

 

103

storage. That's -- actually, I don't need a

variance. I'm zoned for that.

MR. SAVEN: For the storage aspect,

yes. Storage is something you can take a look at.

The thing that's triggering this whole

thing is he has a license that needs to have zoning

approval. I can't give him zoning approval because

this -- just for the fact that this type of licensure

requirement is normally dealing with outdoor sales,

this type of thing, and exposure to exteriors and

things, this is a little different.

MEMBER BRENNAN: My other question is,

how many cars a year would you anticipate moving

through this business?

MR. SHEWARD: We might do five cars a

month, maybe. It's very small.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Any antique cars?

MR. SHEWARD: Yeah.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Is there any issue

with this zoning with respect to safety and gasoline

and-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) I'm not sure

what the conditions are within his particular

building. Normally, there would be interceptors that

 

104

would be located within the structure itself which

would be required.

Fire department has some unusual

concerns about this. Most instances, when you're

storing cars in there for a period of time, if it's

for show, normally they'll empty the gas tanks.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Tell me what type of

signage you expect to have on the front door.

MR. SHEWARD: It's just my name. It's

the same size as everybody else in the complex. It's

for identity purposes. Mine's colored. That's the

only -- everybody else is in white. I had it done --

my logo is actually

Kip Sheward in red and Motor Sports is in yellow.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Gatt.

MEMBER GATT: I just have a question.

How do you advertise?

MR. SHEWARD: How do I advertise? Word

of mouth. I don't -- like I said, it's very small.

We do a lot of Internet, but primarily I'm well known

in what I do. I've been doing it for a very, very

long time.

I was in Novi before. I'm back. I

 

105

enjoy the community.

But I have a big following and a big

clientele, so it's not like I need to advertise to

the general public, because we're not really general

public.

MEMBER GATT: So your clients come and

they're going to do a transaction inside your

building?

MR. SHEWARD: Occasionally, but most of

the time, as you read in the letter, I -- there's

times that I don't even see the car. I'll buy a car

in Florida, sell it to a client in New York and do

the paper transaction. The car gets shipped from

Florida to New York. I never see the car. It never

even has to show up.

MEMBER GATT: But the cars that you're

storing, will your clients come to test drive them

and so on?

MR. SHEWARD: No, because if it's

storage it's a different entity. It's not really for

sale. They're just there to store. It helps me out

in the wintertime because we're very slow in the

winter. I'm more or less -- it's -- I'd call it an

eight-month business. The rest of the time, the

 

106

wintertime, we're slow. There's times we don't even

go into the office.

MEMBER GATT: The cars being stored are

not for sale?

MR. SHEWARD: No, just strictly

storage. It helps me offset my rent.

MEMBER BAUER: No storage -- I mean, no

repair or body work at all?

MR. SHEWARD: Nothing. We wash an

occasional car.

MEMBER BAUER: Okay.

MR. SHEWARD: No repairs, no painting,

there's no grinding, there's -- you wouldn't even

know I'm back there.

MS. CHAIRMAN: No truck haulers?

MR. SHEWARD: Occasionally a truck

hauler, yes. Reliable comes in. I'm on a court.

It's nice. It's a big wide open court. There's

also, I think, if I'm right, a construction company

at the end of the court that has a private drive.

The truck's there for maybe a half an hour at most,

just to unload or load. It's not a problem. And

they usually stay on Catherine. It's not like they

have to try to come through the complex, but that's

 

107

the only issue really.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Gray.

MEMBER GRAY: What are your hours of

operation? I understand what you're doing is

primarily -- the use that you have now is for

storage. And this is only going to be incidental?

MR. SHEWARD: Yeah. I'm there from

9:00 to 6:00. I work sometimes late at night, until

seven o'clock if I stay in the office to do

paperwork, but we're really -- we don't really have

set hours because, once again, we're not really open

to the public.

MEMBER GRAY: How many years have you

been in business?

MR. SHEWARD: About 28 years now.

