| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting Regular Meeting-Zoning Board of Appeals The proceedings had in the above-entitled matter were taken before me, Glenn G. Miller, Notary Public within and for the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, at 45175 W. Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, Council Chambers, Novi Civic Center, on Tuesday, August 2, 2005. PRESENT: 1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, August 2, 2005 3 At about 7:30 p.m. 4 MR. FISCHER: I would like to 5 call the August 2, 2005 Novi Zoning Board of 6 Appeals regular meeting to order. Could we 7 have the roll call, please. 8 MS. BACKUS: Member Bauer? 9 MR. BAUER: Present. 10 MS. BACKUS: Member Brennan? 11 Absent. Excused. 12 Member Canup? 13 MR. CANUP: Here. 14 MS. BACKUS: Member Fischer? 15 MR. FISCHER: Present. 16 MS. BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 17 MS. GRONACHAN: Here. 18 MS. BACKUS: Member Krieger? 19 MS. KRIEGER: Here. 20 MS. BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 21 MR. SANGHVI: Here. 22 MR. FISCHER: A quorum is now 23 present so the meeting is in session. 24 At first I would like to go 25 over some Rules of Conduct tonight. Please do
3 1 turn off all cell phones and pagers, and 2 individuals will have five minutes to address 3 the Board and groups will have ten minutes. 4 Please watch the time while you are speaking 5 tonight. 6 The Zoning Board of Appeals 7 is a hearing board empowered by the City of 8 Novi Charter to hear appeals seeking variances 9 from the application of the Novi Zoning 10 Ordinance. It takes a vote of at least four 11 members to approve a variance request and a 12 vote of a majority present to deny a request. 13 Tonight we do have a full Board so any 14 decisions made will be final. 15 Are there any changes to the 16 agenda? 17 MS. BACKUS: Yes. There's one 18 change. With respect to case number 05-06155, 19 Paul Deters of Metro Detroit Signs for Charter 20 One Bank, they called and asked to be withdrawn 21 at this time. It's case number 8. 22 MR. FISCHER: Thank you. 23 Board members, any other 24 further changes? 25 Seeing none, I'll entertain a
4 1 motion to approve as amended. 2 MR. BAUER: So moved. 3 MR. FISCHER: All in favor say 4 aye. 5 THE BOARD: Aye. 6 MR. FISCHER: The agenda is set 7 for tonight's meeting. 8 We did have the June minutes 9 in our packet, June 2005, City of Novi Zoning 10 Board of Appeals. Board members, do you have 11 any changes? 12 Seeing none, I'll move -- 13 I'll entertain a motion to approve as 14 submitted. 15 MR. BAUER: So moved. 16 MR. FISCHER: All in favor. 17 THE BOARD: Aye. 18 MR. FISCHER: The ayes have it. 19 Before we do get to the 20 public remarks portion, Mr. Saven, would you 21 like to make a little -- 22 MR. SAVEN: Absolutely. 23 Mr. Chairman, members of the 24 Board, at this time I'd like to introduce Mr. 25 John Hines. John Hines will be coming to the
5 1 Zoning Board of Appeals probably much in the 2 near future but he needs to be part of this 3 Board and I do want to welcome him. He's my 4 deputy and he will be dealing quite a bit with 5 the ZBA. 6 MR. HINES: Good evening. 7 MR. FISCHER: It's a pleasure to 8 have you here. 9 At this time we'll move to 10 the public remarks portion of the meeting. All 11 comments related to a case on the agenda can be 12 saved until that case is called. If anyone 13 wishes to address the Board on any matter that 14 is not on the agenda tonight, please come 15 forward. 16 Seeing none, we will close 17 the public remarks section of the meeting and 18 move to case number 05-044. I'm looking at the 19 wrong agenda. May I borrow yours? I missed 20 July 4th. I'm sorry. 21 Case number 05-060, filed by 22 Greg Morgan of Phillips Sign and Lighting for 23 Maxim Building on Grand River. Are you present 24 tonight? Please come forward. The applicant 25 is requesting one sign variance for a new
6 1 ground sign to be installed at 42400 Grand 2 River. 3 MR. MORGAN: I'm Greg Morgan with 4 Phillips Sign Company and this is Michael 5 Poletta from Maxim Building. 6 MR. FISCHER: Could you please 7 raise your hand and be sworn in by our 8 secretary. 9 MS. GRONACHAN: Do you swear or 10 affirm that the information you're about to 11 give in the matter before you is the truth? 12 MR. MORGAN: Yes. 13 MS. GRONACHAN: Thank you. You 14 may proceed. 15 MR. MORGAN: We have really two 16 bases for asking for a variance for a sign and 17 I have a couple pictures here I'd just like to 18 bring up to the Board, if I might. Did 19 everyone have an opportunity to drive by and -- 20 MR. FISCHER: Please hold your 21 comments until you're behind the podium so 22 everyone can hear us at home and in the 23 audience as well. Thank you. 24 MR. MORGAN: We have two reasons 25 why we're asking for a variance. Number one is
7 1 the setback of the building and the row of 2 trees that are out in front. They're mature 3 pine trees and they actually totally block the 4 view of the building, the building address and 5 the sign that's on the building. And then if 6 we put a ground sign out front that will allow, 7 number one, it would allow motorists to have -- 8 not to have to slow down to look for the 9 building address currently located on the main 10 entrance behind the trees. It would also allow 11 motorists to concentrate on traffic and give 12 them time to prepare to turn into the office 13 complex rather than having to look through the 14 trees, trying to find the address that's hidden 15 behind there and then -- actually, other than 16 the address there's no other identification on 17 the building except ADP. 18 The other reason we're asking 19 for the variance is that we want to provide all 20 of the building tenants equitable 21 identification and the current wall sign only 22 identifies one of the building's tenants. The 23 new ground sign would satisfy the tenants' need 24 to identify the business and their location 25 clearly to their clientele.
8 1 Would you like to say 2 something? 3 MR. POLETTA: I'm Michael Poletta. 4 I represent the Maxim Company, or the Maxim 5 Building at 42400 Grand River. 6 One of the other reasons why 7 we're looking to go forward with this project 8 is we get a lot of inquiries from the tenants 9 that currently occupy the building wishing to 10 have exterior signage and a better, more 11 visible address for the building itself. We 12 get numerous inquiries from the tenants who are 13 currently there, from some tenants who have 14 left and also from tenants that are due for 15 renewal. They're all asking in droves for this 16 type of allowance and we'd like to go forward 17 with it for that reason as well. 18 MR. FISCHER: Excellent. Any 19 further comments? 20 MR. POLETTA: No, none here. 21 MR. FISCHER: In this case there 22 were 12 notices mailed out and no mail was 23 returned, no approvals or objections. 24 Does anyone in the audience 25 wish to address the Board concerning this case?
9 1 Seeing none, if the Building Department has any 2 comment. 3 MR. SAVEN: Just one question. 4 What is the square footage of your existing 5 sign right now on the building? 6 MR. POLETTA: On the building I 7 believe it's about maybe 50 square feet. 8 MR. SAVEN: Thank you. 9 MR. FISCHER: And we'll move to 10 Board discussion. Board members. 11 Member Canup. 12 MR. CANUP: What is the tenant 13 makeup in your building, what are they, doctors 14 or -- 15 MR. POLETTA: It ranges from 16 attorneys to travel agencies to a periodontist, 17 an adoption agency, a press agency. We've got 18 a pretty diverse group of tenants in that 19 building currently. 20 MR. CANUP: My thoughts are the 21 tenants here are -- primarily it's a 22 destination building, it's not where they need 23 the advertising maybe like somebody selling 24 bicycles. This is, in my opinion, is a 25 destination building and I really don't see a
10 1 hardship here. I was able to find the building 2 without any problems. So, the end of my 3 discussion. 4 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Member 5 Canup. Other Board members? 6 Member Gronachan. 7 MS. GRONACHAN: Thank you, 8 Chairman Fischer. I tend to agree with the 9 previous speaker. If you had droves of people 10 complaining about the inability to locate this 11 building, my suggestion would have been to have 12 them do a petition or have the tenants write a 13 letter. We have no comments from anyone and 14 when you're seeking something of this nature we 15 need to substantiate what the need is and I 16 don't honestly see where the need is. If there 17 is truly an outcry from the tenants because 18 they're getting complaints from the clientele 19 that they truly can't find the building, then I 20 think that would have been your case and it 21 should have been duly documented or duly noted. 22 So I'm reluctant to support 23 this based on the information that you've so 24 far presented to us at this time. Thank you. 25 MR. FISCHER: Member Sanghvi.
11 1 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. 2 Chairman. 3 I'll back the previous 4 speakers. I had a hard time finding the 5 building, even though I have driven up and down 6 God knows how many times, because it is covered 7 by the trees. You can't see it all the time. 8 And the speed limit at that part of the road, 9 if you go as fast as you are allowed to drive, 10 it isn't very easy to find this place. 11 Having said that, my only 12 question would be whether the particular site 13 where you are planning to put this sign is the 14 optimum site to put it or not because the issue 15 of the trees is going to come with this sign as 16 well. The way you have the landscaping over 17 there, this sign is probably not likely to be 18 visible for a very long time because by that 19 time all the trees and everything will mature 20 and you will have a hard time having a visible 21 sign. 22 I have no problem 23 recommending that, yes, this variance you 24 should have, but perhaps you want to think 25 about putting it nearer the entrances or the
12 1 exit, whatever you want to call it, the east 2 side or west side of the property, not in the 3 middle where you have because it's most likely 4 going to be blocked by your landscaping. Thank 5 you. 6 MR. FISCHER: Thank you. 7 MR. BAUER: I agree with the other 8 two that said we could not see there's a 9 hardship in this. Second, you have a five-foot 10 sign and it's not on grade, it's above grade, 11 which makes it higher than the five feet. 12 That's all. 13 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Member 14 Bauer. 15 Member Krieger. 16 MS. KRIEGER: I have a question, a 17 clarification. If the portion you were asking, 18 is there a sign on the building as well as this 19 sign? 20 MR. SAVEN: That's correct, yes. 21 MS. KRIEGER: Thank you. 22 MR. FISCHER: Thank you. I would 23 tend to support this as well. I believe that 24 the landscaping around there does make it 25 difficult to find this building. It is well
13 1 hidden, which I think is a good thing, but it 2 does make it tough to find the tenants. 3 Secondly, the type of tenants that the building 4 has, a travel agency, adoption agency, leads me 5 to believe they would be pulling customers and 6 clientele from areas not so close, not people 7 who live two miles away from the building and 8 have been down this path several times, down 9 Grand River. So my concern would be people 10 from Brighton or other areas coming down Grand 11 River. So I believe it would turn into a 12 traffic hazard, especially the construction as 13 well as speed that is going down that road. 14 Forty miles per hour I believe is the speed 15 limit. We know Member Gronachan doesn't follow 16 the speed limit, so I would tend to support 17 this if there was a motion on the table. 18 Member Canup. 19 MR. CANUP: I would make a motion 20 that in case number 05-060 that we deny the 21 request as stated for reasons as stated in the 22 previous conversation. 23 MR. BAUER: Second. 24 MR. FISCHER: There is motion and 25 a second.
