View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting

Regular Meeting-Zoning Board of Appeals
City of Novi, Tuesday, August 2, 2005

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.

Justin Fischer, Chairman
Mav Sanghvi
Brent Canup
Gerald Bauer
Linda Krieger
Cynthia Gronachan
Gail Backus, Recording Secretary
Thomas R. Schultz, Esq., City Attorney
Donald Saven, Building Official
Timothy Schmitt, Planning Official

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?


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





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20 One Bank, they called and asked to be withdrawn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





1 motion to approve as amended.

2 MR. BAUER: So moved.

3 MR. FISCHER: All in favor say

4 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





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





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





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.





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?





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





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.





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





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





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.





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.





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?


10 MS. BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


12 MS. BACKUS: Member Sanghvi?


14 MS. BACKUS: Member Fischer?


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





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





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.





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?


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





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.





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.





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?


24 MS. BACKUS: Member Fischer?

25 MR. FISCHER: Aye.





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





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





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?





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.





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





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?





1 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, will

2 you please call the roll.

3 MS. BACKUS: Member Sanghvi?


5 MS. BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


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.





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.





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





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





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.





1 MS. BACKUS: Member Krieger?


3 MS. BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


5 MS. BACKUS: Member Sanghvi?


7 MS. BACKUS: And Member Fischer?


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.





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





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





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





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





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?


25 MS. BACKUS: Member Fischer?






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.





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





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.





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?


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





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





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





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





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





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?


22 MS. BACKUS: Member Fischer?

23 MR. FISCHER: Aye.

24 MS. BACKUS: Motion passes 6 to 0.

25 MS. GRONACHAN: You should be





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





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





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





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?


24 MS. BACKUS: Member Bauer?

25 MR. BAUER: Yes.





1 MS. BACKUS: Member Krieger?


3 MS. BACKUS: Member Sanghvi?


5 MS. BACKUS: Member Fischer?


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





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





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





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





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





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





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





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





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





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





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.





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?





1 MR. CANUP: Yes.

2 MS. BACKUS: Member Bauer?

3 MR. BAUER: Yes.

4 MS. BACKUS: Member Krieger?


6 MS. BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


8 MS. BACKUS: And Member Fischer?


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





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





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





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





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





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





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





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.





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.





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





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.





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,





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





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





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.





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





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.





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?





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





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





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.





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





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





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





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?





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





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?





1 MR. CANUP: Yes.

2 MS. BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


4 MS. BACKUS: Member Bauer?

5 MR. BAUER: Yes.

6 MS. BACKUS: Ms. Krieger?


8 MS. BACKUS: Member Sanghvi?


10 MS. BACKUS: And Member Fischer?


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?


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


24 MR. SAVEN: Absolutely not.

25 MR. FISCHER: Lastly, I'd like to





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.)















3 C E R T I F I C A T E


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.



16 ---------------------------

17 Glenn Miller

18 Certified Shorthand Reporter



21 ---------------

22 (Date)