MEMBER GRAY: The problem that I have

with this is that we have the power to authorize a

use in a zoning district which is not otherwise

permitted provided it is clearly shown that the land

cannot be used for a zoned use.

Now, I understand that you're already

using this facility and occupying this facility for

storage.

MR. SHEWARD: Yes.

 

108

MEMBER GRAY: And so I'm presuming

though that the financial aspect of it, the storage,

would be incidental to the sales.

MR. SHEWARD: Yes.

MEMBER GRAY: Okay. Is there -- Tom,

is there any direction that -- in the ordinance on

this?

MR. SCHULTZ: There really isn't. I'm

not sure you can put this peg into any hole that's

designed in the ordinance, and I assume that's why it

was sent to the ZBA through the planning department

instead of possibly to the planning commission for

some kind of special land use approval.

This is a use variance, so the

unnecessary hardship standard applies, and it is

stated as set forth in the agenda, so that's the

decision you're making. It's not -- doesn't fall

within the scope of the permitted use, so use

variance is all he's got.

MEMBER GRAY: Thanks.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Anything else?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Just another point of

clarification, because I think this is important.

You said you might sell on average five

 

109

cars a month.

MR. SHEWARD: Yeah.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Not all five of those

are going to be in your facility?

MR. SHEWARD: No. It's one at a time.

It's not a -- there's not twelve salesmen. It's one

at a time. It could be two cars in one week, it

could be five cars in one week, and I don't do a

thing for three more weeks. Very low volume, very

expensive cars.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Seems to me that this

is a very minimal need for a use variance. It

doesn't seem to be a lot of threat to the community.

Obviously there isn't any issues with neighbors or

adjoining businesses. It seems like a pretty

harmless request.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anyone care to

take a stab at the motion?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah. I'm on a roll.

With respect to 03-034, I would move that the

petitioner's request for use variance for this

particular business be approved for the reason that

the requirement is minimal, there is no objection

from neighbors or adjoining businesses, and it would

 

110

be limited to this petitioner only.

MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Motion has been

made and a second. Any further discussion on the

motion? Tom.

MR. SCHULTZ: Just a -- I apologize for

consulting here.

MS. CHAIRMAN: That's fine.

MR. SCHUTLZ: But was it limited to

this petitioner only?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes, that was the

tailend, yeah.

MS. CHAIRMAN: You actually said it in

the beginning, too.

Any further discussion?

(No discussion.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, would you please

call the roll.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt?

MEMBER GATT: Yes.

 

111

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Your variance has been

approved.

MR. SHEWARD: Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Does he have to see the

building department?

MS. MARCHIONI: Yeah.

MR. SHEWARD: Thank you very much. I

appreciate it.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Welcome back to Novi.

MR. SHEWARD: Thanks. Nice to be back,

really is. Thank you.

CASE NUMBER 03-035

MS. CHAIRMAN: Moving right along, Case

Number 03-035, Joseph Gluck. Come on down.

Mr. Gluck is asking for two variances, side yard and

a total aggregate side yard.

Mr. Gluck, would you raise your right

 

112

hand, please.

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-035?

MR. GLUCK: I do. What I'm proposing

to do is build a 14 by 14 -- basically it's a

screened-in porch enclosure. I've heard it called

earlier a three season room. It would be like that.

One of the problems we have is that

we -- the house is located in a beginning of a

cul-de-sac. It's on a pie shaped lot, and basically

the house was put in the only spot it could be put in

by the builder, and that kind of gave us a challenge,

once we were trying to put -- once we tried to put in

the screened porch.

It -- basically, as soon as we come off

the east end of it, we're in violation of the 15 foot

requirement.

Something I would like the board to

consider is, if you take the front of our lot, it's a

hundred and thirty-one foot, and the back of our lot

is 58 foot. The average width is about 95 foot.