14 1 Any further discussion? 2 Seeing none, except for Mr. 3 Schultz. 4 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a 5 clarification. I know Member Canup has 6 incorporated his previous comments, which is a 7 good thing. The only reminder is, and it's 8 good to do this at the beginning of the 9 meeting, there's been a lot of use of that term 10 "hardship" and I'd like to remind you again 11 that hardship is the standard when you're 12 granting a use variance. What we're after here 13 tonight is whether there is a practical 14 difficulty, a little bit lesser standard, but I 15 understand Member Canup's motion based on the 16 fact it's a destination site and the applicant 17 didn't prove that the building was not visible 18 and that's a practical difficulty standard, as 19 I understood. 20 MR. CANUP: I would amend the 21 motion to include the term lack of practical 22 difficulty. 23 MR. BAUER: Second. 24 MR. FISCHER: The maker and the 25 seconder of the motion approve the amendment.
15 1 Any further discussion? 2 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, will 3 you please call the roll. 4 MS. BACKUS: Member Canup? 5 MR. CANUP: Yes. 6 MR. FISCHER: Member Bauer? 7 MR. BAUER: Yes. 8 MS. BACKUS: Member Krieger? 9 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 10 MS. BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 11 MS. GRONACHAN: Yes. 12 MS. BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 13 MR. SANGHVI: No. 14 MS. BACKUS: Member Fischer? 15 MR. FISCHER: No. 16 MS. BACKUS: Motion passes 4 to 2. 17 MR. FISCHER: At this time your 18 variance has been denied. 19 And we will move to case 20 number 05-062, filed by Brian Lance of L & R 21 Construction for Speedway Gas Station. L & R 22 Construction is requesting a variance to the 23 Building Foundation Landscape requirements at 24 this site. 25 If it pleases the Board, I
16 1 know we have several cases tonight concerning 2 landscaping and this type of zoning. I would 3 ask that the Building Department, if they have 4 any comments they'd like to put on the record, 5 they can give their advice at this time. 6 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Mr. 7 Chairperson, members of the ZBA, Tim Schmitt 8 from the Planning Department. 9 You know, I'm not here often 10 and luckily I'm able to bring some hopeful good 11 news this evening. We have had a spate of 12 these type of projects come in front of the 13 Zoning Board of Appeals in the past year. 14 We've seen a lot of banks especially and we're 15 starting to see gas stations and drive-throughs 16 that have this same problem. We listened to 17 the Board and Planning Commission and have been 18 in process now for several months on amending 19 the ordinance in question here and also the 20 loading zone requirements for banks, which I'll 21 discuss later, to modify the requirements so 22 these projects don't have to come back in front 23 of the Zoning Board of Appeals. There's 24 clearly an issue with respect to the way the 25 ordinance is functioning and the way the real
17 1 world is functioning at this point. 2 So I'm happy to report last 3 evening at last night's City Council the first 4 reading of that ordinance was passed with 5 little to no discussion. There were some minor 6 changes, nothing substantive at this point. We 7 do expect to send the second reading back at 8 the second meeting in August and barring an 9 unexpected twist at this point this will be the 10 last time you will have to deal with this type 11 of variance. 12 Not to predispose anything 13 for the Board, but I just want to let you know 14 that we have been listening to the comments 15 over the months and we have finally been able 16 to hopefully remedy them. Thank you. 17 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. 18 Schmitt. 19 Any other comments? 20 Thank you for that update on 21 the ordinance. It's good to see that that's 22 moving along. 23 Is the petitioner in the 24 audience tonight? 25 MR. NOCKTRUB: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
18 1 MR. FISCHER: Please come up to 2 the podium and when you're all set go ahead and 3 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our 4 secretary. 5 MS. GRONACHAN: Do you swear or 6 affirm that the information that you're about 7 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 8 MR. NOCKTRUB: I do. 9 MS. GRONACHAN: Thank you. 10 MR. FISCHER: If you could please 11 state your name and address for record and 12 proceed. 13 MR. NOCKTRUB: Certainly. My name 14 is Eric Nocktrub, I'm with L & R Construction 15 Services. My main residence is 1998 Tyler 16 Circle in Commerce Township. I'm here to 17 represent Marathon Asher Petroleum and Speedway 18 Super America, the project managers and 19 property owners for the proposed development at 20 the southwest corner at Pontiac Trail and Beck 21 Road. 22 I've brought with me a 23 colored landscape plan that shows our proposal 24 as it stands today. We have addressed and 25 addressed every concern of the Planning
19 1 Commission with respect to landscaping with one 2 issue that we do have a practical difficulty 3 with and that is the four foot building 4 foundation landscape requirement, in particular 5 on the east side of this building, which is our 6 primary entrance for all of our customers. 7 We've managed to fulfill the 8 requirements of the ordinance with respect to 9 that specific requirement all the way around 10 the rest of the building. This presents a 11 difficulty for us, one, because of the very 12 nature of these type of facilities. The 13 pedestrian flow of both frequency and volume is 14 enormous and it becomes an area that if planted 15 is most likely to be not -- most likely to be 16 damaged, if not by the public, you know, just 17 by -- if not on purpose at least by accident 18 just by the sheer volume of frequency of the 19 pedestrian traffic there. 20 So on that basis we ask for a 21 variance for that requirement. 22 MR. FISCHER: Thank you very much. 23 In this case eleven notices 24 were mailed, there were zero approvals, zero 25 objections.
20 1 Is there anyone in the 2 audience that wishes to make comments on this 3 case at this time? 4 Seeing none, if the Building 5 Department has any further comments? 6 MR. HINES: No, sir. 7 MR. FISCHER: Board members, 8 discussion? 9 Member Sanghvi. 10 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. 11 Chairman. 12 I see from the comments from 13 the Planning Department, no comments from the 14 Building Department and looking at the property 15 and the type of business, this is something 16 which will be automatic in a month's time or so 17 and I think without wasting anybody's time I'd 18 like to make a motion that the case number 19 05-062, they request a variance -- grant the 20 variance because of lot configuration and the 21 type of the business. 22 MR. BAUER: Second. 23 MR. FISCHER: There's a motion and 24 second. Is there further discussion? 25 Member Gronachan.
21 1 MS. GRONACHAN: Chairman Fisher, I 2 would like to put my comments on the record in 3 that I support this in that I believe that the 4 difficulty also as I was concerned about the 5 safety issues, people tripping, falling, 6 drainage, that sort of thing. So I will be 7 supporting this motion and I wanted that on the 8 record. 9 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Member 10 Gronachan. 11 Any further discussion? 12 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, 13 would you please call the roll. 14 MS. BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 15 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 16 MS. BACKUS: Member Bauer? 17 MR. BAUER: Yes. 18 MS. BACKUS: Member Krieger? 19 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 20 MS. BACKUS: Member Canup? 21 MR. CANUP: Yes. 22 MS. BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 23 MS. GRONACHAN: Yes. 24 MS. BACKUS: Member Fischer? 25 MR. FISCHER: Aye.
22 1 MS. BACKUS: Motion passes 6 to 0. 2 MR. FISCHER: Thank you for your 3 time. Your variance has been granted. 4 MR. NOCKTRUB: Thank you. 5 MR. FISCHER: Moving right along 6 at supersonic speeds tonight, case number 7 05-063, filed by PT Commerce LLC for Lenox 8 Park. The petitioner is requesting one sign 9 variance to erect an additional entranceway 10 sign to be located on Lenox Park Drive. 11 Could you please raise your 12 hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 13 MS. GRONACHAN: Do you swear or 14 affirm that the information that you're about 15 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 16 MR. WIKLE: I do. 17 MR. FISCHER: If you could state 18 your name and address and please proceed. 19 MR. WIKLE: My name is Kenneth 20 Wikle, landscape architect, 33203 Bittistone in 21 Farmington Hills. 22 I'm sure you're all familiar 23 now with the Lenox Park entrance that is shared 24 by the Brightmoor Church and what we'd like to 25 do is we'd like an additional sign, since we
23 1 already have a sign, a nice brick-lined sign, 2 well-landscaped, at Thirteen Mile Road. 3 I'm sure you're all familiar 4 with that Lenox Park shares a drive with the 5 Brightmoor Church along the west property line 6 and to avoid some confusion with the people 7 that come to the church and the school that is 8 there, for dropping off, and our project which 9 is then beyond some 300, or 600, feet beyond 10 the last drop-off area for this school and 11 parking, we wanted again to repeat a sign back 12 well into the property. Can I turn this on? 13 MR. FISCHER: Whatever you have 14 there, they'll go ahead and put it up behind 15 us. 16 MR. WIKLE: This is Thirteen Mile 17 Road, here's the Brightmoor Church. I've 18 labeled 0 feet, 300, feet, 600 feet, 900 feet, 19 and then the Lenox Park property is then in the 20 back parcel behind the church. So you can see 21 an entrance where our sign is here at the 22 boulevard, so we share this drive for dropping 23 off of the church here and then dropping off 24 and picking up mostly for the school back in 25 this area. So we want to have our sign back
24 1 here at the end of this long vista so when 2 people drive in here, since this is now 3 landscaped, they do understand that Lenox Park, 4 the development, is not in this area here, to 5 kind of mix up traffic and stuff with the 6 drop-off in the morning and the drop-off in the 7 afternoon for school and also on the weekend 8 for the church services. 9 So our additional sign would 10 be back here and that's shown on the plan that 11 you folks have. This is that plan. I'm 12 actually turning it on end. So this is vista 13 right down and the sign would be here. The 14 sign is identical to the brick sign that is at 15 Thirteen Mile but it's a one-sided sign. Thank 16 you. 17 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, sir. 18 In this case eight notices 19 were mailed and there were zero approvals and 20 zero objections. 21 Is there anyone in the 22 audience that wishes to make comment on this 23 case? 24 Seeing none, Building 25 Department?
