View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting


Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, Tuesday, December 7, 2004.

Cynthia Gronachan, Chairman
Justin Fischer
Brent Canup
Gerald Bauer
Frank Brennan
Siddarth Sanghvi


Don Saven, Building Department
Alan Amolsh, Ordinance Enforcement
Denise Anderson, ZBA Recording Secretary

Machelle Billingslea-Moore, Certified Shorthand Reporter.

1 Novi, Michigan

2 Tuesday, December 7, 2004

3 At 7:30 p.m.

4 - - - - - -

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. It's 7:30,

6 and I'd like to call the December, 2004, Zoning Board

7 of Appeals meeting to order.

8 Denise, would you please call the roll.

9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?

10 MEMBER BAUER: Present.

11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


21 DENISE ANDERSON: All present.


23 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a

24 Hearing Board, empowered by the Novi City Charter to









1 hear appeals seeking variances from the application of

2 the Novi Zoning Ordinances. It takes a vote of at

3 least four members to approve a variance request; and

4 a vote of the majority of the members present to deny

5 a variance.

6 This evening, we have a full Board.

7 Are there any changes in regards to the

8 agenda?


10 Case number 04-107 filed by Robert

11 Moorhouse, of R. E. Moorhouse & Associates,

12 representing Carcosutics has been cancelled by the

13 applicant.

14 And under other matters, I'd like to

15 add two more items. Number two, case number 04-001

16 for Harold's Frame Shop the sign and hour of

17 illumination; and three, I'd like to a clarification

18 for the time limit for mock-up signs to remain after

19 case approval.

20 I'd just like to note that the November

21 9th, ZBA Minutes are complete and you did receive a

22 copy, but they were not received in time for this

23 meeting.

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Denise, can you









1 repeat three, please, clarification of time on mock-up

2 signs?

3 DENISE ANDERSON: Time limit for the

4 mock-up sign to remain after the case has been

5 approved.


7 All right.

8 Anything else?

9 DENISE ANDERSON: That's all.

10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam Chair, I have a

11 matter. I can leave it to the end, if you want.


13 Go ahead.

14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Under other matters.


16 MEMBER BRENNAN: The New Market

17 signage, this is the sign next to Gus O'Connor's. We

18 gave them time to come back and they're not on the

19 agenda tonight, and they've got that big mock-up sign

20 still hanging on the building.


22 Any other matters to be added to the

23 agenda?

24 Member Fischer?









1 MEMBER FISCHER: I believe we approved

2 that sign. We're done with that case. We approved

3 that.


5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We approved it, but

6 the mock-up wasn't approved.


8 MEMBER BRENNAN: I can remember

9 distinctly that the party that was in front of us that

10 night was the sign maker, and we were not going to

11 approve that sign as big as it was, and he did not

12 have the ability to make any concessions.

13 So we asked him to come back. They're

14 not back, and they've still got that huge mock-up sign

15 there. That's my point, because we did not approve

16 that sign. I can guarantee it.

17 DENISE ANDERSON: I thought we approved

18 it, but we had them bring it down proportionally in

19 size to --

20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Why don't we do

21 this.

22 DENISE ANDERSON: Justin is looking it

23 up.

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Why don't we









1 continue at this point --

2 MEMBER BRENNAN: The last time I

3 guaranteed something, I lost 20 bucks.

4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We'll have somebody

5 check the Minutes and by the end of that, we'll

6 discuss it at that time.

7 Anything else?

8 Seeing none, all those in favor of the

9 agenda, say aye.


11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: None opposed.

12 There were no Minutes for approval this

13 evening. November's will be tabled until January's

14 meeting.

15 At this time, if there's anyone in the

16 audience that wishes to approach the Board to make

17 comment in regards to a matter, other than a case

18 that's in front of us, you may do so now.

19 Is there anybody in the audience that

20 wishes to address the Board?

21 Seeing none, we will -- I'm sorry, is

22 there somebody? Is there someone?

23 Okay. Not in regard to these. Any

24 other topic like what to get the Board for Christmas,









1 you know, those kinds of things.

2 Okay. Seeing none of that, we'll go

3 ahead and call our first case.

4 Case number 04-111, filed by

5 William R. Lutz of Signgraphix for 28550 Cabot South

6 Technology Centre.

7 Good evening.

8 And you are Mr. Lutz?

9 MR. LUTZ: I am Mr. Lutz.

10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please

11 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our

12 secretary.

13 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

14 affirm to tell the truth regarding case 04-111?

15 MR. LUTZ: Yes, I do.

16 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You may proceed.

18 MR. LUTZ: This is quite similar to an

19 appeal we had at the last meeting. This involves

20 setbacks at the Haggerty Corporate Office Center, just

21 west of Haggerty Road, north of 12 Mile. Consistent

22 throughout that project has been the request for

23 variances regarding setbacks.

24 And this is very similar to the last









1 building that we requested. If we put the signs at

2 the required setbacks of 63 feet, it would be in the

3 middle of the parking lot, and so, that's an issue.

4 We're as far back on the island at the

5 entry way as possible. The rear end of the sign, as

6 you can see from the mock-up, is pretty much up

7 against the light pole or pretty darn close to it. In

8 spite of that, we have some visibility issues, but we

9 would certainly appreciate your consideration for at

10 least putting the sign in that location, because there

11 really isn't another good place for it, frankly, and

12 making it all visible to the traffic on the side

13 street there.


15 Anything else?

16 MR. LUTZ: That's it.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in

18 the audience that wishes to make comment in regards to

19 this case?

20 Seeing none, there were 19 notices

21 mailed; zero approvals, zero objections.

22 Building Department?

23 MR. AMOLSH; No comment.










1 Board Members?

2 Member Brennan?

3 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, given this has

4 gone through planning and we're at where we're at, and

5 it's consistent with other properties there, I'd move

6 for approval due to configuration of the lot and the

7 property design. It's already moved along in

8 planning.



11 It's been moved and seconded.

12 Is there any further discussion?

13 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

14 call the roll.

15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?



20 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


22 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


24 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?










2 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

3 zero.

4 MR. LUTZ: Thank you.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has

6 been granted.

7 Have a good holiday.

8 Thank you.


10 Our next case is 04-116 filed by John

11 Carroll of Carroll Installations for Staples at 47610

12 Grand River Avenue.

13 Mr. Carroll is requesting four sign

14 variances at the above location for the Staples Office

15 Super Store.

16 Good evening.

17 And you are?

18 MR. CARROLL: Good evening. I'm John

19 Carroll.

20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Raise your right hand

21 and be sworn in by our secretary.

22 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

23 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-116?

24 MR. CARROLL: Yes, yes, I do.










2 You may proceed.

3 MR. CARROLL: Well, the first variance

4 is for the oversize of the signage on the front of the

5 building. Looking at the west elevation, the setback

6 from Grand River is too much distance for a sign of 40

7 square foot that you would normally allow.

8 That's why we're requiring, obviously,

9 (unintelligible) sign of Home Depot, Kroger, they've

10 exceeded the 40 square foot level.

11 As far as the additional signage, the

12 visibility from the interstate behind the building is

13 a great asset to the business, as well as Kroger and

14 Home Depot next door to utilize that. The additional

15 two signs in front of the building, identifying

16 services at the business. That's it.


18 Anything else?

19 Is there anyone in the audience that

20 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

21 Seeing none, there were eight notices

22 mailed; no objections, no approvals.

23 Building Department?

24 MR. AMOLSH: No comment.









1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members?

2 Member Brennan?

3 MEMBER BRENNAN: Sir, do you have the

4 authority to negotiate with us on this case?

5 MR. CARROLL: I brought a gentleman

6 here from Staples.


8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your name and raise

9 your right hand to be sworn in.

10 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

11 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-116?

12 MR. ULVAN: Yes.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And your name,

14 please.

15 MR. ULVAN: Don Ulvan, U-l-v-a-n.

16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you.

17 My general comments is I don't have a

18 problem with signage on the west and east, even though

19 it's a bit skew. That's in concert with the Kroger,

20 Home Depot put out or already noted.

21 I think the large sign on the front of

22 the building is just that. It's large. I think it's

23 large by effect of 50 percent. I don't believe you

24 need to advertise your services on the front of that









1 building, so I have no support for those two signs.

2 And I would support the sign on the east side.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN; Anyone else?

4 Member Canup?

5 MEMBER CANUP: I guess I follow those

6 thoughts. I know I went there today and sat in the

7 parking lot, very far out, and looked at what I saw,

8 and I can't believe our sign Ordinance is so wrong.

9 There's so much asked for here, and I can't see where

10 we could -- at least, I could ever support what has

11 been asked for.

12 It's going to have to be some serious

13 changes in order to get a positive vote from me on

14 anything, except for what the Ordinance calls for.

15 Your sign is massively bigger than Home

16 Depot's sign. You don't have nearly the square

17 footage or lineal footage on the front of your

18 building, as they have, and the same thing with

19 Kroger's. The only difference in the Kroger sign is

20 it appears that they -- is the fact that they -- at

21 the top and the bottom of it, (unintelligible.) But

22 your sign is absolutely atrociously large.

23 And unless you come back, in my

24 opinion, with something that is acceptable, you're not









1 going to get any vote from me on this request.

2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

3 MEMBER FISCHER: Is there only one

4 entrance to your store?

5 MR. ULVAN: Yes.


7 The reason I asked that is because if

8 there is a separate entrance for the copy and print

9 center, I could support that. But given that there's

10 the one entrance, I think the office supposes is

11 redundant. I believe that copy and print center

12 merely should be advertising that the Staples

13 organization should overcome.

14 And I feel that the large sign on the

15 front overshadows the other businesses. However, on

16 the 96 side, I would be willing to support that sign.

17 Thank you, Madam Chair.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Bauer?

19 MEMBER BAUER: First of all, the

20 location is a destination. People don't go around

21 looking for you. The size of the signs are not to be

22 picked up from 12 Mile Road through -- from Grand

23 River.

24 The office supplies and copy and print









1 center, they know what Staples is. I have no problem

2 with the east side; but the Staples side, has to be

3 lower, considerably.

4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay, gentlemen, I

5 think you can see where the Board is going, and I echo

6 all the members' comments. What is the -- let me just

7 check. We are all in agreement to remove -- to not

8 approve the office supply or the company thing,

9 correct?

10 MEMBER CANUP: My suggestion would be

11 that being that these signs that were submitted are so

12 hideously big or large, that we give these people an

13 opportunity to come back to us with something that is

14 more reasonable and presentable.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Unless you are

16 prepared this evening --

17 MEMBER CANUP: Unless you want to have

18 us vote on it this evening, and I think if we vote on

19 it this evening, you are going to be very unhappy.

20 MR. CARROLL: Can we come to a

21 compromise with you?

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: If you have one.

23 MEMBER BRENNAN; I was going to suggest

24 if you're comfortable with removing the office









1 supplies and copy, print -- if you're comfortable with

2 --

3 MR. CARROLL: Are you referring to the

4 package and ship and the copy and print on the side?

5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Copy and print and

6 office supply, which are both on the front of the

7 building.

8 MR. CARROLL: There's pack and ship on

9 one side; and copy/print center on the other. And

10 below the Staples is the tag line that goes with

11 Staples.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Not according to

13 what we have. It says office supplies on this side;

14 and it says copy and print shop on this side. And

15 this shows -- these are the two --

16 MR. CARROLL: it's this and this; that's

17 not approved --


19 MEMBER BRENNAN: So we're clear on the

20 two long linear signs on the front.

21 MR. CARROLL: Yes, that's correct.

22 MEMBER BRENNAN: We will not approve.

23 I would propose reducing the square footage by half.

24 I would just kind of square that up with a thumb; that









1 would give us something more accessible in blending

2 with that complex; and I would move to suggest to move

3 the 96 side sign as okay.

4 So you've got three options.

5 You can accept the previous offer. You

6 can put us off and come back with a whole new plan, or

7 you can have us vote on what you have presented

8 tonight.

9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Gentlemen, can I

10 make a suggestion, since you don't have anything right

11 off tonight?