And if we looked at that, we would be

in compliance if we said the lot was ninety-five

foot, because that only requires a ten foot side yard

 

113

setback and a thirty foot total aggregate side yard

setback.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay, all right. There

were twenty-one notices sent; three approvals: Linda

and Jason Roberts at 30377; Scott and Kelly Helleron,

30361; and then Tom and Sylvia Sutherland on Bristol

Circle.

MR. GLUCK: Right. I also have another

one, too, from the neighbor that is directly to the

east of us.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. If you have that-

MR. GLUCK: (Interposing) I have the

subdivision also. It's --

MS. MARCHIONI: It's in the file,

association. There's two copies in there.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Building department?

MR. SAVEN: Just that this is an R-2

zoning district, and most of the times we're dealing

with R-4 zoning districts where we have 15 and 10

requirement. This is a little bit unusual because it

talks about a minimum of 15 foot setback requirement

for a side yard in this district, and that the lot

configuration is a little unique in character.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board members.

 

114

Member Brennan.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Just for those who

might be watching at home, the angle of this house

has a screened porch tradition where it matches to

the house. He actually has the 15 feet. As it gets

to the far corner is his ten foot setback, so it

appears to be a fairly minor requirement request.

And the fact that if we consider the

first variance, it makes the second variance a

necessity, so one leads to the other, so it's the

same condition, so I have -- if -- with the neighbors

supporting it, the association supporting, it seems

to be a fairly modest request.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Other board members?

MEMBER REINKE: Madam Chairman, I think

it's a minimum intrusion because it's not really

going in excess of the home. It's only going back to

that one point. It's not jutting out to where it

would be intrusive or nothing like that. I really

don't see any problem with the request.

MS. CHAIRMAN: We're certainly talking

about an odd lot size, that's for sure. Makes it

kind of -- talk about creativity.

Anyone -- Chair would entertain a

 

115

motion.

MEMBER REINKE: Madam Chair, in Case

03-035, move that the petitioner's request be granted

due to lot sidelines and building angle.

MEMBER BAUER: Second.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So I've got a

motion and a second. Is there any further discussion

on the motion?

(No discussion.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, would you like to

call the roll?

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt?

MEMBER GATT: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Your variance has been

 

116

granted. Please see the building department.

MR. GLUCK: Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

CASE NUMBER 03-036

MS. CHAIRMAN: Case 03-036, Kevin Akey

representing homeowners on East Lake Drive. This is

an interpretation, two-and-a-half story project, and

as soon as they get their poster boards ready then

they can -- and you are?

MR. AKEY: Kevin Akey from

AZD Architects.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Are you the only person

speaking tonight?

MR. AKEY: I think so, yes.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead and raise your

hand.

MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-036?

MR. AKEY: I do. Kevin Akey from AZD

Architects. This is the homeowners, Dave and Sue

(inaudible).

We're here for a couple of

interpretations, the first one being whether a

 

117

half-story is allowed underneath the roof slope or

not.

The building department is contending

that the half-story does not lie under the sloping

roof. We feel that it does in a way. We do have a

unique roof line. We have a narrow lot. We came up

with a unique solution to push in some of these walls

on the top so that would give the appearance of an

overhang. We're not allowed -- I think we're allowed

ten inches into the side yard. We're trying stay

completely out of the side yards. So that's how

the design came about.

Now really, all we're trying to do is

get storage on this half level.

The City has allowed for this exact

configuration, and they've allowed us to do a small

truss here. They've allowed us to do a full truss.

What we're trying to do is this solution and just

eliminate the webbing in the trusses and do an

attic-type truss. That's really all we're trying to

do.

We're under the height restrictions.

If we go to a more typical roof, such as this one, we

can actually build the house higher, I think about

 

118

two-and-a-half feet higher, and we can still get

storage.

Really, all we're trying to do is keep

this configuration as the City allowed and do attic

trusses in this area. Should make sense I think.

The second interpretation would be the

exterior materials. The first one would be a split

face block, is what we're trying to use, which is

this material here.