25 1 MR. SAVEN: Just to point out that 2 Lenox Park Drive is the only entrance getting 3 into that particular project. There is nothing 4 in the rear of the project where they have an 5 entrance coming in the back way. 6 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. 7 Saven. 8 Board members? Member 9 Sanghvi. 10 MR. SANGHVI: Well, when I went 11 there and inspected this place, obviously they 12 need a sign to identify where this is located. 13 It's really hard to find without this kind of 14 sign with the common corridor between the other 15 properties and businesses, so I will have no 16 problem supporting their request. 17 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Member 18 Sanghvi. 19 Other Board members? 20 I would tend to agree with 21 the previous speaker's comments and, once 22 again, I think we would have another safety 23 issue. You said that back area is for the 24 school drop-off? 25 MR. WIKLE: I believe so, yes.
26 1 There's quite a bit of traffic back in there in 2 the afternoon. 3 MR. FISCHER: Any more traffic 4 that needs to be at a drop-off for a school is 5 unnecessary and if this sign can aid in 6 lowering that traffic flow I would be in 7 support of it. 8 Member Bauer. 9 MR. BAUER: This second sign, is 10 there any road that goes beyond that? 11 MR. WIKLE: Yes, the project is 12 accessed from the common shared road and then 13 you go beyond the sign into the entire project. 14 MR. BAUER: I mean straight up, 15 not into your project. 16 MR. WIKLE: I'm not sure I 17 understand the question. 18 MR. SCHMITT: There's only two 19 other connections. I apologize. I did the 20 review on this, been working on it for two 21 years now. 22 MR. BAUER: There could be 23 something back there. 24 MR. SCHMITT: There are two other 25 connections into this property, one actually is
27 1 a hundred feet just to the north of this. It's 2 an emergency access only, it's gated full time 3 into Harrison. The other access is in the far 4 northeast corner of the site. That is also an 5 emergency access only. There is nothing there 6 right now actually, so it will just be a stub 7 at this point. In the future, should something 8 connect up, there is not anticipated there will 9 be a full-time connection, so likely there 10 would not be any need for traffic at that 11 location. I think that's the question. 12 MR. BAUER: So you can't go any 13 further then? 14 MR. WIKLE: No. 15 MR. FISCHER: Any other Board 16 members have comments or a motion? Member 17 Sanghvi. 18 MR. SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, may I 19 make a motion that in case number 05-063 we 20 grant the request of sign variance for location 21 identification. 22 MS. GRONACHAN: Support. 23 MR. FISCHER: There is a motion 24 and a second. 25 Any further discussion?
28 1 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, will 2 you please call the roll. 3 MS. BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 4 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 5 MS. BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 6 MS. GRONACHAN: Yes. 7 MS. BACKUS: Member Bauer? 8 MR. BAUER: Yes. 9 MS. BACKUS: Member Krieger? 10 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 11 MS. BACKUS: Member Canup? 12 MR. CANUP: Yes. 13 MS. BACKUS: Member Fisher? 14 MR. FISCHER: Aye. 15 MS. BACKUS: Motion passes 6 to 0. 16 MR. FISCHER: Your variance has 17 been granted at this time. Please see the 18 building department. 19 MR. FISCHER: Thank you. 20 And the next case on our 21 agenda is case number 05-064 filed by Wayne 22 Wrobel at 24578 Ackert Court. Mr. Wrobel is 23 requesting a seven foot rear yard setback 24 variance for the construction of a screened 25 enclosure.
29 1 MR. WROBEL: Good evening. 2 MR. FISCHER: Good evening. If 3 you could please raise your hand and be sworn 4 by our secretary. 5 MS. GRONACHAN: Do you swear or 6 affirm that the information that you're about 7 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 8 MR. WROBEL: I do. 9 Wayne Wrobel, 24578 Ackert 10 Court. I'm here requesting a rear lot variance 11 of seven feet, from 35 feet to 28 feet, to 12 erect a screen porch at the rear of my home. 13 I'm requesting the variance for several 14 reasons: One, the shape of the lot, as you 15 notice in the package, forces the home to be 16 set back further on the lot to meet the other 17 site guidelines, and it shortens the backyard 18 area. 19 The property behind my lot is 20 regulated wetland and will not be developed in 21 the future. The distance between the rear lot 22 line of my property and the other adjoining 23 lots to the rear, as you can see in the drawing 24 I have, is 180 feet to 475 feet. So no one 25 will be very close by.
30 1 The porch will not be viewed 2 from either home on either side of my residence 3 and I believe the neighbors sent letters to the 4 ZBA in support of it. The porch was approved 5 by the homeowners association, meets all their 6 guidelines and restrictions. And, finally, 7 because it's regulated wetlands behind my 8 property, it makes it nearly impossible to use 9 the backyard because of the mosquitos, so I 10 need a screen porch so I can use it. If you 11 have any questions, I'll be glad to answer 12 them. 13 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, sir. 14 In this case there were 15 thirteen notices mailed and we received three 16 approvals, one by the homeowners association, 17 and zero objections. 18 Madam Secretary, could you 19 please read the correspondence. 20 MS. GRONACHAN: Thank you, 21 Chairman Fischer. 22 Yes, the one is by the 23 association, as Chairman Fischer mentioned. 24 The second one is from Randall Walter at 24577 25 Ackert Court and the third is from Drago
31 1 Santrack at 24597 Ackert Court as well. 2 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Madam 3 Secretary. 4 Is there anyone in the 5 audience that wishes to address the Board 6 regarding this case? 7 Seeing none, Building 8 Department? 9 MR. SAVEN: Only to point out that 10 decks are allowed to project up to 18 foot into 11 the required rear yard setback. This does have 12 more than adequate space to allow for that deck 13 to be placed in that location. 14 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. 15 Saven. Anyone else? 16 Seeing none, Board members 17 discussion. 18 Member Canup. 19 MR. CANUP: I think if you take a 20 look at the way the property lays and what's in 21 back of it, the size, I think the presentation 22 is well taken and well representative of what 23 his neighbors look like, at least as far as the 24 adjacency to the property. 25 So with that I would be
32 1 willing to make a motion that we grant the 2 variance as requested to enable this gentleman 3 to build his deck or enclose his deck on the 4 back of his home. 5 MS. GRONACHAN: Support. 6 MR. FISCHER: There is a motion 7 and a second. Any further discussion? 8 MS. KRIEGER: I have a question. 9 MR. FISCHER: Board Member 10 Krieger. 11 MS. KRIEGER: The map you 12 submitted that had the highlighted area of 28 13 feet next to it, there was one 25 feet. Would 14 you need another three feet for that? 15 MR. WROBEL: I was told no, that I 16 only required it for the porch. 17 MS. KRIEGER: Thank you. 18 MR. FISCHER: Any further 19 discussion? 20 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, will 21 you please call the roll. 22 MS. BACKUS: Member Canup? 23 MR. CANUP: Yes. 24 MS. BACKUS: Member Bauer? 25 MR. BAUER: Yes.
33 1 MS. BACKUS: Member Krieger? 2 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 3 MS. BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 4 MS. GRONACHAN: Yes. 5 MS. BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 6 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 7 MS. BACKUS: And Member Fischer? 8 MR. FISCHER: Aye. 9 MS. BACKUS: Motion passes 6 to 0. 10 MR. FISCHER: Your variance has 11 been granted. Please see the Building 12 Department. 13 MR. WROBEL: Thank you very much. 14 MR. FISCHER: Case number 05-065 15 filed by Mark Bono of 1309 East Lake Drive. 16 The Petitioner is requesting a five foot side 17 yard setback variance with a five foot combined 18 total side yard setback variance for the 19 construction of an attached sunroom at the 20 above property. 21 Are you Mr. Bono? 22 MR. BONO: Yes, I am. 23 MR. FISCHER: Could you please 24 raise your hand and be sworn in by our 25 secretary.
34 1 MS. GRONACHAN: Do you swear or 2 affirm that the information that you're about 3 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 4 MR. BONO: I do. 5 MS. GRONACHAN: Please begin. 6 MR. BONO: Okay. I'm looking for 7 the five foot side yard setback to -- the yard 8 is around 40 foot wide and to put a sunroom 9 with any width at all it's going to 10 automatically be within the need to have a 11 variance. I have 15 feet of my neighbor's 12 property line, and which is substantial, but I 13 need another five foot to the vacant lot that's 14 next to me that I also own. I own the lot that 15 my house is on and I own the vacant lot next to 16 me. 17 I just thought of something. 18 I dropped off some more information right 19 before the meeting, another four pages. 20 MR. FISCHER: The Board members 21 were given that as well. 22 MR. BONO: Great. What I did is I 23 wanted to document a little bit better what I 24 was asking for. I've also included the front 25 page of my latest memo to JW of the Novi
35 1 building inspector and he called and told me he 2 would approve the design based on approval of 3 the setback as well. So what I did is I gave 4 you the cover letter showing the details of the 5 sunroom. 6 It's a pretty good quality 7 sunroom. I didn't want to have something 8 considered an add-on that looked bad. It's all 9 brick, it has home quality windows, it's going 10 to have heating and cooling that's tapped right 11 into the existing home heating and cooling. So 12 I'm trying to do a really good, quality job as 13 well. 14 MR. FISCHER: Excellent. 15 MR. BONO: I think that's all I 16 have for now. If you have any more questions, 17 I'd be glad to answer them. 18 MR. FISCHER: Okay. In this case 19 51 notices were mailed. There were two 20 approvals, zero objections and two pieces of 21 mail were returned. 22 Madam Secretary, could you 23 please read the correspondence. 24 MS. GRONACHAN: The first 25 correspondence is from Kim Smith at 1300 East
36 1 Lake Drive. 2 "Welcome, new neighbor. Hope 3 your new sunroom brings many long lazy 4 afternoons," with no objections. 5 The other approval is from -- 6 I will spell the name -- I-s-a-l-y is the first 7 name, and Mark, and the last name is 8 S-z-e-t-e-l-a, at 1317 East Lake Drive, showing 9 full approval, saying that it's a nice addition 10 to this house and they safely removed a tree in 11 their yard for the sunroom, the contractors did 12 a fine job, and he's in full support. 13 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Madam 14 Secretary. 15 Is there anyone in the 16 audience that wishes to address the Board 17 regarding this case? Seeing none, the Building 18 Department? 19 MR. SAVEN: Once again, as he 20 indicated, this is a 40-foot width lot, the 21 placement of the house on the lot is such that 22 he has approximately four foot to the side 23 property line. He has attempted to move the 24 sunroom back in about another foot to help in 25 this particular issue to get a little more fire
37 1 protection for the area. 2 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. 3 Saven. 4 Board members. Member 5 Gronachan. 6 MS. GRONACHAN: Thank you, 7 Chairman Fischer. 8 I'm in support of this 9 request, I think this is minimal, especially 10 since the neighbors are in support of this as 11 well, and also it's a lesser request of the 12 existing foundation to the house. You're 13 actually not even coming up to the foundation, 14 the current foundation of the house, therefore 15 I will be supporting it based on the lot size 16 and the configuration of the lot in that it is 17 not impeding any further safety issues at this 18 time. 19 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Member 20 Gronachan. Any other board members? 21 Member Sanghvi. 22 MR. SANGHVI: I have no hesitation 23 in supporting this gentleman's request, it is 24 very reasonable, especially considering that 25 part of the town and the size of the lot and
38 1 other things. 2 And, if I may, I would make a 3 motion that in case number 05-065 we grant the 4 request for the variance because of the lot 5 configuration. 6 MR. BAUER: Second. 7 MR. FISCHER: There is a motion 8 and a second. 9 I would also like to commend 10 you for moving the house in one foot as well, 11 or the sunroom in one foot as well. 12 Any further discussion? 13 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, could you please call 14 the roll. 15 MS. BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 16 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 17 MS. BACKUS: Member Bauer? 18 MR. BAUER: Yes. 19 MS. BACKUS: Member Krieger? 20 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 21 MS. BACKUS: Member Canup? 22 MR. CANUP: Yes. 23 MS. BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 24 MS. GRONACHAN: Yes. 25 MS. BACKUS: Member Fischer?