12 MR. CARROLL: We don't have anything.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Why don't we give

14 you a few minutes of a break. You can go out in the

15 back and discuss it. And if you think you can resolve

16 something here, or would you rather --

17 MR. CARROLL: That's what we would

18 propose, yes.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. So why don't

20 we just table this. Let us proceed to the next case,

21 and when you come up with something, give me a high

22 sign, come on back and we'll work you in.

23 MR. CARROLL: Thank you.

24 MR. ULVAN: Yes.









1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Next case,

2 04-117, filed by Gregory Gluck of Fox Run Village at

3 41000 West 13 Mile.

4 Mr. Gluck is requesting one sign

5 variance to maintain a temporary construction sign for

6 Fox Run.

7 Good evening.

8 MR. GLUCK: Good evening.


10 Mr. Gluck?

11 MR. GLUCK: I am Mr. Gluck.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please

13 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our

14 secretary.

15 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

16 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-117?

17 MR. GLUCK: I do.

18 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You may proceed.

20 MR. GLUCK: As the chairperson said, I

21 represent Fox Run, and we're requesting that the

22 temporary construction marketing sign on 13 Mile

23 remain for an appropriate period of time, as the Board

24 would suggest to us.









1 Our construction is continuing into

2 2009, so this is something that we're looking to have

3 a little relief of.


5 Anything else?

6 MR. GLUCK: That's it.

7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in

8 the audience that wishes to make comment in regards to

9 this case?

10 Seeing none, there were 197 notices

11 mailed; no approvals, no objections.

12 Building Department?

13 MR. AMOLSH: No comment.

14 MR. SAVEN: I would indicate that this

15 project is an ongoing, and it will continue to a date

16 probably about 2009. It's a mammoth project, and they

17 keep the area very neat and clean and in an orderly

18 fashion, no complaints.


20 Member Fischer?

21 MEMBER FISCHER: The previous

22 violations -- there aren't any problems with

23 violations currently, correct?

24 MR. SAVEN: No.









1 MR. AMOLSH: No, there's no problem.

2 MEMBER FISCHER: They're actually

3 coming before us earlier. The Zoning Board didn't

4 have a problem with the sign before. This is a

5 mammoth project, and this sign is something that I

6 feel that we can live with.

7 How long would you be looking for?

8 MR. GLUCK: Up to three years, if

9 possible.

10 MEMBER FISCHER: Three years.

11 Giving the information presented, I

12 would be willing to support anything up to three

13 years.


15 Member Canup?

16 MEMBER CANUP: Are we empowered to be

17 able to do that? I thought it was only one year at a

18 time.

19 MR. GILLIAM: I think that's practice,

20 as long as I've been coming to the Zoning Board, for a

21 period of a year.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: For the first year,

23 and then after that we can do three years.

24 MR. SAVEN: That's correct.









1 MEMBER CANUP: I don't have a problem

2 with three years, because of the size of the project.



5 MEMBER CANUP: Is it legal? Are we

6 empowered to be able to grant it for more than one

7 year at a time, Don?

8 MR. SAVEN: That's an interpretation

9 issue that you may want to address, based upon the

10 temporary -- for example, temporary uses would come

11 before you and you would review them under the basis

12 of how long they've been coming before you. And if

13 they repeatedly come before you, you could try two

14 years, as long as there was no outstanding violation

15 in regards to a particular project.

16 We have done this before in the past.

17 I don't see this as a problem.

18 MEMBER BRENNAN: Real quick question.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?


21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Is anyone living there

22 yet?

23 MR. GLUCK: We have 364 residents or

24 units, so probably about 600 people living there.









1 MEMBER BRENNAN: The potential build-

2 out is?

3 MR. GLUCK: 1497 units.

4 MEMBER BRENNAN: So you're roughly 25

5 percent there.

6 MR. GLUCK: That's correct.


8 MEMBER CANUP: I want to make a Motion,

9 if it's acceptable, that we grant the variance for a

10 period of three years with continuing jurisdiction,

11 due to the fact that this is a mammoth, long-term

12 project.


14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

15 seconded.

16 Is there any further discussion in

17 regards to the --

18 Good evening, Mr. Gilliam.

19 MR. GILLIAM: Madam Chair.

20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's so dark over

21 there. I didn't see you.

22 MR. GILLIAM: I'm here.

23 Thank you.

24 First of all, in speaking with Alan,









1 it's my understanding there's an established practice

2 to allow three year extensions. I see no problem with

3 that from a legal standpoint.

4 Just one point as far as the Motion's

5 concerned, it's my understanding the current approval

6 expires in March of 2005. So I would assume that it's

7 the Board's position that this three-year extension

8 will become effective as of March, 2005, and would go

9 to March of 2008.

10 MEMBER CANUP: We could make that as

11 part of the Motion.



14 Any further discussion?

15 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

16 call the roll.

17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?










1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


5 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

6 zero.

7 MR. GLUCK: Thank you.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has

9 been granted.

10 Good luck to you.


12 We will call our next case, 04-118,

13 filed by K.J. Albers of Diversified Land Development,

14 LLC, for the Charneth Fen Condominiums Development at

15 12 and a half Mile Road.

16 Mr. Albers is requesting one sign

17 variance to erect a ground sign to be located at the

18 southwest corner of that location.

19 Good evening.

20 Are you Mr. Albers?

21 MR. ALBERS: Good evening. I am Ken

22 Albers with Diversified Land Development.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please

24 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our









1 secretary.

2 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

3 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-118?

4 MR. ALBERS: I do.

5 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.


7 You may go ahead.

8 MR. ALBERS: Good evening, Madam Chair,

9 Board Members.

10 I'm here tonight to request a variance

11 to install an off premises sign for our development,

12 Charneth Fen Condominiums. The sign would be located

13 where the mock-up sign is currently. It would be the

14 same size as the mock-up sign, but it would be not

15 that color. It would be the colors here.

16 We have a blue background, white

17 lettering and a gold border around it. The sign we

18 are proposing or requesting is both smaller and longer

19 than what's allowable by Ordinance. The size of the

20 sign, the height and placement was chosen by driving

21 back and forth on Novi Road and looking at it from

22 different directions to determine what would be the

23 least interruptive to the drivers.

24 The location, height and size of the









1 sign we have out there is the easiest to see when

2 you're traveling, without raising or lowering your

3 line of vision. It is also the correct size where you

4 don't have to take any more time to read a smaller

5 sized sign, if we put that out there.

6 Our site is unique because it's size

7 and location. It doesn't front any major roads or

8 even a smaller paved road. It's on one of the few

9 remaining dirt roads in the City. The roads are

10 pretty obscure, and that's uninviting to drive on.

11 The condition of the road also deters

12 people from using it as an ordinary route.

13 Without this variance, we would be in a

14 severe disadvantage, compared to the other

15 developments who have major road frontage, or at least

16 paved roads for the public to drive on.

17 Based on these hardships and the

18 location of our site, we're requesting an off premise

19 sign for the period of 24 months, or less if the

20 project sells out during that time. But I think I

21 should probably rephrase that, since to my

22 understanding, the maximum is 12 months. So it would

23 be requested for 12 months.

24 And I'd be happy to answer any









1 questions you have.


3 Thank you.

4 Is there anyone in the audience this

5 evening that wishes to make comment in regards to this

6 case?

7 Seeing none, there were eight notices

8 mailed; no approvals, no objections.

9 Building Department?

10 MR. AMOLSH: No comment.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members?

12 Member Brennan, and then Member

13 Fischer.

14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I think this is

15 obvious that there's some hardship involved. 12 and a

16 half Mile is a dirt road. It's kind of bumpy. And if

17 you're going to try to get somebody down there, you

18 have to have a sign on Novi Road to give them some

19 motivation to drive down that nasty bumpy place.

20 So I would support it, if there's

21 enough heads nodding, I'll make a Motion.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

23 MEMBER FISCHER: I'll just make a couple

24 comments quickly.









1 I'd also like to commend the Petitioner

2 for doing their homework in securing the property

3 owner's approval where they were going to place the

4 sign. This is definitely something obviously

5 important with the Petition in front of us.

6 Originally, I thought it was a little

7 high, but driving by there, there's definitely some

8 hills through there. And so, I can agree with the

9 Motion that I believe you're about to make, Member

10 Brennan.


12 Member Brennan?

13 MEMBER BRENNAN: With respect to case,

14 04-118, I would move that the Petitioner's request for

15 this sign -- off-site sign -- for the period of 12

16 months be granted for the purpose of marketing.

17 MEMBER BAUER: Second the Motion.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

19 seconded.

20 Is there any further discussion in

21 regards to the Motion?

22 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

23 call the roll.

24 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?










2 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


4 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


6 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


8 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


12 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

13 zero.


15 Your variance has been granted.

16 Good luck to you.

17 MR. ALBERS: Thank you.


19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I see our first

20 contestant. Come on down.

21 MR. CARROLL: We have a rendering for

22 you.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, before you

24 start talking -- we need you to pass that out, because









1 they can't hear you at home.

2 MR. CARROLL: This proposal is for 115

3 square feet, half of the original size asked for.

4 MR. ULVAN: We'd actually like to go

5 four and a half feet, but again, if you're totally

6 against that, we'll accept four feet; and eliminate

7 the category signs on each side.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And the reason to go

9 to four and a half feet?

10 MR. ULVAN: Just visibility. It's an

11 angle street there, and visibility from the street.

12 Our setback is pretty far. And with the design of the

13 canopy, I think if we get our letters too small, it

14 would be dwarfed by the size of the canopy. I agree

15 that the six foot are overwhelming, but to go half

16 that size, this sign is going to be dwarfed by the

17 canopy, itself.


19 Member Fischer?

20 MEMBER FISCHER: Personally, I think

21 the four feet is the largest maximum I would be

22 willing to support. I believe that what the

23 Petitioner has come back with us now (unintelligible)

24 the building, if they were up it anymore -- given the









1 square footage they have, compared to Kroger, I feel

2 we need to be fair to all of the businesses in that

3 district.

4 So I would be willing to support the 96

5 eastside sign, as well as sign at 115 square feet,

6 with deletion of the other two signs.


8 Member Fischer.

9 Member Brennan?

10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, it's hard for me

11 to argue when they agreed to do what I asked them to,

12 so.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

14 MEMBER CANUP: The only way I can see

15 this, in my opinion, it should go, the Office Super

16 Store. The sign could be four feet tall and 20 feet

17 long, but the Office Super Store has got to go.

18 Everybody knows Staples is -- anybody in business

19 knows Staples, so you don't have to tell them it's an

20 Office Super Store.

21 MR. ULVAN: That is a trademark name.

22 That is part of the corporate logo, so we would like

23 to keep that on.

24 MEMBER CANUP: My opinion is I would not









1 vote for it, the Office Super Store, with that in

2 there.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?

4 MEMBER BRENNAN: They cut the sign in

5 half. Now, if they want to eat up the size of this

6 Staple Store, with putting that verbiage on the

7 bottom, I'll leave that up to them, in my opinion.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?


10 I believe that's up to the Petitioner.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

12 MEMBER CANUP: Krogers and Home Depot

13 don't do anything but identify Kroger and Home Depot.

14 They don't say, you know, Home Depot, super repair

15 store or anything like that, and those are the two

16 major tenants there.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?

18 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, let's ask the

19 Petitioner.

20 MR. CARROLL: It's part of the

21 corporate logo.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. So you're

23 saying your corporate headquarters would not -- in

24 actuality then, Staples could be bigger, and to eat up









1 --

2 MR. ULVAN: That is correct. We would

3 like to have the smaller Staples sign with the Office

4 Super Store included in it.


6 MR. ULVAN: That's our corporate

7 direction we were given.


9 Is there a Motion?

10 MEMBER CANUP: Wait a minute.

11 You know, you people should have looked

12 at this Ordinance before you built your building, you

13 know, before you jumped off on the end there in

14 designing that thing on the front there where the sign

15 is going to be and putting that big of a sign. You

16 should have thought about it before, where you were

17 designing your building and looked at our sign

18 Ordinance and tried to live with that.

19 You're asking for, in my opinion --

20 still we're giving a bunch more than the Ordinance

21 allows. And it appears, you know, that you people in

22 the beginning didn't take into consideration our

23 Ordinances at all. And in my opinion, if you look at

24 Home Depot, and you look at Krogers, they just say









1 Krogers and just say Home Depot.

2 I don't have a problem with the four

3 foot tall Staples portion of it, but I do have a

4 problem with what's underneath it.

