| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting CITY OF NOVI The NOVI ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS taken before me, Darlene K. May, CSR-6479, a Notary Public, within and for the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, at 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Wednesday, April 2, 2003. PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: 1 Novi, Michigan 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 6 It's 7:31. I would like to call the July 2003 7 Zoning Board of Appealing meeting to order. 8 Sarah, would you please call the 9 roll. 10 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 11 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 12 MS. MARCHIONI: MEMBER BRENNAN? 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Here. 14 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gatt has 15 asked to be excused. Member Gray? 16 MEMBER GRAY: Present. 17 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Present. 19 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 20 MEMBER REINKE: Here. 21 MS. MARCHIONI: And Member Reed 22 has also asked to be excused. 23 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All 24 right. Thank you.
1 MR. SAVEN: Madame Chairperson, 2 I will indicate that our City attorney will be 3 late. He will be coming. 4 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 5 Thank you, Mr. Saven. 6 For those of you who might not 7 have heard Mr. Saven with his mike, I think there 8 was a problem, the City attorney is on his way 9 and will be present for the balance of the 10 meeting. While we're waiting his arrival I will 11 go over some procedures of the Zoning Board of 12 Appeals. Please note on your agenda, for those 13 in the audience, there is a set of rules of 14 conduct. Please review them and adhere to them. 15 The biggest one is the cell phones. We ask that 16 you turn your cell phones and pagers off during 17 the meeting. 18 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a 19 hearing Board empowered by the Novi City Charter 20 to hear appeals seeking various applications of 21 the Novi Zoning Ordinances. It takes a vote of 22 at least four members to approve a variance 23 request and a vote of the majority present 24 members present to deny a variance. This evening
1 we only have five members. A full Board consists 2 of six members. Since five members are present 3 tonight and at least four votes are required 4 those petitioners who wish to table their request 5 until the next meeting or until a full Board is 6 present may do so now. 7 Are that there any petitioners 8 present that wish to table their case until next 9 month? 10 Yes, sir. Could you please come 11 down to the podium and state your name. 12 MR. FELLOWS: Good evening. 13 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Good 14 evening. 15 MR. FELLOWS: My name is 16 Mike Fellows. I'm the case number one for 17 Brookhaven. 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes, I 19 remember you from last month- 20 MR. FELLOWS: (Interposing) 21 Same thing. 22 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: And our 23 Board member showed up later. However, it's a 24 vacation month so if you wish to table it, board
1 members, any objections? 2 (No objections.) 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 4 So noted. 5 MR. FELLOWS: Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Sarah, 7 are there any agenda changes for this evening? 8 MS. MARCHIONI: Yeah. Under other 9 matters please add the August meeting and publish 10 hearing notices, number four. 11 MEMBER GRAY: Number four? 12 MS. MARCHIONI: Yes. 13 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Revised 14 meeting number four. Okay. Thank you. 15 We did not receive last month's 16 minutes, however, we received, I believe, May's 17 minutes. Are that there any changes to the 18 minutes for the month of May? 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Move for 20 approval. 21 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 22 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All 23 those in favor please say "Aye". 24 MEMBER BRENNAN: Aye.
1 MEMBER BAUER: Aye. 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Aye. 3 MEMBER GRAY: Aye. 4 MEMBER REINKE: Aye. 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: So the 6 minutes of May 2003 have been approved. 7 At this time I ask anyone in the 8 audience for any type of public remark. If you 9 have something to say in regards to a matter that 10 is not appearing before the Board this evening 11 you can do so now. So anyone in the audience 12 that wishes to address the Board on a subject 13 other than what's coming in front us? 14 None. Seeing none, we will 15 call -- since our first case has been tabled 16 until next month we will call Case Number 2. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1 CASE NO. 03-037 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Case 3 Number 03-037 filed by Heileman Signs 4 representing Varsity Lincoln Mercury. Are they 5 present? 6 Sir, would you like to state 7 your name and raise your right hand so our 8 secretary can swear you in, please. 9 MR. HEILEMAN: Yes. Good 10 evening. My name is Tim Heileman. My address is 11 22901 Stadium Boulevard, Saint Claire Shores, 12 Michigan. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly 14 swear to tell the truth about your case 03-037? 15 MR. HEILEMAN: Yes, I do. 16 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I just 17 want to let you know that we've reviewed your 18 case. We did receive the packet ahead of time. 19 If you could summarize your presentation we would 20 appreciate that. 21 MR. HEILEMAN: Okay. I also 22 have some photos I would like to pass out at this 23 time. These are before photos and what the 24 dealership would look like afterward.
1 MEMBER GRAY: There is an 2 overhead too if you would like to use that. 3 MR. HEILEMAN: Varsity Lincoln 4 Mercury is requesting to have additional signage 5 added on to their building when they remodel for 6 the new look that the Lincoln Mercury dealers are 7 all going to. It's a classier look than what 8 they've got right now. And they've got the logos 9 in the center of the building, Varsity on the 10 left side and Lincoln Mercury on the right side. 11 And that is a marble finish on the building that 12 our signs will be fastened to. And they're not 13 very large signs but it just tells the public 14 that it is the Varsity dealership and he is 15 selling Lincoln Mercurys. 16 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 17 All set? 18 There were six notices signed. 19 No approvals, no objections and one letter was 20 returned. Is that there anyone in the audience 21 that wishes to address the Board in the matter of 22 this case? 23 Seeing none. Building 24 department?
1 MR. SAVEN: No comment. 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board 3 members, any questions or comments to the 4 petitioner? 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Sir? 6 MR. HEILEMAN: Yes? 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: Would you 8 clarify things for me. This helps, this picture 9 you gave us. You're basically reformatting what 10 is already that there and splitting it up and I 11 assume that that's sign number "A" as noted. 12 MR. SAVEN: You have one for "A" 13 and done one for "D" for Varsity Lincoln Mercury. 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. I'm 15 trying to get a read on this. So sign "A" and 16 sign "B" is what we're looking at with this? 17 MR. HEILEMAN: Yes. 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: So it's really 19 the same signs we've got but it's split up and 20 moved around? 21 MR. HEILEMAN: Yes. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Is the square 23 footage about the same? 24 MR. HEILEMAN: Yes, it is.
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Tell me about 2 sign "D" -- pardon me. Tell me about sign "C". 3 That's the logos that are on the hill? 4 MALE SPEAKER: Yes. Those are 5 the logos that will be in the archway of the 6 entrance that there. 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: All right. I 8 understand now what is before us. Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anyone 10 else? 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Shall I 12 continue? 13 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Seeing 14 how this end of the table appears to be pretty 15 quiet, Mr. Brennan, I guess you can do that. 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I kind of 17 had the gist of things after looking over the 18 packet and this is kind of a repackaging of what 19 we already got. I don't think it's a significant 20 change with respect to an already existing 21 variance and that's what we're looking at, an 22 already existing variance. So they repackaged it 23 and moved it around. They've added a couple of 24 things but I think that they're still in the
1 spirit of the original variance that was granted. 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board 3 members, any other comments? 4 MEMBER GRAY: I'll agree with 5 Mr. Brennan and if he wants to make that motion. 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: I will. With 7 respect to Case 03 dash 037 I would move that the 8 petitioner's request be granted for the purpose 9 of reidentification of an existing business. 10 MEMBER BAUER: All signs? 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Pardon? 12 MEMBER BAUER: All signs? 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: All signs, A, 14 B, C, D. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 16 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: There is 17 a motion and a second. 18 Any discussion on the motion? 19 Sarah, would you please call the 20 roll. 21 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 23 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 24 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
1 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? 2 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 3 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 4 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 5 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 6 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 7 MR. HEILEMAN: Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: You're 9 all set. Please see the Building Department. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1 Case No. 03-050 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Next in 3 line is Case Number 03-050 filed by John 4 Karakian -- I'm sorry if I mispronounced that 5 last name -- of 2450 Shawood Drive. Mr. Karakian 6 is requesting a front yard setback variance of 7 24.8 feet for the construction of a second story 8 addition to his existing home. 9 Are you Mr. Karakian? 10 MR. KARAKIAN: Karakian, yes. 11 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: 12 Karakian, I apologize. And may I ask who is with 13 you. 14 MR. KARAKIAN: This my 15 representative, my builder. 16 MALE SPEAKER: Ken Spanbinder 17 (ph), MCR Construction Company. 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: 19 Gentlemen, could you please both raise your right 20 hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 21 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly 22 swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 23 03-050? 24 MR. KARAKIAN: I do.
1 MALE SPEAKER: I do. 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We have 3 reviewed your packet. If you would like to 4 summarize the information for us this evening we 5 would be grateful. 6 MR. KARAKIAN: I want to put a 7 second story on my house and I'm not going to, 8 like, enlarge the footprint and I'm here. As you 9 know I need a variance because the City property 10 line is that there nearby so I'm not going to 11 enlarge the footprint. I need the space. 12 And I don't know if you wanted 13 to add anything to that, Bob. It's obvious. 14 MALE SPEAKER: It's a 1930s 15 home. The existing first floor level has minimal 16 living space. It's going to be turned into, 17 basically, the common living area. The second 18 level will be converted into the actual living 19 space. Two bedrooms with a master bath and a 20 second bath with a master suite bathroom. 21 As you can see from the prints 22 it's really going to increase the look of the 23 existing home to the surrounding homes as well in 24 the neighborhood. I think it will add a lot of
1 class to the neighborhood and as well as value to 2 the home. 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 4 Anything else, gentlemen? 5 MR. KARAKIAN: No. 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Are that 7 there any members in the audience that wish to 8 speak on behalf of this case? 9 Seeing none, Building 10 Department? 11 MR. SAVEN: I just want to 12 remind the Board that this case was before you 13 once before and that John had done a fantastic 14 job on his home. If you had an opportunity to 15 see what he had done with the existing home it 16 has really been quite an improvement. 17 MR. KARAKIAN: Thank you, sir. 18 I appreciate that. 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 20 There were 20 notices sent. Two approvals, no 21 objections and two returns. The two approvals 22 were from George -- I apologize. Deloris on 2477 23 Shawood. Mr. Deloris just indicates that he is 24 in agreement with this variance due to the fact
1 that this is not a vacant lot and that this is an 2 existing home and that the petitioner is 3 improving his lot with the second story. 4 The second party that is giving 5 approval is George Willoughby and Karen O'Mally 6 also on Shawood Drive and echo the same 7 sentiments in regards to the improvements of the 8 existing home. So that's kind of nice to have. 9 We do have -- we do have an 10 objection from Charles and Carlene Tindall. 11 MS. MARCHIONI: Madame Chair? 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes? 13 MS. MARCHIONI: John went and 14 talked to the neighbor and he withdrew his 15 objection. 16 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 17 All right. Thank you, Sarah. 18 So we have no objections. Thank 19 you for clarifying that. Board members? 20 MR. SAVEN: I -- I'm sorry. 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I'm 22 sorry. 23 MR. SAVEN: Board members go 24 first.
1 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member 2 Brennan? 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: In my review of 4 this I only have two notes and one said nice job 5 and the other was neighbor's question mark and, 6 obviously, you've addressed that. Given you're 7 not expanding further than what the existing 8 dwellings is I have no objection to your 9 request. It looks nice. 10 MR. KARAKIAN: Thank you. 11 MEMBER BAUER: You've done an 12 excellent job. 13 MR. KARAKIAN: Thank you. 14 MEMBER BAUER: That front porch 15 was another thing. 16 MR. KARAKIAN: Oh, you remember 17 it? 18 MEMBER BAUER: Oh, yes. I 19 remember it like it was here yesterday. I don't 20 know how people could have lived in it before. 21 So I am giving my approval. 22 MR. KARAKIAN: Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I will 24 echo my comments on the record as well. I think
1 that this is pretty unique for this piece of 2 property from what you've done. I think you were 3 very creative in coming up with what you're doing 4 and I don't think that there's any other 5 practical alternatives to the solution of what 6 you want to do in terms of adding additional 7 living space. So I think that you've done a 8 great job. 9 MR. KARAKIAN: I appreciate 10 these compliments. Thank you, very much. 11 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: You're 12 welcome. Any other Board members? 13 MEMBER REINKE: No. Just to say 14 that I commend the Board members' comments that 15 the footprint has been expanded and I think he's 16 done a unique job in packaging what he's 17 proposing for staying within the existing 18 footprint. 19 MR. KARAKIAN: Thank you, sir. 20 MEMBER GRAY: And I will say 21 ditto to all four of the previous speakers and 22 hope that we approve the variance requested since 23 it will not increase the footprint and will 24 enhance the property and note also that this has
1 a very difficult configuration with elevation and 2 the deck. I've been waiting for to you go up. 3 This is one of the sweetest little properties on 4 the lake that there and I would grant the 5 variance. 6 MEMBER BAUER: Support. 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: Second. 8 MR. KARAKIAN: Thank you, very 9 much. 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: So 11 there's a motion and a second. Any discussion on 12 the motion? 13 Sarah, will you please call the 14 roll. 15 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? 16 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 17 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 18 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 19 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 21 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 22 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yeah. 23 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 24 MEMBER REINKE: Yes.
1 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All 2 right. Your variance has been granted and you're 3 all set. Please see the Building Department. 4 MR. KARAKIAN: I thank you very 5 much. Thank you very much, I appreciate it. 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Nice job. 7 MR. KARAKIAN: Thank you. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1 Case No. 03-052 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 3 Next case, Number 03-052-5 -- I'm sorry. I 4 always do that. 5 Case number 03-052 filed by 6 Terrence Crossley of Crosspointe Meadows Church 7 also known as Redford Baptist Church. 8 Good evening. 9 MR. KENT: Good evening. 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Are you 11 Mr. Crossley. 12 MR. KENT: No. My name is 13 Edgar Kent. As you mentioned earlier this is 14 vacation time for Mr. Crossley. He very much 15 needed a vacation, so I am representing the 16 church tonight. 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Mr. 18 Kent, are you an attorney? 19 MR. KENT: No. 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Would 21 you like to raise your right hand and be sworn in 22 by our secretary. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly 24 swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding case
1 03-052? 2 MR. KENT: I do. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 4 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We have 5 received your packet if you would like to give us 6 a summary. 7 MR. KENT: Well, 18 months ago 8 we had a variance allowing us to put up a sign on 9 our property to let the people know we're 10 coming. We have not yet gotten quite to the 11 point where they can see a building and we would 12 like permission to leave that sign that there to 13 let them know that we're still coming and we're 14 still working hard at it. And we intend that 15 within another period of extension we can be into 16 the stage of having a construction sign and/or 17 the building to notify people that we're that 18 there. So we would like to leave that sign for 19 the benefit of the neighbors. 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All 21 right. I don't know if I can ask you, do you 22 have any idea how much longer this is going to 23 be? 24 MR. KENT: Our permit now has
1 been extended to February of 2004 and we expect 2 to be working on the site by that time. 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All 4 right. There were 45 notices sent. No 5 approvals. No objections. Eleven letters were 6 returned. 7 Is that there anyone in the 8 audience that wishes to comment on this case? 9 Seeing no one. Building 10 Department? 11 MR. SAVEN: Only for the fact 12 that you did get the extension from the Planning 13 Department; is that correct? 14 MR. KENT: Yes. 15 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board 16 members, comments? Member Brennan? 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: Given that the 18 Planning Commission has extended their 19 preliminary site plans from February 12th, 2003, 20 I think that it's reasonable to extend their 21 2004 -- let me back up. I think it's reasonable 22 to extend our sign variance to that same date. 23 MEMBER GRAY: So less than the 24 18 months requested?
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. Do you 2 think that's reasonable if we extend your sign 3 variance to February '04? 4 MR. KENT: I do. 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Anybody have a 6 problem? 7 I'll make a motion with respect 8 to Case 03 dash 052 I would move that the sign 9 variance be extended to February 12th, 2004. 10 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 11 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: There 12 was a motion and a second. Is that there any 13 discussion on the motion? 14 Sarah, would you please call the 15 roll. 16 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 18 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 19 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 20 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? 21 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 22 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 23 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 24 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?
1 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All 3 right, sir. Your variance has been granted until 4 2004. Good luck to you. 5 MR. KENT: Thank you. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1 Case No. 03-053 2 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 4 Moving right along. Now I have Case Number 5 03-053 filed by Bill Carr Signs representing 6 Boston market at 43363 Crescent Boulevard in the 7 Town Center. 8 Gentlemen, good evening. Could 9 you please give us your names and be sworn in by 10 our secretary. 11 MR. ELLITHORPE: My name is 12 Mike Ellithorpe with Bill Carr Signs. 13 MR. OTTEN: Greg Otten, 14 supervisor of the Boston Market restaurant. 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Would you 16 raise your right hands. Do you solemnly swear or 17 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 03-053? 18 MR. ELLITHORPE: I do, sir. 19 MR. OTTEN: I do. 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We have 21 reviewed your case and your packet so if you 22 could give us a summary of what's going on we 23 would appreciate it. 24 MR. ELLITHORPE: Thank you for
1 the opportunity. We're requesting a variance to 2 put a low profile sign in front of the Boston 3 Market store, 30 square foot, which is allowed 4 under the Ordinance. One of our problems we do 5 have with the pictures you've seen I sent or if 6 you drove by it, the southbound lanes coming from 7 on Novi Road or coming off the expressway that 8 there we have two lanes that you're going to 9 turn on to Crescent Boulevard. The trees that 10 the mall has planted years ago they're up so high 11 that it blocks the building signage on the front 12 of the building. Therefore, we'd like to put 13 this low profile sign out where the two left-turn 14 lanes will be able to identify where Boston 15 Market is. The building sign works great in the 16 other directions. It is just that these trees 17 that were planted by the mall will not allow the 18 building sign to be seen. So it really would be 19 necessary to be able to put these low profile 20 signs out for anything to be seen so they'll know 21 ahead of time where Boston Market is. 22 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 23 Anything else? 24 MR. ELLITHORPE: No.