39 1 MR. FISCHER: Aye. 2 MS. BACKUS: Motion passes 6 to 0. 3 MR. FISCHER: Your variance is 4 granted. Please see the building department. 5 I'd like to call case 05-066, 6 filed by Kathleen Gorton, for Maples Country 7 Club. The petitioner is requesting one sign 8 variance to erect an additional wall sign to be 9 located at 31260 Wakefield Drive. 10 If you could raise your right 11 hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 12 MS. GRONACHAN: Do you swear or 13 affirm that the information that you're about 14 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 15 MS. GORTON: Yes, I do. 16 MR. FISCHER: If you could state 17 your name and address and proceed. 18 MS. GORTON: My name is Kathleen 19 Gorton. I'm with Maples Country Club at 31260 20 Wakefield Drive. We're requesting a variance 21 for a second sign. The sign has actually been 22 there. I've been there since 1999; it was 23 there before. Unfortunately, it was never 24 permitted and we're hoping to be able to keep 25 the sign there.
40 1 The Maples of Novi Country 2 Club was built in front of the Maples of Novi 3 complex, which is a 750-unit condominium 4 complex. It was built to blend in with the 5 surrounding community, which is great. 6 Aesthetically it's not very helpful for 7 business, so there is a sign that is out by the 8 main road, there are trees behind it, which 9 make the building harder to see. There's also 10 two additional clubhouses within the Maples of 11 Novi complex. We are the only one that is a 12 separate business entity. 13 We are hoping to keep the 14 sign because it's helpful to -- we struggle all 15 the time with helping people understand we are 16 a separate business, that we are a restaurant, 17 that we are open to the public continuously. 18 So we are hoping that we are able to keep that. 19 MR. FISCHER: Thank you. 20 In this case there were 53 21 notices mailed. There were zero approvals and 22 zero objections. 23 Anyone in audience that 24 wishes to make a comment regarding this case? 25 Seeing none, I'll move to the Building
41 1 Department for comments. 2 MR. SAVEN: No comment. 3 MR. FISCHER: Board discussion. 4 Member Sanghvi. 5 MR. SANGHVI: I have seen this 6 sign for years and years when I used to come 7 and play golf there and obviously this is not 8 part of the residential complex, a totally 9 separate business, and I find it quite 10 reasonable to support the request just to 11 identify their own business. Thank you. 12 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Member 13 Sanghvi. Any other Board members? Member 14 Krieger. 15 MS. KRIEGER: I have a question 16 regarding the sign, that the definition that 17 these letters on the building is a sign? 18 MR. SAVEN: That is correct. 19 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Member 20 Krieger. Anything else? Other Board members? 21 Member Canup. 22 MR. CANUP: It's been there quite 23 awhile and hasn't caused any major problems of 24 any sizable amount anyway that anyone has 25 complained about or I know about.
42 1 Therefore, in case number 2 05-066, I would make a motion we grant the 3 request as stated due to a practical hardship 4 if they were not allowed to have this existing 5 sign. 6 MS. GRONACHAN: Support. 7 MR. FISCHER: There is a motion 8 and a second. Any further discussion? 9 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, 10 please call the roll. 11 MS. BACKUS: Member Canup? 12 MR. CANUP: Yes. 13 MS. BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 14 MS. GRONACHAN: Yes. 15 MS. BACKUS: Member Bauer? 16 MR. BAUER: Yes. 17 MS. BACKUS: Member Krieger? 18 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 19 MS. BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 20 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 21 MS. BACKUS: Member Fischer? 22 MR. FISCHER: Aye. 23 MS. BACKUS: Motion passes 6 to 0. 24 MR. FISCHER: Your variance has 25 been granted, best of luck to you, please see
43 1 the Building Department. 2 Next I would like to call 3 case number 05-067, filed by Shane Ladner of 4 GPD Group for National City. The petitioner is 5 requesting two variances from the zoning 6 ordinance for loading and unloading space 7 requirement, and a variance of the interior 8 landscape requirement. This does fall somewhat 9 under what I was speaking of before, so if I 10 could ask the Building Department to go ahead 11 and make comment. You may come down to the 12 podium now, but if you guys would like to make 13 your comments known now, that would be 14 fantastic. 15 MS. SCHMITT: Yeah, just to -- 16 since the majority of this revolves around 17 banks, I'll just give you an idea of how we 18 expect this to work in the future, and I'm 19 probably going to take away the entirety of 20 GBD's presentation here tonight. 21 All banks have told us that 22 regardless of whether we indicate a loading 23 zone or not on the plans, their deliveries are 24 going to go where the bank functionally can 25 handle them in the safest and most efficient
44 1 manner. In the future the bank will simply 2 have to give us some information or some 3 indications that that is how they function and 4 the loading zone will be waived for financial 5 institutions of banking or similar nature. 6 As to the loading zone, I 7 should have pointed this out earlier, we're not 8 actually going to be waiving the requirement of 9 having a four foot. What the ordinance is 10 going to do is it's going to allow them to not 11 put the four feet in one location but they have 12 to make up for it in square foot elsewhere. So 13 you're not actually losing net landscaping. In 14 situations where you have heavy traffic 15 entrances, gas stations, drive-throughs with 16 banks and drug stores, things along that line, 17 you'll be able to have the car right up against 18 the building and make up the landscaping in one 19 other place. 20 We had one bank actually try 21 to put the landscaping in adjacent to the 22 drive-through. It's been a -- I'm not going to 23 say -- a monumental failure but it's been very 24 difficult thus far to get it to work right on 25 their site. So we're not losing any
45 1 landscaping in the long run, so hopefully 2 should the Board approve this and the City 3 Council at a point approve this we will be 4 having a mechanism in place to take care of 5 this and it will be easier. Thank you. 6 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. 7 Schmidt. 8 And could you please raise 9 your right hand and be sworn in by our 10 secretary. 11 MS. GRONACHAN: Do you swear or 12 affirm that the information that you're about 13 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 14 MR. MORRISON: I do. 15 MR. FISCHER: Please state your 16 name, address and proceed. 17 MR. MORRISON: Good evening, Mr. 18 Chairman. My name is Mike Morrison, GPD Group, 19 engineers and architects. The address is 520 20 South Main Street, Akron, Ohio, 44341. 21 Mr. Schmidt covered 22 everything nicely as far as our presentation 23 goes. As you guys are fully aware, both these 24 variances do provide practical difficulties for 25 us to meet these variances, and that's been
46 1 noted by the city, that's why there's 2 amendments to the ordinances. 3 We've been working very hard 4 with Mr. Schmidt and the rest of his team for 5 the past several months on this project and 6 we're glad to say that we're just down to these 7 two variances, and if you have any questions or 8 comments tonight I do have site plans and 9 landscape plans that are here. 10 MR. FISCHER: If necessary, I'm 11 sure the Board will ask for them. 12 In this case 14 notices were 13 mailed. There were zero approvals and zero 14 objections. 15 Is there anyone in the 16 audience that wishes to comment on this case? 17 Seeing none, I'll ask if the Building 18 Department has any further comments. 19 MR. SAVEN: No comments, sir. 20 MR. FISCHER: I'll move for Board 21 discussion. Member Sanghvi. 22 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. 23 Chairman. 24 Without further ado, I make a 25 motion that in case number 05-067 that the
47 1 petitioner's request be granted for banking 2 business only. Thank you. 3 MR. BAUER: Second. 4 MR. FISCHER: There's a motion and 5 a second. Further discussion? My only 6 question is, did you have to drive all the way 7 from Akron, Ohio just for tonight? 8 MR. MORRISON: Yes, I did. 9 MR. FISCHER: Enjoy your time. 10 Member Backus, please call 11 the roll. 12 MS. BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 13 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 14 MS. BACKUS: Member Canup? 15 MR. CANUP: Yes. 16 MS. BACKUS: Member Bauer? 17 MR. BAUER: Yes. 18 MS. BACKUS: Member Krieger? 19 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 20 MS. BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 21 MS. GRONACHAN: Yes. 22 MS. BACKUS: Member Fischer? 23 MR. FISCHER: Aye. 24 MS. BACKUS: Motion passes 6 to 0. 25 MS. GRONACHAN: You should be
48 1 stopping off at the Maples of Novi for dinner. 2 MR. FISCHER: Nice plug there, 3 Madam Gronachan. 4 We'll move on to case number 5 05-068 for JMK Coffee, doing business as 6 Beaner's Gourmet Coffee. The petitioner is 7 requesting one sign variance to erect an 8 additional wall sign to be located at 31208 9 Beck Road. 10 Would you please raise your 11 right hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 12 MS. GRONACHAN: Do you swear or 13 affirm that the information you are about to 14 give in the matter before you is the truth? 15 MS. KOZINSKI: I do. 16 MR. FISCHER: Please state your 17 name and address. 18 MS. KOZINSKI: My name is Jenene 19 Kozinski. I reside at 23988 Westmont Drive in 20 Novi. 21 I'm here to request a sign 22 variance to allow for a second sign to be 23 erected at a store that I plan on opening in 24 Novi at Beck Road and Pontiac Trail. Currently 25 there is a sign up on the west-facing side of
49 1 the building, which is facing Beck Road. 2 Unfortunately, there is a significant setback 3 so the visibility is pretty limited from Beck 4 Road. I'm looking to put another sign on the 5 north-facing side, which is along Pontiac Trail 6 with a great deal of visibility along Pontiac 7 Trail. Without that sign, I fear that without 8 actually driving into the strip center very few 9 passersby will be able to see what my business 10 is. 11 There was a CVS recently 12 erected at the intersection also. That being 13 said, I did know this going into it, the strip 14 center, you know, I was well aware of the 15 setback and so forth. I just never anticipated 16 there being an issue, given other examples of 17 businesses in the area that have two signs, so 18 it never occurred to me it would be a problem, 19 but I feel without that no one is going to know 20 I'm there. 21 MR. FISCHER: Thank you. 22 In this case 23 notices were 23 mailed. There were zero approvals and zero 24 objections. 25 Is there anyone in the
50 1 audience that wishes to make comment on this 2 case? Seeing none, I'll ask for the Building 3 Department. 4 MR. SAVEN: No comments, sir. 5 MR. FISCHER: Board members. 6 Member Gronachan. 7 MS. GRONACHAN: I am in full 8 support of this request and based on the 9 distance from both streets and the angle coming 10 down Pontiac Trail you don't quite catch the 11 corner of that building. When you're coming 12 down Pontiac Trail, you catch CVS but you don't 13 really catch the site of the mall in there. 14 It's kind of strange the way they set it up. 15 So given the distance and the shape of the 16 entire complex, I would agree that this would 17 definitely be needed for identification and the 18 fact that this is a corner lot. 19 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Member 20 Gronachan. Other board members? I'll go ahead 21 and make my comments known as well. 22 I am in full support as well 23 for the reasons Member Gronachan gave, as well 24 as a lot of times we have petitioners come 25 before the Board and say we think our location