5 And I would be willing to make a Motion

6 that we grant a variance for a sign that would be 20

7 feet long and four feet tall. It would say Staples

8 only.

9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

10 MEMBER FISCHER: I'd like to make a

11 Motion.

12 MEMBER CANUP: I just made one.

13 MEMBER BRENNAN: You don't have a

14 second.

15 MEMBER CANUP: Do I have a second on my

16 Motion? Going once --

17 MEMBER FISCHER: May I try an alternate

18 Motion?

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes, you may.

20 MEMBER FISCHER: I'd like to make a

21 Motion that we approve the variance for the west

22 wall(sic), center sign, Staples, the Office Super

23 Store, as well as the west sign for identification

24 purposes; and deny the two additional signs, due to









1 Petitioner has not established that it would not

2 impair (unintelligible) due to overshadowing other

3 businesses.

4 MEMBER BRENNAN: Did you cover the 96,

5 I-96 sign?




9 It's been moved and seconded

10 Any further discussion?

11 Member Canup?

12 MEMBER CANUP: The sign that's facing

13 the expressway, does that just say Staples?

14 MR. ULVAN: Yes.

15 MEMBER CANUP: It says nothing else.

16 MR. ULVAN: No.

17 MEMBER CANUP: It's good enough for the

18 expressway, but not good enough for Grand River.

19 MR. ULVAN: When you're looking at it

20 from the expressway, you cannot typically read the

21 smaller letters.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Anything else?

23 Mr. Gilliam?

24 MR. GILLIAM: Can we get some









1 clarification as to the Motion for the sign on the

2 eastside, as to what the size of the sign would be,

3 please?

4 MEMBER FISCHER: The mock-up and what

5 is included in our packet is what I expect the sign on

6 the west -- eastside to --

7 MEMBER BRENNAN: 125, I have.

8 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you.

9 MR. GILLIAM: Thank you.

10 MEMBER GRONACHAN; And do you want

11 clarification of the new --

12 MR. AMOLSH: (Unintelligible) amended

13 sign or Exhibit Number --

14 MEMBER BRENNAN: As submitted.

15 MEMBER FISCHER: That the west sign

16 will be within specifications as the revised submitted

17 plan right here, which are 20 across and four feet in

18 the Staples part and 1.2 inches for Office Super Store

19 area.

20 MEMBER BAUER: 115 square feet total.

21 MEMBER FISCHER: 115 square feet total.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

23 seconded.

24 Is there any other discussion?









1 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

2 call the roll.

3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


5 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


7 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


15 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes five to

16 zero. No, that's wrong. Five to one.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has

18 been granted with those conditions.

19 Please see the Building Department for

20 your permit.

21 MR. ULVAN: Thank you very much.

22 MR. CARROLL: Thank you very much.

23 MR. ULVAN: Have a great evening.










1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Our next case

2 will be 04-119, Glenn Klocke, for a residence at 44480

3 11 Mile Road.

4 Mr. Klocke is requesting three

5 variances for the construction of an addition to his

6 residence located at the above address.

7 Good evening.

8 MR. KLOCKE: Good evening.

9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Are you Mr. Klocke?

10 MR. KLOCKE: Klocke.


12 Klocke.

13 With Gronachan, you can understand --

14 MR. KLOCKE: Yes, I understand.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your

16 right hand and be sworn by our secretary.

17 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

18 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-119?

19 MR. KLOCKE: I do.

20 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You can go ahead.

22 MR. KLOCKE: Yes, I'm requesting a

23 variance and side yard setback. I'm trying to build a

24 barrier-free mother-in-law suite in my home for a









1 mother that's wheelchair bound. The reason the one

2 foot in the front, is because our porch, the existing

3 porch, sticks out to the one foot -- six feet there

4 now. There's an easement of 36 feet in front of our

5 house, with another 30 feet to the existing home now.

6 The reason we need the extra foot there

7 is we're obviously re-configuring bedrooms to

8 accommodate children, and not, you know, cramp their

9 style; and also get a space large enough for a mother-

10 in-law suite that -- you can use wheelchairs, roll-in

11 shower, things like that, so we can bring her home,

12 get her out of the home, an assisted living home, and

13 bring her to our house.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Anything else?

15 MR. KLOCKE: No, that's it.

16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in

17 the audience that wishes to address the Board in

18 regards to this?

19 Seeing none, there were 24 notices

20 sent; three approvals -- first approval is from Mark

21 Toth -- and I should mention, no objections --at 25970

22 Buckminster, Novi; second approval is from Brian and

23 Karen McPherson at 25998, and I apologize, Petros(ph)

24 Boulevard; and then, the third approval is from Bruce









1 Jerome at 26040 Lankin Road.

2 Building Department?

3 MR. SAVEN: Just a couple of things to

4 point out. I do not believe it is coming out any

5 farther than the existing porch is, given the front

6 yard setback.

7 And also, you will be staying out of

8 the trees; is that correct?

9 MR. KLOCKE: Out of what?

10 MR. SAVEN: Out of the treed area.

11 MR. KLOCKE: Oh, yes, yes.

12 MR. SAVEN: Thank you.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members.

14 Member Brennan?

15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Having had a father

16 that went through the current Michigan options of

17 taking care of somebody that's disabled, I commend you

18 for bring home your mother-in-law?

19 MR. KLOCKE: It's actually my mother.

20 MEMBER BRENNAN: And I only have one

21 question from my notes, is neighbors, and the

22 neighbors are in support. And I think there is

23 hardship when you have to consider taking in an

24 elderly or considering taking in an elderly. But more









1 importantly, you have three variance requests that are

2 within 12 to 24 inches, and I don't think that we

3 should be piddling over that under these conditions of

4 hardship.


6 MEMBER BAUER: Is there a homeowner's

7 association there?

8 MR. KLOCKE: No, there is not.

9 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

11 MEMBER FISCHER: My only question -- my

12 assumption is that it would be difficult to build

13 this, given the wheelchair accessibility. But have

14 you looked into building in the back at all, or would

15 that be too difficult, given the wheelchair

16 accessibility that you need?

17 MR. KLOCKE: Well, we had looked at

18 that. But actually, aesthetically, another reason I

19 did it, I think it needs to be in the front. Right

20 now it looks like a trailer. It's flat across the

21 front of our house. It needs some depth.

22 And I think bringing it out to the

23 porch, architecturally, is going to look a lot better,

24 also. And just accessibility for wheelchair and









1 everything works better that way.

2 MEMBER FISCHER: What I assumed.

3 I'd be willing to support a Motion or

4 make a Motion.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

6 MEMBER FISCHER: I move that in case,

7 04-119, that we approve the Petitioner's request,

8 given that there's still a significant setback, and

9 does not -- and his variance request does not impair

10 the intent of the Ordinance.

11 MEMBER BAUER: Second the Motion.


13 It's been moved and seconded.

14 Is there any further discussion on the

15 Motion?

16 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

17 call the roll.

18 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


20 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


22 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


24 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?










2 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


4 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


6 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

7 zero.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has

9 been granted. Please see the Building Department.

10 And good luck to you.

11 MR. KLOCKE: Thank you.



14 Our next case is 04-121, filed by

15 David Bastianelli for North Haven Woods; is requesting

16 a temporary use permit for six months to complete for

17 the continued placement of a construction trailer on

18 Lot Number 18, 44610 Ludlow in North Haven Woods.

19 And you are?

20 MR. LASHER: Dave Lasher.


22 Would you please raise your right hand

23 to be sworn in by our secretary.

24 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or









1 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-121?

2 MR. LASHER: I do.

3 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.


5 Proceed.

6 MR. LASHER: Just trying to get a

7 temporary use permit for the construction trailer to

8 continue the operations of the subdivision, and we

9 should be wrapping up the sub in June or July. So

10 it's there currently, and we'd like to continue to

11 operate out of it.


13 Anything else?

14 MR. LASHER: No.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in

16 the audience that wishes to make comment in regards to

17 this matter?

18 Seeing none, there were 71 notices

19 sent; two approvals, no objections.

20 Marie Watkins at Ludlow of Novi and

21 Diane LeFord.

22 Building Department?

23 MR. SAVEN: I just want to point out,

24 this gentleman did have a temporary use permit through









1 my office, to which I'm only allowed to issue a

2 temporary use approval for one year. This is beyond

3 that particular time frame; that's why it's before you

4 today.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

6 MEMBER FISCHER: My understanding is

7 the temporary use permit was valid until January 1st

8 of 2004. I also, in my packet, I received that the

9 Building Department has issued a couple violations

10 because of debris and other things.

11 Can you just tell me what, if any,

12 corrective actions that you guys have taken to make

13 sure that won't happen again?

14 MR. LASHER: Yes. We have a clean-up

15 crew that constantly monitors debris in the sub. If

16 not two or three times a week, nearly every day. We

17 do have placement of a construction bin to contain the

18 debris that is produced from construction.

19 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. And how is that

20 different from what was going on back then, back when

21 you received these violations?

22 MR. LASHER: When were the -- I don't

23 know. I don't recall.

24 MEMBER FISCHER: The violation was --









1 this was a month ago, debris and materials behind

2 construction trailer. Please remove debris by

3 expiration date. This is by Maureen Underhill, one of

4 our officers.

5 MR. LASHER: We had some construction

6 materials that wouldn't really fit inside the

7 construction trailer. They were behind the

8 construction trailer. You couldn't see it from the

9 road. I didn't think that was going to be a problem,

10 but we did remove it.


12 MEMBER BAUER: And then back in 19 --

13 2002, in September, you also had -- that was when the

14 permit was issued, and then after that came a

15 violation. And I was just wondering if you have any

16 large things that you won't be storing them there.

17 MR. LASHER: Pardon?

18 MEMBER BAUER: If you have any large

19 items, you wouldn't be storing them there.

20 MR. LASHER: No, that is correct.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members?

22 Member Brennan?

23 MEMBER BRENNAN: Maybe we can wrap this

24 up.









1 I'll offer a Motion and we'll see where

2 it goes.

3 The Petitioner says he needs about

4 another six or seven months to finish this off.

5 I suggest that we approve this

6 extension under continued jurisdiction. If he gets

7 cited again, you're going to have to come see us. So

8 keep it clean and finish your project.


10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

11 seconded.

12 Any further discussion with regards to

13 --

14 Member Canup?

15 MEMBER CANUP: I would ask them -- I

16 would suggest that the amendment to that Motion would

17 be to include the temporary use permit 02-051, with

18 the five items that are listed to be adhered to.

19 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'd accept that.

20 Are you familiar with that?

21 MR. LASHER: I am not.

22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. Now you are.

23 It has to do with the lighting and keeping things

24 pretty and clean.









1 MR. LASHER: Okay.

2 MEMBER BRENNAN: You've probably got

3 that before.

4 MR. LASHER: Okay.



7 It's been moved and seconded.

8 is there any further discussion?

9 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

10 call the roll.

11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


13 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


23 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

24 zero.










2 MR. LASHER: Thank you.


4 We hope we don't have to see you again.

5 MR. LASHER: Me, too.


7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Our next case

8 is 04-122, filed by James and Kim Ziegler, for new

9 construction on property located on Dinser Drive.

10 Mr. and Mrs. Ziegler are requesting two

11 variances for the construction of a new home located

12 at Parcel C; is requesting a side yard setback of six

13 feet, and a total side yard setback variance of six

14 feet for both sides.

15 Good evening.

16 MR. ZIEGLER: Good evening.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You are Mr. Ziegler?

18 MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, ma'am.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please

20 raise your right hand to be sworn in by our secretary.

21 You are Mrs. Ziegler?

22 MRS. ZIEGLER: I am.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Are you going to

24 speak, as well?









1 MRS. ZIEGLER: Well --

2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Why don't you come

3 on up and be sworn in.

4 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

5 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-122?

6 MR. ZIEGLER: I do.


8 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.


10 You may proceed.

11 MR. ZIEGLER: Okay. Madam Chair, Board

12 Members, I'm looking for two variances, basically.

13 One, because the lot doesn't -- is not a full acre.

14 it's only 171. Everybody's -- this piece of property

15 was splint into three in 1985. In '86, Lot A, which

16 was more southern to, had a house built on it later,

17 so that's one reason why I think it should pass.