1 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: There 2 were 20 notices sent. No approvals and no 3 objections and two letters were returned. 4 Is that there anyone in the 5 audience that wishes to make any comments in 6 regards to this case? 7 Seeing none, Building 8 Department? 9 MR. SAVEN: No comment. 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board 11 members? 12 MEMBER BAUER: I would like to 13 ask a question. Do you have authority to do so 14 by the Building Department? 15 MR. ELLITHORPE: Mr. Otten can 16 answer that. 17 MR. OTTEN: We have approval to 18 do it by the mall. 19 MEMBER BAUER: By the mall? 20 MR. OTTEN: Yes. 21 MEMBER BAUER: Do we have a note 22 of that in the file? 23 MR. OTTEN: Excuse me. It's in 24 our lease agreement because it actually falls
1 onto our property line so we've been given 2 permission to as long as it doesn't extend out on 3 to their property to do whatever we need to do to 4 make it more visible. 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: No. 6 That there is no letter from the mall. 7 MR. SAVEN: I think the 8 applicant indicated that it was their property. 9 It is not on the mall property. Is that correct? 10 MR. OTTEN: That's correct. 11 MEMBER BAUER: So you do own the 12 property? 13 MR. OTTEN: We lease the 14 property, but it's in our lease agreement that as 15 long as it's inside our lease line that it's our 16 responsibility and we have the ability to do 17 whatever we need to do to it. 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anybody? 19 Member Brennan? 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. Heading 21 south you still have a wall sign on that 22 building? 23 MR. ELLITHORPE: Yes, sir. It's 24 on the backside. Towards the back of the
1 building on Crescent Drive, Crescent Boulevard. 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Do you intend 3 to remove that sign from the sign up front? 4 MR. ELLITHORPE: No. 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: So you'll have 6 two signs on the same southbound route? 7 MR. ELLITHORPE: Right. The one 8 in the back is basically once you make that turn 9 onto Crescent Boulevard that becomes more 10 obvious. What you see is when you're at the 11 intersection or back a little more than that is 12 the front, the big trees, which is blocking the 13 main letters on the front of the building. 14 They used to show up great when 15 the building was first built and everything but 16 since the trees have grown up -- and I don't 17 think they really want to cut the trees down. So 18 that's why we're here tonight because we need to 19 be able to get some visibility out closer to the 20 road for the people turning that there. 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: But the people 22 turning there if they had the sign on Novi Road 23 to come to your business wouldn't need the sign 24 on the building?
1 MR. ELLITHORPE: Well, I think 2 that then we have a problem with anybody coming 3 from the east on Crescent Boulevard to be able to 4 make that left-hand turn to know that Boston 5 Market is there. 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Couldn't you 7 make that case for any building that needs 8 signage on all four sides? 9 MR. ELLITHORPE: Well, we're 10 allowed -- I would have to go back to the 11 building inspector to determine. 12 MR. ELLITHORPE: Are we allowed 13 to have a sign on that side of the building 14 because of the street having four corners? 15 MR. SAVEN: Yes. 16 MR. ELLITHORPE: We are allowed 17 that one. 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: So you have two 19 signs. You've got one on the Novi Road sign and 20 one on the Crescent Road? 21 MR. ELLITHORPE: Yes. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Then let me 23 repackage or rephrase my question. If the sign 24 on the Novi Road portion of the building which
1 would be -- which would be the west end of the 2 building, if you can't see that because of the 3 trees why not take that down and put one out 4 where you want it? 5 MR. ELLITHORPE: It's seen from 6 all the other directions. The only place that 7 that sign is not seen is from the left-turn lanes 8 or somebody coming off of the expressway and 9 Novi Road. 10 Now, if you go across the street 11 or if you're in the shopping centers or one of 12 those building there the letters show up great or 13 if you're going northbound they show up great. 14 Where the other sign is basically just for that 15 traffic trying to turn on there. We have a catch 16 22 in different directions of which sign can be 17 seen the best. 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm all set. 19 Thanks. 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I have a 21 question. 22 MR. ELLITHORPE: Yes. 23 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: What 24 generated this idea for this need of this third
1 sign? People coming getting lost saying I 2 couldn't find you or what actually brought the 3 idea to the table on this third sign? 4 MR. OTTEN: We had some response 5 over the last year or so. The mall before when 6 we submitted it to get some more signage they at 7 the time -- I've had the store for about seven 8 years before all the trees and the pines that 9 they have for their cornerstone grew up we didn't 10 really have the need. As that has grown and the 11 foliage has grown up in the front and they're not 12 going to move that because it matches the other 13 side. We don't actually have an entranceway into 14 our own building. They have to come into the 15 mall and then come all the way back around. 16 So as that kind of has all grown 17 up we've had, you know, numerous responses from 18 people saying that they -- you know, asking for 19 directions. "Hey, we're in the area. We live 20 and/or work in the area, but we haven't seen your 21 restaurant." 22 So that was one thing. We 23 thought getting more exposure. The one sign, as 24 he said, serves a purpose for about 75 percent of
1 the traffic but the main traffic coming the other 2 way you can't see it until you've already 3 committed. You're by the building or either in 4 one of the lanes. So that was the reason we 5 proposed to have this put in. 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Well, if 7 I could followup with Member Brennan's thought. 8 If the sign from the -- and I apologize. The 9 north side of the company, you're saying that 10 that brings in most of the traffic? 11 MR. OTTEN: Well, I don't know 12 if it brings it in. The traffic pattern is 13 probably 50/50. It can be seen from more angles 14 THAN the sign but you would not THAN be able to 15 see the other sign until you were already 16 committed passed it. So it's a combination of 17 the two signs that you have a view from all the 18 different angles and all the different traffic 19 patterns to be able to enter into the building 20 and make a commitment to be able to turn in 21 before you're either by it or you're another lane 22 over and not able to make the turn. 23 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: When I'm 24 out going and looking at these cases ahead of
1 time that we're required to do so and do our 2 drive-bys, it's amazing that Boston Market signs 3 are not what brings me to Boston Market and that 4 is your red and white awnings, believe it or 5 not. And I do agree that there is high -- the 6 landscaping appears to be a problem. And, in my 7 opinion, if it wouldn't be for your awnings -- of 8 course, I've lived here for a number of years. 9 But, if it wouldn't be for your 10 awnings, I don't know that I would of know that 11 your building was there. So I'm still torn on 12 that other sign. I don't know that sign helps 13 you. And if it wouldn't be a good idea to put 14 the sign out front but remove the other sign I 15 think I would be in support. 16 MR. OTTEN: I agree. That is 17 something that kind of stands out as something 18 for Boston Market. Fortunately or unfortunately, 19 if you've noticed we've redesigned this year as a 20 company. We redid the whole inside so that it 21 has a more of a full service look, more of that 22 earth tone colors. Well, from a company 23 standpoint next year we're going to redo all 24 those canopies so those match. We're not going
1 to have that bright red, black and -- red, black 2 and white canopies. They're going to be more of 3 the earth tone tart blue and green. So what we 4 have right now that may be more of a visibility 5 point will not be in another probably six months 6 to a year. Next year will be when we replace 7 those. 8 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank 9 you. 10 Member Gray? 11 MEMBER GRAY: Well, when I have 12 looked at the sign and even coming down here 13 tonight for the meeting, driving south on Novi 14 Road, the first sign I saw on the inside through 15 lane -- not the two left-turn lanes going into 16 Crescent Boulevard but the immediate inside 17 through lane. 18 The first sign I saw was the 19 Boston Market sign facing east, the red script 20 facing Novi Road. The second sign I saw was the 21 logo sign on the north side. And it wasn't until 22 I was actually almost past your building that I 23 actually saw this ground sign. So my comment is 24 that if you need additional signage perhaps you
1 want to take down the Boston Market script sign 2 and put this logo sign on the face of the 3 building. 4 I'm not comfortable with another 5 ground sign at that location. You wanted us to 6 make sure the people are going to come because 7 they know you're that there. And I have never 8 been by your restaurant when it hasn't been at 9 capacity. The parking lot is always full. 10 There's always traffic waiting to get in. It's a 11 horrible parking situation in that there which 12 is not your fault and it's a great location, but 13 I think the people who are going into the mall -- 14 or the Town Center and making the turn they're 15 probably not going to go to you on the way in 16 anyhow. If they're going to go that there 17 they're going to go on the way out, pick up 18 dinner on their way home from their shopping or 19 whatever. I'm not comfortable with the ground 20 sign and, again, the first sign I saw was the one 21 with the red script facing Novi Road. I didn't 22 even see the logo sign until after I was closer 23 to the intersection. So I think I may want to 24 have another sign but you may want to decide
1 which one you want. Because I think it would be 2 better to have this logo sign on the west facade 3 and it's clearly visible especially when lit 4 through the trees. So that's all, thanks. 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member 6 Reinke? 7 MEMBER REINKE: I agree with 8 Ms. Gray's commenting that I don't like two 9 signs. I think that, if need be, if it's going 10 to be a ground sign closer to Novi Road the wall 11 sign needs to come down. If they want to redo 12 the wall sign in some configuration or something 13 like that, I'm willing to listen to that, but I'm 14 really opposed to two signs on the west 15 elevation. 16 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Well, 17 gentlemen, I think you get an idea where the 18 Board is going here. Tonight we do not have a 19 full Board. Okay? So you have some options. 20 One is you can let us go ahead and vote this 21 evening or you can take some of the things that 22 have been suggested to you, you can table your 23 case until next month and you can come back 24 before us with a new idea or we can have you take
1 a break this evening and come back later on if 2 you have some other ideas that you would like to 3 present to us. 4 MR. OTTEN: So the sticking 5 point is to have two signs to the front side of 6 that building. Would it be possible to move the 7 chand lettering around to the -- I guess it would 8 be the north side and removing -- we have like a 9 football logo sign which is there right now so we 10 have just one existing sign in the front and one 11 existing sign on the side? 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: If you 13 go ahead and do anything different THAN what we 14 have in front of us, okay, we have to redo our 15 notices to the people around you. That's why I 16 gave you those suggestions. If it was going to 17 be something that was within what you had here, 18 that's one thing, but if it's going to be 19 different THAN we have to send out notices and 20 renotify everyone. I'm just trying to help you 21 out here. 22 MR. OTTEN: I understand. 23 MR. ELLITHORPE: I understand. 24 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I think
1 you know where the Board is and when you sit back 2 and you think about it you can avoid some. 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madame Chair? 4 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes, 5 Member Brennan? 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: I just have 7 another issue to point out, because it just 8 doesn't hold any water. If we agree in putting 9 this sign out on Novi Road it's better visibility 10 heading south on Novi Road. That also gives 11 visibility from those that are -- anybody heading 12 south. I said that already. 13 MEMBER BAUER: You can't see it 14 going north unless you're right that there. 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Right. 16 MEMBER BAUER: You can't. 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: If they want a 18 sign out that there that back sign's got to come 19 out. 20 MR. OTTEN: The back sign being 21 the chand lettering on the left side of the 22 building? 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 24 MR. ELLITHORPE: So you could --
1 we could remove the north sign -- the sign off 2 the north side of the building along Crescent 3 Boulevard. 4 MEMBER REINKE: No. The sign on 5 the west. 6 MR. ELLITHORPE: That's what I 7 want to make sure. 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: The sign on the 9 west side would have to be removed if you're 10 going to have a ground pole sign. 11 MR. ELLITHORPE: The Boston 12 Market letters? 13 MEMBER REINKE: Right. 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: 15 Gentlemen, what would you like to do? 16 MR. OTTEN: Go ahead. 17 MR. ELLITHORPE: Go ahead and 18 approve this with the removal of the Boston 19 Market letters off the front of the building; is 20 that correct? 21 MR. OTTEN: Yes. 22 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board 23 Members? 24 MEMBER REINKE: I have no fault
1 with that. 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: I would like to 3 make a motion with respect to this case, 03 dash 4 053, the petitioner's request for the ground sign 5 on the west side of the building on Novi Road be 6 approved with the understanding that the building 7 sign on the west side will be removed. 8 MEMBER BAUER: Support. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 10 So we have a motion and a second. Is there any 11 discussion on the motion? I'm sorry. 12 We have clarity on the motion. 13 Sarah, would you please call the roll. 14 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 16 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 17 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 18 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 19 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 20 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? 21 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 22 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 23 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 24 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes.
1 Gentlemen, you have your ground 2 sign. 3 MR. ELLITHORPE: Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Sarah, 5 how many days do they have to remove that back 6 sign? 7 MS. MARCHIONI: They have to 8 remove the sign before Allen will issue the 9 permit for the ground sign. 10 MR. ELLITHORPE: I'm sorry? 11 MS. MARCHIONI: You have to remove 12 the wall sign before Allen will issue you the 13 permit for the ground sign. 14 MR. ELLITHORPE: The mock-up 15 sign has to- 16 MS. MARCHIONI: I'm sorry. You 17 have to remove the wall sign, existing wall sign 18 on the west side before Allen will give you the 19 permit for the ground sign. 20 MR. ELLITHORPE: Do we leave the 21 mock-up sign? 22 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 23 MR. ELLITHORPE: Thank you. 24
1 Case No. 03-054 2 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Our next 4 case we would like to call Case Number 03-054 5 filed by Nick Palise, II of 150 New Court. You 6 are the petitioner, correct? 7 MR. PALISE: Correct. 8 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Mr. 9 Palise would you like to raise your right hand, 10 please, for our secretary to be sworn in. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly 12 swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 13 Number 03-054? 14 MR. PALISE: I do. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We've 17 received your packet and have reviewed it. If 18 you would like to give us a summary of your case 19 we would appreciate that. 20 MR. PALISE: All right. Thank 21 you. I currently own a 860 square foot 1954 22 cottage that I would like to build upward pretty 23 much staying within the existing footprint. It 24 shouldn't have an impact on the neighbors'
1 building. They'll still be ten foot between the 2 structures as there is now. And I've talked to 3 the neighbors on both sides and everybody around 4 the area seems to like the idea. One person gave 5 me their letter. I think some others may have 6 been mailed in. 7 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Do you 8 have the letter with you? 9 MR. PALISE: Yes. 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Could we 11 please have that, please. 12 MR. PALISE: Yes. I have it 13 here. 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: If you 15 would like to present it to us. 16 Anything else you would like to 17 add to your case? 18 MR. PALISE: I don't believe 19 so. I think that's pretty much it. About the 20 only thing that keeps me from going with the 21 current code of ten foot is I would end up with a 22 16 foot lighthouse due to the existing lot of the 23 property where it is. 24 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank
1 you. There were 39 notices sent. One approval 2 received by mail. The second approval was from 3 Chuck and Cindy Caldwell at 180 New Court. And 4 the second approval was from Julia Hodsen at 1295 5 East Lake and there were four letters returned. 6 Is there anyone in the audience 7 that wishes to make a comment in regards to this 8 case? 9 Seeing none. Board -- Building 10 Department? 11 MR. SAVEN: Just a couple of 12 issues. You built it as a deck and it's an open 13 and uncovered deck out in the front of the 14 building which, what you see here, is once the 15 variance requests decks are allowed to project 16 into the front yard at a subtotal of four feet so 17 that's why that particular issue is before you 18 tonight. Also, he's maintaining pretty close to 19 the same property line as what was the existing 20 house. 21 And are you going to use the 22 foundation, any of the foundation? 23 MR. PALISE: No. It's not 24 adequate. The whole thing has to be redone.
1 MR. SAVEN: Okay. That was the 2 question. 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board 4 Members? 5 MEMBER REINKE: Madame Chairman? 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member 7 Reinke? 8 MEMBER REINKE: I understand lot 9 size and everything is going to be one of the 10 problems and so forth of that nature. Since 11 you're not using the existing foundation is there 12 any problem in shifting that side yard variance 13 request that you have to a ten foot side? 14 MR. PALISE: If I do that, I 15 decrease the width of the house from 29 foot to 16 25.4, which is a new structure. If I increase 17 that ten foot I will lose the ten foot between 18 the house and the garage. I won't be able to 19 maintain ten foot between building for fire code, 20 I believe. 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Why not attach 22 the garage to the house? 23 MR. PALISE: The foundation for 24 the garage is not adequate. It would have to be
1 another ten because of the difference in the 2 shifting buildings. I had thought about that by 3 attaching it to the breezeway or something but I 4 would have to have a garage company come in and 5 match the house. 6 MEMBER REINKE: Those are the 7 only comments I have at the moment. 8 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All 9 right, thank you. Member Brennan? 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I have 11 exactly the same question. My first question was 12 can you push the house back? Well, actually, my 13 first question is are you building on the same 14 foundation and the answer is no so we're talking 15 about new construction? 16 MR. PALISE: Right. 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: And what's the 18 best we can do here. I understand the issue of 19 having some space between the garage and the 20 house. And I guess now looking at things what's 21 the big deal about pushing the house back at 1.16 22 feet so you don't need a front yard variance. I 23 mean, that's a deep lot. 24 MR. PALISE: Yeah.
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Why is that a 2 problem? 3 MR. PALISE: The grade starts to 4 go up. The lot is not a level lot. 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: You can't 6 change that grade over a foot and a half? 7 MR. PALISE: I could. Actually, 8 I was more concerned with the side yard variance, 9 the front one. 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: I understand 11 side yard variance. I would want some space 12 between the existing garage and a new house. I 13 would think, though, that we're always trying to 14 get the least amount of variance we can. 15 MR. PALISE: Correct. 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: And I would 17 think -- I'm more inclined to look at that, that 18 side yard variance with approval if you can pull 19 that back and meet that front yard setback. 20 MR. PALISE: That would be fine. 21 The only reason I put it in there is just because 22 the house was pointed in the front and that was 23 the furtherest point forward and going back in an 24 angle, but if I need to pull it back a foot
1 that's not a problem. 2 MR. SAVEN: Question, will the 3 deck remain the same? 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: It would be 5 less of a variance? 6 MR. PALISE: Yes, it would be 7 less on the deck also. 8 MR. SAVEN: Proportionately? 9 MR. PALISE: Correct. 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: By 1.16 feet? 11 MR. PALISE: I could pull the 12 deck back also. 13 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member 14 Bauer? 15 MEMBER BAUER: I'm going along 16 with Frank. 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I was 18 going to ask the same question about the deck. 19 For the 1.16 feet you couldn't just -- 20 MR. PALISE: Yeah. That's not a 21 problem. When you think about the deck very 22 much. I didn't think about the deck very much. 23 That was after the house was built. The house 24 structure was the main concern.