I drove up and down the road. We've

taken a lot of pictures. Of the 60 houses we

photographed -- I have all those pictures also -- we

actually found four of them being block, more of a

cinder block type appearance, and one of them did

have split face brick on it.

All we're trying to do is basically a

brick masonry unit at a different size, which is

similar to a cultured stone even. It almost gives

that appearance.

We're just -- we're -- you know, there

is existing block houses on the street. They're more

of a cinder block. You know, we could match that.

We feel it's, you know, almost a basement appearance

type look. We're just really trying to upgrade the

 

119

conditions.

The other material is the metal siding.

I think the metal siding -- the name scares most

people, because in reality -- I have this board here

-- and of the 60 houses on that street, 42 of them

are actually vinyl or aluminum siding. Some of them

are T1-11, asbestos, plaster board.

But this is really -- this is vinyl

siding down here. This is the metal siding that

we're trying to use. This isn't the exact color, but

I do have the colors on another color board.

So it really gives the appearance, even

from ten feet away, of the same exact material, which

is prominent on 40 sum of the 60 houses out there.

And we're really just using it as an

accent. We don't have any of it on the lake side.

We just really have a piece of it here, and we do

have it on the sides.

This material, basically because of the

newer technology, it's widely used quite a bit on

other homes. It's actually more expensive than

aluminum and vinyl siding, it's just a better quality

and a less maintenance type material.

The house is actually going to have a

 

120

real strong wood presence. Most of it is wood

actually. Doors and windows are wood, lot of these

horizontal items are wood, dry stores are wood,

trellis is wood. These two materials are both really

more of an accent. They are a high quality material.

I do have a couple questions, too,

because on that same street we have a drive-it house

and a cedar-shaked house, and I'm not sure how that

was -- how that was able to be approved if there were

no other materials like that in the neighborhood

when, in fact, we do have some of the same materials

with the exception to the metal siding.

We're not trying to downgrade the

neighborhood at all. We're actually trying to

inspire the neighborhood.

I believe we've designed the home that

is tasteful and respectful to the neighborhood and

the City.

I also believe we remain compliant with

the spirit of the ordinance. And we actually have 20

letters from the neighbors that aren't only excited

about this house but they really want the house with

the current design. I have all those letters, if you

guys would like them. There's actually two sets.

 

121

One is just for the attic storage trusses, and one is

for the exterior materials. We've gotten -- the

homeowners have gotten 20 sum signatures.

That's about all. Back to this again

for a second. We're not really changing the -- to be

able to do what we want to do, it would not change

the exterior appearance at all. We just really want

to do a different type of truss, and that's all.

MS. CHAIRMAN: If you'd like to bring

those letters forward, please.

MR. AKEY: There's two groups here.

One is just for -- this is for the exterior material

and these are all just for the attic trusses.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We'll make

those part of the record.

There were 28 notices sent; no

approvals, no objections up until this point with

what the petitioner just give us. However, there is

a letter that was sent, neither supporting nor

rejecting. It was from Asa Smith at 1294 East Lake

Drive, who asks us to carefully consider the plans

and materials being consolidated for this project --

considered for this project. The lot is small,

narrow and long. I believe variances have been

 

122

granted for this project. Be careful in granting

interpretations. Consider neighbors on either side

of this project, heights, elevations, landscaping. I

am not necessarily for or against this project, but I

do believe it should be looked at and evaluated very

carefully.

And we have -- looks like this is a

standard letter and each resident signed it.

MR. AKEY: Yes.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I don't know that

there's anyone in the audience left to speak on this.

Do you have anything to offer on this?

UNIDENTIFIED: Both neighbors on both

sides have signed it, and everyone was very

enthusiastic about it, thought it was a beautiful

sign, and it would help increase the value of all the

homes around it. They were all very enthusiastic.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Building

department?

MR. SAVEN: Just, basically, the reason

why they're here is because of the third story

implication that this does have, and also the

construction materials, which was, as of today, still

does not meet the design and construction standards

 

123

of the ordinance, which was brought in a letter by

virtue of Peter Albertson of NSA, and I believe you

have been working with him with regard to this

particular issue. That's why this gentleman is here

today, based upon what he is presenting today.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Board members,

questions, comments. Sarah.