18 The other variance we're looking for is

19 a six foot variance, because the lot width is only a

20 hundred foot; and the houses that we're looking to

21 build are basically 56 foot wide. And we don't want

22 to disturb the trees on the south side. So it was

23 recommended to us to come 19 foot off that lot, and 25

24 foot off the north line, which I drew a picture of.









1 You guys probably have it in there somewhere.

2 So -- and we don't believe that the

3 variance will really impact anything. The houses

4 behind us are built on 100 by 120 lots, and basically

5 the house -- the trees in front of the lot, which

6 would be the west side, we're just going to take down

7 what we need for a driveway to make it look the best.

8 That's pretty much it.


10 Is there anyone in the audience that

11 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

12 Okay.

13 Come on down, please.

14 Good evening.

15 Please state your name for the record.

16 MR. MAHONEY: My name is Lee Mahoney.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You don't need to be

18 sworn in.

19 MR. MAHONEY: Okay.

20 I'm the south side neighbor that will

21 be directly impacted, if this variance is approved. I

22 really see no basis for this being approved, other

23 than the house that the Petitioner is requesting or

24 wants to have built is larger than what the City will









1 allow for.

2 You will be considering issuing a variance

3 to the Petitioner when a hardship is demonstrated or

4 something unique to the property, which provides a

5 practical difficulty in developing.

6 There is none. This is a large, deep

7 lot, with no wetland, no forest, no ancient trees to

8 be saved. I'm a taxpayer. I believe I will be

9 affected by this building, and I see no basis for it.

10 Our -- the Petitioner knew it was R-A when he

11 considered buying it or being that you considered

12 buying it.

13 R-A comes with certain setbacks to

14 protect the neighboring lots. I seek that protection.

15 That's basically all I have.


17 Thank you.

18 Was there someone else?

19 Come on down.



22 MR. KLINSMITH: I have just purchased

23 the home directly -- Mr. Mahoney is on one side of the

24 lot; I'm now on the other. And as of December 1st, we









1 owned 24895 Dinser on -- we're on the opposite side.


3 Would you please state your name?

4 MR. KLINSMITH: Oh, I'm sorry.

5 Andrew Klinsmith.

6 When I spoke to the office today, I

7 called after 3:00, so I just made a simple thing in

8 writing, but Denise said it might not be

9 submissible(sic)(ph). So I don't know whether to talk

10 with those things, or if they end up being accepted or

11 --

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: We got a copy of

13 your letter.

14 MR. KLINSMITH: Well, then, just to be

15 very brief, the only reasons we have some concerns

16 with this is when we purchased that land, we had

17 looked at buying the lot, and possibly still would, if

18 it's still open in the future, but we understood it to

19 be unbuildable at under an acre.

20 And we have an autistic child who

21 wanders; and we certainly do our job watching him, but

22 we were very attracted to the amount of space. We

23 normally don't take him out to playgrounds or anything

24 like that, because it's difficult.









1 So that was one reason that -- we don't

2 own the land at this point, but we have the opinion

3 that we prefer it to be open.

4 The other thing is this house is odd

5 that it has solar panels only facing that side of the

6 house towards the lot. And I don't know, with this

7 construction, if it might cause shadows, but being

8 concerned for the environment, I thought we could

9 utilize that feature. I don't have a picture of it,

10 because I didn't take one, but if you look at it, it's

11 odd. The whole side of the house is glass, basically.

12 It's a system -- you take the sun only from that side

13 of the house and it's downloaded to the lower portion

14 of the house.

15 And there's some other things. I guess

16 there's no real reason to point that out. I'm not

17 really a technical person, so I didn't research this,

18 but Mr. Mahoney had his well run dry in that area, and

19 so did the Lot C behind it that was built.

20 And I don't know if there's only

21 limited amounts of people that can tap into that

22 ground area that might cause an accelerated loss of

23 water. Maybe that's a ridiculous thought. I have no

24 idea, but it was a concern.









1 And the other thing was that I felt it

2 was kind of out of character, because as you go down

3 the road, every lot is a uniform 125 feet or more, and

4 ours looks uniform because it's just an empty space

5 there. But if it was built in, not only would it be

6 the skinniest one, but it would be too wide, based on

7 the Code for that lot.

8 And I felt when they could cut down the

9 trees, if they're only going to cut it open to get in

10 a driveway, then all you're really going to see going

11 down the street is the driveway and the garage. And

12 on the drawing, that garage is 25 feet closer than

13 anything else on the street. They're all setback a

14 certain amount, even, going across; but this one would

15 break the chain and come forward an additional amount,

16 and all that would be garage.

17 And then the last thing, I guess, in

18 closing, is I just felt buying that house, like I

19 said, it had an open acreage feel. I thought it was

20 zoned acreage. And those neighborhoods are coming in

21 on smaller lots, but none of them are on that road.

22 Even Lot C, even though it's connected,

23 the minute you turn that street, you see a different

24 view, and those lots are a hundred feet across the









1 street. But no single lot on Dinser is that narrow.

2 All the lots across the street are sideways. So

3 that's why I think it would be out of character.

4 Plus, they're all older homes. And that design is

5 very nice. I will say that the drawing, if it is

6 bricked and done exactly like the drawing, the home is

7 beautiful; but none of the homes are anything like

8 that on that street.


10 Thank you.

11 MR. KLINSMITH: Was there anything --

12 did I forget something?

13 Okay.

14 Thank you.


16 Mrs. Klinsmith?


18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you have

19 something else to add?

20 MRS. KLINSMITH: Yes, I do.

21 I've been residing at the house right

22 now, in the process of moving in. And from our

23 bedroom windows, from our side entrance portion,

24 because we also have a mother-in-law suite, this









1 property is the only grass that we see, other than our

2 backyard.

3 We don't have trees lining our house

4 with the property. The people that we bought the

5 house, used this as their yard. This was the yard

6 part of their property. And seeing that they sold the

7 house to us December 1st, now they're gone, but all

8 the trees are a story high, at the road, at

9 Mr. Mahoney's house and at the house behind. But with

10 us, we would be extremely impacted, if this was built

11 on.

12 MR. KLINSMITH: I just wanted to

13 mention that the --

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Sir, you're going to

15 have to wait.


17 MRS. KLINSMITH: And so, I'm just

18 saying that our house would be completely impacted,

19 along with everything else my husband said. And my

20 address again is 24895 Dinser.


22 Thank you.

23 Is there anyone else in the audience

24 that wishes to make comment?









1 Seeing none, there were 27 notices

2 sent; one approval; and this comes from the current

3 owner of the property, Gina and Evan Waldo.

4 MRS. KLINSMITH: We are the current

5 homeowners.


7 Thank you.

8 And one objection, and the resident has

9 just spoken, Mr. Klinsmith.

10 Building Department?

11 MR. SAVEN: Just a couple issues I'd

12 point out. The two side yard variances is actually

13 almost one side yard variance, based on the fact the

14 variance covers two issues.

15 One, the combined total of the side

16 yard, plus there's a side yard requirement. You see

17 that both of them are having the same amount that's

18 before you tonight.

19 The second thing is, I believe the

20 gentleman indicated that they had solar panels on the

21 one side of the house; is that correct?

22 MR. KLINSMITH: That's correct.

23 MR. SAVEN: Okay. On that particular

24 side of the house, the setback requirements meets the









1 requirement of the Ordinance. So whatever is going to

2 take place on that particular lot, based on the fact

3 that this is a side entry garage, and that doesn't

4 have to be 25 feet; and that is met.


6 Thank you.

7 Board Members?

8 Member Brennan?

9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah, I've got a

10 number of issues. Number one, for both of the

11 adjoining property owners, get used to the wells

12 drying up on the west end of Novi. You're in good

13 company. I live in Echo Valley and we average

14 probably ten a year.

15 I guess what concerns me first is

16 dealing with a variance on new construction. I walked

17 this lot. It's a wide-open lot. There's no little

18 streams. There's no 400-year-old oaks. It's a wide-

19 open lot, that I think can be built to meet the

20 Ordinance.

21 I don't see, and have not been

22 presented with any hardship with the design of the

23 building; other than it's their preference. And

24 again, as Mr. Mahoney pointed out, there's no









1 practical difficulty with the lot. It's a big, wide-

2 open piece of property. So I have -- I have no

3 compassion for their variance request, only because

4 this Board's obligation to only grant variances when

5 there are certain conditions met. Hardship and

6 practical difficulty are two of them, and I don't see

7 that here.

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

9 MEMBER FISCHER: You stole the words

10 right out of my mouth. Right on my notes here, I

11 said, we need at least look for lessor variances; or

12 if not, something -- given that it's new construction

13 -- that is in complete conformity. There's a lot of

14 room going back. I feel that there is not a practical

15 difficulty present, and I feel there has been

16 (unintelligible) to develop this lot.

17 However, to comment, the people who

18 wrote in objections or commented tonight,

19 unfortunately it's not -- or unfortunately for you

20 it's not our decision as to whether this gets built;

21 it's our decision whether they get -- the variances

22 are allowed. So it looks like this will be built,

23 because it is buildable.

24 However, I can't support these









1 variances.


3 Member Canup?

4 MEMBER CANUP: It's unfortunate that

5 you've got only three-quarters of an acre and you

6 can't quite fit a home. I would probably -- my

7 suggestion would be that you go back and try to find

8 maybe a home plan that will fit there, without any

9 variances.

10 You know, three-quarters of an acre,

11 I'm sure that you can find something that will fit on

12 that without getting a variance. And it is an area

13 that is -- fairly generous sized lots. Probably the

14 three-quarter acre lot is probably the smallest one

15 adjacent or at least, touching you.

16 MR. ZIEGLER: Right.

17 MEMBER CANUP: And I guess I would have

18 a hard time supporting a variance on that 19 foot,

19 which would be the six foot variance that you

20 requested. I would suggest that you go back and maybe

21 try to find a different plan for the home or

22 reconfigure the home, and get it to fit on that lot.

23 Because the feeling that I'm picking up from the Board

24 here is you're not going to get a variance.









1 So that's the feeling I have, but I

2 think when the vote comes, that's what will happen.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'd like to put my

4 comments on the record. And my favorite saying, it's

5 time to go back to the drawing board. We have lots up

6 in the north end -- and I don't know if you're from

7 Novi or if you've ever watched a Novi Zoning Board

8 Meeting, people who have 40 and 50 foot lots that

9 build in the north end become very creative.

10 And to hear that a lot is not

11 buildable, I'm sorry, but there is no such thing.

12 Everybody has a right to do what they want with their

13 property. I'm sorry for you that you've got such a

14 lovely piece of property in a great location. And I

15 don't want you to think this is a denial, but it's an

16 opportunity to go back and look at something else.

17 This is just not the house for this

18 piece of property. And I think that with the size

19 that you have and the opportunity that you have,

20 you're going to find something that's going to fit

21 right in there perfectly.

22 And perhaps, mend some broken down

23 fences in communication with your new neighbors. I

24 suggest a pot of coffee and brownies, something that









1 can make piece. You guys are all going to live

2 together. And believe me, I understand what it's

3 like. You're looking at the house of your dreams, and

4 we're looking at six feet and six feet. But

5 unfortunately, from this side of the table, that's

6 what we have to look at in new construction.

7 So I think that we will -- if there's

8 someone that wants to make a Motion.


10 MR. ZIEGLER: Does that mean those two

11 variances are (unintelligible) build on something

12 under an acre?

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: What I'm saying is

14 that, if you go and find another house, you probably

15 -- or change this where you're not going to need the

16 variance -- when you've got new construction, you have

17 more leeway to do something with a brand-new house, as

18 opposed to taking an existing house and trying to fit

19 it into something that's 30 or 40 or 50 feet.

20 You have a hundred foot sized lot, a

21 hundred foot wide sized lot. You have a lot more

22 leeway. And although you may not see it now -- that's

23 why I say I think you need to go back to the drawing

24 board and look at -- perhaps, contact another









1 architect, talk with some other people that built in

2 Novi; get in your car and go to the north end of Novi

3 -- seriously. I'm not trying to say that to be

4 insulting.