1 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Given 2 that this is almost like new construction, 3 basically it is, you're not using an existing 4 foundation as previously stated, less is better. 5 If you've watched us at all you know this. 6 So for the 1.16 if you could 7 move back I could support the five feet on the 8 center. 9 Member Gray? 10 MEMBER GRAY: How much -- 11 what's the distance between the bottom step and 12 the garage, the step of the porch of the -- the 13 deck. 14 MR. PALISE: I'm not sure I 15 understand your question. 16 MEMBER GRAY: The bottom step 17 for your step up to the deck, how far away from 18 the garage is it? 19 MR. PALISE: I don't have that 20 dimension. It looks like- 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) 22 It's safe to say it's five feet? 23 MR. PALISE: Yeah. Actually it, 24 it looks -- well, this elevation that's shown,
1 that shows steps getting up to the deck. That 2 deck will actually be closer to the ground. I 3 actually need one step because this step that I 4 had changed, that was actually to be built on top 5 of the garage. So I'm building it as a slab 6 instead of a basement. 7 MEMBER GRAY: My comment is if 8 you're going to be pulling the house back and 9 you're only going to need one step, not five to 10 get to the deck, I would think you may want to 11 consider moving that stairway forward a bit and I 12 would be happier if you pulled that side yard 13 variance to the east back another foot or two. 14 MR. PALISE: Okay. 15 MEMBER GRAY: Go back six or 16 seven feet from the property line. 17 MR. PALISE: From the east 18 property line? 19 MEMBER GRAY: From the east. 20 MR. PALISE: Okay. 21 MEMBER GRAY: And that would 22 shift the house a little bit closer to the garage 23 but still maintain a minimum of ten feet. And 24 move that step a little bit forward, even put it
1 on the angle. If you're only going to have one 2 step up to the deck you can actually have that 3 step anywhere you want it. I know it would be 4 nice to have it right in front of your front 5 door. 6 MR. PALISE: Right. 7 MEMBER GRAY: But you may want 8 to offset that so there is some -- you know, not 9 direct right into the house. 10 MR. PALISE: Right. That's not 11 a problem moving that. The only reason I had 12 gone into the twelve foot between the two 13 structures I can knock it down to ten but that's 14 actually going to be like a Courtyard. 15 MEMBER GRAY: Will you be using 16 the back yard for storage or boats or whatever? 17 Well, you don't have access. 18 MR. PALISE: No. The grade 19 change is too steep. 20 MEMBER GRAY: So you could bring 21 it a little bit closer to make us a little happy 22 and keep it a little bit farther away from your 23 neighbor. 24 MR. PALISE: That would increase
1 it from ten foot to approximately twelve foot and 2 contain the structure on the other side. 3 MEMBER GRAY: That would 4 probably be better because even with putting a 5 new house there if there is a fire in close 6 proximity, fires spread. 7 MR. PALISE: Correct. 8 MEMBER GRAY: And I've got an 9 old cottage, too. 10 MR. PALISE: So seven foot on 11 the side yard and pull the house back 1.16 foot? 12 MEMBER GRAY: That would make 13 all of us very happy. 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madame Chair, 15 can I summarize? This gentleman has been 16 incredibly cooperative, would you say? 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: 18 Absolutely. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: I would like to 20 summarize some of the discussion. Number one, 21 you're agreeable to pulling that back 1.16? 22 MR. PALISE: Correct. 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: That doesn't 24 seem like a lot. That's also going to decrease
1 that front setback by the same amount so we're at 2 seven foot variance on the front porch 3 projection. 4 MR. PALISE: Correct. 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: So the first 6 variance goes away. The second one which was 7 suggested of relocating that step so that the 8 side yard setback variance request is three feet 9 instead of five. Okay? 10 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Do you follow 12 us here? 13 MR. PALISE: Yes. 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: And you're 15 going to move that step around. And with that I 16 think you've got a lot of support from here. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. And these 18 changes. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: And that moves 20 it to seven feet? 21 MEMBER REINKE: Right. For the 22 front porch projection is seven foot? 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: Seven foot. 24 MEMBER REINKE: Side yard
1 setback is- 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) 3 The front yard setback goes away. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Correct. 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: I can agree 6 with that. 7 MEMBER GRAY: Is that a motion, 8 Mr. Brennan? 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: As long as 10 we're clear on it. 11 MEMBER REINKE: Support. 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: Are you clear 13 on it? 14 MR. PALISE: I'm definitely 15 clear. The first one is gone, second one is 16 seven foot and front yard is seven foot? 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: Right. 18 MR. PALISE: I can deal with 19 that. 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Are we 21 going to accept that as your motion? 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. That is 23 the motion and I think Laverne seconded it. 24 MEMBER REINKE: Right.
1 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Motion 2 made and seconded. Any discussion on the 3 motion? 4 MR. SAVEN: Reason for it? 5 MEMBER BAUER: Lot 6 configuration. 7 MR. SAVEN: Sarah? 8 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Sarah, 9 would you please call the roll. 10 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 12 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 13 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 14 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 15 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 16 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? 17 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 18 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 20 Sir, your variances have been 21 granted. And we have complete understanding, so 22 you can please see the Building Department. 23 MR. PALISE: Thank you. 24 MR. SAVEN: As amended.
1 Case No. 03-055 2 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Moving 4 right along. Case Number 03-055, filed by 5 Gregory Gluck of Fox Run Retirement Community at 6 41000 Thirteen Mile Road. Mr. Gluck is 7 requesting a variance to allow a ramp to an 8 underground parking structure to be approximately 9 eleven feet ten inches from the south elevation 10 of the residential building in the Fox Run 11 Retirement Community. 12 Are you Mr. Gluck? 13 MR. ALBERTSON: No, I am not. 14 Mr. Gluck could not be here tonight. My name is 15 Peter Albertson. I'm the project director. I'm 16 sorry. I'm the principal in charge for Marshall 17 and Staff Associates (ph), the architectural 18 engineers on the project and I'm here 19 representing Fox Run Retirement Communities 20 tonight. 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: And you 22 have an associate with you? 23 MR. ALBERTSON: I have Mr. 24 Baker, he's also an architect with our firm and
1 he's a project director on the project. 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All 3 right, gentlemen. I'm going to ask that you both 4 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our 5 secretary. 6 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly 7 swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding the 8 case 03-055? 9 MR. ALBERTSON: I do? 10 MR. BAKER: I do. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Sir, we 13 have received your packet. If you would like to 14 give us a summary of what the purpose of it is 15 that you're here for this evening we would 16 appreciate that. 17 MR. ALBERTSON: As you stated 18 earlier, Madame Chair, we're here to request a 19 variance for the existence between the base of 20 the building and the drive area that we have 21 developed on the site plan. The variances to 22 allow approximately a twelve foot dimension. I 23 think it's eleven foot, ten on your plans, as 24 opposed to 25 foot that's required by Ordinance.
1 When the design team went through the analysis 2 and suggesting this to the Board for 3 consideration, we came up with the improved 4 pedestrian traffic plan for phase two for the 5 campus itself. We reduced the number of surface 6 parking on the pool site. It saved large 7 standing trees in front of the building, 2.3. It 8 improved the building perimeter fire access by 9 the reconfiguration of the refiling of the design 10 for page 2 of the site plan and required that the 11 drive be placed in that location. 12 It does not cause any hardship 13 on the traffic or noise on adjacent property 14 values and where the vehicle is directly outside 15 or south of the building at the high point on the 16 ramp, it is down below the gray or down below the 17 windowsill elevation approximately 9.6 at that 18 point and THAN it goes down to approximately 12 19 feet at the other side of the building. It's 20 adjacent to a secondary independent living unit 21 function which is a kitchen, side kitchen window 22 and one bedroom. And we are proposing planting 23 which is illustrated on both sides of the 24 driveway along with the guard rail which is
1 illustrated on the drawings we submitted to you. 2 At this point I would like to open up for any 3 questions that you may have. 4 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 5 Thank you. There were 874 notices sent. No 6 approvals, seven letters were returned and two 7 objections. The first objection is from Gene and 8 Susan McClain of Copper Lane in Novi. They feel 9 the structure would be too close to the 10 building. They feel that we do not want any 11 underground parking approved in this area. The 12 Fox Run Center is too much, too large already. 13 The 13 Mile/Meadowbrook has become over built 14 with new condo, homes, apartments. "It's already 15 overpopulated and congested." 16 The second objection is from 17 Steven Weisenbach at 30877 Jasper Ridge. This 18 residence feels that the developer is trying to 19 put too much into the Fox Run land. Have them 20 scale back their project to fit in the land they 21 have within the limits of the code. 22 Is there anyone in the audience 23 that wishes to make a comment in regards to this 24 case?
1 Seeing none- 2 MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Just 3 to point out to the Board. The fact that there 4 is a window there or in that particular location 5 that's a reason for the 25 foot setback 6 requirement. Is that correct, Pete? 7 MR. ALBERTSON: I would agree 8 with that. 9 MR. SAVEN: And if that window 10 wasn't there we wouldn't be here today, correct. 11 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board 12 Members? Frank? 13 MEMBER REINKE: I think the 14 request basically meets the requirements that the 15 Ordinance specified. As Mr. Saven had pointed 16 out, if the window wasn't there, we wouldn't be 17 here. 18 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 19 MEMBER REINKE: So just because 20 Of that I really don't have a problem with the 21 petitioner's request. 22 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member 23 Brennan? 24 MEMBER BRENNAN: I had three
1 notes. One, is this a good project for the 2 City. This is a need that we have in our 3 community. 4 Number two, looking at the 5 history, this project had a lot of effort to 6 preserve woodlands and wetlands. There's a lot 7 of effort that went into this design. It was 8 approved nine to nothing by the Planning 9 Commission and comments by those parties that 10 have an objection comments I don't think they 11 understood this is not any extension with -- this 12 is a variance that is within the development. 13 This is not a variance that extends beyond the 14 outer limits. So this is something that is 15 necessary. And it's really a very minor variance 16 request given we've got a window. So I don't 17 think this is any real big deal. 18 MEMBER REINKE: In actuality 19 it's a less intrusive request than what the norm 20 would be. 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member 22 Gray? 23 MEMBER GRAY: My comments have 24 to do with the availability of the underground
1 parking and availability of the emergency vehicle 2 to get under there if there is a car fire. If 3 there is a situation where something is in a car 4 and has to be removed by ambulance, what is the 5 height of the underground should something like 6 that happen? 7 MR. ALBERTSON: I don't have an 8 exact dimension for the height clear to the 9 bottom of the structure for the parking deck. In 10 my mind it's approximately eight feet. That 11 would be tall enough for a van, but if they -- 12 I'm going to say a bubble on top to drive in that 13 area. 14 What Ericson does is, because 15 they do have security and emergency staff, EMS 16 staff, at their site 24 hours a day, they're the 17 first respondents if you would call a 911 call. 18 The interior building systems, the elevators are 19 all sized to take a resident through the parking 20 deck up to the first floor and then out if that 21 need be done. The parking structure itself when 22 we went to the Building Department and the Fire 23 Marshall's office the total parking structure 24 itself is designed to allow fire department
1 access as far as turning radius and also loads of 2 the vehicles. Not only loads of the -- I'm going 3 to say EMS unit, the ambulance unit, the larger 4 -- I call them box size units they have today but 5 also the fully loaded fire truck access 6 throughout that parking area and road structure 7 on the top surface. 8 MEMBER GRAY: Is that building 9 sprinklered? 10 MR. ALBERTSON: Yes. All the 11 buildings are 100 percent sprinklered including 12 the parking, the parking structure itself. 13 MEMBER GRAY: So if there is a 14 fire then the odds are the sprinkler system is 15 going to kick in and suppress it? 16 MR. ALBERTSON: That's correct. 17 All the detection systems and alarms go back to a 18 24-hour person station at community building 10. 19 MEMBER GRAY: Those were the 20 only questions I had was about the emergency 21 access and although this may be a good project 22 for the City and the effort put into it, I can 23 understand the people who wrote against 24 approval. And I can understand their concerns,
1 however, that's not an issue before us tonight. 2 This is a project that's already been approved. 3 I think that an underground parking deck is a 4 good feature of this and I know there are other 5 underground parking decks in the City that I have 6 seen that are close to windows so I would have no 7 problem supporting this. 8 MR. SAVEN: That's a motion? 9 MEMBER GRAY: That's a motion. 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I have 11 a question. Sorry. Because this is a new 12 development and it's something different that's 13 come to Novi and my one concern in reviewing this 14 packet I didn't see anything in regards to noise 15 levels. Is that even a concern with this ramp 16 being that close to the building or does that 17 even get looked at or would it even have an 18 effect? 19 MR. ALBERTSON: In my opinion it 20 would have minimal effect. The basic noise from 21 the vehicle is between the two walls which have 22 the noise tending to go up as opposed to spread 23 out and it will be further diffused by the 24 evergreens at the top of the deck. So it
1 wouldn't be any different than having a driveway 2 adjacent to your home. 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: So it's 4 even looked at and addressed, obviously? 5 MR. ANDERSON: Correct. 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: So that 7 was one question being a resident I didn't know. 8 Thank you very much. 9 MR. ALBERTSON: We're also 10 very acutely aware of your noise Ordinance and 11 we've looked at that. 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank 13 you. 14 MEMBER BAUER: One thing. 15 You're talking about the depth. It's nine feet 16 six inches. 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: So we 18 have a motion and a second. Is there any further 19 discussion on the motion? 20 Sarah, would you please call the 21 roll. 22 MS. MARCHIONI: I didn't hear the 23 motion. 24 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Sarah
1 made the motion and Member Reinke seconded it. 2 MEMBER GRAY: Was the motion 3 adequate? 4 MR. SAVEN: Would you recall 5 the motion. 6 MEMBER GRAY: Move to approve in 7 Case 03 dash 055 that the variance of the 13 feet 8 two inches be granted because of the -- that if 9 the one window wasn't that there that we would 10 not be addressing this matter and that adequate 11 screening will be provided. Is that it? 12 MEMBER REINKE: Support. 13 MR. DOVRE: And I think approve 14 the variance based on practical difficulty to 15 present it and the condition on the screening 16 shown on the drawings being installed as 17 represented by the applicants. 18 MEMBER GRAY: Is that okay with 19 you? 20 MEMBER REINKE: Fine. 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 22 So the motion has been amended and clarified and 23 seconded. And now is there any other discussion? 24 Seeing none, Sarah, would you
1 please call the roll. 2 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? 3 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 4 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 5 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 6 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 7 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 8 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 10 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 11 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 12 Sir, your variance has been 13 granted. Please see the Building Department. 14 MR. ALBERTSON: Thank you, we 15 will. On behalf of Ericson we thank you for your 16 time. 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank 18 you. At this time it is 8:35. The Board would 19 like to entertain the thought of a ten minute 20 break. So we will return at 8:45 and so all in 21 favor we will take a ten minute break. 22 (A short recess was taken. 23 24
1 Case No. 03-056 2 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's 8:45 and 4 the Board is slowly returning. I'd like to call 5 the Zoning Board of Appeals back to order. If 6 everybody would like to find their seats. And we 7 will continue with Case Number 03-056 filed by 8 Wah Yee Associates representing Beechforest 9 Office Park at 26999 Meadowbrook road. Are you 10 Mr. Fosse? 11 MR. FOSSE: I am. 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Mr. 13 Fosse of Wah Yee Associates is requesting an 14 approval for a one year extension to coincide 15 with the ccPlanning Commission approval for the 16 Beechforest Office cpark development and also 17 referencing ZBA case number 99-069. 18 Mr. Fosse, would you like to 19 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our 20 secretary, please. 21 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly 22 swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 23 03-056? 24 MR. FOSSE: I do.
1 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: If you 3 would like to give us a summary of why you're in 4 front of this evening, we would appreciate that. 5 MR. FOSSE: Basically, what is 6 the -- we're asking for another one year 7 extension. The principal reason is really just 8 the office market that exists today. There's 9 really no point in constructing an office that 10 unless there is some leasing activity -- and you 11 know things are not really very active at this 12 point. However, Mr. Manozi (ph) is making good 13 progress. Not too long ago he commissioned us to 14 upgrade the drawings to reflect all the building 15 codes that have changed since we prepared the 16 drawings in the first place. 17 Also the sanitary sewer has been 18 extended in that area. That work is now 19 complete. The reconstruction of Meadowbrook Road 20 is now scheduled for the building season of '04 21 which would coincide with the projected 22 construction start of this building and also 23 Mr. Manozi is now totally leased with his 24 pentacle one and two buildings. So it frees him
1 up to concentrate fully on this project. 2 I brought along a site plan just 3 to refresh memories since it has been revised 4 since we looked at that. I'd be happy to answer 5 any questions. 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 7 Thank you. There were nine notices sent. No 8 approvals. No objections. Four letters were 9 returned. I have a note here. 10 Building department? 11 I'm sorry. Is there anyone in 12 the audience that would like to make comments in 13 regards to this case? Seeing none, Building 14 Department? 15 MR. SAVEN: Just to point out 16 that this issue is going to be before the 17 Planning Commission for their extension on July 18 30th, 2003 and should the Board decide to approve 19 this extension I will make it subject to the 20 Planning Commission approval. 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All 22 right. Board Members? Member Brennan? 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: That's exactly 24 what I wrote down. I'll make a motion with
1 respect to this case 03 dash 056 that we approve 2 this extension to August 28th, '04 pending 3 Planning Commission approval. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We have 6 a motion and a second. Any further discussion on 7 the motion? 8 Sarah, would you please call the 9 roll. 10 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 12 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 14 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? 15 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 16 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 18 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 19 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Sir, 21 your variance has been granted. 22 MR. FOSSE: Thank you. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Hope the market 24 picks up.
1 MR. FOSSE: We all do. Thank 2 you. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1 Case No. 03-057 2 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 4 Let's go on with the next case, 03-057, filed by 5 Debra Blashfield respective buyer of 2105 West 6 Lake Drive. 7 Are you Ms. Blashfield? 8 MS. BLASHFIELD: Yes, I am. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: And who 10 is with you this morning? 11 MR. FOSSE: This is Bill 12 Subitskey (ph), he's my real estate 13 professional. 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Are you 15 both going to be to be giving testimony this 16 evening? 17 MS. BLASHFIELD: I guess it 18 depends on what questions you ask. 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Why 20 don't you both raise your right hands, then, and 21 be sworn in by our secretary. 22 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly 23 swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 24 03-057?