MEMBER GRAY: I think it's beautiful.

I think it's very interesting. I've lived in the

area since 1978, and I think it's what we tell people

to do, to be creative in what you're bringing

forward, and you've been creative.

I think that the reason that this city

has a similar/dissimilar ordinance could be because

of the lakes area of the city where houses are, in

some cases, a one-story cement block that looks like

a garage to some of the two-and-a-half, three-story

Victorians that have been built on East Lake.

I have concerns about what you're

doing, but what you're doing is you're providing

storage area, and I know when you live in that area

storage is at a premium, so I have no problem with

granting this variance because I think it is -- it's

less than the height allowed. I would presume that

 

124

you're only going to use it for storage even though

it's going to be with a height that may be

interpreted as being a third story for living space.

But then you're on an elevation where you're going to

have a walkout basement so, you know, that could even

be construed as a four-story house.

I live off South Lake, and some of my

neighbors have what appear to be a three-story house

and they have a walkout at road level and their

backyards are, you know -- we have a lot of

challenges out in that area, and I think you've done

a real good job.

And I don't see that by just pulling in

the sides and using those trusses, when you could

actually have the loft storage -- the second one in

from the left, that would be allowed. I mean, you're

meeting the height restrictions, and I really don't

have a problem with it, and nor do I have a problem

with the facade material you're proposing to use.

I mean, if you look at some of the

houses out there, they probably still have asbestos

siding on them, and we're not having a problem with

that at this point.

MR. AKEY: We documented those today.

 

125

MEMBER GRAY: and I know -- and if you

have the support of your next door neighbors on both

sides, and you have so many letters of support, then,

you know, they're the ones who you are going to have

to live with it, so I don't think it's a bad -- I

don't think it's a bad plan and I think, you know,

when we tell -- when we tell people buy these small

skinny lots up in that area and be creative, boy,

you've done it, and I'm pretty pleased with it.

Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Bauer.

MEMBER BAUER: Don, does this any way,

shape or form, get into the construction board of

appeals?

MR. SAVEN: No, not that I'm aware of.

At this time it's going to depend on his design and

what he's going to use for his lumber configuration.

I think he's okay.

MEMBER BAUER: I like it very much.

MR. SAVEN: The basement issue, I don't

think that's -- the basement issue is strictly a

basement by the configuration of the ground and

terrain and everything there. It will still be

classified as a basement.

 

126

MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Member Brennan.

MEMBER BRENNAN: I have a follow-up

question to Asa's letter, who suggested there were

previous variances granted on this parcel, and I'd

like to confirm that that's not the case, that this

new building is meeting all setbacks.

MR. AKEY: Yes, it is.

MEMBER BRENNAN: And I don't know that

we've ever had a house on East Lake that didn't have

setback variances. I'd approve these two just for

that reason alone.

With respect to the materials, I can

find those very attractive. I think that siding

looks as good, if not better, than vinyl siding, and

vinyl siding is approved, so I don't have any qualms

or any problems with either of these.

I would support the applicant's

positive interpretation.

MEMBER GRAY: Should I tell him?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Pardon?

MEMBER GRAY: Should I tell you? We

gave a variance -- this is the Tanelian property.

MR. SAVEN: This is the one that had

 

127

the request for probably about four or five variances

on the lot.

MEMBER GRAY: We gave them setback

variances on this

MEMBER BRENNAN: Not on this design.

MEMBER GRAY: Not on this design.

MR. SAVEN: Not on this design.

MEMBER GRAY: Setbacks.

MR. AKEY: The previous owner got them

and they purchased the lot with those variances

already in place for the side yard setbacks.

We actually had a question, too,

because we had an extension and it expired the day

after we submitted for building permit, and we don't

know if we need to ask you for another 30 days just

to finish the drawings or not.