5 In any way, shape or form, there's some

6 lovely homes at the north end that they have done on

7 40 foot lots, and we are just amazed what they come up

8 with. So we know it can be done. You've got a

9 hundred feet with, you know, specifications that

10 you'll be able to fit it in.

11 MR. ZIEGLER: I guess my question, the

12 two variances -- it's not an acre.

13 MR. SAVEN: You're a legal lot of

14 record.

15 MR. ZIEGLER: Oh, okay.

16 MR. SAVEN: There's two conditions that

17 are associated with that, and that deals with area and

18 width of that lot; because it's a legal splint. That

19 property does have a Sidwell number. It was legally

20 splint, so what you must do is conform to the setback

21 requirement of that district for the R-A district.

22 Front yard, side yard, rear yard, for

23 your accessory structures, the sum total of the square

24 footage for all buildings on the property; that's









1 regardless of the width of the lot. A hundred foot --

2 you know you have a hundred foot in the front. You

3 still must comply with the side yard setback, and

4 that's what you have to deal with, that is what you --

5 MR. ZIEGLER: I didn't know that. I

6 thought I had to have two variances. So with that in

7 mind, I really don't need a variance. I just have to

8 comply --

9 MR. SAVEN: You have to comply with the

10 setback --

11 MR. ZIEGLER: That's fine.

12 MRS. ZIEGLER: So we have a new plan,

13 and we're all set.

14 MR. SAVEN: If the new plan conforms to

15 the setback requirements, that would be great.

16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam Chair?

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Brennan?

18 MEMBER BRENNAN: With respect to case

19 04-122, I'd move for denial due to lack of hardship

20 shown, based on the plans submitted tonight.

21 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

23 seconded.

24 Is there any further discussion?









1 Denise, would you please call the roll.

2 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


4 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


6 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


8 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


12 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


14 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

15 zero.

16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay, good luck.

17 See you at the drawing board. And I'm

18 waiting for those cookies.


20 We're going to all take a quick five

21 minute break. Obviously, (unintelligible). I can't

22 talk to myself, so we'll take a quick five minute

23 break.

24 So we'll adjourn for five minutes.









1 (Brief recess taken.)

2 (Back on the record.)

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Calling case

4 04-123, filed by Matthew S. Sosin for Haggerty

5 Corridor Partners, LLC, for Columbus Corporate Office

6 Centre.

7 You just like this meeting so much

8 tonight, you decided to come back?

9 MR. LUTZ: You're a great group.

10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: If you want, fill

11 out an application -- just a little plug there.

12 It's a new case, so we're going to

13 swear you in again, please.

14 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

15 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-123?

16 MR. LUTZ: Yes, I do.

17 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.


19 You may proceed.

20 MR. LUTZ: Well, we have two hardships

21 here. We've got a huge piece of property on the

22 corner of 12 Mile and Haggerty Road, and it's a

23 divided four-lane highway, with a big median in the

24 center. So visibility is an issue, number one; number









1 two, this plan has done -- I think everybody would

2 agree -- a very good job of developing these

3 properties in a very forthright manner.

4 And it's their intent to provide a very

5 nice building on this piece of property. It's kind of

6 a cart to horse kind of situation. You almost have to

7 let people know what's going to be there, in order to

8 create some interest, and in order to develop the

9 property the way you want and get a building permit to

10 do it.

11 This sign is permitted, as you know,

12 once the building permit is issued. It's not

13 permitted prior to issuing the building permit. And

14 one of the things that we have tried to do with

15 Northern Equities is develop some changes in the sign

16 Ordinance that would allow this type of sign, because

17 we think it's consistent with the kind of development

18 that you all, the City, are trying to encourage.

19 So in lieu of those changes not being

20 made, we have to come before you for these variance

21 requests from time to time, but it's always a

22 pleasure.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Those cookies paid

24 off earlier.









1 Is there anyone in the audience that

2 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

3 Seeing none, there were 13 notices

4 sent; no approvals, no objections.

5 Building Department?

6 MR. SAVEN: No comment.

7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members?

8 Member Brennan?

9 MEMBER BRENNAN: I would think that

10 this would be approvable, with the contingent that if

11 they are not issued a building permit, the sign comes

12 down.

13 MEMBER BAUER: Within what period of

14 time?

15 MEMBER CANUP: Is that a Motion?

16 MEMBER BRENNAN: We should probably put

17 some timetable on it.

18 Do you want to help me there?

19 MR. LUTZ: No, I think that's a

20 reasonable request.

21 MEMBER BRENNAN: A timetable,

22 timetable.

23 MR. LUTZ: Timetable, probably a year,

24 I think would be reasonable.









1 MEMBER BRENNAN: For a period of one

2 year, and that's a Motion.


4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

5 seconded.

6 Is there any further discussion on the

7 table?

8 MEMBER CANUP: What's the height of the

9 sign?

10 MR. LUTZ; The sign, itself, is four

11 feet by eight feet. I can't answer how high those

12 temporaries are, because we did not put them in.

13 Those are very definitely temporaries. I don't think

14 they're excessively high.

15 MEMBER CANUP: It says eight feet.

16 MR. LUTZ: I would think that four feet

17 off the ground to allow for snow and that sort of

18 thing. You know, ideal visibility in most vehicles is

19 about the five to six foot level. So I think it's

20 somewhere in there.

21 MEMBER CANUP: So vertical four feet.

22 MR. LUTZ: For the actual sign area of

23 the sign, that's correct.

24 I don't know that there's Ordinance --









1 MR. SAVEN: It's eight feet.


3 MR. LUTZ: So four feet for the bottom

4 of the sign.

5 MEMBER CANUP: Eight feet overall

6 height?

7 MEMBER BAUER: Overall, it's eight

8 feet.



11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Motion's so amended.


13 If there's no further discussion,

14 Denise, would you please call the roll.

15 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


17 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


19 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


21 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


23 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?










1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


3 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

4 zero.

5 MR. LUTZ: Thanks again.

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has

7 been granted. Congratulations.

8 MR. LUTZ: Thank you.



11 Case number 04-124, filed by Michael

12 DeBlauw of McShane Construction Corp for Meadowbrook

13 Medical Building at the southeast corner of

14 Meadowbrook and 11 Mile Road.

15 I'm reading this and I look up and I

16 know --

17 MR. QUINN: The face doesn't match.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: -- the face doesn't

19 match.

20 So good evening.

21 MR. QUINN: Good evening. I'm

22 Matt Quinn, appearing on behalf of McShane

23 Construction.

24 The gentleman you mentioned,









1 Mike DeBlauw, was flown in from Chicago earlier this

2 evening and he is present. Only a few of you were

3 paying attention, I can tell.

4 What we're here tonight is for two

5 variances from this exciting project. This is 120,000

6 square foot medical office building, at the corner of

7 Meadowbrook and 11 Mile Road. It's a two-story

8 building.

9 We went in front of the Novi Planning

10 Commission. We received unanimous support, subject to

11 the two variances that we're requesting tonight. The

12 two variances deal with the actual site plan.

13 The first variance deals with the

14 requirement that along our periphery, we're to have a

15 berm or a landscaped wall. The City's landscape

16 architect has recommended support for this variance,

17 due to the heavy natural landscaping that surrounds

18 our property, and the fact that we're going to have

19 supplemental planting.

20 Lance agreed that it was not necessary

21 to actually destroy the natural plantings to put in a

22 berm and/or a wall, and he recommended that that

23 variance be granted. Also, you recall the purpose of

24 the wall and/or the berm, is to screen the parked cars









1 from the surrounding roadway.

2 Well, as you drive through this area,

3 Meadowbrook sits about 16 feet lower than the parking

4 surface of our project; and 11 Mile sits anywhere from

5 that 15 down to about five feet lower. So the

6 vehicles are screened just by the natural features of

7 this site.

8 The second variance we have to request

9 is, we have more than 50 percent parking in our front

10 yard. Now, we're unusual, because we have two front

11 yards, because we're on the corner. In order to

12 satisfy that requirement, we'd have to move the

13 building up closer -- and as you saw from the

14 elevation, this is pretty much like Providence

15 Hospital.

16 If you can picture driving up to the

17 main entrance of Providence Medical Center, they have

18 the parking there in front; they have parking on the

19 side; and they actually have parking 360 degrees, and

20 that's what we have here, also.

21 There will be access all the way around

22 to the various office units that are there.

23 So the second variance is a request

24 from the requirement of having more than 50 percent of









1 parking in the front yard. Since this is also tied to

2 a site plan, I would ask that this variance be

3 extended for 180 days, so that there's appropriate

4 time to get the building permits for this particular

5 project.

6 I'll be more than happy to answer any

7 questions, or Michael can answer any questions that

8 you might have this evening.


10 Thank you.

11 Is there anyone in the audience that

12 wishes to make comment in regards to this case?

13 Seeing none, there were 26 notices

14 sent; no objections, no approvals.

15 Building Department?

16 MR. SAVEN: Just once again, the area

17 (unintelligible) if you take a look at this site, the

18 location where the site is in between Meadowbrook Road

19 and 11 Mile, it sits up pretty high.

20 MR. QUINN: That's right.

21 We're removing a real eyesore in the

22 community.

23 MR. SAVEN: That's the second issue. I

24 almost want to embrace this project from my behalf,









1 because the previous business that was there -- the

2 bottom line is, the (unintelligible.)

3 MR. QUINN: Well, the Saven Surgery

4 Center has a ring to it.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members?

6 Member Canup?

7 MEMBER CANUP: From the presentation I

8 heard and review of the case, I don't see where

9 there's any problem here. At least, I feel I can

10 support this two requests, given the configuration of

11 the land, as far as the elevations go.

12 It's a corner piece, it's kind of

13 unique. So anyway, I would support a positive Motion

14 for both of these variances.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is that a Motion?

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right.

17 Let's make a Motion in case number 04-

18 124 that Petitioner's request be granted, because of

19 the peculiar location and topography of this lot.

20 MEMBER CANUP: Second.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there any further

22 comment?

23 Member Fischer?

24 MEMBER FISCHER: Two things.









1 The landscape plan, that is part of the

2 record, correct, as what will be enforced?

3 MR. SAVEN: That is correct.

4 MEMBER FISCHER: I just wanted to make

5 sure that didn't get altered.

6 Secondly, it was mentioned 180 days to

7 gain the permit.

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, I forgot that,

9 yes.


11 It's been moved and seconded.

12 Is there any further discussion?

13 Denise, would you please call the roll.

14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


16 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


18 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


20 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


22 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


24 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?










2 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

3 zero.

4 MR. QUINN: Thank you very much.

5 Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays to you

6 all.

7 See you next year.



10 Okay. Our next case is 04-125, filed

11 by Amy Davenport of ASI-Modulex for DMC at 41935 12

12 Mile Road.

13 Ms. Davenport is requesting two sign

14 variances to erect two additional signs at DMC at the

15 above address. It's located east of Novi Road and

16 west of Meadowbrook. The property is zoned OST.

17 Good evening.

18 And you are Ms. Davenport?

19 MS. DAVENPORT: Amy Davenport.


21 Did you bring someone with you to talk?

22 MS. DAVENPORT: I brought Debra

23 Gleason(ph), representative from the Detroit Medical

24 Center.










2 Would you both please raise your right

3 hands to be sworn in by our secretary.

4 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

5 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-125?



8 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.


10 You may proceed.

11 MS. DAVENPORT: The property is located

12 at 41935 currently shares signage along a common entry

13 way with the property at 42005 12 Mile Road.

14 Currently, the existing signage is not

15 adequate to differentiate which services are located

16 in which building; yet they are two distinct

17 properties with two separate addresses, two separate

18 parcel numbers.

19 What we are proposing to do is to

20 produce a ground sign similar to the one that exists

21 at 42005, in order to separate the services that are

22 offered in each building, in each facility.

23 And the reason we want to propose

24 additional ground signage, is because of the









1 visibility of the buildings from 12 Mile Road. 41935

2 sets back from the property line approximately 360,

3 which puts it somewhere around 450 feet from the

4 center of 12 Mile Road; which means that visibility of

5 wall mounted signage on the building from 12 Mile is

6 limited.