1 MR. FOSSE: Yes. 2 MS. BLASHFIELD: Yes. 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We've 4 reviewed your packet. If you would like to give 5 us a summary we would greatly appreciate that. 6 MS. BLASHFIELD: Mr. Subitskey 7 has a series of photographs for the Board to take 8 a look at showing different phases or different 9 areas in that area. 10 What this is is the property of 11 2105 West Lake and it was an old cottage and it 12 burned last fall. I believe it was August. And 13 what I would like to do is purchase this property 14 and build my home there and in order to do this 15 since the lot is 31 -- approximately 31 feet wide 16 I will need some variances to do that. And so 17 that's why I'm here. 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: There 19 were 33 notices sent. Four approvals. One 20 objection. Approvals were by Nick and Laurie 21 Mallace. Lawrence Hine of Pentell, Ron Thomas 22 and the one objection was from David and Deborah 23 Simon at 101 Pickford, "We would like to see the 24 side yard setback be changed to two feet. This
1 is not a large difference. This would allow the 2 homeowner to have enough room on the north side 3 of the house without having to go on to our 4 easement. Also easier access to the home for 5 maintenance on the north side." 6 Jeffrey and Angela Haggar. I 7 apologize. There's a lot of paperwork in here 8 that's not normally here. And I think that's all 9 of it. 10 Is there anyone in the audience 11 that wishes to speak in regards to this case? 12 Are all of you gentlemen here to 13 speak? 14 MS. HAGGAR: Yes. 15 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Move on 16 down. 17 MR. HAGGAR: Good evening. My 18 name is Jeff Haggar and I am the property owner 19 at 2109 West Lake Drive. I happen to be the only 20 person that is directly related to this request 21 since I'm the adjacent owner. I built a brand 22 new home in 1994 and I appeared in front of this 23 same Board and was in the same position as the 24 applicant. The current situation is that the
1 home has been condemned for over one year. The 2 Novi Police Department has been to this property 3 nine times in that time period. There have been 4 two arrests and that they're currently homeless 5 people living in that there. The City of Novi 6 was also in the process of defining that as being 7 a condemned building and was in the process of 8 actually demolishing it. That litigation had 9 actually started. 10 Then the opportunity had came 11 when the applicant came to my home and spoke to 12 my wife and I and done an excellent presentation 13 and provided us a site plan which defined the 14 footprint of the home that she proposed. Showed 15 us the exterior elevations and some preliminary 16 plans for an interior layout and asked for our 17 support. In reviewing all the data we provide 18 her with support one hundred percent. We have 19 absolutely no objection whatsoever. 20 Relative to the criteria for 21 hardship I believe that the home definitely falls 22 within that so the elements of hardship has been 23 met. I believe that the applicant's request is 24 reasonable. The variances that are being asked
1 upon has been approved several times before in 2 surrounding homes many of which the applicants or 3 the homeowners are here before you tonight. The 4 only suggestion that I had actually had to the 5 petitioner is that she actually make the home a 6 little bit wider if at all possible and I even 7 recommended bringing it over closer to my 8 property line if that would THAN support but, she 9 made her decision with her proposal and, again, I 10 do support that 100 percent. 11 I can tell you that having built 12 a home at 22 feet wide it does not allow you the 13 architectural features in order for a long-term 14 success. I do not want to see a smaller home. 15 The absolute minimum, I believe, is what the 16 applicant has captured. So, again, the home 17 meets the criteria for hardship, that the plans 18 that directly impact me -- which I've been a 19 homeowner for ten years and I plan on living here 20 for another ten years -- that I support 100 21 percent. The footprint is reasonable. The 22 elevation is reasonable and placement of the home 23 will mirror a row of trees which again is 24 reasonable. Thank you for your time.
1 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay, 2 thank you. Next resident. 3 MR. ANADIC: My name is Greg 4 Anadic. My address is 1947 West Lake Drive. I 5 previously owned 2023- 6 MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) 7 Excuse me, Madame Chair, would you have him sworn 8 in. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 10 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly 11 swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 12 No. 03-057? 13 MR. ANADIC: I do. 14 I previously own the property to 15 the north of the applicants, 2203 West Lake Drive 16 and built the home back in '94 as well. Was 17 granted some very, very good variances through 18 here in order to build the house that I did put 19 up, however, it was too small of a house to live 20 in. That house was 20 feet wide, which you do 21 need a much wider house in that area to live and 22 grow in. 23 Also, the property that the 24 applicant is purchasing is a very dangerous piece
1 of property up there. With the easement she is 2 next to you have kids constantly running through 3 the yard and the current status of that property 4 allows quite a bit of danger in that area. That 5 is something that desperately needs to be cleaned 6 up. This neighborhood needs to be cleaned up and 7 I think that this a crucial project to that 8 cleaning up of that neighborhood. Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank 10 you. 11 Do we have somebody else? 12 MR. OLIVER: William Oliver, 13 2009 West Lake Drive. 14 MEMBER BAUER: Would you raise 15 your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear 16 or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case No. 17 03-057. 18 MR. OLIVER: I do. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 20 MR. OLIVER: I was in front of 21 this Board about a year ago asking for some 22 similar variances. They were granted and my 23 project went through and I couldn't be more 24 pleased. It's been a beautiful addition to our
1 community which previous homeowners that have 2 gone before me indicated it's in tremendous need 3 of repair down there. I think the applicant has 4 presented you with some photos of the surrounding 5 residences. It's an old cottage community and 6 you've got half new and half old and it's in 7 desperate need, especially that particular house 8 due to the fact it's burnt out. There are 9 homeless people living in there. As a matter of 10 fact, I went for a jog two mornings ago and was 11 stopped by a Novi police officer asking me if I 12 had seen a long-haired, 40-year-old man rolling a 13 marijuana joint. That is a true story. So that 14 is the type of riff-raff that is in the house 15 right now. 16 With respect to the variances 17 that she is asking, I understand it is close to 18 the north side being a one foot, however, that is 19 an easement that there. She is not encroaching 20 on the easement. She is one foot from the 21 easement and I think with respect to the hardship 22 she's proved it and with respect to the 23 reasonableness and the feasibility of the plan. 24 The house that she's proposed I have seen
1 elevations of it. It would look like a lovely 2 addition to our community. It's not a long, 3 cardboard box which was what I was faced to do. 4 It has some architectural lines and different 5 ascetics that would make it a very pleasing and 6 tremendous addition to the community. 7 I hope you all would consider 8 what is right there right now and what she is 9 proposing to do and move forward with her 10 variances. Thank you. 11 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All 12 right. I think we have one more, two more? 13 MR. KOSIN: Hello, my name is 14 Brian Kosin and I live at 1323 West Lake Drive. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right 16 hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell 17 the truth regarding the case 03-057. 18 MR. KOSIN: I do. I would like 19 to comment on this case. I too stood in front of 20 this Board in August of '97 building a house on 21 the lake and had the narrow width to contend with 22 also. I had a neighbor who was very concerned 23 and brought that concern to the Board and as I 24 look back on that five years ago those concerns
1 were all not justified. There was concerns with 2 drainage The swelling in the yard took care of 3 that. There was concern about fire trucks 4 getting around the back. Those type of things, 5 thank God, haven't occurred, but there's plenty 6 of room between the house. I think her house 7 that is being next to a lot that will never be 8 built on has some justification in itself. The 9 neighbor to the south is favorable. I've spoken 10 to him and I've seen the plan. I think it's a 11 great addition. This area is in tremendous need 12 of improvement. It really is a blemish down 13 there and through, you know, people building 14 these homes and putting big investments in the 15 area we're starting to clean it up. We hope 16 you'll go with us on this project. Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: And we 18 have one last resident. 19 MR. PHILLIPS: Good evening. 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Good 21 evening. 22 MR. PHILLIPS: My name is Gary 23 Phillips. Address is 1905 West Lake Drive. 24 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right
1 hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell 2 the truth today regarding Case 03-057? 3 MR. PHILLIPS: I do. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 5 MR. PHILLIPS: I just wanted to 6 come out tonight in support of this variance or 7 variances as requested. I've been a resident in 8 the area here for 26 years and waiting and hoping 9 for you people to come in and improve the area, 10 which is happening. I appreciate all the 11 previous variances that have been granted to 12 these other homeowners and just wanted to support 13 the idea that will help to improve the area. 14 Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there 16 anyone else in the audience that wishes to make 17 any comments in regards to this case? 18 Seeing none, Building 19 Department? 20 MR. SAVEN: Just a couple of 21 issues. I just want to point out to the Board 22 basically what the previous testimony was about 23 and had to deal with the property directly to the 24 north being that access lot. There is no house
1 being built on that and based upon that issue of 2 the 1.38 feet, the applicant is aware of the need 3 to control the roof runoff and as well as fire 4 protection as necessary for that site. 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 6 Board Members? 7 MEMBER REINKE: Madame Chairman? 8 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member 9 Reinke? 10 MEMBER REINKE: What the old 11 area out there needs is a lot stretch so we can 12 stretch the width out. It's a unique situation. 13 I commend the lot owners and residents in that 14 area that have worked very hard with small lot 15 configurations to try to accommodate the needs 16 and requirements of the community and needs and 17 wants of the residents and it's not been an easy 18 task. Being that the one resident that is 19 effected by this has even offered to let the 20 petitioner go closer if needed, the other side 21 being a lot that will never be built on helps 22 that situation. 23 The thing that I like is that 24 the area of setback allows for the cars not to be
1 on the road, which is another problem that needs 2 to be addressed in the older homes out there as 3 they're rebuilt. Because that's a real problem 4 along that area out there The proposed requests 5 are strictly side yard and a lot of coverage and 6 I can support the request as much as I don't feel 7 there's much else in it that can be done. 8 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member 9 Gray? 10 MEMBER GRAY: Well, I also know 11 that this is going to be a definite improvement 12 to the area. However, I have a bit of a 13 different take on the side yard request, the 14 variance to the north. I believe that is a City 15 owned access lot. The City does have the right 16 to fence that at some point in time should they 17 choose to do so, the side yards. They cannot 18 deny access, I understand that. But I would be 19 very uncomfortable with having less than two feet 20 on the north property line should something like 21 that happen. And if the access lots have always 22 been problems around the lake as the neighbors 23 all know. I think you have done a nice job and I 24 know that north property line with the fire code
1 you're going to have basically no windows in 2 there. So if you're willing to live with that I 3 am too, but I'm just very concerned about the 4 north property line and the lack of adequate 5 space. 6 MS. BLASHFIELD: May I address 7 that? 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: We're still on 9 discussion. 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Why 11 don't we wait for the rest of the Board Members 12 and when we get done. 13 MS. BLASHFIELD: Sure. 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Sarah, you read 15 my mind, because I had exactly the same 16 information written down here. I was more 17 comfortable with a little bit more space on that 18 north and it's not a huge impact. It reduces the 19 width of the house by something fairly marginal. 20 It does THAN decrease the aggregate or the total 21 from 19.3 to 18.68. My same thought was if 22 that's ever fenced off, it makes it pretty tight 23 to get through there at 1.38 feet. Which is, 24 what, 15 inches?
1 MEMBER GRAY: Um-hmm. 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: I mean, I'm 3 glad that you have support from your neighbors. 4 I would look like to discuss this north side 5 variance. 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anyone 7 else? 8 MEMBER GRAY: I also want to 9 place on the record that I would also be happier 10 with five feet on the south but I definitely 11 don't want to see anything less than two feet. I 12 mean, how would a firefighter get back there 13 within two feet should at some point in time a 14 fence be erected that there, whether it's a chain 15 link fence or whatever. Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I have 17 some questions for clarification, if you would 18 please. What is the actual width of this house? 19 MS. BLASHFIELD: Twenty-five 20 feet. 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: 22 Twenty-five feet in width? 23 MS. BLASHFIELD: Yes. 24 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: And
1 there is going to be a two story house total -- 2 I'm sorry. Total square footage 27, 2,800 square 3 foot. 4 MS. BLASHFIELD: No, ma'am. 5 Part of it is two story and part of it is open to 6 the second story. The total square foot is -- 7 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: 1,580. 8 MR. PHILLIPS: 1,580. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: So we're 10 dealing with a 25 foot house on a 31 foot lot. 11 MS. BLASHFIELD: Right. 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: So there 13 is some creativity right there. I concur with my 14 fellow Board members that I am concerned on a 15 1.38 foot closeness to that property line. I 16 understand that this is a new construction. I 17 understand that you're dealing with a unique 18 lot. Substandard size, if you will, up in that 19 end and that it takes a lot of creativity. 20 However, I cannot support a variance where it 21 puts a house at 1.38 feet from the property line 22 and my reasoning is that for me as a Board member 23 I do not have a crystal ball and I do not know 24 what the future of Novi is going to be. I can't
1 say that nothing's ever going to happen to that 2 piece of property. And there's a safety issue as 3 Member Gray spoke of previous in terms of fire 4 and safety hazard as well. So THAN if we do, in 5 fact, have the City wanting to put up a fence or 6 if there is a safety issue in terms of people 7 intruding on your property now we have a house 8 1.3 feet away from the property line and we have 9 another problem. So for that, given the other -- 10 and especially the size of the house and the size 11 of the lot I understand the other variances but I 12 also cannot support and think that a little 13 creativity can be used on that side of the 14 property line. 15 MR. PHILLIPS: Just one thing. 16 MEMBER REINKE: Madame Chair? 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes, 18 Member Reinke. 19 MEMBER REINKE: Okay. The 20 homeowner most effected by this on the side has 21 agreed that the house could go closer to him. 22 Their total variance of 1.38 and 4.32 comes to a 23 total of 5.7O. If we took two foot on the north 24 side and balanced it out with 3.70 on the
1 opposite side it would still allow them to build 2 a 25 foot home. I think we go any narrower than 3 that we're creating a situation that is very 4 difficult to build and very difficult to live 5 in. And if we're going to create something there 6 that the person doesn't have adequate space or 7 able to build the standard home, it's something 8 that's going to go back up for sale then have 9 another problem. Nobody wants the home. That 10 would be my suggestion. 11 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I can 12 support you on that, Member Reinke. 13 MR. PHILLIPS: A couple of 14 things. Number one the lot to the north is not 15 City owned. It's owned by the Bloomfield Lake 16 subdivision. It was deeded to them and it's an 17 access lot to the subdivision which is to the 18 west of the people on West Lake Drive. So it's 19 their property. 20 And one of the reasons it was 21 set close to the north line was because that lot 22 should never be built on. We don't expect it to 23 be built on. And, if you can see the drive we 24 show you on the site plan already has a curvature
1 to it and the drive kind of sits toward the north 2 of the property. There's an existing well on the 3 property that we were trying to salvage. It's 4 the one thing besides the few trees that we may 5 be able to salvage on this piece of property. We 6 were hoping not to drill a new well and to get a 7 little more distance to the neighbor on the 8 south. It's nice he says we can build on his lot 9 line, but we want to leave a little bit of space 10 here for fire code and fire access between the 11 two dwellings that exist. 12 And then the third thing to the 13 property north to the access, the variance that 14 was granted there allowed that building to be 15 built on the property line. So that one is 16 already built on the property line on the north 17 side of that access lot. Thank you. 18 MEMBER GRAY: Madame Chair? 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes, 20 Member Gray? 21 MEMBER GRAY: I can appreciate 22 that Mr. Haggar, who's the neighbor to the south, 23 is willing to allow this house to be built closer 24 to his property line. I would tend to think that
1 he may not own this property forever and I think 2 we do have an obligation to look towards the 3 future ownership. I understand he wants that 4 whatever is there now gone and I would too. I am 5 very person concerned when you build a house like 6 this and you're so close to the property lines 7 and what the fire code allow and doesn't allow 8 understanding this is a very difficult lot. If 9 it's less than four feet, Don, is that fire code 10 with no windows on the side? 11 MR. SAVEN: There's allowance of 12 windows and projections of how they're going to 13 go ahead with the projection. They'll be 14 allowable openings but they're minimized. 15 MEMBER GRAY: Okay. I'm still 16 not happy with anything less than two feet to the 17 north. Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank 19 you. Member Brennan? 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll go back to 21 my original comment and maybe throw something on 22 the table here and I realize this might be well 23 involved here but we're dealing with new 24 construction. If that -- if the design if we
1 live with the design as the applicant wants and 2 we center that new dwelling on that lot, THAN 3 you've got 2.8 feet -- 2.85 feet on each part. 4 MR. SAVEN: You'll need to 5 readvertise. What you're doing is you're going 6 for a lesser amount. This is what we advertise 7 for. 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: But he's here. 9 MR. SAVEN: Doesn't make a 10 difference. The rest of the owners within 300 11 feet need to know this. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Whereabouts is 13 the well? 14 MR. PHILLIPS: This is the 15 existing site plan. This is the existing 16 structure. It's actually closer to the lot line 17 today. But the well is here. Which is why we 18 show that drive curved. It's sitting right about 19 in here. 20 MR. SAVEN: So moving that house 21 either way is not going to effect that well? 22 MEMBER GRAY: One of the other 23 neighbors commented on the status of the SAD that 24 is in the process of going in there for paving
1 and water. Can somebody address that? I mean, I 2 understand you want to keep a well but if 3 somebody wants to let us know what the status of 4 that SAD that is proposed for West Lake that may 5 be appropriate at this time. 6 MR. KOSIN: My name is Brian 7 Kosin and I'm working as a liaison between the 8 City and residents of West Lake Drive and 168 and 9 169 which brings in water and paving. This area 10 that the petitioner is speaking of is south of 11 that and is not effected. The SAD runs to West 12 Lake Drive going north from the condos to the 13 point. This house is between the condos and 14 Bushnell corners. So this area is not effected. 15 MEMBER GRAY: Okay. Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: So in 17 essence where that well is, THAN, it has no 18 effect. Moving it north -- or moving it from 19 side to side. The well is to the south or closer 20 to the lake. 21 MR. KOSIN: Well, the architect 22 thought it was. 23 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 24 So let's do a recap here. Member Brennan, you're
1 suggesting the house is evened up on both sides 2 than Mr. Saven you're saying we would have to 3 table this? 4 MR. SAVEN: Any differences she 5 would have in the dimension of the dimension 6 variances will have to be readvertised. You're 7 going to be lessening one and increasing another. 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: That's fine. 9 So if we want to move tonight, if your mission 10 here is to leave with a variance you're stuck 11 with making a concession on the north property to 12 two feet which lessens the width of your house 13 by -- 14 MR. SAVEN: Seven inches. 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Which also 16 lessens the total aggregate total and also 17 lessens by some degree the maximum lot coverage. 18 So you could potentially if there was some unison 19 here you could potentially walk out of here with 20 your variances if you agree to that two foot 21 setback. 22 MS. BLASHFIELD: May I have just 23 a second? 24 MEMBER BRENNAN: Sure.