MR. SAVEN: Legal wise, I don't believe

we have a problem because you had submitted for the

permit. If you didn't submit for the permit, we'd be

talking to you.

MR. AKEY: Okay. We made that

deadline.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else?

MEMBER GRAY: What do you think?

 

128

MEMBER REINKE: I think it's great.

MEMBER GRAY: Do you have any comments

for the record.

MS. CHAIRMAN: No.

MEMBER GRAY: In the matter of Case

03-036, move to approve the variances requested

because the height -- total height is actually less

than what could be allowed with an allowed attic, and

that the facade material is actually going to enhance

the other materials as accents.

Will that do it?

MR. SCHULTZ: Absolutely.

MEMBER REINKE: Support.

MS. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a

second on the table. Is there any further discussion

on the motion?

(No discussion.)

MS. CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, Sarah,

please call the roll.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MEMBER REINKE: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

 

129

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt?

MEMBER GATT: Yes.

MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Your variance has been

granted. Congratulations.

MR. AKEY: Is it still considered a

variance?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Positive

interpretation.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Positive interpretation.

MR. AKEY: I have one other question.

To this attic storage, do we -- can we use normal

steps going up to this area? Is there any problems

there?

MS. CHAIRMAN: I'm going to refer you

to Mr. Saven.

MR. SAVEN: No problems. They granted

the variance based upon the configuration before them

tonight. Certainly you have to have access. You

have to have accessibility.

 

130

MR. AKEY: So we can run our stairs up

there without having to do a pull-down ladder?

MR. SAVEN: That's correct.

MR. AKEY: Thank you very much.

MEMBER GATT: Good luck.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, that

concurs all of our cases. Is there anything else?

MEMBER REINKE: I have one topic I'd

like to bring up, just as a discussion topic.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MEMBER REINKE: Being that this is May

6, if at all possible, we'd like to get things-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) I have to

agree. I do have to agree with Mr. Reinke. We

have -- and Sarah will testify, we have asked for

this information for some time. In regards to this

particular case, it was just today that we did

receive it. We are -- we do have new consultants who

are not familiar with our needs as of the present

time, but now they are familiar with our needs, and

we'll duly notify them.

MEMBER REINKE: Thank you.

MR. SAVEN: And I do apologize for that

late submittal.

 

131

MS. CHAIRMAN: Anything else? Sarah.

MEMBER GRAY: We -- Sarah, we used to

get those maps, and I know there was discussion a

year ago about possibly getting those site maps

again. Any potential on that?

MR. SAVEN: I'm trying to give you guys

as much information as possible in regards to the

location of where everything is at, whether it's

north of whatever. This does create a lot more work

for Sarah, and which I need her to take care of it.

She's only part-time. I need her to get the general

information out to you people as best as possible.

If it's possible we can do it, we'll try to do it,

but our time-

MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Even

giving some, you know-

MS. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing)

Directions have been helpful, cross streets would be

very helpful.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Gets us closer.

MEMBER SAVEN: Okay. You should have a

map of the city, you should have directions, east or

west of whatever it is, and that's what we try to do.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I don't even have a ZBA

 

132

shirt yet. All I have --

MR. SAVEN: Congratulations to Bob Gatt

on his first motion.

MEMBER GRAY: Sarah, would you remind

Chris that he needs to be here next month because

I'll be on vacation.

MS. MARCHIONI: Yes. I did tell him.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Meeting

adjourned. We'll see you next month.

(The meeting was adjourned at

10:06 p.m.)

- - -

Date approved:

July 8, 2003 __________________________

Sarah Marchioni Recording Secretary

 

 

133

c E R T I F I C A T E

I, Cheryl L. James, do hereby

certify that I have recorded stenographically the

proceedings had and testimony taken in the

above-entitled matter at the time and place hereinbefore

set forth, and I do further certify that the foregoing

transcript, consisting of one hundred forty-three (143)

typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript of my

said stenograph notes to the best of my ability.

-------------------------

Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786

--------------

Date