7 Part of the reason also that we want to

8 make very distinct differentiation between the

9 services that are offered in each of the buildings, is

10 because the property at 41935 is offering urgent care

11 services for after-hour injuries, sicknesses for

12 residents of the community; which is a valuable public

13 service that we would like to be able to direct people

14 to the appropriate location for.


16 Anything else?

17 MS. DAVENPORT: No, that's it.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in

19 the audience that wishes to add anything in regards to

20 this case?

21 Seeing none, there were nine notices

22 sent; no objections, no approvals.

23 Building Department?

24 MR. AMOLSH: No comment.









1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Board Members?

2 Member Sanghvi?

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, if you have been

4 following what has been happening to DMC over the

5 years, the distinction they want to create is very

6 understandable and necessary.

7 It is also important to realize that we

8 have a facility available for after-hour urgent care

9 here; other than just an emergency room. And these

10 kinds of things are the real things that are going to

11 keep the health care costs down.

12 In every respect, this is a win/win

13 situation for the community, and I have no hesitation

14 in supporting the request.

15 And I'd like to make a Motion that in

16 case number, 04-125 that the Petitioner's request be

17 granted because of their special circumstances.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is there a second?

19 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

20 MEMBER BRENNAN: Some additional

21 discussion.


23 Member Brennan?

24 MEMBER BRENNAN: I have a problem with









1 a LED sign. This is not typically permitted. I think

2 the exception is the school. There was a suggestion

3 about a LED sign in front of City Hall, that was run

4 down the river three or four years ago.

5 I also wondered whether the location of

6 that one sign along 12 Mile to be there. And I'd like

7 to ask for some other discussion.


9 Member Fischer?

10 MEMBER FISCHER: I would have to agree

11 with Member Canup on the LED sign. I'm not so

12 concerned with whether LED or not --

13 I'm sorry.


15 MEMBER FISCHER: Oh, I'm sorry. Member

16 Brennan.

17 I agree with Member Brennan as to that

18 sign.

19 First and foremost is the placement.

20 The size of the sign, included with the location of it

21 in the median of the parking lot, I feel -- I have

22 some concern about parking around there, public safety

23 in that parking lot.

24 I feel that that's a detriment that









1 definitely -- so, I can see the necessity for the

2 sign, although not one of that size. And I think that

3 primarily the LED sign (unintelligible) of the

4 property is the reason for that increased size.

5 Thank you, Madam Chair.


7 Member Canup?

8 MEMBER CANUP: Isn't there an Ordinance

9 against a changing sign like that?

10 MR. AMOLSH: It's not a prohibited

11 sign. In fact, we've got several in Novi now. LED

12 displays are not supposed to scroll or flash or blink

13 or anything like that. The fact that it is LED

14 changeable copy sign is not a prohibited sign.

15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Is that a new change?

16 MR. AMOLSH: (Unintelligible.)

17 MEMBER CANUP: For some reason I had in

18 my mind years ago that those signs were not permitted,

19 the changeable script on them.

20 MR. SAVEN: You're taking issue with

21 the pulsating, the flashing, (unintelligible) was a

22 problem for these particular type of signs. Also, the

23 scrolling aspect and the time factor that was

24 associated with the scrolls. So it became a









1 distraction, rather than a message bearing type of

2 sign.

3 So those issues now, I believe, have

4 been corrected for these LED type of signs.

5 MEMBER CANUP: I guess another question

6 I have was about the after-hour urgent care in two

7 different locations.

8 MS. GLEASON: The urgent care sign that

9 is (unintelligible) just to let them know that it's

10 there. The one, the smaller one, the 16 square feet,

11 is the one that's at the door to give direction as far

12 as where to go in, to enter the building there.

13 That's our urgent care. And that's right at the

14 building, if you look at the drawing. I don't have

15 that in front of me.

16 MS. DAVENPORT: On the site plan, it's

17 location number seven, is the 16 square foot sign;

18 which is to identify the actual entry to the urgent

19 care.

20 MS. GLEASON: (Unintelligible) there's

21 also a sign of urgent care at the same entrance. We

22 don't want people to be confused as far as entry into

23 that urgent care entrance. There's a lobby and veers

24 to the left, and the clinics are beyond that. So that









1 was the proper place for it to go. If that answers

2 that question.

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

4 MEMBER FISCHER: So that building

5 houses two other (unintelligible.)

6 MS. GLEASON: There are clinics in the

7 building, chiropractic clinic is in there. And the

8 urgent care is run by Huron Valley/Sinai Hospital.


10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Bauer?

11 MEMBER BAUER: I'm really confused. I

12 would like to see a whole sign set-up at this

13 location, not just the ones that they're --

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thanks for taking

15 the words out of my mouth.

16 How many signs do you have altogether

17 now, with these two? Are there signs on the building,

18 as well?

19 MS. DAVENPORT: On the site plan, there

20 are approximately, I think, ten locations noted. Some

21 signage that is at the site right now is to be remove

22 and replaced with new copies. Specifically, the

23 lettering that's currently on the building facade

24 would be removed and replaced.









1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's not going to be

2 removed. It's going to be changed, correct?

3 MS. GLEASON: The sign that says

4 Detroit Medical Center Health Center, that would be

5 removed from the building, bearing our new name that

6 was approved; that goes on the east tower of the east

7 side of the building; that would replace that DMC

8 Health Center sign.

9 The sign at the road is one right now

10 that is shared between the two properties that we're

11 trying to give a distinct identification for the

12 health center or the clinic building, versus the rehab

13 center that's there on the other property, which sign

14 is at the entrance.

15 So we're trying to give the two

16 distinct identifiers for the two different buildings,

17 two different properties.

18 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I have no idea

19 what's where. When I went up there, actually last

20 weekend, I counted five signs on the building. I went

21 back there yesterday, and there was some frayed pieces

22 of plastic in the front. There was a new sign in

23 front of the front building.

24 But I think this is very, very









1 confusingly presented, and I would suggest that this

2 be tabled and represented, because I don't know what

3 I'm looking at.

4 MEMBER BAUER: That's right.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

6 MEMBER FISCHER: And maybe also as an

7 exception, as well, when there's so many buildings

8 within one organization, I would almost prefer in

9 both, for one larger sign giving directions, as

10 opposed to -- I see a location number 12 on here -- 12

11 different signs attempting to confuse people going

12 there, as well as the Board.

13 So that could even be taken into

14 consideration. I'll just throw that out as a comment

15 to the Petitioner.

16 MS. GLEASON: I would like to say will

17 all the various locations and so forth, are for us to

18 identify, as far as (unintelligible.) They were

19 coming down. I think we're asking directly for the

20 sign at the entrance -- there's two signs, one at the

21 entrance, which would show (unintelligible) 16 square

22 feet, who want to go to urgent care. The second is

23 one below -- the other things are on (unintelligible)

24 locations; the things that we're going to take down,









1 replace, whatever.

2 And I think that's where the confusion

3 is coming in. But this drawing that we have right now

4 is for use within our own organization, as far as the

5 number of signs.

6 I apologize for the confusion.

7 MS. DAVENPORT: There are actually

8 seven signs on the plan, only two of which we're

9 seeking the variance. The signs at location number

10 nine and location number seven. All of the other

11 signs are either existing and are going to stay, or

12 are existing and are going to have face changes.


14 MS. DAVENPORT: Well, if I might

15 respectively submit, you have it right there. All of

16 the locations of the signage that are to stay are

17 noted right on this print. Only highlighted items are

18 numbers nine and seven, which we are seeking the

19 variance.

20 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, as you can see,

21 there's about five of us that don't understand it. So

22 maybe you need to look at it again. Because I had it

23 this thing, I laid it on my kitchen floor and I was

24 confused then. I was hoping I would come here and be









1 the only one that was stupid, but I obviously am not.

2 MS. GLEASON: May I ask what better can

3 we do?

4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You need to spell

5 out how many signs are involved, regardless if you

6 don't need variances. All of that criteria is looked

7 at, okay. We want to see what's being identified here

8 and for what purpose.

9 I understand that you're saying these

10 are the only two you're looking at, but we're talking

11 about other signs that may change, they go, they stay.

12 MS. DAVENPORT: All of the locations

13 are on the print that you have right now.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I understand that,

15 but that's not very clear for any of us. I know all

16 these people at the table are a pretty bright group.

17 They don't usually get confused.

18 MEMBER BRENNAN: You read me anything

19 that's on that that's legible. There's nothing on

20 there that you can even read. I suggest that you come

21 out with a plot of the property. You show me the

22 existing signs, give me a picture of the existing

23 signs; give me a rendering of what you want to change.

24 What's coming down, what's new, and









1 summarize it. Because if you're going to ask me to

2 move on this tonight, it's a denial because I don't

3 understand it. I'm not going to vote yes for

4 something I don't understand.

5 MS. GLEASON: We could put it in a

6 different format and we have that available.

7 MEMBER BRENNAN: Alan, can you help

8 them with that?

9 MR. AMOLSH: Certainly will.

10 MEMBER BRENNAN: There you go.

11 MEMBER CANUP: We have a Motion on the

12 floor. How do we handle that?

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, I made a Motion.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I didn't know it was

15 seconded.

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: And the issue here is

17 what is confusing is it is an existing Woodland

18 Medical Center, which is not part of the DMC. The DMC

19 has undergone a lot of changes in their internal

20 structure.

21 Now the Huron Valley/Sinai Hospital and

22 other people have become part of the group. There's

23 going to be a changing of certain names, and also rest

24 of the signs are being -- I've been in that building









1 umpteen times, and I know what the signs and what they

2 are telling you where to go for different departments.


4 They are what they are, and they're not

5 going to change.


7 MEMBER CANUP: I guess we need to ask

8 these people to come back to us with a more defined

9 plan for the total sign package for the total piece of

10 property.

11 And in order to do that -- we have a

12 Motion on the floor --

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Oh, I can withdraw

14 that Motion.

15 MEMBER CANUP: That was the question.

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: If you are confused, I

17 can withdraw it.


19 Thank you.

20 The Motion's been withdrawn.

21 Is there another Motion?

22 Member Fischer?

23 MEMBER FISCHER: I move that we table

24 case 04-125, and give the Petitioner a new opportunity









1 to present the Board with a site plan, as discussed.


3 Question, when do they have to have

4 them, so we'll see it next month?

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Denise, do you have

6 it?

7 DENISE ANDERSON: I believe it's

8 December 14th.

9 MS. GLEASON: We have information by

10 way of photos. We can put it in a different format

11 and return with that.

12 MR. SAVEN: I'd just like to point out

13 to the Board, several issues were not before the Board

14 in terms of signage which is there and the signage is

15 subject to change.

16 And I'm concerned about the signs that

17 are subject to change, Alan, because -- based on the

18 fact, we only have one sign per parcel of

19 (unintelligible.) If that signage is going to be

20 changing, does that not have to be before the Board to

21 adjust the (unintelligible.)

22 MR. AMOLSH: (Unintelligible.)

23 MR. SAVEN: I just want to make sure

24 cover that to keep them from coming back another time.










2 MR. AMOLSH: These changes are

3 permitted. Just for the Board's information

4 (unintelligible) sign in the center, both sides, with

5 (unintelligible) rehab wall sign, which was approved

6 by the Board in the past.

7 MEMBER BRENNAN: It's my recollection

8 that this applicant has bene before us at least twice.

9 MR. AMOLSH: That's correct.

10 MEMBER BRENNAN: I counted five

11 relatively large signs, and I've got seven to twelve

12 -- let's get a complication of what's exactly there,

13 what they want to do.


15 So all those in favor of tabling this

16 case, say aye?


18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Any opposed?

19 Okay.

20 We'll see you next month.

21 MS. GLEASON: Thank you for your time.



24 The final case tonight, is case number









1 04-126, filed by Marcos Makohon for K-4 Architecture,

2 LLC, for Citizen's Bank on 12 Mile Road.

3 Good evening.

4 MR. MAKOHON: Good evening, Madam Chair

5 and Board Members.

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And you are?

7 MR. MAKOHON: Marcos Makohon for K-4

8 Architecture.

9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please

10 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our

11 secretary.

12 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or

13 affirm to tell the truth regarding case, 04-126?