1 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Ms. 2 Blashfield? 3 MS. BLASHFIELD: Yes. 4 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Are you 5 working with someone on this house? With an 6 architect, you said? 7 MS. BLASHFIELD: I have had 8 architectural drawings and it's a real set plans 9 that you have, yes. 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Due to 11 the circumstances that Member Brennan just 12 suggested do you feel comfortable in making that 13 decision tonight? 14 MS. BLASHFIELD: Yes, I do. So 15 if I understand correctly what we're proposing is 16 that the house sits where it is other than coming 17 seven inches to the -- taking seven inches off of 18 the width of the house; is that correct? 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: That's correct. 20 MS. BLASHFIELD: And therefore 21 there's a two foot variance on the north side. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: And a slight 23 reduction in the total variance and slight 24 reduction on the maximum lot coverage. It'll be
1 something less than 6.954732. 2 Shall we give it a try? 3 MS. BLASHFIELD: That would be 4 great, thank you. 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madame Chair, 6 I'll make a motion with respect to 03-572 that 7 petitioner's request be modified with a two foot 8 variance on the north, a 4.32 variance on the 9 south and 18.68 total aggregate and something 10 less than seven percent total block coverage. 11 MEMBER GRAY: Second. 12 MEMBER REINKE: Correction, 13 please? 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes? 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes? 16 MEMBER REINKE: That's proposed, 17 not variance. 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: You 19 didn't need to do to the variance. 20 MEMBER REINKE: The variance 21 would actually be eight foot? 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm sorry. 23 MEMBER REINKE: Run down your 24 row and you're all set.
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: All right. 2 I'll try it again. I'm sorry. The north 3 variance would be an eight foot variance, the 4 south would be a 10.68, the total aggregate would 5 be 18.68 and the maximum lot would be something 6 less than 7 percent. 7 MEMBER GRAY: Second. 8 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 9 So we have a motion and a second. 10 MR. SAVEN: Madame Chair? 11 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes, 12 Mr. Saven. 13 MR. SAVEN: A reason. 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 15 Can we have a clarification? 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Lot 17 configuration. 18 MR. SAVEN: Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All 20 right. So we have a motion, a second and a 21 clarification. Any discussion on the motion? 22 Sarah, would you please call the 23 roll. 24 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 2 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? 3 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 4 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 5 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 6 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 7 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 8 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 9 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Ms. 11 Blashfield, you've got your variance. 12 MS. BLASHFIELD: Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Please 14 see the Building Department. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1 Case No. 03-058 2 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 4 Let's call our next case. Number 03 058 filed by 5 Todd Keene of 2300 Austin Drive. Mr. Keene is 6 requesting a 13 foot front yard setback variance 7 with a construction of an attached garage. And I 8 would like to remind the board members that 9 Mr. Keene was in front us last month. 10 Mr. Keene, you were sworn in 11 last month so you'll still be under oath. 12 MR. SAVEN: I think this is a 13 new presentation. He needs to be sworn. 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: He needs 15 to be sworn in again, all right. 16 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly 17 swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 18 03-058. 19 MR. KEENE: I do. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 21 MR. KEENE: Good evening. 22 Ladies and gentlemen, before I begin and without 23 going into any details, last month I appeared 24 before you and was a little bit upset,
1 apparently. So I just wanted to -- I had a 2 little bit of an attitude problem and I just 3 wanted to make an apology to the Board. Just not 4 a very good public speaker, I guess. I realize 5 that you all have a responsibility to the 6 community as well as individuals. So I'm hoping 7 that this doesn't effect this current case. 8 With that said, I'd like to 9 begin. As you can see, I have prepared, a little 10 hasty, actually, it is kind of a mock-up of my 11 house, the property and the surroundings. I am 12 asking for a 13 foot variance instead of the last 13 case which was an 18 foot variance. I have 14 submitted quite a few pictures showing different 15 angles. I had some more that I thought about 16 later on I would like to pass to the Board if 17 that would be okay. I've got twelve copies. 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Are 19 these additional pictures other than what we 20 have? 21 MR. KEENE: Yes. 22 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: You can 23 certainly bring them to the table and we can take 24 a look at them.
1 MR. KEENE: There pictures were 2 an afterthought. Maybe another possibility that 3 didn't seem to work out well. So I can talk 4 about that later. 5 The reason for my hardship is a 6 30 foot setback increases the construction cost, 7 basically the same case as the last case I had. 8 Brings it on my maximum budget. Makes the 9 architect on that a little inconsistent with the 10 surrounding homes, causes drainage problems and 11 does not impose a basement, one of my goals. A 12 detached garage is not really an option due to 13 the flood plain and also because I would have to 14 have it ten feet away from the house it causes 15 problems that puts me in the flood plain quite a 16 bit and also it interferes with trees in my 17 yard. Locating the garage on the east side of 18 the home using the existing drive coming down the 19 problem with that is -- and that was one of the 20 pictures, the last picture I submitted. Where 21 the road is versus the corner of my deck it's 22 about an eight foot drop on the slope. If I were 23 to put like a driveway or something down there I 24 would have lots of ice in the wintertime and
1 knowing my luck I would slip off in the canal so 2 we don't want to do that. 3 If I were to put the driveway on 4 the canal side going into back of the structure 5 that I've created that there, it would -- I would 6 be in flood zone again and then I would also have 7 a lot of difficulty getting into the garage 8 making two left-hand turning type turns to get in 9 there. 10 Point of concern that I was 11 looking at, the deck that I've got on there 12 changing it from the 18 foot to the 13 foot 13 variance I'm going to have to knock that out and 14 reconfigure that, which adds to the costs. 15 However, if that's what I have to do. I did 16 consult with the -- with Don Saven, the building 17 inspector. He made a few suggestions to me. One 18 of them is the basement access, he suggested I 19 turn it inside the dwelling so that it didn't 20 come out in the drive, the parking space and the 21 garage. One thing too I want to point out is 22 that all of the garage is suggesting that I'm 23 making it 33 feet by 22 feet. 33 feet wide for 24 my cars is not really -- because I have
1 stairwells going to the basement. Stairwells 2 coming down. It's kind of like a bi-level. 3 Stairs going up to the upper level as well. 4 I also talked to tree 5 specialists, certified arborists from Great Oak 6 Maintenance. He said that my trees would be fine 7 if I treated them or -- he said that he does 8 something special to them to make them live. And 9 that costs me another $450 that I'd be willing to 10 do and that's about all I have. 11 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All 12 right. Thank you, Mr. Keene. There were 40 13 notices sent, 17 approvals. No objections. 14 Basically most of the addresses are on -- most of 15 the residents are on Austin that were all in 16 approvals. Is there anyone in the audience that 17 wishes to -- yes, sir? 18 MR. STONE: Hello, my name is 19 Eric Stone. I'm at 2330 Austin. 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Sir, you 21 need to stand at the microphone so we can hear 22 you at home. Thank you. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly 24 swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding case
1 03-058? 2 MR. BAKER: I do. I'm the 3 neighbor directly to the right hand of Mr. Keene, 4 Tom. I'm the only neighbor abutting his property 5 other than the road to the left and obviously 6 there's no neighbors there. Todd and I have gone 7 over there countless hours. Todd has presented 8 to this commission an outstanding plan for an 9 addition to our community to add to the value of 10 the properties. There is -- I can't find any 11 reason why this Board should not embrace Todd's 12 plan in having a garage built there. It's in 13 conformity with everything. It will look good. 14 Right now Todd is without a garage. His steps 15 are outside. There shouldn't even be a reason. 16 One of the reasons suggested in the prior hearing 17 I watched on TV was the road would be too close 18 to the garage and his car might stick out on the 19 property line. He provided you pictures today 20 where he parks his vehicle right now which is 21 approved and safe and is right on the road. It's 22 up against the road. This would be some 17 feet 23 away from the existing road, his new proposed 24 idea. Which is much safer. His plan is just
1 outstanding. I think the Board should look at 2 this and approve it. Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank 4 you. Anyone else? Seeing none, Building 5 Department? 6 MR. SAVEN: I'm saying that Todd 7 chose poorly last session. He did call me and we 8 did meet to discuss what alternatives that he 9 would have and one of the things -- regardless of 10 how assured the plan is or how great the plan 11 looks there's still Ordinances with the City that 12 still have to be complied with. The concern of 13 the Board the previous time was certainly getting 14 the vehicle away from that front -- or away from 15 the easement of the road. And, yes, Todd has -- 16 you can see a lot of grass area where that 17 easement location was and that bridge is in 18 pretty bad shape right now and there might be 19 some modifications going on in the near future. 20 There were concerns with this with the Board and 21 this was basically what we looked at. Couple of 22 things in suggestions that were made is to push 23 the garage back so that it would be in line with 24 the basement stairs. The basement stairs, he's
1 got to have access to those basement stairs and 2 he wanted to keep it on the inside because it 3 would be more for weather purposes in keeping 4 everything in line of what was there. 5 The second issue he is aware 6 that he's going to have to put in Averis windows 7 in his bedroom are because of the location of the 8 garage and where he wanted to put that and he is 9 aware of that and he is going to do that. He is 10 going to have a tremendous problem with his deck 11 because he cannot leave for a distance where 12 those posts are, that once the deck is cut in 13 this area to push the garage in this area there. 14 So there's going to be a need to do some 15 reconfiguration with the deck in this area. 16 The other concern we looked at 17 is where that stairwell was, where the garage 18 door was and the farthest he could get away from 19 the angulation of the road to get more space to 20 get his vehicle for off street parking is what we 21 took a look at trying to get as much space as 22 possible and stay as much out of that flood plain 23 area we possibly could based upon the fact it was 24 a garage and these are all the alternatives.
1 When I met Mr. Keene it was such 2 that I know that he put a lot of work in this 3 particular project because when I went out there 4 I seen the model that he had with the previous 5 issue. So I know he spent some time in working 6 with this particular issue, but the fact is that 7 he still has to comply with the less variance as 8 possible. The Board always looks at those and 9 also from the standpoint of making sure to keep 10 that vehicle off the -- or be able to have 11 off-street parking is what was in the Board's 12 decision at the last time he was before you. 13 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board 14 Members? 15 MEMBER REINKE: Madame Chairman? 16 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member 17 Reinke? 18 MEMBER REINKE: I was the 19 biggest pollinist of it being too close to the 20 road. I think Mr. Keene has done an excellent 21 presentation. You've answered the issues that I 22 had the biggest concern and I loved your 23 presentation which you showed here. And you had 24 when I first looked at that answered my question
1 and the opposition I had to your last 2 presentation. Your mock-up is good and we accept 3 the storm damage to go along with that. And I 4 can support your request. I think you've done an 5 excellent presentation. 6 MR. KEENE: Thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member 8 Brennan. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: I only had one 10 note on here, Todd. You're much better prepared. 11 You addressed the issue we had. I've not go 12 objections at all. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Great job. 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Mr. 15 Keene, I do have something to say to you and that 16 is as a homeowner I sympathize with you because I 17 know you were very frustrated last month and I 18 sincerely accept your apology although I didn't 19 find it necessary. I knew it was just 20 frustration and lack of experience in this area 21 and I have been there myself, which is why we 22 tried to guide you last month as to take a deep 23 breath and go back and look at it, which this 24 Board is very good at doing sometimes.
1 I know that moving the garage 2 any further Then what you would move it would 3 cause possible drainage problems. You're in a 4 flood plain. This lot configuration is certainly 5 an unusual circumstance and I don't think there 6 is any other creative method that you could do to 7 build your garage and I am in full support and 8 wish that every packet was as complete and 9 thorough as this one was. 10 MR. KEENE: Thank you. 11 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member 12 Gray? 13 MEMBER GRAY: I wasn't here last 14 month and it's probably a good thing I wasn't. 15 The only question I have on this and I want to 16 congratulate you on the provisions that you have 17 proposed. 18 Is any part -- Mr. Saven, is any 19 part of this proposed garage in the flood plain? 20 MR. SAVEN: A small portion is 21 but garages are exempt from flood issues. As 22 long as -- and one of the things we also have, 23 the City also has a flood plain requirement and 24 we have to make sure that the floor elevations
1 are one and a half above and he's not going to 2 have any problems based upon the elevations that 3 are there. 4 MEMBER GRAY: And knowing 5 that -- and thank you very much because I have a 6 problem when people are building in flood plains 7 because it effects the ability of others to buy 8 insurance or can. 9 I would like to move that this 10 Board approve Mr. Keene's variance request for 13 11 feet to construct a two story, two-car garage and 12 that the variance be granted due to the specific 13 topography, lot size and configurations of his 14 property. 15 MEMBER REINKE: Support. 16 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We have 17 a motion and a second. Any further discussion on 18 the motion? 19 Seeing none. Sarah, please call 20 the roll. 21 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? 22 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 23 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 24 MEMBER REINKE: Yes.
1 MS. MARCHIONI, Member Bauer? 2 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 3 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 5 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 7 Mr. Keene, your variance, I'm 8 very happy to say, is approved. 9 MR. KEENE: Thank you, very 10 much. 11 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Please 12 see the Building Department again and good luck. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1 Case No. 03-059 2 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Next 4 case, Case Number 03-059 filed by Underwriters 5 Laboratories at 25175 Regency Drive, Regency 6 Industrial Center. Bertrand Cooper? 7 MR. HARRINGTON: No. Vacation 8 time. I'm Michael Harrington. I represent 9 Underwriters Laboratories. 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I'm 11 sorry. I didn't catch your last name. 12 MR. HARRINGTON: Michael 13 Harrington. 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN. Please 15 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our 16 secretary. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly 18 swear or affirm to tell the truth on Case 03-059? 19 MR. HARRINGTON: I do. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Would 22 you please like to summarize your case for us. 23 MR. HARRINGTON: Basically, 24 we're just looking for a temporary variance
1 approval to allow for a 490 volt generator in the 2 back portion of our parking lot to allow for 3 power for testing purposes inside of our 4 laboratory. 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 6 That's it? 7 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. 8 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: There 9 were ten notices sent. I don't know how this 10 works, but there were ten notices sent and eleven 11 approvals. 12 MEMBER BAUER: That's not hard. 13 MS. MARCHIONI: The applicant went 14 to the whole park and got- 15 MR. HARRINGTON: (Interposing) 16 Yes. 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: 18 Evidently, these are residents of your corporate 19 park that are doing the approval? 20 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there 22 anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on 23 this case? 24 Seeing none, Building
1 Department? 2 MR. SAVEN: Only should the 3 Board decide to approve this variance I would 4 indicate that, again, under continuing 5 jurisdiction that should a decibel range exceed 6 what is allowable by the Ordinance that we would 7 have the ability to terminate the temporary use 8 approval. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: What is the 10 Ordinance decibel? 11 MEMBER BAUER: I have that 12 right here. 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: The daytime 14 allowable is 75. Nighttime is 70. According to 15 Michigan CAT what they're going to put here is 65 16 to 68 so he would be below. 17 MR. SAVEN: That's what it said 18 but just in case I just wanted to make sure. 19 This is an Ordinance issue and we want to make 20 sure the residents are taken care of. 21 MEMBER BAUER: I have a 22 question. 23 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes, 24 Member Bauer.
1 MEMBER BAUER: Is this type of 2 unit set to operate for a small City? 3 MR. HARRINGTON: No, I don't 4 believe so. 5 MEMBER BAUER: Okay. Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Any 7 other members with questions? 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madame Chair? 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member 10 Brennan? 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: This appears 12 to be a requirement of the petitioner taking in 13 the comments and statements that the Building 14 Department's got a jurisdiction over this, given 15 all of his neighbors in the park having no big 16 issue and given that put a little income into 17 Michigan Cap a local Novi company I would be 18 prepared to make a motion unless there is any 19 objections? 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: No. 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: With respect to 22 case 03-059 the petitioner's request be granted 23 for a short-term duration on July 9th through the 24 July 25th and that for the purpose electrical
1 needs by the petitioner and that the Building 2 Department has jurisdiction over monitoring the 3 noise decibel. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Second the 5 motion. 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Can I 7 ask a question of the motion maker? 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Um-hmm. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Do you 10 feel it necessary to list the decibel ratings 11 within your motion? 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: I can. It's in 13 the record. 14 MEMBER REINKE: It's also in the 15 Ordinance. 16 MR. SAVEN: It's actually a part 17 of the City Ordinance. 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 19 As long as we clarify that. 20 MEMBER REINKE: You don't want 21 to put something in there that leads us to 22 conflict of what's, in my estimation, as covered 23 by the City Ordinance. 24 MEMBER GRAY: Second.
1 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Motion 2 was made and seconded. Is there any other 3 discussion? Seeing none, Sarah, would you please 4 call the roll. 5 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 7 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 8 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 9 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? 10 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 11 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 13 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 14 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 15 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Sir, 16 your variance has been granted. Please see the 17 Building Department. 18 MR. HARRINGTON: Thank you, 19 very much. 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank 21 you. 22 23 24
1 Case No. 03-060 2 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Calling 4 the next case, Case Number 03-060, filed by 5 Allied Signs representing Sheraton Hotel, 6 formally known as the Novi Hilton. Good evening. 7 MR. ASHER: Good evening, Madame 8 Chair. My name is Leroy Asher. I'm an attorney 9 with Miller Canfield in Troy, Michigan. Here 10 this evening representing Sheraton, Novi. With 11 me also is Mr. Randy Schmidt who is the 12 contractor with Allied Signs, Ms. Debra Schulz 13 who is the general manager and has been for the 14 last four years. Previously of the Novi Hilton 15 and now the Sheraton and Mr. Larry Purton who for 16 the last twelve years has been the head engineer 17 of the property. 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Sir, are 19 these three going to be giving testimony this 20 evening as well or are you the general 21 spokesperson? 22 MR. ASHER: I am the general 23 spokesperson I don't anticipate they will but 24 it's at your pleasure to swear them in also.
1 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: At this 2 time we don't feel it's necessary. If they need 3 to add anything in we will. So you can continue. 4 MR. ASHER: Thank you. We are 5 before this Board this evening seeking pursuant 6 to your notice six variances but really no 7 changes to what is currently at the property and 8 has been at the property for the past 17 years. 9 On June 25th of this year there was a change in 10 identification and what had been the Novi Hilton 11 became a Sheraton Hotel. That's a frequent 12 occurrence in the hotel business. It happens 13 more often than we think about. The improvements 14 that have been made to the hotel I just want to 15 touch on this briefly. 16 The anticipation of the change 17 to a Sheraton is there has been four million 18 dollars in improvements. All of the guest rooms 19 have been redone from the beds to all of the 20 accessory furniture to the carpeting to the wall 21 coverings. There's another million dollars of 22 improvements that are anticipated in the next 23 year to the lobby area. So Sheraton is making a 24 substantial commitment and improvements to the
1 property. And, as part of that, they want to 2 obviously have their name on the building. And 3 so in order to accomplish that -- and it's such 4 an unreasonable request, I know. 5 Part of what is there is really 6 just no change in the current sign package as you 7 have it. The reasons for -- the necessity for 8 the variance is this is a very unique property. 9 It is unique for several reasons. The 10 interchange at Eight Mile and I-275 has placed 11 this property on a substantial curve on Haggerty 12 Road, as you all know. Secondly, the property is 13 not, obviously, on anything resembling a 14 rectangle. It also has a retention pond in front 15 of it that by our estimate is at least 300 feet 16 by 150 feet in the dimension and as such the 17 property sits substantially back from the road 18 making signage and visibility a problem. 19 The other thing that makes this 20 property unique is the south driveway is a 21 driveway that is accessed by a number of 22 businesses. If I recall the history of this 23 correctly -- and I know Mr. Bauer and Mr. Reinke 24 were here when this thing got originally built.