51 1 is going to hinder us and therefore we need to 2 do another sign. In this case we received a 3 packet with more than enough information of 4 statistics from similar stores and the drops in 5 sales due to those types of practical 6 difficulties. So I will be in full support as 7 well. 8 Member Canup. 9 MR. CANUP: It appears like a lot 10 of support for this particular case so I would 11 make a motion in case number 05-068 to grant 12 the requested variance and for the reasons as 13 stated by the petitioner and by discussion by 14 the Board members. 15 MS. GRONACHAN: Support. 16 MR. FISCHER: There is a motion 17 and a second. Any further discussion? 18 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, 19 please call the roll. 20 MS. BACKUS: Member Canup? 21 MR. CANUP: Yes. 22 MS. BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 23 MS. GRONACHAN: Yes. 24 MS. BACKUS: Member Bauer? 25 MR. BAUER: Yes.
52 1 MS. BACKUS: Member Krieger? 2 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 3 MS. BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 4 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 5 MS. BACKUS: Member Fischer? 6 MR. FISCHER: Aye. 7 MS. BACKUS: Motion passes 6 to 0. 8 MR. FISCHER: Your variance has 9 been granted. We wish you the best of luck. 10 MS. KRIEGER: When do you open? 11 MS. KOZINSKI: Couple months. 12 We'll see. We need some permits first. Can 13 you work on that one? 14 MS. GRONACHAN: No. I'm sorry. 15 MR. FISCHER: That's not us. See 16 Mr. Saven. Thank you. 17 I would like to call number 18 05-069, filed by Richard Kligman, Superb Custom 19 Homes, Asbury Park. The petitioner is 20 requesting one sign variance to erect a ground 21 sign to be located at 25805 Beck Road. 22 Could you please raise your 23 right hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 24 MS. GRONACHAN: Do you swear or 25 affirm that the information you're about to
53 1 give in the matter before you is the truth? 2 MR. KLIGMAN: I do. 3 Richard Kligman, PO Box 4 703450, Plymouth, Michigan, 48170. 5 I feel fortunate to be one of 6 the builders in Asbury Park development, which 7 is located north off of Eleven Mile between 8 Beck and Taft. It's a special development with 9 about 45 home sites, a nature preserve. We're 10 building homes from 600,000 on up. The 11 challenge we're having is, because Eleven Mile 12 is not a destination road we're getting very 13 little traffic through the development, which 14 is putting the builders at a severe 15 disadvantage. 16 Two of the three builders 17 have zero sales to this point after an option 18 agreement was started well over a year ago. I 19 have a comparable price range development in 20 Northville that has main road exposure, 21 Stonewater Subdivision. We have homes from 600 22 to 2.2 million in there and we're getting 15 to 23 20 people through a week and at Asbury Park 24 we're getting zero to five people through a 25 week and that's very difficult to operate a
54 1 business in that fashion. 2 Mr. Vosco at the southwest 3 corner of Eleven and Beck has kindly agreed to 4 cooperate with us, allowing to place a sign on 5 his property if it's so approved. We feel that 6 the visibility of traffic from Eleven Mile and 7 Beck Road, a directional sign pointing people 8 to Asbury Park should significantly help our 9 traffic through the development. 10 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, sir. 11 In this case there were 17 12 notices mailed, zero approvals, zero 13 objections, one letter was returned. 14 Is there anyone in the 15 audience that wishes to make comment on this 16 case? Seeing none, does the Building 17 Department have any comments? 18 MR. SAVEN: It's your intention to 19 have all three builders on this sign? 20 MR. KLIGMAN: Either everyone will 21 be on the sign or no one will be on the sign. 22 We're currently discussing with the marketing 23 company if we feel -- with the size of sign 24 we're applying for maybe less is more and just 25 basically models open, nature preserve, home
55 1 sites from 600 and the directional arrow is 2 probably what we're going to end up with. We 3 don't feel -- there is -- off of Eleven Mile we 4 have a sign with the builders' names and phone 5 numbers. We mainly just want to make people 6 aware there is a development down Eleven Mile 7 Road, please drive by and then we'll take it 8 from there. 9 MR. FISCHER: Any further 10 comments, questions? 11 MR. SAVEN: No, sir. 12 MR. FISCHER: Seeing none, I'll 13 ask Board members for discussion. Member 14 Canup. 15 MR. CANUP: I live fairly close to 16 the sign, proposed sign, and go by there 17 probably more times everyday than I should, but 18 I guess looking at this sign being some ten 19 feet tall and with a lot of verbiage on it that 20 it is not -- at least in my opinion not 21 necessary and I guess I have a problem with 22 this sign even being located there. That's an 23 off-premise sign. The next thing you know it 24 would be a good idea to have one on Grand River 25 and Beck Road pointing that way. And I, as in
56 1 the past, am really not in favor of 2 off-premises signs, especially when they're of 3 this size. 4 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Member 5 Canup. 6 Member Gronachan. 7 MS. GRONACHAN: Thank you, 8 Chairman Fischer. 9 I somewhat concur with Member 10 Canup but I cannot support the sign at all. I 11 don't feel the petitioner has substantiated 12 that failure to identify where their site is is 13 the reason why the sales are not happening. 14 Again, in an earlier case, if 15 you have people that get to you and they can't 16 find you, having it duly noted would be to your 17 advantage, number one. 18 Number two, I cannot support 19 a ten-foot sign at all, let alone to have -- 20 because your sign does not concur with your 21 argument. This is strictly advertising of 22 builders and if it was to help identify where 23 your location is, this sign is not the sign to 24 do it. Hang on. 25 Number three, anyone that's
57 1 looking for the size of home or quality of 2 home, they're going to do their research, 3 they're not going to do it by driving around. 4 They're going to pick the city in which they 5 want to live and then they're going to do their 6 research. So I don't know if advertising in 7 other ways isn't going to help you or if there 8 isn't some other things that are curtailing 9 your problems, but I don't think this sign is 10 going to help it and therefore I will not be 11 supporting this request. 12 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Member 13 Gronachan. 14 Other Board members? Member 15 Bauer. 16 MR. BAUER: I'll voice the opinion 17 of both on the height of the sign, the makeup 18 of the sign, and I cannot support it. 19 MR. FISCHER: Other Board members? 20 I would tend to disagree at 21 this time. I agree the height is a little big 22 and I would prefer to see the majority of the 23 sign minus maybe the developers' names and 24 numbers but then the directional arrow. I 25 would be willing to move on that, but to just
58 1 say no sign whatsoever off premise I think is 2 not fair, and I think that the petitioner could 3 be teetering on the edge of a practical 4 difficulty because he has in his presentation 5 discussed similar size sites, similar price 6 homes that have a different setting, as far as 7 where they're located, and that traffic is 8 higher through there. 9 So I would be willing to 10 negotiate on the sign because I think something 11 is needed, especially considering he has 12 already done his homework and requested and 13 received the permission of Mr. Vosko. So I 14 would not support a denial, a flat-out denial 15 at this time. 16 Member Gronachan. 17 MS. GRONACHAN: Thank you, 18 Chairman Fischer. 19 I don't think that this case 20 is substantiated enough, in my opinion, and 21 that's why I can't support it. If you would 22 like to table this case and bring me back more 23 proof on why you need it, I would be more 24 likely -- I would certainly be apt to listen, 25 and my recommendation is definitely not to
59 1 bring this size sign back. If again I -- my 2 argument about approving this is that his 3 argument doesn't support the kind of sign he's 4 asking for and therefore something is amiss 5 here. He's advertising builders or you're 6 advertising your site, something has got to 7 draw it to the site and when they get to the 8 site then they're going to find out about the 9 builders. 10 So my recommendation at this 11 point would be if -- it's up to the petitioner 12 to table this and go back and do some homework, 13 including I'd like to see what kind of 14 advertising you're doing outside of this 15 because I don't think this should be your only 16 form of advertising and maybe that's the reason 17 why you're not getting the concurring people 18 coming out or the driving through and -- the 19 traffic into the site. 20 So I just want to tell you 21 I'm in the middle of shopping for a home so 22 I've driven all over Novi and I've done my 23 homework, so you're talking to a real shopper, 24 and I found your site when I was out there 25 shopping. So I don't know what the other
60 1 problems are. No, I'm not moving there, but 2 that's based from a consumer's point of view 3 and also on the ZBA for failure to develop a 4 degree of practical difficulty. The sign does 5 not meet the request for the variance. Thank 6 you. 7 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Member 8 Gronachan. Member Krieger. 9 MS. KRIEGER: I have a question. 10 In the past in Novi for off-site signs, for 11 restaurants for example that they wanted a 12 directional sign that was denied, is that a 13 relation to this? Could somebody come in the 14 future and say you offered it to these people, 15 why not us? 16 MR. SAVEN: The only district 17 where an off-premise sign is allowed is in an 18 I-2 district. That's one of the zoning 19 districts that could have this particular 20 allowance. That's the only one that I'm aware 21 of. 22 MS. KRIEGER: Thank you. 23 MR. FISCHER: Mr. Schultz, did you 24 have a comment relative to this? 25 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a general
61 1 comment. I know it's Member Krieger's first 2 full meeting on the Board. 3 The Board looks at each of 4 these, each case that comes before it as a 5 separate case. Be advised that, other than 6 general principles, what you decide in one case 7 is not precedent for the next case, each case 8 has a different set of facts and circumstances. 9 So if that was kind of the 10 general frame of your question, you should look 11 at this case against the requirements and 12 address it separate and on its own. 13 MS. KRIEGER: Thank you. 14 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. 15 Schultz. 16 Member Canup. 17 MR. CANUP: I'd like to point out 18 the fact that if you look at Eleven Mile 19 between Taft Road and Beck Road there's 20 probably 500 homes on the south side of Eleven 21 Mile, and to my recollection I don't recall any 22 off-site signs being allowed for any of those 23 and those homes all sold. I think it's just 24 the way it is. 25 I personally think this is a
62 1 case of sign pollution and I got to drive by 2 this thing everyday and I really don't care to 3 look at it. What about all the other people 4 that have to drive by it and look at it. And 5 it's an off-site sign and I just do not see a 6 need for it. And with that, to have the 7 petitioner come back with more information 8 isn't going to change my mind, and I would make 9 a motion. 10 MS. GRONACHAN: Through the Chair, 11 if I can address your statement. 12 The reason why I was 13 suggesting more information is because if he 14 could substantiate that there truly is people 15 that cannot find the site, I would be in 16 support of a much smaller directional sign, but 17 a directional sign, not anything of this 18 magnitude, if there was information that 19 substantiated the degree of practical 20 difficulty of finding this subdivision. 21 That's why I was giving the 22 petitioner the opportunity to provide that 23 information, because I don't feel that there's 24 enough information in this before us this 25 evening.