14 MR. MAKOHON: I do.

15 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.


17 You may proceed.

18 MR. MAKOHON: Again, my presentation

19 this evening is a result of part of our plan being

20 approved by the Planning Commission, with the request

21 to present this to you, as the actual lack of the

22 implementation or the waiver of the requirement for

23 the loading and unloading zone.

24 This case is presented to you, not from









1 a hardship point of view, but from a futility point of

2 view; the validity of having this kind of a space on

3 specifically a financial institution.

4 The business of the bank, there are two

5 main types of deliveries. One is clerical in nature,

6 bringing forms, bringing paperwork. Those are done

7 entirely with a small minivan, which occupies a

8 singular space. The other one, which I will not

9 elaborate on the public forum, is monies delivered to

10 the bank. And that's after-hours and a great deal of

11 security, also does not use a well designated loading

12 space for loading that.

13 Our main thrust of the layout of the

14 building was to provide client parking at just the

15 front door, and a secured way for employees to come

16 in, obviously, during off hours.

17 The plan that you have in front of you

18 shows the possibility of a 36 square foot -- 360

19 square foot loading space, which is not conveniently

20 located. It's opposite the front door, opposite of

21 the side door. So that's what we're presenting this

22 case to you, for your consideration.


24 It's pretty clear that there's no one









1 out in the audience to make a comment.

2 There were 31 notices mailed; no

3 objections, no approvals.

4 Building Department?

5 MR. SAVEN: I just want to bring up to

6 the Board that this is a similar case of several

7 similar cases before you, basically having the same

8 concern; not only the issue of loading and non-

9 loading, but the other issue of four foot greenbelt

10 area as a drive-up.

11 This is basically their business.

12 That's what they did. And what they're trying to do

13 right now is to handle this basically through an

14 Ordinance change.


16 MR. SAVEN: And this is very similar,

17 because of the loading and unloading areas, because of

18 security issues, as I understand it, as one of the

19 things that they're taking into consideration.

20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So this is up for

21 review.

22 MR. SAVEN: This is up -- from my

23 understanding, it is up for review.










1 Thank you.

2 Member Fischer?

3 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm sorry --

4 MR. MAKOHON: If I may interject, we do

5 have a second site plan in process, which we again,

6 did not include the loading and unloading and the four

7 foot screen, hoping that there would be some

8 resolution prior to us coming.

9 MEMBER BRENNAN: So we're going to see

10 you again, possibly?

11 MR. MAKOHON: Hopefully not.

12 MEMBER FISCHER: They've given us ample

13 evidence. There's no use for a loading area in the

14 back. It would more so be a detriment to public

15 welfare, if they were required to put this loading

16 area in. So if there's no other comment by the Board

17 Members, I'd like to make a Motion in case number, 04-

18 126, that we approve the variance requested, due to a

19 practical difficult shown, given that there's no use

20 for the loading area; and in order to keep public

21 safety secured.

22 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

24 seconded.









1 Any further discussion?

2 Seeing none, Denise, would you please

3 call the roll.

4 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


6 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


8 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


10 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


12 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


14 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


16 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

17 zero.

18 MR. MAKOHON: Thank you very much.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Your variance has

20 been granted.

21 Good luck to you.

22 MR. MAKOHON: Thank you.


24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And that leaves us









1 to our other matters.

2 Denise, you want to bring -- evidently,

3 Mr. Bowman is requesting a six month extension for the

4 Expo sign?

5 Member Fischer?

6 MEMBER FISCHER: Given the size of this

7 and given the subcontracting problems that he has

8 written us about, I would move that we grant the six

9 month extension for the case you've cited.

10 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been moved and

12 seconded.

13 Is there any further discussion?

14 I have a question.

15 Would it be from -- six months from

16 now? What date? Do you know?

17 MR. SAVEN: Should be six months from

18 now. That gets us into better weather, probably

19 closure of the project and getting closer to that

20 time.


22 Thank you.

23 Denise, do you need to call roll or --

24 Denise, would you please call the roll.









1 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Fischer?


3 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Brennan?


5 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Bauer?


7 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Canup?


9 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Gronachan?


11 DENISE ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi?


13 DENISE ANDERSON: Motion passes six to

14 zero.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Just to make

16 Member Fischer happy.

17 Okay. Moving right along.

18 Case number two, Harold's Frame Shop.

19 We received correspondence indicating that the light

20 was on actually at 10;30 at night. So we contacted

21 the Petitioner.

22 MR. AMOLSH: Okay. I contacted Planet

23 Neon who put the sign up. I heard from Planet Neon

24 and they said they're not allowed on the property any









1 more. They're involved in some litigation with

2 Harold's.

3 But I got a call from the manager of

4 Harold's who said the two managers were away deer

5 hunting, and they would fix the problem as soon as

6 they got back. I don't know if they fixed it or not,

7 because I don't go by there. (Unintelligible.) Has

8 anybody driven by there?

9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Fischer?

10 MEMBER FISCHER: I have not been by

11 lately, but given the fact that there is litigation

12 going on; I'm the one that brought it up and the

13 managers were away, I wouldn't see a reason to let it

14 go for this long. And we'll revisit it at next

15 month's meeting to see if the managers contacted you;

16 see if the litigation's done.

17 I'll drive by there tonight and I'll

18 call you tomorrow to let you know what's going on.


20 Member Brennan?

21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Two issues.

22 I'm going to eat some crow, but not pay

23 some money.

24 The New Market sign, next to Gus









1 O'Connor's, was amended. They were going to make it

2 smaller. That was a Motion by me; and that's crow

3 that I'm swallowing right now.

4 Second was a number of issues that's

5 been bugging me for sometime, regarding the

6 chairmanship. When I joined the Board in, I think

7 '96, we had a -- we were rotating chairman. And when

8 it didn't happen last year, I raised the question.

9 And I went back and checked with Mr. Harrington.

10 And yes, indeed, there was not a

11 policy, but there was an understanding on the Board,

12 due to direction from the City Council, who challenged

13 the Board to rotate chairman, because there was a

14 perception that was Board was getting very repetitive.

15 And with new people in place, new

16 faces, new ideas, new ways of doing things, it seemed

17 to make it better. And that was the case for Mr.

18 Harrington's duration; that's why I raised that

19 question a year ago.

20 So just to fill everybody in, we had

21 been doing it for awhile, and there was a reason for

22 doing it back in the Quinn, the Matt Quinn

23 administration.

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, if you wait









1 awhile, you may have a whole new election. I'm

2 running for re-appointment. We did have an election,

3 so I mean --

4 MEMBER BRENNAN: It wasn't anything in

5 the rules, but we had a running understanding --

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's a tradition.

7 MEMBER BRENNAN: A tradition --

8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: If you can wait till

9 February, we may be running elections anyway.

10 Before we go, could we check -- verify

11 our list, here. We've got one more, clarification of

12 time limits on mock-up signs.

13 MR. AMOLSH: That case was Better

14 Health Market that -- in your Board rules or

15 regulations or whatever, it says that the sign has to

16 be removed in five days after it's denied. It doesn't

17 really say if it's approved.

18 And my recollection of the Board was --

19 wanted the Petitioner to be allowed to keep the mock-

20 up up before the store opened, so he'd have some

21 identification. I don't know if I'm misinformed about

22 that or -- there's nothing in writing that says that.

23 In this case, technically, they weren't

24 approved for what they've got out there. They were









1 approved for the smaller sign. So I would like some

2 clarification from the Board or some rule of procedure

3 that we can give people telling them that they have to

4 remove it, even if it's approved.

5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, you're in that

6 business, if they walk out of here with the

7 understanding of a variance request -- and in this

8 case, something less -- they go back to their sign

9 company -- what's typical, 90 days?

10 MR. AMOLSH: 30 to 60.

11 MEMBER CANUP: The mock-up sign is put

12 up there for our benefit. So we can see that sign and

13 see what it's going to look like. It's not put up

14 there for the benefit of the Petitioner to have an

15 advertisement.


17 MEMBER CANUP: And as far as I'm

18 concerned, when he walks out of here, that sign is an

19 illegal sign. That's my opinion.

20 MR. AMOLSH: Probably (unintelligible)

21 is that a Board stipulation for -- above removing the

22 sign or mock-up?

23 MR. GILLIAM: That's part of the rules

24 of procedure.









1 MR. AMOLSH: Rules of procedure?

2 MR. GILLIAM: I looked earlier to see

3 if that was addressed in the sign Ordinance, itself,

4 and it isn't. I think ideally that's something we

5 should address -- the sign Ordinance, too -- in terms

6 of enforcement, a violation of your rules and

7 procedures isn't something that Alan and the rest of

8 the Building Department can really act on this.

9 You can take it into consideration or

10 you can act on it, but it's not something that the

11 City has formal enforcement power.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is that something we

13 can refer to Ordinance review, again, to add that?

14 MR. SAVEN: Let me just throw something

15 out here.

16 I think it would be something to take a

17 look at.

18 When that mock-up sign goes up, that

19 building's wall is up. Normally the building --

20 there's a point -- there's a point of maybe within 90

21 days, you're going to be taking occupancy of that

22 building, relative to that particular issue.

23 So we know the building's up; we know

24 that things are going to happen within that 90 day









1 period. Maybe that's something you want to take into

2 consideration, if you consider putting a time factor

3 that's involved in the mock-up sign and when the mock-

4 up sign comes down.

5 You know that if they're here, they're

6 here based upon two months, possibly before they're

7 going to open, maybe have 30 day requirement.

8 Something along this line. Maximum 30 days for

9 approval or if the sign is not approved, the sign

10 comes down within five days.

11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Is it really a problem

12 we need to fix? I mean, a mock-up isn't something

13 they want forever --

14 MR. AMOLSH: Just need an amendment of

15 the rules and regulations to say, mock-up will be

16 taken down five days after meeting, period. Right

17 now, the case with Mr. Johnson from the Cornell Sign

18 Company, read those rules and said it doesn't say here

19 that I have to remove it if it's been approved. It

20 says, you have to remove it if it's been denied.

21 MEMBER CANUP: I think the five days is

22 accurate.

23 MEMBER BAUER: That's five days. I

24 mean, the mock-up is put up so we can see what's









1 there. And when we say, yes, you can put up a sign,

2 he's got to put up a sign.

3 MEMBER CANUP: Or, no, you can't.

4 MEMBER BAUER: Or, no, you can't.

5 MEMBER CANUP: Here's an example of

6 Staples. They're going to leave that sign up there as

7 long as they possibly can -- until their permanent

8 sign shows up. And I think the five days is more than

9 adequate. In fact, I think when they walk out of

10 here, they need to have notice -- it has to come down.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Just as long as you

12 don't suggest that we go in after the meeting and take

13 them down.

14 MEMBER CANUP: I think what needs to be

15 done, five days, out of the way, on the application,

16 on the side of the application where -- is there

17 anything that states that they're going to put up a

18 mock-up? I think on the application it needs to be

19 stated that that sign must come down within five days

20 after the date of the meeting of the Board; whether

21 the Board acts on it or not.

22 Because if we table it -- we know what

23 that sign looks like. It doesn't need to be there for

24 another 30 days. That sign needs to come down at the









1 first meeting, after the application is submitted.

2 And if they table -- if they ask to be tabled, it

3 comes down then, not after the meeting which it was

4 tabled for.


6 Member Sanghvi?

7 MEMBER CANUP: That would be my opinion

8 of how to do it.

9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Sanghvi?

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: I don't understand

11 this discussion at all. What difference does it make?

12 It cost money to put a sign up there. And if it is

13 granted, the proper sign is granted and

14 (unintelligible), what harm does it do? If at all, it

15 does good for the business. What's wrong with

16 something that does good for the business?

17 MEMBER FISCHER: I agree with Member

18 Sanghvi.

19 MEMBER BAUER: They're having it

20 instead of putting up a sign.

21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, we'll just stick

22 a (unintelligible) as long as it takes 90 days.

23 Within 90 days, the new sign should go up and the old

24 should come down. It --









1 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll give you an

2 example, Mav. The sign in front of that medical

3 building on 12 Mile is all shredded.

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: I know. They didn't

5 make holes in the plastic, the guy who put it in, so

6 if the wind blows, it blows away.