1 I've been before them before as many as 15 years 2 ago. That driveway at the time was a Novi Hilton 3 driveway. It now services Best Buy and Dick's 4 and OfficeMax and a Mexican restaurant and a 5 bunch of other things and they all have signage 6 at that location because you need that signage in 7 that area to direct the people who are not so 8 familiar with the area. But, frankly, you also 9 need to have a Sheraton sign at that location so 10 the people coming around that curve that are not 11 familiar, out-of-town travelers as many of our 12 customers are, know that's where to turn in to 13 the Sheraton so they don't proceed on further 14 down the road. There's also a substantial need 15 to identify this property from the expressway 16 which is why the original sign package was 17 approved back in 1985. 18 The history of this, just real 19 briefly, is that what was originally approved and 20 I know you have the minutes from the 1985 21 meeting, is there was 240 feet of signage 22 approved for the Novi Hilton originally in 1985. 23 There were two ground signs approved. Each of 24 them 20 feet, two by ten signs.
1 In 1995 Mr. Schmidt's company 2 came here to change those ground signs and there 3 was an approval given at that time to increase 4 the size of those signs to what we are asking for 5 right now which is the 32.67 square feet. The 6 only difference that you will see in the signs 7 that we will install versus the signs that are 8 there now is our corners are rounded. Which 9 right now they are square corners. Other than 10 that they are identical. They are four feet one 11 inch by eight feet one inch and we have stuck 12 specifically to not increasing the size of the 13 sign. That's the two ground signs. 14 In 1995 I think that one of the 15 reasons that was given for the necessity of 16 having more than one sign on this property -- and 17 they're still very valid reasons today -- is 18 that, as you know, if you're traveling from the 19 north from southbound on Haggerty, that sign on 20 the front with the building is not visible. That 21 sign faces in a southeasterly direction and it is 22 necessary to have a sign in our north driveway 23 and I think the maker of the motion in 1995 24 indicated that you can't see the north driveway
1 from the south driveway and vice versa. It's 2 impossible to do that. So you need a sign coming 3 from the north and you need the sign from the 4 south for the reasons I stated because they're 5 multiple businesses. 6 Our large sign on the front of 7 the building is also in conformity with what Novi 8 Hilton had. They had 240 feet. Ours is actually 9 239.75. So we've decreased it albeit by three 10 inches, but that sign is essentially identical 11 and we've done that intentionally also to keep it 12 exactly as it is. I would like your -- my friend 13 before me who presented, who had a model, I'm 14 sorry I didn't bring a model, but the good news 15 is the signs are up there and you can see it now 16 on a temporary basis so you do have the ability 17 to look and see. I think the signs are 18 tastefully done. Sheraton is a nationally known 19 company and because of all of these reasons and 20 mainly because of the uniqueness of the property 21 and its need for visibility on the expressway we 22 would most respectfully request approval of the 23 four signs, the two ground signs, the Sheraton 24 crests, which are nine by nine signs that sit
1 above the word Sheraton which is in a five foot 2 by 31.9 foot rectangle on the face of the 3 building. We are available to answer any 4 questions that you may have. 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All 6 right. Thank you. There were 14 notices sent. 7 No approvals. No objections. Is there anyone in 8 the audience that wishes to address the Board in 9 regards to this case? 10 Seeing none, Building 11 Department? 12 MR. SAVEN: It was presented 13 very well. 14 MR. ASHER: Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board 16 Members? Member Brennan? 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: Sometimes it's 18 just too simple, isn't it? 19 MR. ASHER: Especially at this 20 hour. 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah, I wish 22 you would've said that about ten minutes ago. I 23 don't know if there is a lot of discussion needed 24 here. We have a new ownership. It's the same
1 signs different name. I'll make a motion. 2 03-060, I would move that the petitioner's 3 request be granted as requested for the purpose 4 of business identification. 5 MEMBER GRAY: Second. 6 MEMBER BAUER: Support. 7 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Motion 8 made and seconded. Any discussions? 9 MR. DOVRE: Were the practical 10 difficulties demonstrated by the applicant? 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Actually, 12 that's not before us. The signs granted 13 previously we addressed all of those practical 14 difficulties. He is just before us to change the 15 verbiage on the signs. 16 MEMBER REINKE: It's actually 17 for identification to prove uniqueness. 18 MR. DOVRE: I understood there 19 was variances presented and that's a perfectly 20 sound reason for the same reasons as previously 21 found by the Board. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make that 23 part of our motion. 24 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All
1 right. Thank you. 2 So it's been amended and 3 seconded again. Any further discussion? Sarah, 4 please call the roll. 5 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 7 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 8 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yeah. 9 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 10 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 11 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? 12 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 13 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 14 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 15 MR. ASHER: Thank you very 16 much. 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Sir, 18 your variances have been approved. Please see 19 the Building Department. 20 MR. ASHER: Thank you very 21 much. 22 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: You're 23 welcome. 24 MR. ASHER: Have a good evening.
1 Case No. 03-061 2 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Let's 4 call our -- looks like our last case 03-061 filed 5 by Amber Chaffee, prospective buyer for property 6 located on Owenton and Bernstadt Road. Ms. 7 Chaffee is requesting two variances for the 8 construction of the new home located in the 9 Idlemere subdivision. 10 Are you both going to be 11 presenting to us this evening? 12 MS. CHAFFEE: Yes. 13 MR. CHAFFEE: Yes. 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Please 15 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our 16 secretary and give your names to our recording 17 secretary. 18 MR. CHAFFEE: I'm Randall 19 Chaffee, 2710 Towering Oaks Drive in White Lake, 20 Michigan. 21 MS. CHAFFEE: Amber Chaffee, 22 30969 Stoneridge Drive, Apartment 3210, Wixom. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Do you affirm or 24 solemnly swear to tell the truth regarding Case
1 No. 03-061? 2 MS. CHAFFEE: Yes. 3 MR. CHAFFEE: Yes. 4 MS. CHAFFEE: I appreciate the 5 opportunity to address the Board tonight. We're 6 requesting a small zoning variance to a very 7 interesting piece of property located within 8 Idlemere subdivision. The need for the variance 9 is due to the unique circumstances of the lot. 10 We hope that the neighborhood and the Board will 11 agree that strict enforcement of the Ordinance 12 would unreasonably prevent the use of this lot. 13 We also hope that you will agree that perhaps we 14 have found a reasonable form of solution for this 15 property within our proposal. 16 MR. CHAFFEE: Simply we're 17 asking for a side yard which is actually a front 18 yard variance because that is a corner lot of 20 19 feet on Owenton Road. We would like to be ten 20 feet off of that road. 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: There 22 were 35 notices sent. Three approvals. No 23 objections. Approvals were from Palma Weaver on 24 Bernstadt. Michael and LeAnn Link from
1 Bernstadt, although they have some hesitation 2 they think of what may be the future of this road 3 before we approve. 4 And the third approval from 5 Deborah Phillips. She did not list any address, 6 Post Office box in Southfield. 7 Is there anyone in the audience 8 that wishes to speak on behalf of this case? 9 Seeing none, Building Department? 10 MR. SAVEN: Just remind the 11 Board that this particular property was before 12 you one time before at which time there was a 13 garage that was actually facing Owenton and there 14 were several variances that were required because 15 of that particular situation and a concern of the 16 residents adjacent, I believe, directly north of 17 there. A couple of things with this particular 18 project is they certainly took a look at the 19 property. There is no doubt in my mind they 20 tried to work everything in as much as possible. 21 They're bringing the garage off the front which 22 helps considerably. I mean, in my mind that was 23 a good move on her behalf and they minimized the 24 variance as much as possible to basically the
1 side yard variance which is to include two 2 additional -- two side yard variances for the sum 3 total and that one side yard. 4 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 5 Board members? 6 Member Brennan? 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: I tell you 8 what, Amber, you did a nice job. The next time 9 somebody comes in with a 40 foot lot and they 10 say, "I can't build a 20 foot house." I'll say, 11 "Amber did." 12 I'm serious. This is a nice 13 little house on a small little plot and I 14 remember the last fellow, Mr. Cook, he was really 15 frustrated and he didn't think it could be done. 16 I don't know if you have any affiliation with him 17 or not. I suspect he went back to Ann Arbor and 18 you've come along to us with a good idea. I 19 support your plan a hundred percent. I don't 20 think there is any issues with parking, with 21 available driveway space and such. You've 22 centered it right smack in the middle and you're 23 doing a lot with a tough piece of property. Very 24 creative.
1 MS. CHAFFEE: Thank you. 2 MR. CHAFFEE: Thank you, sir. 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member 4 Gray? 5 MEMBER GRAY: You have a glowing 6 letter here in case you didn't see it from Mike 7 and LeeAnn and I live in the sub two streets over 8 and the garage is going to be facing Bernstadt? 9 MR. CHAFFEE: Yes. 10 MEMBER GRAY: I have absolutely 11 no objection. You've done a great job. The only 12 thing I want to say to you on the record is that 13 Owenton is a street that will probably never be 14 vacated because there are properties on South 15 Lake who have backyards facing that and I just 16 wanted to make you aware of that and I think 17 putting the garage facing Bernstadt is a real 18 smart idea. 19 MR. CHAFFEE: Thank you. 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I would 21 like to echo the previous speakers for this 22 Board. Especially I was one of the Board Members 23 for the petitioner that came before us and I 24 specifically said to him less is better and I
1 think that something else can be done and I'm 2 glad you proved him right. So I can 3 wholeheartedly support this. You were creative 4 on this. You put some thought to this. You had 5 several residents tonight that reaffirmed why 6 we're here to help you and guide you and you did 7 your homework and I'm very happy to see that. 8 MR. CHAFFEE: Very nice, thank 9 you. 10 MEMBER REINKE: I'm not going to 11 say anything. You guys said it all. 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: May I 13 Make a motion. Case 03-051, I move that 14 petitioner's request for variance be granted due 15 to lot size and shape. 16 MEMBER GRAY: Second it. 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: There is 18 a motion and a second. Is there any further 19 discussion? 20 Seeing none, Sarah, would you 21 please call the roll. 22 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 23 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 24 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray?
1 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 2 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 3 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 4 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 6 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 7 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 8 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 9 Congratulations, you've got your variance. Job 10 well done. Please go see the Building 11 Department. 12 MS. CHAFFEE: Thank you. 13 MR. CHAFFEE: Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board 15 Members, I would like to entertain a five minute 16 catch my breath break before we get back here and 17 discuss the other matters. Does anyone object to 18 that? 19 (A short recess was taken.) 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Seeing 21 how everyone's back I would like to call the 22 meeting back to order. We have concluded our 23 cases for this evening and now we are into the 24 other matters portion of our agenda. Last month
1 Board Members you recall that Mr. Schultz our 2 normal attorney advised us that Oak Point Church 3 has been -- the case of Oak Point Church had been 4 returned to us by the Court. We have a new 5 attorney here this evening. I'm sorry, not a new 6 attorney but he's filling in for Mr. Schultz and 7 I apologize, I know the first name is Gary and 8 the last name is -- 9 MR. DOVRE: Dovre, D-o-v-r-e. 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I'm 11 going to turn this over to Mr. Dovre at this 12 point. He's the counsel for the City of Novi and 13 he is going to assist us in handling this. I 14 just want to add at this point especially for 15 members at home there are a few newer members on 16 this Board. This is not an unusual situation 17 where a case comes back to us through the order 18 of a Court and so we do turn to our expertise 19 which is to our left of our legal counsel and we 20 as Board members have every right to do so. So 21 at this point I would like to turn it over to 22 Mr. Dovre to advise us on what is best to be done 23 at this point. 24 MR. DOVRE: Thank you very much.
1 Again, my name is Gary Dovre. I'm with the City 2 Attorney's office. I appreciate you letting me 3 fill in out here. 4 At any rate you've accurately 5 stated the posture. After you granted the 6 variances and interpretations on June 5 of 2001 7 Toll Brothers or Toll Michigan through their 8 partnership filed an appeal to the Oakland County 9 Circuit Court. That is allowed by the law. And 10 through the course of those proceedings a record 11 on appeal was compiled and filed by our office on 12 behalf of the City. In Mr. Schultz's letter to 13 you he provided me with a copy of that record on 14 appeal. 15 In cases like this the Circuit 16 Court doesn't do any trial, they are to review 17 your record to make certain determinations that 18 are set forth in the City's zoning statute. 19 And what he also provided was a 20 copy of Judge Michael Warren's May 21, 2003 21 opinion and order. The bottom line of which was, 22 "This case is remanded to you for further 23 proceedings and detailed explanation of facts and 24 reasoning for your decision."
1 So that's the context in which 2 this comes back. That is an option given to the 3 Court and it's an appellate capacity and that's a 4 recognition that Zoning Board of Appeals are not 5 Courts. For instance, appeals go to the circuit 6 Courts from district Courts. Well, there you 7 have a judge that is running proceedings. Here 8 you're a quasi judicial body. In this situation 9 the Court wants this Board to give a better 10 explanation of its reasons for having granted the 11 variances. 12 It is our recommendation that 13 rather than reopen the case, if you will, that 14 you simply work off of the record on appeal that 15 was filed because that is what the summary of the 16 evidence that was before you and available to you 17 in making the prior decision. And working from 18 that try to comply with the judge's request to 19 make better findings, if you will, to help in 20 that regard and based on our familiarity with the 21 case, because we've already submitted a brief to 22 the Court indicating why we feel your decision 23 was proper. So we have briefed the facts as we 24 saw them from the record on appeal that would
1 support in granting variances. And in your 2 letter from Mr. Schultz was a document titled 3 "Summary of Case, Findings of Fact, 4 Ordinance-Based Determinations and Motion to 5 Grant Relief to Oak Point Church". 6 When I volunteered or was 7 requested to attend this meeting I familiarized 8 myself with this matter and I did make some 9 revisions to what Mr. Schultz's provided to you. 10 Those were faxed to Mr. Saven. I understand that 11 you all have that before you this evening and 12 that is the document we'll work toward with one 13 important change. The date of the ZBA hearing 14 was June 5, 2001, not 2000. I tried to push us 15 back a year, but that was not accurate. 16 With that in mind the first 17 order of business would be -- and I'm assuming 18 that you have reviewed all of the materials 19 submitted -- whether the board would like to work 20 off of that summary we provided in going through 21 this process to explain to the judge the 22 reasoning for the decision. The attorneys for 23 both the church and Toll Brothers are here 24 tonight. They were aware that we had provided
1 that summary to you. Of course, you know it was 2 provided under a confidential attorney/client 3 letter and so if you want to work from that Then 4 I've indicated to them they can have a copy and 5 so that would be the first order of business. 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Does 7 that require a motion? 8 MR. DOVRE: Yes. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member 10 Brennan? 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: I would like 12 some clarification on the point of order. As I 13 understand other matters is a discussion between 14 Board members and not necessarily a debate 15 between us and attorneys unless we ask questions 16 of them. 17 MR. DOVRE: That is correct. 18 Our recommendation, again, is that this is for 19 the Board's, you know, better findings of fact. 20 We're not suggesting that any evidence be taken. 21 We're not suggesting any arguments be submitted, 22 but we do see no difficulty if you're going to 23 work from that document that it be made available 24 to the attorneys.