63 1 MR. FISCHER: Still having the 2 floor, Mr. Canup. Proceed. 3 MR. CANUP: I would like to make a 4 motion that we deny the request as stated due 5 to the fact of insufficient or non-proven 6 hardship and there's no reason to grant a 7 variance of an off-premises sign for this 8 particular case, again due to the fact that 9 there's probably 500 homes or residences in 10 that community or in that general area that 11 have survived and sold without the kind of sign 12 that is being proposed. 13 MR. BAUER: Second. 14 MR. FISCHER: There's a motion and 15 a second. Is there any further discussion? 16 MR. SCHULTZ: Just to change 17 hardship back to the practical difficulty. 18 MR. CANUP: So moved. 19 MR. BAUER: So moved. 20 MR. FISCHER: Both agree. Seeing 21 no further discussion, Ms. Backus please call 22 the roll. 23 MS. BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 24 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 25 MS. BACKUS: Member Canup?
64 1 MR. CANUP: Yes. 2 MS. BACKUS: Member Bauer? 3 MR. BAUER: Yes. 4 MS. BACKUS: Member Krieger? 5 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 6 MS. BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 7 MS. GRONACHAN: No. 8 MS. BACKUS: And Member Fischer? 9 MR. FISCHER: No. 10 MS. BACKUS: Motion passes 4 to 0. 11 MR. FISCHER: At this time your 12 variance has been denied. 13 MR. KLIGMAN: Mr. Chairman, is it 14 okay to make a comment at this point? Just to 15 address your concerns about the specific 16 language on the sign, I was specifically told 17 when I applied that the language was not a 18 consideration on the application, they just 19 wanted a size. That sign that I attached was 20 just a copy of the existing entrance sign that 21 we have. I actually had the sign company show 22 what, you know, the conversation with the sign 23 company of what we wanted to do on the 24 specifics and the timing we wanted in relation 25 to getting this in for this meeting. We just
65 1 submitted based on conversation just shown sign 2 size. The specifics of the sign were what I 3 discussed, just showing a directional arrow, it 4 has no names of the builders, just has priced 5 from. That was the intent of the language on 6 there, and I apologize that there was a mistake 7 on my part, but I was told specifically that 8 the language on my application was irrelevant. 9 And then relating to the 10 specifics of our experience, you know, we've 11 built 83 homes in Chase Farms, we've been in 12 Novi since '91, we're doing six to nine hundred 13 homes in Northville. And knock on wood, I'm 14 one of the builders, I have six pre-sold and 15 three reservations right now, I'm having some 16 success in there, but to me that is a function 17 I have two existing models in Stonewater 18 Subdivision, one in the 8's and one 2.2 19 million. I have directional maps and layout of 20 the subdivision that I hand out to every 21 prospect that comes through my model. 22 My other competitors in 23 Asbury Park do not have that advantage of 24 having an existing model in a surrounding 25 development and therefore -- and also to
66 1 comment on additional advertising, we, as a 2 joint group, including the developer, paid 3 significant funds for a six-month advertising 4 campaign. In addition to that, I did direct 5 mail pieces. I know I'm going to survive, I'm 6 clearly generating sales in there, but I'm also 7 representing -- I think I should have greater 8 sales velocity based on the quality of this 9 community, based on the quality of the product 10 we're building, and our competitors are not 11 building an unattractive product. They just 12 don't have a resource to direct traffic there 13 other than the print ad we've done in The News 14 and The Observer Eccentric and I've done direct 15 mail pieces as well, and we're not getting the 16 results we should have from there, and my 17 experience tells me this is a function of 18 exposure. And the sign that we're proposing at 19 Eleven and Beck will allow people that are 20 interested an awareness perhaps to drive in 21 that direction. 22 MR. FISCHER: Thank you. We 23 appreciate those comments and should you 24 discuss with the Building Department other 25 options, you might want to include some of
67 1 those in the presentation as well if you were 2 before also them at a later time, but at this 3 time unfortunately it's denied. 4 MR. KLIGMAN: Okay. Thank you for 5 your time. 6 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, sir. 7 The last case of the night, 8 I'd like to call case number 05-070. This case 9 is filed by Alan Okon of Nudell Architects for 10 Bank One. The petitioner is requesting four 11 variances from the zoning ordinance and those 12 variances include a 12-foot parking lot setback 13 variance, a two-car stacking space variance at 14 the drive-through, a variance to the loading 15 and unloading space requirment and a variance 16 from the interior landscape requirements around 17 the building. Did you wish to make further 18 comments, Mr. Schmitt? 19 MR. SCHMITT: I would at this 20 time, if it pleases the Board. 21 MR. FISCHER: Please do. 22 MR. SCHMITT: I just want to 23 clarify one of the issues in front of you this 24 evening. The two-car stacking space is 25 actually for each of the windows. So it's a
68 1 total of eight, which is I think why we're here 2 this evening. When this went to the Planning 3 Commission, actually it's only been two weeks 4 ago, the Planning Commission had a long 5 discussion on this project and the main issue 6 really came down to stacking spaces. You know, 7 we discussed the loading and the landscaping 8 previously, not to presume anything but I'm 9 going to leave those alone and be happy to 10 answer any questions you might have at this 11 time. 12 It really leaves us with two 13 issues. One, the setback in the rear yard, and 14 it's really the northeast corner of the 15 property, and I -- this is partially my fault. 16 I probably should have brought this up to the 17 Planning Commission but it really wasn't an 18 issue. 19 When this site first came in 20 and we met with the applicant, it was actually 21 about 12,000 square feet smaller. Whoever 22 parceled off this corner back when they 23 parceled it and then the Grand River and Beck 24 Road right-of-way came out, the site was about 25 7/10th, 8/10ths of an acre roughly. We told
69 1 them, given our history with dealing with banks 2 and small sites, that's probably not going to 3 work, we suggest they look for some more 4 property. They ended up picking up 55 5 additional feet, which has gotten them down to 6 this one dimensional issue that obviously we 7 can speak to, if you like. 8 In terms of the stacking, 9 it's been an ongoing question as to how to 10 really solve this. I mean, human nature is 11 that when you have a situation like this you're 12 going to drive up, you're going to sit back a 13 little bit and wait for the first window to 14 open. That's usually what I do, to be honest 15 with you. I don't want do get in a lane 16 because it's like the grocery store, you always 17 end up in the slowest lane. 18 So what the petitioner is 19 giving you this evening is, to be frank, what 20 we've seen from a lot of different applicants. 21 National City is not here anymore but National 22 City has a pretty odd stacking configuration on 23 their own. Their site is a little bit 24 different, it's a little bit bigger, and they 25 have frontage, through frontage between Twelve
70 1 and Grand River, so they have a little room to 2 snake around, but just with -- we're not big 3 fans of having these odd configurations. I 4 mean, ultimately we would prefer to just see X 5 number of stacking spaces at the window. 6 In the past the Planning 7 Commission made the determination that if you 8 can creatively fit them on the site that was 9 their preference, and that is what we've gone 10 forward with, knowing, of course, some of these 11 configurations are somewhat unrealistic what 12 they can fit on the site. 13 This is the first one we have 14 that just flat couldn't get it on the site and 15 still have the bypass lane for the fire 16 marshals, because what you have in front of you 17 has it, meets it perfectly fine with stacking. 18 The fire marshal would have questions as to 19 whether or not we can get a car through and we 20 always defer to the fire marshal. So that's 21 really from our perspective and I think from 22 the Planning Commission's perspective, and I 23 don't want to put words in their mouth, I 24 apologize we don't have the minutes, but to 25 turn around -- and I came in the next morning
71 1 and I found out that they were going to be able 2 to make the agenda by about four hours. 3 So that was really the issue 4 at the Planning Commission, was the stacking 5 space. They were denied at the Planning 6 Commission. There was no table. So the 7 decision in front of the ZBA this evening on 8 these four variances will have the effect of 9 granting site plan approval. We do not expect 10 this, we'll go back to the Planning Commission 11 for any further discussion. I just wanted to 12 point those couple issues out and I'll be happy 13 to answer any questions at the appropriate 14 time. 15 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. 16 Schmidt. 17 Please raise your hand and be 18 sworn in by our secretary. 19 MS. GRONACHAN: Do you swear or 20 affirm that the information that you're about 21 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 22 MR. OKON: Yes. 23 MS. GRONACHAN: Thank you. 24 MR. FISCHER: Please state your 25 name, address and proceed.