7 MEMBER BRENNAN: So how long is that

8 crap going to sit there blowing in the wind?

9 MEMBER SANGHVI: That should go. I

10 agree.

11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Five days.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: If it is an eyesore,

13 it should go. I have nothing against it. But like

14 the sign on the Better Health Store, where old Vic's

15 used to be, I mean, it's still there.

16 MEMBER BRENNAN: It's not an open

17 building -- it's not an open business.

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: They're going to have

19 a smaller sign put in there. What's the difference?

20 MEMBER CANUP: Well, what about the

21 ones we turn down?

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah, it should come

23 down. I agree.

24 MEMBER CANUP: It should be taken down









1 in five days.

2 MEMBER SANGHVI: I'm not talking about

3 the ones that are turned down. I'm talking about the

4 ones that we approve.

5 MEMBER BAUER: Only if it's denied.

6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I tend to support

7 the ones that we deny, that they should be removed

8 within five days.

9 MEMBER BRENNAN: It already says that.

10 I'm talking about the ones that have

11 been approved.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I don't know how big

13 of a problem this has been in the past.

14 MEMBER CANUP: You know, we should make

15 them all come in five days, and be done with it. That

16 makes Al's job real easy. These are just -- all these

17 are, are for our benefit to see what this thing's

18 going to look like. It's not to be an advertising

19 sign.


21 Okay.

22 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a Motion.

23 I would make a Motion that amend our

24 sign application to say that the mock-ups are to be









1 removed five days after a Hearing; whether approved or

2 denied.

3 MEMBER FISCHER: Or tabled?

4 MEMBER BRENNAN: Or tabled.

5 MEMBER SANGHVI: I have a question for

6 the attorney.

7 Is it within our jurisdiction to add

8 this language to an Ordinance?

9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, it's not an

10 Ordinance. It's the application.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: The application is all

12 part of the Ordinance. It's not separate from it.


14 MEMBER BAUER: It's approved by the

15 attorneys.

16 MEMBER BRENNAN: It's all part of the

17 signed application.

18 MR. GILLIAM: I think it's within the

19 discretion to modify the application. In terms of

20 what the enforcement power is if someone doesn't

21 comply, that is where --

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: That is where you have

23 a fuzzy line.

24 MR. GILLIAM: That's where the









1 discussion is going to come in, because Alan or Don or

2 anybody from that Department wouldn't be able to go

3 out and issue a ticket or anything like that, if

4 there's non-compliance, with the terms of the

5 application; because there's non-compliance with your

6 rules and procedures.

7 It's all in terms of how you handle

8 cases currently, compliance or non-compliance with the

9 application or the rules would be a different story.

10 That is something you'd be able to take into

11 consideration.

12 MEMBER BAUER: I really don't care if

13 they leave it up until the new one comes in, but it's

14 got to be a time frame.


16 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll withdraw my

17 Motion and ask the attorney, would it be smarter for

18 us, rather than moving tonight, leave this with you to

19 do a little investigation and make some consulting

20 recommendations?

21 MR. GILLIAM: That's fine.

22 What I was going to indicate anyway was

23 that I think it would be appropriate, in addition to

24 any changes being made to the application, that you









1 make changes to your rules and procedures. And the

2 rules and procedures provide that any proposed changes

3 have to be submitted to you in advance.

4 So you can't really make any changes to

5 the rules and procedures tonight anyway regarding

6 that.

7 If you like, we can take a look at it

8 and we can have it back on the agenda either in

9 January or February, formally on the rules and the

10 application, as appropriate.


12 Is everybody in favor of that?


14 MEMBER BAUER: All set for that.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Anything else?

16 MEMBER CANUP: Yes, yes.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Member Canup?

18 Glenda's Market.

19 MEMBER CANUP: Glenda's, whatever it

20 is, presented us a nice site plan with a picket fence

21 around the front, nice white fence. And when I drove

22 by there, oh, a few days ago, I didn't see anything

23 different than what I saw before.

24 Al, is that a good assumption or have I









1 missed something?

2 MR. AMOLSH: No, I haven't seen it

3 either.

4 MEMBER BAUER: The roads going back are

5 changed and they don't have their junk in the back.

6 MEMBER FISCHER: That's why we have

7 them coming back in front of us.

8 MEMBER BAUER: But there's no fence.

9 MEMBER CANUP: You know, they agreed.

10 They submitted the site plan, showed us what they were

11 going to do, and that's been what, 60 days?

12 MEMBER FISCHER: More than that.

13 MEMBER BRENNAN: It's been months and

14 years that the City's been at war with them. And I

15 would suggest that we request they come back and see

16 us.

17 MEMBER FISCHER: They are already, in a

18 year. That was the point of not doing continuing

19 jurisdiction, and doing -- making them come back in a

20 year.

21 Didn't we approve it for one year?

22 MEMBER BAUER: One year.

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes, we did.

24 MEMBER FISCHER: So we will be seeing









1 them come summertime.


3 MEMBER FISCHER: I think August, as

4 well. That's the exact reason I did not want just

5 continuing jurisdiction. You've heard many times that

6 that does not -- tougher for Mr. Gilliam to prove and

7 to get things done. So that's why we brought it back

8 to us.

9 MEMBER GILLIAM: So, Alan, do you want

10 to, like, alert them about this fence?

11 MR. AMOLSH: I'll give them a call.

12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Because the ground's

13 going to be hard, and they're not going to be able,

14 and that's going to be an excuse.

15 MR. AMOLSH: Right.

16 MEMBER CANUP: I would suggest that

17 someone write them and then have it on record, because

18 of the problems that have been surfacing in the past,

19 and that's why we have a paper trail.

20 MR. AMOLSH: I will do that.


22 Anything else?

23 MR. SAVEN: Yes.

24 If I may, I am saddened we are going to









1 lose Denise. Denise is taking a job -- I can't have

2 anybody work for me.

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: What's wrong with you,

4 Don?

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, it's the fact

6 that he does such a wonderful job that they're so

7 excelled and they keep getting promoted and excelling

8 throughout City Hall.

9 MR. SAVEN: Denise is taking a job with

10 another Department. This is in line with what her

11 forte is, and she's just a Cracker Jack person, and I

12 will definitely miss her. I think she's taken very

13 good care of the Board, and I don't know what else to

14 say, but she's an exceptional employee.

15 MEMBER SANGHVI: I will say one thing,

16 Don, your request is denied.

17 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, you get used to

19 people and they just keep moving on.

20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Denise, I'm sure I

21 echo the other Members' comments, my comments, but I

22 have worked with Denise for the last year and it was

23 kind of scary when Sarah was leaving and we had all

24 these things going on with the Board at the time, a









1 year ago. And it was kind of a nightmare for me. I'm

2 shaking in my boots as the newest chair, but you made

3 the transition very well, and I wish you all the best.


5 And I truly enjoyed working with you

6 and I am going to miss you, but I don't know what my

7 future is yet, either. We'll know in January. And

8 then after that, I do wish you all the best. And I

9 can certainly see why you were snatched out of Don's

10 Department.

11 MR. SAVEN: Hopefully she'll be here

12 one more meeting for the transition, but I definitely

13 will miss her, no doubt about it.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So I can come and be

15 Denise's replacement then.

16 MEMBER FISCHER: That's fine.

17 MEMBER BAUER: As we have done in the

18 past, shouldn't there be a letter from the Board to

19 the Council?

20 MR. SAVEN: Yes.

21 MEMBER BAUER: The two that are up?

22 MR. SAVEN: The two that are up, I

23 believe they're taking applications right now, if I'm

24 not mistaken.









1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, they moved our

2 interview date to the 20th. It was supposed to be the

3 13th. So they advised us that we're serving at the

4 pleasure of Council at this point. So we will

5 interview in December, and then they'll -- we'll find

6 out the appointments in January.

7 Member Fischer?

8 MEMBER FISCHER: One last -- going back

9 to that whole chair thing that Member Brennan brought

10 up -- that was Member Brennan, right? I keep mixing

11 you two up.

12 Can you tell me more about the

13 environment back then, because we've had such problems

14 with people staying on the Board. You know, we're

15 having transitions with the staff we're working with.

16 I voted -- I don't think I actually voted -- but

17 either way -- yes, I did vote for Cindy's chair, and I

18 think that missing a chair would not have been the

19 smartest thing to do at the time, just to answer your

20 -- why I voted. So I voted for Cindy's chair.

21 MEMBER BRENNAN: My question wasn't

22 voting Cindy's chair. Cindy was voted chair

23 unanimously. I was just -- I wanted to go back into

24 the history, because my memory, having been on the









1 Board for eight or nine years, was they always

2 rotated.

3 I asked Jim what was the basis for

4 this. And the basis was, in the late '80's, early

5 '90's, there was a continual Board make up, that

6 seemed to vote without any discussion. Okay. It was a

7 rubber stamp board. And it got the City into trouble

8 on a couple of occasions.

9 And without going into specifics, it

10 got them into trouble. And at the time, in the early

11 '90's, there were three, I think -- no, there were

12 four attorneys on the Board -- Harrington, Nuvan(ph)

13 -- my neighbor, Harris, and the guy that runs the

14 trailer park.

15 MEMBER FISCHER: Danna(ph).

16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Danna. And it was

17 their agreement that, you know, let's shake this up

18 every year, so that there's no accusation that

19 everything is boom, boom, boom.

20 MEMBER FISCHER: No, I understand. I'm

21 not talking about Cindy at all. It

22 was(unintelligible) about a smart transition, at a

23 time when we were having (unintelligible) on the

24 Board, as well.









1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I mean, I don't

2 think you're suggesting (unintelligible) tonight. But

3 -- I mean, were you?



6 elections are in March.

7 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm talking about the

8 transitions back when we voted.


10 MEMBER FISCHER: A lot of different

11 things -- Sarah, me. We had people missing,

12 alternates missing. She just talked about how Denise

13 was the new person in with us; that is the transition

14 period that I'm talking about, back when we voted, and

15 why I didn't think it's smart to change chair people

16 at that time.

17 Thank you.


19 Can I go home now?

20 MEMBER CANUP: That's a good policy, if

21 you have a good chair. If you have a bad chair, then

22 that's a horrible policy.

23 MEMBER FISCHER: Sorry. I didn't --

24 MEMBER CANUP: I'm not saying anybody's









1 good or bad. I'm just saying it's a good policy when

2 you have a good chairman.


4 MEMBER CANUP; If you have a lousy

5 chairman, six months is too long.

6 MEMBER FISCHER: Yeah, I mean,

7 obviously, that's common sense.

8 MEMBER CANUP: And then you're stuck

9 with policy. I think the policy would be if you

10 rotate, that gives you protection whether you like it

11 or not.


13 MEMBER CANUP: And if my memory is

14 right, back when I was on the Board with Mr. Bauer,

15 back quite a few years ago, when I left that Board

16 shortly after the policy made that Board, that that

17 chairman should rotate, and the members should serve

18 more than one term consecutively as chairman, Board

19 policy.

20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I really don't think

21 it's going to happen again, especially after tonight.

22 But I mean, seriously, come March, there's going to

23 be, hopefully, a consistency of membership to, and

24 people wanting to go fill all the positions on the









1 Board.

2 MEMBER SANGHVI: A common sense

3 approach completing this is, don't fix something that

4 ain't broke.

5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I appreciate that.

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: And with that, I make

7 a Motion to adjourn.


9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Under one condition,

10 I can say Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all of

11 you and Happy Holidays, and Hanukkah.

12 This meeting's adjourned.

13 (The meeting adjourned

14 at 9:38 p.m.)

15 - - - - - -


















1 C__E__R__T__I__F__I__C__A__T__E_


3 I do hereby certify that I have

4 recorded stenographically the proceedings had and testimony

5 taken in the above-entitled matter at the time and place

6 hereinbefore set forth, and that the foregoing is a full,

7 true and correct transcript of proceedings had in the

8 above-entitled matter; and I do further certify that the

9 foregoing transcript, consisting of (122) typewritten

10 pages, is a true and correct transcript of my said

11 stenograph notes.



14 ________________________________________

15 Machelle R. Billingslea-Moore, Reporter.


17 __________

18 Date