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Thanks. 2 MEMBER BAUER: Make a motion. 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Before 4 you do, can I say something? 5 I understand that the procedure 6 here is that the other attorneys would have 7 access to what we're working on. It is my 8 understanding that we were asked to review the 9 information from the previous hearing in front of 10 this Board and to recall, if you will, what took 11 place that evening. As a member of this Board -- 12 and I speak for myself on a personal basis, I'm 13 not speaking for the entire Board but as an 14 individual member. I remember this case very 15 well and the information that was given to us at 16 the time that was presented to us by the 17 petitioner was very clear and very concise. The 18 information, the fact that the person or persons, 19 thus, Toll Brothers, came basically at the 11th 20 hour the night of the meeting to protest this 21 case. The research had been done by us Board 22 members prior to the meeting and it is my 23 recollection that the biggest problem with this 24 particular set was the configuration of this
1 property. That is my biggest concern and my 2 biggest recollection of this particular case. 3 I say that because when 4 reviewing our minutes at the time that we were 5 doing this case, we did not have a Court 6 reporter. The motions that were made were made 7 off of a tape recording, but I as an individual 8 Board member recall the discussions of the lay of 9 this property, the lay of the land, so to speak, 10 the topography, that there was another piece of 11 property stuck in between this property. And I 12 feel that if I have that much recollection I feel 13 that this Board has as much recollection, if not 14 more, because of their years of experience. I do 15 understand that Secrest and Wardle had given us a 16 guidance, if you will, or role to look at and I 17 appreciate that offer, but I feel that this Board 18 should have the opportunity to discuss this case 19 and do the recollecting, if you will, and then 20 make a decision if the Board members want to use 21 these motions. So if anyone else has anything to 22 say. 23 MEMBER BAUER: I agree with 24 you, however, I think to expedite the thing to
1 this, that it's being set up and which I agree to 2 is affirming our decision of that time. That's 3 exactly what we're doing. To make it clearer, I 4 guess, to the judge. And I think that would 5 suffice. Am I correct, sir? 6 MR. DOVRE: In terms of adopting 7 what's been- 8 MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing) 9 What is on here, yes, sir. 10 MR. DOVRE: It would suffice if 11 your record this evening reflects discussion of 12 it. In other words, a simple rubber stamp of 13 this is not, number one, why we submitted it and 14 would not be our recommendation. 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: May I make some 16 comments, because I made some notes relative to 17 this issue? 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes, 19 absolutely. 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: If I understood 21 what the judge was talking about was not just a 22 rubber stamp. He wanted us to have some 23 discussion on why we granted those four variances 24 and, in summary, if the judge didn't know what
1 this piece of property looks like, it's a very, 2 very odd piece of parcel. It's a U-shaped parcel 3 of a private residence in the middle of that. In 4 addition to that this property from Ten Mile Road 5 drops down, I'd say, probably close to 100 feet. 6 It's a drop. I mean, you can't put this on the 7 record. 8 Maybe you can. 9 But it's a substantial drop. So 10 you have a topography issue to deal with. We 11 also had significant discussion about these four 12 variances and how they relate to the -- what is 13 not even their residential but future 14 residential. And we had discussion. Do we want 15 to keep that parking away from your 16 neighborhood, which is what we ended up with one 17 of our variances. Under Ordinance we would 18 typically have that parking in the back where all 19 the people live. So I think that we took a lot 20 into consideration not only for the topography, 21 the geography, the shape of the lot, but what is 22 going to be in there in the future and we did 23 that for Toll Brothers. We took Toll Brothers' 24 plans into consideration when we made a couple of
1 these variances. I think that that's important 2 for the judge to know that we weren't just 3 dealing with the church. That we were dealing in 4 good spirit with the adjoining neighbors who 5 aren't even there yet and yet we took them into 6 consideration. I think that maybe that's what 7 the judge might be looking for what was behind 8 these decisions that we made and along the same 9 line as the chairman's suggested, having looked 10 at everything that's in our file and I have to 11 admit that you guys did a fine job in giving us 12 the information. If there's a motion to reaffirm 13 our decision tonight, I'm voting yes. 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anybody 15 else? Member Gray? 16 MEMBER GRAY: I also want to put 17 a few comments on the record. I was somewhat -- 18 I was somewhat confused when I read the letter 19 and some information in the summary that said 20 that the church had not established that they 21 could not use it as zoned. This body did not 22 grant the special land use and I want to make 23 sure that everybody understands that on the 24 record. It came to us having received special
1 land use by the Planning Commission. So we did 2 not have anything to do with granting special 3 land use. We did not grant a land use variance. 4 That was never part of our decision. That 5 decision had already been made prior to us 6 reviewing the variances request, the four 7 variances requested by the petitioner. I also 8 recall the gist of the conversation. I was very 9 disappointed that we did not have verbatim 10 minutes to which we could refer. It's very 11 unfortunate that we didn't have them. And it's 12 very unfortunate that the other attorneys didn't 13 have access to those verbatim minutes either. 14 Because there were no verbatim minutes. Now that 15 we have a Court reporter, I think it's very well 16 served and justified in this case that we pay for 17 a Court reporter. At this point in time you 18 need -- if we're going to pursue this summary of 19 case you would appreciate a motion I'm presuming 20 that we do follow the summary of findings and 21 precede with that if we choose to do so? 22 MR. DOVRE: The suggestion is 23 simply to utilize the summary presented by the 24 City attorneys as a guide in the Board's
1 discussions. 2 MEMBER GRAY: So we have to 3 decide whether we want to do that first. If we 4 don't want to do that then we put it aside and we 5 don't refer to it, correct. 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: I mean, the 7 whole purpose of asking the City attorney to help 8 us here was to give us this type of language, 9 maybe. 10 MEMBER GRAY: And, again, I 11 wasn't here last month so I wasn't part of this 12 discussion. 13 MR. DOVRE: The contemplation 14 and reason for the recommendation, if you choose 15 to use it as a guide, I would contemplate we 16 would then go through it. In that process you 17 might want to add to, subtract from, any of the 18 findings which are both findings of fact as well 19 as findings that are tied directly into the 20 Ordinance standards for approval which is 21 something the judge is also looking for. When 22 we're done with that process, we may have a 23 written document that, with the Board's input, 24 could then be the subject of a motion to adopt as
1 the supplemental findings pursuant to the remand 2 order. That's the context in which it's 3 presented. 4 MEMBER GRAY: So what's the 5 Board's pleasure? 6 MR. DOVRE: So we would 7 recommend its use but not because what this 8 represents you folks have in your mind. I 9 certainly wasn't here. Mr. Schultz may have been 10 but, of course, we are here to help you make 11 decisions. 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: I have a 13 recommendation. Let's just move this along. I 14 think I have a sense where the Board is at and I 15 would suggest and I'll make a motion, number one, 16 relative to reaffirming our position and number 17 two, adapting the City attorney's recommedations 18 on language to support the first motion. 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Second. 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: That wasn't 21 quite a motion but it was an offer. 22 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It is 23 now. 24 MR. SAVEN: I ask there be a
1 little more discussion on this. I'm a little 2 concerned as to what the summary was. If there 3 were points that were brought out specific to 4 what you people looked at at the time or the 5 Board looked at at the time we were taking this 6 variance request into consideration. And all of 7 these points or part of the summary are part of 8 discussion that shouldn't be here at the table 9 tonight. Am I correct? 10 MR. DOVRE: Yes. 11 MR. SAVEN: And that's where I 12 want to make sure that this gets on record? 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: You mean to 14 tell me that all the discussion we had during our 15 meeting when we granted these variances is not 16 part of the record? 17 MR. SAVEN: That's not -- well, 18 if I may? 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Can I 20 just interject something right here because last 21 month when Mr. Schultz was here he almost gave 22 the impression that we were going to have to 23 rehear the case. 24 MR. SAVEN: No.
1 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: That was 2 almost the impression I got. And I don't -- 3 because I see these motions. I know what was 4 said at the meeting and plus we have the minutes. 5 Why are we discussing this again? I mean, I 6 think these motions covered the spirit what the 7 Board was trying to do that evening. So if there 8 is something missing please tell me what it is 9 because at this point I don't feel I know what's 10 missing. 11 MR. DOVRE: The discussion -- 12 you know, you didn't have verbatim minutes in 13 June of 2001. 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 15 MR. DOVRE: But you still had 16 some pretty decent minutes. They reflected the 17 discussion. But when you've got to break down to 18 the bottom line and you got to the motions, for 19 instance, on the height, the motion as reflected 20 in the minutes, "Granted variance for building 21 height based on the plans presented tonight in 22 our packet due to the mete and grade of the 23 property." 24 That does not in the confines of
1 the motion address what the Ordinance suggests 2 should be addressed in the motion and does not, 3 for instance, say based on the comments of Board 4 Member X, Y, and Z that preceded this motion that 5 established to my satisfaction the standards in 6 the Ordinance. 7 And it happens often, again, 8 because it's not a Court. You're layman hearing 9 people's cases. 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Right. 11 MR. DOVRE: You're not -- some 12 of you may be lawyers but probably not and even 13 if you were you're not here as a lawyer. You're 14 here as Zoning Board of Appeals members. It's 15 all we have. 16 The task at hand is not to 17 regurgitate. The task at hand is to focus on 18 what was in your record, put it into the findings 19 and determinations the judge says were lacking in 20 the earlier motions and send it back up the 21 ladder. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: And does this 23 language then represent what the judge is looking 24 for?
1 MR. DOVRE: Yes. 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you. 3 I'll go back again and- 4 MR. DOVRE: (Interposing) It 5 represents in our mind what the judge is looking 6 for, findings. It doesn't necessarily means it 7 represents what he needs to see for us to 8 prevail. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. I will, 10 again, suggest that in two parts we vote on 11 either reaffirmation of our original position and 12 if there is concurrence there that a second 13 motion be made and read into the minutes, these 14 four suggested verbiage, for our justification 15 and reaffirm them. 16 MR. DOVRE: Madame Chair? 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 18 MR. DOVRE: Maybe to get beyond 19 this, without the Board taking any action on this 20 document if I could simply summarize the 21 points and I won't read them verbatim. I'll 22 pause after each one and ask if any of the Board 23 members have anything to add or subtract from 24 that based on your recall of the meeting, your
1 review of the record. That may be the most 2 expedient way to go through this. That would 3 Then reflect that the findings in this document 4 were individually discussed and reviewed by you. 5 Then if Board Member Brennan is still inclined to 6 make that a motion, it would be after the 7 discussion of these proposed findings is in your 8 record of this evening. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 10 MR. DOVRE: Is that an 11 acceptable manner to proceed? 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. I 13 see a lot of shaking heads of members. We're in 14 agreement. Go ahead. 15 MR. DOVRE: The summary of the 16 case, and I've already touched upon this, simply 17 confirms that you have that a record on appeal 18 that was filed and you're confirming that that is 19 your record of proceedings. It goes on to 20 summarize what you had before you two years ago. 21 It Then confirms that the Oak Point Church's 22 position was summarized in the record in tab or 23 exhibits one, two and eight. References the 24 objections that were presented by Toll Brothers
1 at the hearing by way of letter. And I think 2 Mr. Bean (ph) was here and actually tendered 3 those verbally as well. 4 So that's just a summary of the 5 case, but the findings of fact are the important 6 part. Those start at the bottom of page 1 and 7 continue on to page 2. The first one has already 8 been confirmed by the Board before I started 9 talking. It was the Planning Commission that 10 granted the special land use and preliminary site 11 plan approval for a 200,000 square foot building 12 it references in the record at tab six. I don't 13 think we need to dwell on that you've already 14 discussed it. You've also discussed the second 15 point which is the unique shape of the property. 16 It's U-shape, four acres in size with two legs 17 on a main thoroughfare. The church purchased the 18 property which is 27 acres which is U-shaped. 19 The church did not cause the split of the 20 property or its current shape. The church had 21 attempted to buy the four acre parcel in a "U" 22 and had been unsuccessful. That's in the record 23 at tabs 8, 6 and 11. 24 You also could find that the
1 parcel is additionally unique because of the 2 drastic change in elevation, something that's 3 already been mentioned by one of the Board 4 members this evening and confirmed in the record 5 at tab 8. So far is there anything that you find 6 to be inaccurate? 7 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: No. 8 MEMBER BAUER: No. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: No. 10 MEMBER GRAY: No. 11 MEMBER REINKE: No. 12 MR. DOVRE: The next point 13 focuses on the building and this is one that the 14 judge was interested in his opinion. He asked 15 that the ZBA focus on whether the practical 16 difficulties were attributable to the land or the 17 chosen architectural design. 18 At this point it says, "The 19 worship portion of this religious land use, which 20 includes segments referred to as the 'fly-loft' 21 and auditorium is required to have a certain 22 height (floor to ceiling) for both purposes of 23 use and acoustics." 24 Is that a finding that you feel
1 comfortable with? 2 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 3 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 4 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 6 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 7 MR. DOVRE: It goes on and 8 references the record where it was noted by a 9 Mr. or Mrs. Mamola. It goes on, "To require the 10 seating area of the worship space to be any lower 11 would result in a structure that is not 12 functional for its intended use. The fly-loft 13 portion of the building has been lowered its 14 original proposed height to the absolute minimum 15 height that could make it function for its 16 intended purpose." 17 Is that a finding that the Board 18 is comfortable with? 19 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 20 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 21 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 23 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 24 MR. DOVRE: The next point deals
1 with site constraints, referencing topography and 2 storm detention requirements. Not permitting the 3 worship part of the project to be placed on the 4 higher established grade. In other words, "The 5 front-to-back slope of the property when it's 6 combined with the U-shape of the property, 7 dictates that the highest (floor to ceiling) part 8 of the building must be at the 'bottom' of the 9 slope, causing the variance request regarding 10 height at established grade." 11 And I think we'll see this later 12 on, Mr. Arroyo, your planner, even addressed the 13 height issue, but does the Board feel comfortable 14 with that as a finding of fact? 15 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 16 MEMBER BAUER: Yes, sir. 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 18 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 19 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 20 MR. DOVRE: The next point was 21 the reference to the placement of the 200,000 22 square foot building on the higher elevations of 23 the Ten Mile Road, including the parking lot on 24 the lower portion, could increase the impact of
1 the building both visually from the road and with 2 respect to the 750-plus home development to the 3 north, in terms of the parking and traffic. The 4 church had designed this proposal to place as 5 much of the structure as possible at the lowest 6 part of the property and had sunk the building 7 into the subject property as much as possible to 8 minimize its impact on surrounding properties for 9 more efficient traffic flow for the parking lot 10 area due to the shape and topographical 11 constraints on the subject parcel." 12 In other words, the church could 13 not do anything more to minimize the visual 14 impact of the height then they had done. Is that 15 a finding the Board feels comfortable with. 16 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 18 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 21 MR. DOVRE: And you will stop 22 and talk about anything if you want to, right? 23 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 24 MR. DOVRE: The next point was
1 the, "Placing the parking lot to the rear of the 2 building would result in an inefficient use of 3 the property due to the unique U-shape of the 4 property, and would result in a less functional 5 parking lot due to the elevation changes." 6 Referencing Tab 8 of the record. 7 "Moreover, given the sloping 8 topography, a 200,000 square foot building that 9 complies with the Ordinance requirements and the 10 development proposed by the church, would be 11 equally (if not more) visible to the 750-plus 12 homes." 13 Is that anything that the Board 14 would take deference over or is that something 15 that is accurate? 16 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 17 MEMBER BAUER: It's accurate. 18 MR. DOVRE: The next I'm not 19 going to read but it does quote verbatim from the 20 testimony of the City planning consultant, 21 Rod Arroyo, in terms of calculating the building 22 height. As you will note, it references his 23 looking at the building and noting that if you 24 could use a weighted average the height of the
1 building would only be 34 feet contrasted to the 2 permitted 35 feet. But that's because of the 3 building height had to be measured at the lowest 4 point, at the trellis point on the flat roof 5 building that it contoured the need for the 6 height difference. I think that was something -- 7 at least we thought it was something that was 8 important to you and if it's not you should say 9 so. Otherwise, indicate that you're comfortable 10 with that finding. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 13 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 14 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 15 MEMBER GRAY: That's fine. 16 MR. DOVRE: There was a note as 17 to the significant landscaping proposed that it 18 would lessen the impact of the building or/and 19 its increased heights and referencing the 20 "Perspective Views" and "Sections" in tab number 21 eight of the record. Do you recall those where 22 the drawings where there were landscaping shown, 23 site lines shown and that is a finding that we 24 would recommend be adopted if it, in fact,
1 represents your finding? 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 3 MR. DOVRE: There was a finding 4 that the Board for places of worship, the 5 weighted average for determining height might be 6 more effective to determine height of the 7 proposed structures for zoning purposes. 8 If you recall, this was 9 presented in the alternative. The interpretation 10 that they didn't need a height variance or a 11 height variance with this finding would suggest 12 as you did, you granted the height variance 13 choosing not to rewrite the Zoning Ordinance, 14 which was a good idea. 15 Then there is a finding that 16 deals with height of the landscaping berm. Simply 17 references the 2509.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. 18 Indicating that it should be measured from the 19 bottom of the berm at ground level and top of the 20 berm. 21 Is that a finding that you feel 22 comfortable with? 23 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 24 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 2 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 3 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 4 MR. DOVRE: And Then finally 5 dealing with whether the church's noise 6 consultant and sound engineer Ralph Balck, 7 B-a-l-c-k, was satisfactory. There was a finding 8 that they were. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 10 MR. DOVRE: The next part of 11 this document ties into the standards and the 12 Ordinance that are suggested being appropriate 13 and it is organized first according to section 14 3104(2). That's the section of the Ordinance 15 which provides that in consideration of all 16 appeals for both variations of the Ordinance the 17 Board shall before making any variations for the 18 Ordinance first determine -- and there's a bunch 19 listed. 20 So that's the context on which 21 the next portion of this document is presented 22 and you can see each of these item A, "Variations 23 will not impair an adequate supply of light 24 and/or air to adjacent properties." There's a
1 reference, again, to tab eight. And you can see 2 the language which indicates that there's a 3 distance between the building and the proposed 4 residential unit of over 100 feet. There's a 5 reference to most of the other units at least 6 twice that far away and the building would be 7 buffered by existing proposed landscaping. 8 So that is the finding that we 9 saw in the record as supporting satisfaction of 10 that first Ordinance standard. 11 Does the Board feel comfortable 12 with that as the basis for that and have any need 13 to add to that? 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Sir, I can see 15 that we could go on unless there is somebody on 16 the Board that has specific issue with any of 17 these items I'm prepared to accept this document 18 in total. 19 MR. DOVRE: Has each Board 20 member read the entire document? 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 22 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 24 MEMBER REINKE: Yes.
1 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Very 2 thoroughly. 3 MR. DOVRE: Does any Board 4 member have any questions of as to where we came 5 up with this? 6 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: No. 7 MEMBER BAUER: No. 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: No. 9 MEMBER REINKE: No. 10 MEMBER GRAY: No. 11 MR. DOVRE: Has each Board 12 member read the record on appeal that we provided 13 to you? 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 17 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 18 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 19 MR. DOVRE: Did each Board 20 member compare that record on appeal to the 21 proposed statement we provided to you? 22 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 23 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 24 MEMBER REINKE: Yes.
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 2 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 3 MR. DOVRE: No, we don't have 4 to read anymore. 5 MR. BRENNAN: Not to cut you 6 off. 7 MR. DOVRE: No. I mean -- 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: We asked the 9 City attorney to help us on this and this is 10 exactly what we were hoping to get and reading 11 the review and reading the reiteration of a 12 motion with a little bit of different language. 13 What I saw out of the judge's request was he 14 wanted to be sure that we had discussed -- 15 MEMBER BAUER: Everything. 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Everything up 17 front and that's why I made the points that I 18 made early on is that we took into consideration 19 a very unique parcel, a very unique topography. 20 The fact that it was on a main thoroughfare and 21 the fact that we took into consideration Toll 22 Brothers' residential community and the impact of 23 this church on a residential adjoining property. 24 And I think that we did our job and I'll say,
1 again, that I'm all prepared to make a motion to 2 reaffirm our position if that's what you would 3 like to do. Or if that's the proper next step I 4 should say. 5 MR. DOVRE: The step now to be 6 appropriate would be a motion to and I would 7 recommend that the motions be done individually 8 as they were originally. This is on the last 9 page of the document. And, with respect to each 10 one after you make the motion I would like to 11 address you before you vote, if I may. 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All 13 right. 14 MR. DOVRE: And motion number 15 one this would be on the version that I provided 16 to you. I think it should be read into your 17 records. I can do it or someone that wants to 18 make it can do it. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a 20 motion with respect for the first item that 21 relates to the height of the building I would 22 move that the motion be granted. A height 23 variance of at least 19 feet for those portions 24 of the proposed structure described as a fly-loft
1 and auditorium. Because of its strict 2 application of the height requirements of the 3 Zoning Ordinance resulting in peculiar practical 4 difficulty caused by the unique shape and 5 topography of the property and for the reasons 6 set forth in the Board's findings and 7 determinations. 8 MR. DOVRE: And is that also to 9 reaffirm your prior decision? 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes, sir. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Second the 12 motion. 13 MR. DOVRE: Now, if I can 14 address you before you vote and it's in the 15 context of whether anyone -- one of the things 16 the judge said in his motion was, "The ZBA should 17 focus on whether the claimed practical 18 difficulties or on new hardships are attributable 19 to unique characteristics of the parcel or 20 attributable to the chosen architectural design." 21 In the findings that you've 22 tolerated me going through with you we talked a 23 bit about the architectural design. Is there 24 anything you would want to add to this motion?