72 1 MR. OKON: Good evening. My name 2 is Alan Okon from Nudell Architects, 31690 West 3 Twelve Mile, Farmington Hills. 4 As Tim has mentioned, we have 5 been working with Tim and the Planning 6 Department, Engineering Department since 7 December and we looked at this corner as it's a 8 tough site, it's one of those situations where 9 it's a great location but it's a tough site. 10 And when we originally approached Tim we sat 11 down and talked and we told him what our 12 intention was and he gave us some information 13 with regards to the surrounding parcels on what 14 the future development hopefully will be in the 15 surrounding parcels. 16 And one of the problems we 17 originally ran into was the need for some extra 18 land. We were, as Tim mentioned, we were able 19 to purchase 55 additional feet to the rear of 20 us, which is a different landowner of our 21 current site. We were not able to purchase any 22 property to the side. We did pursue that 23 because right now it is a skinny site. They 24 have their intentions of developing around us 25 and we're trying to adapt what their plans are.
73 1 So we were unsuccessful purchasing land to the 2 side of us but we were able to purchase land, 3 like I said an additional 55 feet, which help 4 us with our retention and helping with our 5 setbacks. 6 One of the things that hurt 7 our site on this, too, was since this is 8 two-sided or two major frontage site it 9 requires larger setbacks than typical I think. 10 Tim could speak for a lot of the other banks. 11 We're in a different district than most of the 12 other banks that are located in this community 13 and with the OST we have to restrict -- we have 14 a little bit more restrictive setbacks for our 15 frontage. 16 With that put together we 17 laid out the site as best as we could and with 18 trying to maximize every single piece of 19 property that we have. When we looked at the 20 stacking, what we did is fortunately for us we 21 have another branch in your community, and that 22 is located at Novi Road and Grand River, and 23 then another one we had that is six, almost 24 seven miles away, was the one at Milford Road 25 and Grand River. What I've been able to do is
74 1 I've approached those banking centers and I 2 wasn't able to get second quarter 2005, it just 3 happened, but I was able to get first quarter 4 2005 so I was trying to get some very 5 up-to-date transaction numbers and what I've 6 handed out to you tonight is a little summary. 7 What I did was I looked at 8 the drive-through transactions, assuming that 9 one person makes one transaction, that's really 10 the worst case, versus somebody making multiple 11 transactions at the same visit. So we took the 12 worst case and said, okay, one transaction 13 equals one customer. And what we did is we 14 went through -- they gave me a really nice 15 spreadsheet that gave me transactions for 16 everyday, every hour, they do them by hour, and 17 I gathered all the information, I took the 18 peak, the worst case, and this -- what we're 19 proposing is the same type of clientele that is 20 at these other two banking centers that I'm 21 giving you examples of. 22 At Grand River and Novi they 23 have their peak transactions for the 24 drive-throughs is from 12:00 noon to one 25 o'clock p.m. and the average peak was 14.1.
75 1 Now, that's total, that's not per lane, that's 2 total. Then we looked at Milford Road and 3 Grand River and their peak was a little bit 4 later, I think they have a little bit more 5 businesses over there. They came out to 12.7. 6 Again, that's all transactions for all 7 drive-through lanes together, not just one 8 lane. Putting those together, it comes out to 9 really close to 13 transactions and I asked the 10 banking center manager what a typical 11 transaction time is; a typical transaction is 12 five minutes. 13 So I looked at that and I 14 said, okay, that's roughly about 4.3 customers 15 per lane per hour on the peak and looking at 16 that -- like I said, we don't anticipate this 17 banking center being any different. I wish I 18 could stand in front of you and I hope our 19 numbers were better than that but we don't 20 anticipate that at all. If we had to provide 21 additional space than the six required, that 22 would also include having more parking lot 23 space, a lot more asphalt pavement and, again, 24 we're trying to eliminate as much as we could. 25 Looking at the site specific,
76 1 what I did was I outlined where the four per 2 lane would be located and it took worst case 3 and said, okay, if we had to do some overflow, 4 we do have room on our site and the angled 5 parking, we've already told the Planning 6 Department that we would designate those as 7 employees. So on our busiest peak we would 8 have our most employees working so those 9 parking spots would not be in and out during 10 the peak hours. 11 With that in mind, I think we 12 can -- we really hashed out the interior 13 landscaping and the loading zone. With regard 14 to the loading zone, the only deliveries we 15 have is Brinks trucks obviously and it's our 16 policy that we deliver those as close to the 17 front door as possible for the least amount of 18 exposure, and the only other delivery trucks we 19 get is the typical Fed Ex or UPS truck for 20 packages. Other than that we don't have any 21 large trucks, we don't have any need for any 22 large deliveries, it's basically just office 23 supplies, mail and obviously money deposits. 24 With that in mind, I'm here 25 to answer any questions that the commissioners
77 1 have. 2 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, sir. 3 There were 13 notices mailed 4 in this case. There were zero approvals and 5 zero objections. 6 Is there anyone in the 7 audience that wishes to comment on this case? 8 Seeing none, does the 9 Building Department have any further comments? 10 MR. SAVEN: I would wish for the 11 applicant to point out to the Board where that 12 setback requirement is that he is requesting. 13 MR. OKON: Sure. 14 MR. FISCHER: If you want to grab 15 the microphone behind you if you're going to 16 speak at all, and if we could have that turned 17 on, please. 18 MR. OKON: The current ordinance 19 requires a 20-foot parking setback and we were 20 able to almost meet it except for this corner 21 right here. We're trying to keep the corner 22 free so we had a bypass lane. And also working 23 with Tim and the Planning Department -- with 24 regards to the parking setback, the ordinance 25 calls for a 20-foot setback in the rear. We
78 1 were able to meet that except for the corner, 2 the northeast corner. With this we wanted to 3 make sure we had a bypassing lane so people 4 could get around, the fire marshal wanted that, 5 things like that, so we had to chop into some 6 of the setback. 7 Now, working with the 8 Planning Department, we do know that there is a 9 future development, I couldn't tell you when 10 it's going to happen, but there is going to be 11 a development that is going to happen around 12 here. Our goal is to be able to maintain an 13 access to that surrounding development to be 14 all one, to be a connection point I guess I 15 should say, and at that time more than likely 16 what's going to happen, working with Tim here a 17 lot of this is going to go away. The detention 18 basin is going to go away, we're going to have 19 a nice shared one and we're going to have some 20 access points throughout our parking lot so 21 it's easier for people to get around the site. 22 MR. FISCHER: Thank you. 23 Any further comment, Mr. 24 Saven? 25 MR. SAVEN: No.
79 1 MR. FISCHER: Board members, any 2 discussion? Member Sanghvi. 3 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. 4 Chairman. 5 I thought at least for the 6 sake of discussion we should group these four 7 variances in two different segments, one about 8 the stacking and the setback, and one for the 9 routine banking business. The last two are of 10 no major consequence here, but the first two we 11 need to look at. And looking at the site, 12 looking at the future development there, the 13 development where the Beck Road extension is 14 being developed now and the availability of the 15 space, I think it's really hard to do anything 16 other than what they have suggested on this 17 thing and I have no difficulty in supporting 18 their request for the first two as well as the 19 second two variances. Thank you. 20 MR. FISCHER: Thank you. 21 Any other Board members? 22 I have a question, it might 23 be mine as well -- it is that one, okay -- for 24 the Building Department. Is there a minimum 25 amount of drive-through lanes that they are
80 1 required to have? 2 MR. SAVEN: I'll defer to 3 Planning. 4 MR. SCHMIDT: No, there's no 5 minimum, there's no maximum. If you look 6 across the street, actually at Beck Road, TCF, 7 they got six. We've seen them -- I think we 8 just approved, I want to say Comerica only had 9 two, maybe three. So we've seen a pretty broad 10 gamut. On average, though, four is usually the 11 number we see. 12 MR. FISCHER: So if you have two, 13 three, four, five, six each time, you still 14 have to have six -- TCF would have 36 spots. 15 MR. SCHMITT: TCF, in fact, has 36 16 loading spots designated on their site plan. 17 MR. FISCHER: Okay. I just want 18 to make sure there wasn't a minimum vehicle 19 allotment. So that was my only question. 20 Any other Board members? 21 Member Gronachan. 22 MS. GRONACHAN: Mr. Schmidt, can 23 you clarify this as well then. So if they had 24 only two drive-ins, drive-throughs, right? 25 MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
81 1 MS. GRONACHAN: They wouldn't 2 require -- it would still be six vehicles per 3 drive-through? 4 MR. SCHMITT: Yes. They would 5 likely -- I can't say for a hundred percent 6 certain, but in this case, given the way that 7 it's laid out, as you drop it you're going to 8 take off a factor of two because they have four 9 at every window. So you're two short, so if 10 you drop down to three you're going to take two 11 stacking spaces that they don't have, they 12 don't need those anymore, so now you're going 13 to have six that they're short. So, yes, to 14 answer your question you are correct. As you 15 drop down, the actual number will drop down, 16 but it's still six per window. 17 MS. GRONACHAN: So if they only 18 had two drive-throughs, would they still need 19 that variance? 20 MR. SCHMITT: Likely, yes, because 21 of the narrowness of the site. The drawing you 22 have in front of you, best case they can get 23 five for three windows. 24 MS. GRONACHAN: What about two 25 windows?
82 1 MR. SCHMITT: You could still get 2 five in front of both windows. Actually, I'll 3 show you on the overhead here. 4 MS. GRONACHAN: While you're 5 setting that up, can I continue with my other 6 question then that goes concurrent with that? 7 If they had only two 8 drive-throughs then what would -- how would the 9 drive-through impact that setback, that 20-foot 10 setback? 11 MR. FISCHER: You're referring to 12 the parking setback, not the drive-through 13 stacking setback? 14 MS. GRONACHAN: Correct. 15 MR. SCHMITT: That's a very good 16 question. I believe they could drop to three 17 and actually possibly meet the setback. 18 MS. GRONACHAN: I'm sorry. 19 MR. SCHMITT: I believe they could 20 drop to three drive-through lanes and still 21 possibly meet the setback requirement. 22 Certainly if they dropped to two, there's room 23 to maneuver back there. As Alan mentioned, one 24 of the reasons that we never really push it 25 that hard is because, A, they got extra
83 1 property and, B, we have a sense what's going 2 on around them. Eventually it's probably going 3 to be a condominium-type development similar to 4 the way West Market Square's under ownership, 5 not necessarily the way it's developed. So, 6 yes, start reducing the number of 7 drive-throughs, there's a potential to 8 eliminate the setback issue. 9 The question then to the 10 stacking, if you'll notice, each one of these 11 has four in its current configuration, and they 12 could get four easily. These three along the 13 edge here, we could conceivably work a way to 14 get those in and still have a bypass lane. 15 You're still short. So then if you take off 16 this northern-most lane, you could still get 17 those three in probably but you're still short 18 and then as you're moving you're still going to 19 end short. There's no way to add two 20 additional spaces directly at the stacking site 21 is I think the quandary here. The only way to 22 add additional spaces is to swing those out. 23 MS. GRONACHAN: Okay. So if we 24 reduced it to two lanes -- correct? 25 MR. SCHMITT: I'm comfortable in
84 1 saying we can do it with three. 2 MS. GRONACHAN: Okay, but I sit 3 here -- 4 MR. SCHMITT: And that's perfectly 5 fine, to let you know where I'm at. 6 MS. GRONACHAN: I understand where 7 you are, but I'm at a different place. If we 8 went to two lanes, then we would wipe out that 9 20-foot setback altogether, correct, thus 10 creating a request for lesser variance? 11 MR. SCHMITT: I can almost 12 guarantee that. Without seeing the plans, I 13 can't say for a hundred percent, but yes, I can 14 almost guarantee that. 15 MS. KRIEGER: Well, based on that 16 information, I will not be supporting that due 17 to the fact based on the recent discussion it's 18 been proved that this development can be done 19 with lesser variances and I think the 20 petitioner should entertain that. Thank you, 21 Chairman Fischer. 22 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Member 23 Gronachan. 24 Do other Board members have 25 any comments? Member Krieger.
85 1 MS. KRIEGER: According to the map 2 that you just handed us out, the east area, if 3 there was a stacking that was that far back, 4 would those -- how would a fire truck or police 5 car get past in there if it was that full? Is 6 there a passing lane on that east side. 7 MR. OKON: If I could respond. 8 That's what I was trying to point out. In 9 worst cases, going by the ordinance, the 10 ordinance requirements, I couldn't be able do 11 that. I wanted to show that they were going to 12 be able to be on site, but that's why we had a 13 problem, trying to go for some more property to 14 the east to be able to get a passing lane, but 15 we're unable to negotiate with the landlord or 16 the landowner on that. So what I wanted to do 17 is show what the ordinance, what make us happen 18 on our site, on our actual site plan. 19 With regards to -- with 20 regards to eliminating some of -- the amount of 21 drive lanes, that actually hurts our cause 22 because I'm going to have 14 transactions no 23 matter if there's one, two, three, four or five 24 lanes of drive-throughs. The more 25 drive-throughs I have it actually helps me as a
86 1 business to get those customers in and out so I 2 don't have a stacking problem. So with 3 eliminating -- what our goal is, is the first 4 three lanes are going to be full transactions 5 and then the outside lane is going to be an 6 ATM, 24-hour ATM. So eliminating, going down 7 to two it actually hurts our cause because now 8 I only have one lane with full transactions and 9 I know I'm going to have 14 transactions on a 10 peak hour. So it's actually going to stack up 11 the cars even more. 12 MS. KRIEGER: Okay. Thank you. 13 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Member 14 Krieger. You stole my thunder on that one. I 15 was thinking the same thing. My willingness to 16 drop the number of lanes you have severely goes 17 down when you take into consideration that 18 leaves less spots for cars to pull into, 19 therefore creating more of an overflow. And I 20 guess my question that I would ask the Board 21 members is, is the parking setback more 22 important or is our fire protection and police 23 for this site more important? And in my eyes 24 I'm going to go with the protection of the 25 building, the people inside, the customers
87 1 inside, etcetera. So I would be willing, as 2 previous speakers have said, to support both 3 sets of variances, if you will. 4 Other board members. 5 MS. GRONACHAN: I would like to 6 reiterate something. I do feel that there is a 7 safety issue here, based on that. As Member 8 Krieger brought out, if with these cars parked, 9 even though they're employees, there's no 10 backing out, there's no getting in. If you're 11 car number 3 in this lane and you decide that 12 you don't want to wait any longer, you're 13 stuck. There's nowhere to go. So I think that 14 this is not a good plan for this particular -- 15 I almost think that this -- not that I'm an 16 architect, but I'm almost beginning to think 17 that the building should be flipped so that the 18 other end of it -- because I would be more 19 likely to waive landscaping for more area to 20 drive through than this one lane for these cars 21 to go through or lesser drive-through lanes. 22 And, again, if that -- if the 23 area cannot support the business and the amount 24 of variances that this petitioner is 25 requesting, and it's been substantiated by our
88 1 Planning Department that fewer lanes would 2 reduce the variances, then maybe this isn't the 3 piece of property for him. I'm sorry, but I 4 can't -- 5 MR. BAUER: I agree. 6 MS. GRONACHAN: You do? Good, 7 because I was beginning to wonder. 8 MR. FISCHER: Is that all, Member 9 Gronachan? 10 MS. GRONACHAN: Yes. Thank you, 11 Mr. Chairman. 12 MR. FISCHER: Member Canup, do you 13 have comments to make? 14 MR. CANUP: I guess what all this 15 really boils down to is they're attempting to 16 overbuild the site, really, what it all comes 17 down to. Their plan is to put too much on too 18 small of a site. And with that, I guess, any 19 of the variances requested I would have a hard 20 time -- in fact, I just would not vote for 21 approval of any of the variances requested, 22 again due to the fact that they're just trying 23 to overbuild the site. 24 So with that, if there's -- 25 any further discussion here?
89 1 MR. FISCHER: You have the floor, 2 sir. 3 MR. CANUP: I would make a motion, 4 if it's appropriate at this time, I would make 5 a motion that in case number 05-070, commonly 6 known as Bank One, we deny the requested 7 variances as stated for a lack of demonstrated 8 hardship and the fact that it appears that the 9 applicant is attempting to overbuild a smaller 10 piece of property and the property is usable in 11 other ways and could be developed with a 12 smaller usage for that particular piece. 13 MR. BAUER: Second. 14 MR. FISCHER: There is a motion 15 and a second. Mr. Schultz. 16 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may, Mr. Chair, 17 just, again, because it's a denial the reminder 18 that we're talking about the practical 19 difficulties standard. I think the maker of 20 the motion may comment about overbuilding the 21 site that I think could be incorporated. And 22 I'm wondering whether the two variances that 23 relate to the issues that have been before this 24 Board, even a couple of times today, are 25 included in the reasoning or whether you want
90 1 to have a separate statement that your denial 2 as to those is because the site itself doesn't 3 work, and I'm talking about the loading and 4 unloading and the four-foot green belt, that 5 your denial is just based on the fact that the 6 rest of the -- the other two variances preclude 7 the development of the property. 8 MR. CANUP: I think without -- my 9 reasoning was that without these two variances 10 they're going to have to go back and do a 11 complete redesign if they're going to use this 12 piece of property and to grant -- to even 13 consider granting the other variances is more 14 or less a moot point. So that was my reasoning 15 in that. 16 MR. SCHULTZ: I appreciate that 17 and thank you for that clarification. I think 18 that helps. 19 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. 20 Schultz. 21 There still is a motion and 22 second. Further discussion? 23 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, 24 please call the roll. 25 MS. BACKUS: Member Canup?
91 1 MR. CANUP: Yes. 2 MS. BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 3 MS. GRONACHAN: Yes. 4 MS. BACKUS: Member Bauer? 5 MR. BAUER: Yes. 6 MS. BACKUS: Ms. Krieger? 7 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 8 MS. BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 9 MR. SANGHVI: No. 10 MS. BACKUS: And Member Fischer? 11 MR. FISCHER: No. 12 MS. BACKUS: Motion passes 4 to 2. 13 MR. FISCHER: Your variance at 14 this time has been denied. 15 That does conclude the cases 16 that we have before us. Comments, gentlemen? 17 Comments? 18 At this time I'll entertain a 19 motion to adjourn. 20 MR. SANGHVI: So moved. 21 MS. GRONACHAN: Second. 22 MR. FISCHER: Did you have further 23 comments? 24 MR. SAVEN: Absolutely not. 25 MR. FISCHER: Lastly, I'd like to
92 1 welcome the newest member. Could we have a 2 round of applause for her. 3 (Applause.) 4 MS. GRONACHAN: You're the newest 5 member, this is your second meeting, so our 6 Building Department -- 7 MR. FISCHER: And Mr. Hines as 8 well. 9 (Applause.) 10 MR. FISCHER: We look forward to 11 working with you. 12 There is a motion and a 13 second. All in favor of adjourning say aye. 14 THE BOARD: Aye. 15 MR. FISCHER: Meeting adjourned. 16 (The Meeting was concluded 17 at 9:05 p.m.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
93 1 2 3 C E R T I F I C A T E 4 5 I, Glenn Miller, do hereby certify that 6 I have recorded stenographically the 7 proceedings had and testimony taken in the 8 above-entitled matter at the time and place 9 hereinbefore set forth, and I do further 10 certify that the foregoing transcript, 11 consisting of eighty-one (81) typewritten 12 pages, is a true and correct transcript of my 13 said stenograph notes. 14 15 16 --------------------------- 17 Glenn Miller 18 Certified Shorthand Reporter 19 20 21 --------------- 22 (Date)
|