1 This motion said that it's based on the 2 property. Is there anything about your motion 3 that is being granted just because of the 4 architectural style of this particular church 5 chosen, I mean, or is this based on the property? 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: No. I'll 7 answer because I made the motion. Virtually 8 every one of these variances that we heard that 9 evening were based on the topography and the odd 10 lot configuration and I think that it was the 11 root for virtually all of our variances. And, if 12 I'm not mistaken, I think I was the maker of most 13 of those variance requests. Or motions I should 14 say. 15 MEMBER GRAY: I don't recall 16 that we found an architectural design or style to 17 have been contributory to a practical 18 difficulty. I think we recognized -- I did. 19 I'll speak for myself. I recognized that most 20 churches now are not necessarily just a 21 sanctuary, a fellowship hall, a kitchen and 22 offices. That there are more uses that are 23 contemplated and that because of the topography 24 of the land, which as it says in here was a 50
1 foot drop from Ten Mile Road down to the north 2 property line, and in keeping in mind the future 3 development that was going into the north, as 4 Mr. Brennan has reiterated several times this 5 evening, that we found that, that the design of 6 the church, the style, was very appropriate for 7 building it into a hill and contemplating all 8 their needs. So when I voted to approve the 9 variance request, I did not take into 10 consideration that an architectural designer's 11 style contributed toward -- it was not a 12 self-imposed hardship if that would be better, a 13 better way to phrase it. The bulk of what I 14 voted on was the land, the U-shape, the 15 topography, the use that was given to us on a 16 preliminary site plan previously approved subject 17 and that we looked at it and in my mind I was 18 clear that this was the best use for this 19 property. I don't know how the other board 20 members feel about it, but that was my 21 recollection of the situation that evening. 22 MR. DOVRE: The motion is 23 seconded. 24 MEMBER BAUER: Yes, sir.
1 MR. DOVRE: That discussion is 2 now part of that motion and that was what I was 3 encouraging you folks to do. 4 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 5 So the motion's been made and it has been 6 seconded. Sarah, will you please call the roll. 7 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 9 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 10 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 11 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? 12 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 13 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 15 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 16 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madame Chair? 18 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes, 19 Member Brennan? 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: I would like 21 to make another motion with respect to the 22 variance that we heard with respect to parking. 23 I would move that the motion made in 2001 be 24 reaffirmed to grant a variance allowing parking
1 on the property in front of the proposed 2 structure as the strict compliance of the 3 Ordinance would result in a peculiar practical 4 difficulty caused by, again, a unique shape and 5 topography of the property for the reasons set 6 forth in the Board's Findings and Determination. 7 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 8 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Motion 9 has been seconded. Is there any further 10 discussion? 11 MR. DOVRE: And in incorporating 12 the discussions on the lack of importance of 13 architectural design in the first motion? 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll just make 15 comment here that this is -- in this particular 16 variance Toll Brothers were taken into 17 consideration more than the church. We elected 18 to agree with petitioners to put parking in the 19 front on Ten Mile which would move that activity, 20 that noise, that congestion away from the 21 residential side. This variance in particular 22 was more slanted towards the future needs of the 23 Toll Brothers development. 24 MR. DOVRE: Did the
1 architectural design of the church have anything 2 to do with parking variance? 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: No. 4 MEMBER GRAY: No. 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Not the 6 architectural, no. The placement of the church, 7 yes. Not the architecture, no. 8 MR. DOVRE: Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board 10 Members? 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: We have a 12 motion and a second. 13 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 14 Sarah, would you please call the roll. 15 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 17 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brauer? 18 MEMBER BRAUER: Yes. 19 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? 20 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 21 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 22 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 23 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 24 MEMBER REINKE: Yes.
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madame Chair? 2 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes, 3 Member Brennan? 4 MR. BRENNAN: I would like to 5 reaffirm our motion and variance request in 2001 6 with respect to the berm and interpretation of 7 the berm. Not really the berm itself but the 8 interpretation. 9 And I would reaffirm that our 10 motion to adopt an interpretation of the berm 11 requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance is 12 to provide the measurement of a berm from the 13 bottom of the berm to the top. This 14 interpretation being most consistent with the 15 language of the Ordinance itself and finding the 16 church complies with the Zoning Ordinance 17 requirements for berm height. 18 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: A motion 20 has been made and seconded. Is there any further 21 discussion? 22 MEMBER REINKE: Madame 23 Chairman, I would just like to interject one 24 thing. I believe that on the berm it was also
1 requested additional planning on the top to allow 2 additional screening Then more so Then with the 3 berm would do just in itself. 4 MEMBER GRAY: I would also 5 like to point out that when we were interpreting 6 the berm requirements, having dealt with another 7 issue just before this came to us we were very 8 well aware of the interpretation of the berm 9 requirements and we knew that we needed to 10 interpret the measurement from the grade and not 11 a -- 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: From the 13 bottom of the berm. 14 MEMBER GRAY: From the bottom of 15 a berm rather than from an elevation. Other than 16 that, I think everybody on the Board knew very 17 well the interpretation at that point in time. I 18 wanted to place those comments on the record with 19 this and that the berm -- in addition to Mr. 20 Brennan's motion I also want the discussion to 21 reflect that the berm requirements and 22 interpretation had absolutely nothing to do with 23 the architectural design of this facility. 24 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay.
1 So the motion's made, seconded. Sarah, would you 2 please call the roll. 3 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 5 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 6 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 7 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? 8 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 9 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 11 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 12 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madame Chair? 14 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes, 15 Member Brennan? 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: I would like to 17 discuss the final variance that was granted in 18 2001 which dealt with whether or not the church's 19 engineer had the engineering background to give 20 an opinion on sound requirements to the Ordinance 21 and the fact that there is not anything real 22 specific and so I'll reaffirm our position that 23 we held back Then and I suggest a motion to adopt 24 an interpretation of this certified sound
1 engineer requirements that were being fulfilled 2 by the church's professional engineer, as the 3 Ordinance language does not define certified and 4 the Church's sound engineer presented before us 5 at that time was and is a professional engineer. 6 He's licensed in Michigan and has been qualified 7 on numerous past similar cases to give testimony 8 related to sound issues. 9 MEMBER BAUER: Support. 10 MEMBER REINKE: Support. 11 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 12 The motion has been made and seconded is there 13 any further discussion on the motion? 14 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. One thing 15 that was brought out that he has been called upon 16 by large corporations, General Motors, Ford, 17 Chrysler getting into the sound type of 18 engineering and I think this by itself and him 19 being licensed by the State of Michigan should be 20 sufficient information. 21 MEMBER GRAY: Madame Chair, 22 there was one other point that was very critical 23 to this I believe and that was the fact that 24 there was no body available to provide such
1 certification as our Ordinance called for and I 2 think that was very important to remember about 3 this case, too. There was nobody to certify that 4 he was an engineer -- there was no body to do 5 that. And that was one of the main reasons as I 6 recall that we accepted his credentials. 7 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 8 Anything else? Motion made and seconded. Sarah, 9 please call the roll. 10 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 12 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 14 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? 15 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 16 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 18 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? 19 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 20 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: For the 21 record, those four motions have been made and 22 supported and reaffirm and, Mr. Dovre -- 23 MR. DOVRE: Just to make sure 24 the record is clear all motions were based on the
1 document and findings and determinations that we 2 provided? 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Yes, sir. 5 MR. DOVRE: And that was the 6 revised version? 7 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Correct. 8 MR. DOVRE: With the date 9 corrected? 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. 11 MR. DOVRE: Thank you for your 12 patience. 13 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank 14 for your assistance. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you for 16 your assistance. 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. 18 Next discussion for Board under other matter is 19 the mock-up signs. Sarah forwarded us packets 20 for language for mock-up signs so I think I'm 21 going to let her do the talking. 22 MS. MARCHIONI: Well, what I'm 23 going to do is I started this month and I sent 24 out a letter to every applicant reminding them of
1 the meeting and it's actually in the public 2 hearing notice and what I'm going to do for the 3 applicants is also when I say please erect a 4 mock-up sign by such date and I've also added, 5 you know, please refer to your packet that 6 describes mock-up signs and they understand that 7 they did have this information. If they chose 8 not to read it that was their own decision. 9 And I think I'm going to put it 10 on the application as well. Because that seems 11 to be the only thing in the packet the applicants 12 read. 13 MEMBER BAUER: One thing If I 14 can suggest, like in procedures you've got where 15 a variance related to a sign is requested a 16 rendering. That's very good, but why don't you 17 put, will put up. Because sometimes it's a 18 little hard to get through to some people. 19 MS. MARCHIONI: True. 20 MEMBER BAUER: It's a suggestion 21 only. 22 MEMBER GRAY: I would also like 23 to suggest that you bring to their attention that 24 if they do not have a mock-up sign put up, that
1 we will not hear their case. Is that agreeable 2 to the Board? 3 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: That's 4 a good point. Because we had an incident a 5 couple of months ago where there was no mock-up 6 signs and we go out and look, there is nothing 7 there. Can we refuse to hear the case if there 8 is no mock-up sign? 9 MR. SAVEN: This was a Board 10 policy that was established some time ago in 11 regards to this. If they know about it, if they 12 know about it and they're given due notice, I 13 think it's up to the Board. I mean, if they come 14 here you guys have the power to say based upon 15 the Board's policy what we can't see out there is 16 something that's a relationship to the building 17 or the signs or the sign to the building and this 18 is something you can deal with. 19 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Because 20 there was a case last month or the month before 21 where we went out and looked for the sign and it 22 wasn't there. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Yeah, the first 24 one.
1 MR. SAVEN: I'm sorry, if they 2 get the notice and they get notified Sarah does a 3 fantastic job of this- 4 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: 5 (Interposing) Yes, she does. 6 MR. SAVEN: -and if they come to 7 the Board that's an inconvenience to them and I 8 think they'll know better next time. 9 MEMBER BAUER: The old saying 10 you can lead a horse to water but you can't make 11 them drink. 12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I know. 13 I know about those horses. 14 MEMBER GRAY: And, again, I 15 don't have a problem if somebody brings me or we 16 get a computer representation of what the actual 17 sign is going to look at in our packet. If they 18 don't want to put up a mock-up sign, if they put 19 something up at least the size of what they're 20 proposing, you know, and they can just write on 21 it if they want to. You know, I know there's 22 expense involved in putting up a mock-up sign, 23 to preparing it and putting it up. 24 But again, unless the wind blows
1 it down which I know has happened, I want to see 2 that mock-up sign on the building I'm looking at 3 and if it's not there I don't want to bother with 4 it. 5 MS. MARCHIONI: What were your 6 feelings on when a mock-up sign is denied at the 7 meeting we give them a length of time that they 8 have to remove it but what if their sign variance 9 is approved how long should they be allowed to 10 leave that mock-up sign up? 11 MEMBER GRAY: I don't have a 12 problem with the 90 days. 13 MEMBER REINKE: I think it 14 should be part of each motion because depending 15 on the length of time to get a sign, it's going 16 to vary due to the type of sign and so forth of 17 this nature. 18 MR. SAVEN: That is another 19 issue too. You're absolutely right is the fact 20 that if this person is in the site plan review 21 part or if it is going into a final approval 22 because he's got the building up to a point where 23 he can put up a sign and he's taken advantage of 24 that, the finishing of that building may take a
1 little bit longer time. 2 MEMBER REINKE: You know, I 3 think we need to get a commitment from the 4 petitioner at that time stating that it is our 5 policy to have a temporary sign removed in "X" 6 days. Can that person live with that or is it 7 going to take longer or we address that issue on 8 a first case basis. 9 MS. MARCHIONI: So agree we will 10 put in the motion how long they are allowed to 11 leave the mock-up sign up. 12 MEMBER REINKE: Correct. 13 Because any business is going to want to get a 14 permanent sign up as quick as they can. 15 Sometimes it's going to take longer sometimes 16 going to take less and we've had cases where 17 people have taken it upon themselves to put a 18 completed sign as a mock-up. I mean, you know, 19 they're sticking their neck out but then they've 20 got their permanent sign. I would never suggest 21 that, but, I mean, we have run into that 22 situation. 23 MEMBER GRAY: Sarah, you said 24 that our application process does tell them they
1 have to take it down and if it's denied they have 2 to take it down in five days? 3 MS. MARCHIONI: Yeah, under sign 4 criteria we had problems with people removing the 5 mock-up signs when denied and we put the language 6 should mock-up signs be denied it must be removed 7 within five working days. 8 MEMBER BAUER: Well, that's 9 always been the case. 10 MEMBER GRAY: Well, someone 11 stretched it. 12 MS. MARCHIONI: Okay. 13 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is that 14 all? 15 MS. MARCHIONI: That's it for the 16 mock-ups. 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Now we 18 have August meetings. 19 MS. MARCHIONI: Okay. Originally 20 when we were asked to do the calendar for there 21 was the possibility that there was going to be a 22 primary election on Tuesday and, of course, that 23 took priority over us so we pushed back the 24 August meeting to the 12th. There's not going to
1 a primary this year so Don wanted to know if you 2 wanted to move it up to the 5th. However, I have 3 already advertised that the cut-off date is July 4 it 24th. So if you decide to move it up to the 5 5th you're probably not going to get your packet 6 until maybe midweek of the week of the 28th. 7 MEMBER GRAY: I don't have any 8 problem with that. 9 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I'm for 10 leaving it the way it is. 11 MEMBER REINKE: I won't be here. 12 MEMBER GRAY: Then let's leave 13 it on the 12th then. 14 MEMBER GRAY: This brings up 15 another issue. What about the November meeting, 16 that is on election day? 17 MS. MARCHIONI: November we had to 18 move to- 19 MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing) 20 The 6th. 21 MS. MARCHIONI: -the 6th of 22 November. 23 MEMBER GRAY: I'm sorry. I was 24 looking at the wrong date.
1 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: If the 2 Board Members don't have a problem leaving it on 3 the 12th. 4 MS. MARCHIONI: That would 5 certainly help me out. 6 MR. SAVEN: It doesn't matter to 7 me. I just want to make sure that everybody who 8 had a difficulty with the 12th then we could move 9 it to the first Tuesday. 10 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: That's 11 fine. 12 MR. SAVEN: Leave it the 12th. 13 MS. MARCHIONI: Thank you very 14 much. 15 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We have 16 one other issue. 17 MS. MARCHIONI: One other thing 18 was public hearing notices, I doubt this will 19 ever happen in the near future because Fox Run 20 has been the exception, but when properties abut 21 condominiums, the computer system doesn't show 22 each condominium as a parcel. It shows as one 23 big parcel. So instead of sending notices to the 24 condominium association I send it to each
1 individual person. I had to go through a 2 completely different system. So I ended up 3 sending out 900 notices for a variance that 4 wasn't very, you know, too big. 5 MEMBER BAUER: Can't the 6 association use a Post-it? 7 MS. MARCHIONI: Well, that's what 8 I want to know. Was that okay with you guys in 9 the future if I just send it to the association? 10 MR. SAVEN: I think that's a 11 legal question. 12 MEMBER REINKE: It's a general 13 type thing. I think we could do that. Some of 14 the cases we get into I don't think that we 15 could. 16 MR. SAVEN: One of the things 17 definitely we can make some determination of 18 where those homes are within that 300 foot. 19 Because it's a condominium and the grounds are 20 all owned by the condominium and association and 21 everybody is a member I think we need to get a 22 legal opinion on that. 23 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We can. 24 MR. DOVRE: Under our Ordinance
1 3106, "Notice to persons to whom real property 2 within 300 feet is assessed. A condominium is 3 real property and an individual has a separate, 4 real assessment absent a change of the 5 Ordinance." 6 You would send it to each 7 individual condominium unit owner. If you wanted 8 to consider changing the Ordinance, we would Then 9 look in the state statute to make sure you could. 10 MS. MARCHIONI: Let's hope. 11 MEMBER GRAY: What happens then 12 with Chateau, did you have to send them to all 13 the property owners within 300 feet of Chateau? 14 MS. MARCHIONI: Are they 15 condominiums? 16 MEMBER GRAY: No. They're a 17 mobile home park. 18 MS. MARCHIONI: Are they assessed, 19 each property? 20 MEMBER GRAY: They own the 21 mobile home which is real property, but they rent 22 the lot. 23 MEMBER BAUER: They don't pay 24 taxes?
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: They don't pay 2 taxes. 3 MR. DOVRE: The mobile home 4 probably is not going to be assessed as real 5 property especially if it occupies the lot under 6 that a rental arrangement in that situation my 7 guess- 8 MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Can 9 we have your opinion on that. 10 MR. DOVRE: -is that real 11 property is being assessed as one owner known who 12 may be factoring in to the cost of taxes and the 13 rent they charge but it's who is being assessed 14 for the real property tax. 15 MR. SAVEN: Just one other issue 16 if I may. 17 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Go 18 ahead. 19 MR. SAVEN: I want to point out 20 that you did receive a very good letter from 21 Mr. and Mrs. Langford. I want you to be aware of 22 that. If you haven't read it please take the 23 time to read it. I also think this should go to 24 the counsel so we get a copy of this letter to
1 say what you did in taking into consideration 2 that home that you took the best interest of the 3 community. I thought that was nice. So kudos to 4 you guys. 5 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank 6 you. Now, Mr. Reinke? 7 MEMBER REINKE: Now my turn. In 8 following a tradition of my own I have to say 9 good night to our newest family member tonight 10 who arrived this morning. Brianna Rose Reinke 11 weighing in at 7 pounds, 12 ounces and 20 inches 12 long and she better be in bed. 13 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: 14 Congratulations. With that there is no other 15 matters I would like to officially call this 16 meeting to a close. The meeting is adjourned. 17 (The meeting was concluded 18 at 11:05 p.m.) 19 - - - 20
Sarah Marchioni Recording Secretary
22 23 24
1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 4 I, Darlene K. May, do hereby 5 certify that I have recorded stenographically the 6 proceedings had and testimony taken in the 7 above-entitled matter at the time and place 8 hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify 9 that the foregoing transcript, consisting of 10 one hundred ninety-four (194) typewritten pages, 11 is a true and correct transcript of my said 12 stenographic notes. 13 14 15 _____________________________ Darlene K. May, RPR, CSR-6479 16 17 ___________________ 18 (Date) 19 20 21 22 23 24
|