|
REGULAR MEETING - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, Tuesday, February 7, 2006. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: Machelle Billingslea-Moore, Certified Shorthand Reporter.
1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3 7:30 p.m. 4 - - - - - - 5 MEMBER FISCHER: I'd like to 6 call to order the February, 2006 Zoning Board of 7 Appeals Meeting for the City of Novi. 8 Ms. Backus, would you please 9 call the roll. 10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 11 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup, 13 absent excused. 14 Member Fischer? 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Present. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Here. 18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger, 19 absent. 20 Member Sanghvi, absent 21 excused. 22 And Member Shroyer? 23 MEMBER SHROYER: Here. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: We do have a
3
1 quorum and our meeting is now in session. 2 And Member Shroyer? 3 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes, sir. 4 Thank you. 5 Now, before we move on to 6 making changes to the agenda, I have a 7 statement that I'd like to read quickly. 8 Since the attack on America on 9 9-4 or 9-11, I'm sorry, we have read and 10 heard daily accounts of the war on 11 terrorism. Without enumerating -- my 12 reading's hard to -- writing's hard to 13 read -- without enumerating daily accounts 14 of the various activities and threats on our 15 Country, and the dictators in which we all 16 know there is reason for concern. 17 This past year, our Country 18 has faced deadly fires and hurricanes, and 19 who knows what 2006 will bring. With all 20 this, we remain strong, and must continue to 21 pledge our allegiance to our flag and 22 Country. 23 Therefore, I would like to 24 lead our Board and audience in the Pledge of
4
1 Allegiance tonight; and request that the 2 Pledge of Allegiance be added as a line item 3 immediately following the roll call of ever 4 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, henceforth. 5 If a Motion is appropriate, so 6 moved. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Schultz 8 (unintelligible) a Motion. (Unintelligible) 9 there's a second? 10 There's a Motion and a second. 11 All in favor say aye? 12 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: I completely 14 agree. I'm glad you brought this to our 15 attention. 16 At this time, if you would 17 like to go ahead and lead us in the Pledge 18 of Allegiance. 19 MEMBER SHROYER: It would be my 20 honor. 21 BOARD MEMBERS: I Pledge 22 Allegiance to the flag and the United States 23 of America. And to the Republic for which 24 it stands; one nation, under God,
5
1 indivisible with liberty and justice for 2 all. 3 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, 4 Mr. Chairman. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 6 Member Shroyer. 7 As long as I'm Chairperson, 8 I'd like to see that on the agenda, as well. 9 As I said, there is a quorum 10 present. The meeting is now in session. 11 I'd like to go over a couple of the rules of 12 conduct Please turn off all cell phone and 13 pagers while in the chambers. And 14 individuals when addressing the Board will 15 have five minutes to speak and groups will 16 have ten minutes. 17 Given the case load we have 18 tonight, I will be asking our secretary to 19 adhere by these limitations. They are 20 couple of other rules on the agenda, if you 21 could please look over them. 22 The Zoning Board of Appeals is 23 a Hearing Board empowered by the Novi City 24 Charter to hear appeals seeking variances
6
1 from the application of the Novi Zoning 2 Ordinance. It takes a vote of at least four 3 members to approve a variance request, and a 4 vote of the majority present to deny a 5 request. 6 Tonight we have five Board 7 Members present. A full Board is not 8 present. So, if there are any Petitioners 9 that which to table their requests until the 10 next meeting when a full Board is present, 11 may do so now. 12 Is there anyone in the 13 audience that wishes to table their case 14 until a full Board? 15 Seeing none, I will -- 16 Yes? 17 MR. SAVEN: In regard to the 18 first case, number: 05-113 by Dixie Cut Stone 19 and Marble, their temporary use permit; they wish 20 to be tabled to the next following month. They 21 ran into a situation. They need to contact one 22 more neighbor (unintelligible) before they come 23 to the Board with the request. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: All right.
7
1 I'll suggest that they get -- 2 agree they should be tabled. 3 If we could have them as the 4 first case on the agenda? 5 Are there any other changes to 6 our current agenda? 7 MR. SAVEN: That's it. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 9 Then I'll entertain a Motion 10 to approve as amended? 11 MEMBER BAUER: So moved. 12 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: All in favor 14 says aye? 15 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: We have an 17 agenda. 18 I do not believe we had any 19 Minutes from the previous meeting; is that 20 correct? 21 GAIL BACKUS: That's correct. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. Then I 23 will open it up for public remarks from anyone in 24 the audience.
8
1 All comments related to a case 2 on the agenda should be held until that case 3 is called. 4 If anyone wishes to address 5 the Board on any matter or case not on the 6 agenda, please come forward now. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: The one on your 8 left. 9 State your name and address. 10 MR. FRANCIS: Thank you very 11 much, Mr. Chairman. 12 Members of the Board, my name 13 is Steve Francis. My address is 30150 14 Telegraph Road, Suite 420, Bingham Farms, 15 Michigan. 16 I'm here before the Board this 17 evening with a very simple request. I 18 actually am representing a company called 19 Metro PCS. We are, I believe, an agenda 20 item for next month's ZBA Hearing. 21 What my client has asked me to 22 do is appear before you tonight is to 23 request whether or not this Board would 24 entertain the notion of holding a special
9
1 meeting at a date prior to your March 7th 2 meeting, for the purpose of expediting our 3 request. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 5 And also, if you could tell us 6 any reasons why it might not be applicable 7 to wait until then. 8 MR. FRANCIS: I would put forth 9 that Metro PCS is a wireless carrier that's 10 entering this market to provide wireless 11 coverage. It has a planned roll-out that is 12 (unintelligible) this spring for the 13 construction of a wireless communication 14 site in the area. And quite frankly, 15 every -- time is very, very much of the 16 essence. A couple of weeks is a very -- is 17 a very big time, time in their eyes. 18 And that's -- instead of 19 waiting a month, if we could make a special 20 meeting, sometime in the next couple of 21 weeks, they would greatly appreciate it. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: What type of 23 date did you have in mind, given the fact there 24 are consideration that we would have to take into
10
1 effect (unintelligible) or into consideration, 2 given the (unintelligible) to hold a special 3 meeting, correct? 4 MR. SAVEN: That's correct. 5 MR. FRANCIS: Certainly we'd -- 6 MR. SAVEN: (unintelligible.) 7 notification to the public regarding this 8 (unintelligible) I'm sorry. 9 Okay. I would like to ask the 10 applicant, are you going through a Planning 11 process now? (Unintelligible) Planning 12 Department any issue regarding the Planning 13 Department approval? 14 MR. FRANCIS: Yes. 15 MR. SAVEN: Are you through 16 Planning right now? 17 MR. FRANCIS: Yes. 18 MR. SAVEN: Do you have final 19 site plan approval? 20 MR. FRANCIS: Pending the 21 issue that we would be before this Board. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: And a date in 23 mind? 24 MR. FRANCIS: I apologize,
11
1 Mr. Chairman. I did not bring a date. So I 2 would simply that it be done as soon as 3 notification could be effectuated. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 5 Are there any other questions? 6 My suggestion would be to have 7 this discussion under other matters, as to 8 not hold our other cases up, if that's okay. 9 Are there any other questions 10 that any Board Members would like to ask the 11 gentleman before we allow him to leave? 12 Mr. Shroyer? 13 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. 14 What type variances are you 15 requesting? 16 MR. FRANCIS: These are 17 variances that relate to equipment shelters 18 at the base of (unintelligible) wireless 19 communication sites. The requirement is 20 that they be brick sheltered. We're asking 21 for a site variance (unintelligible) from 22 that requirement. 23 MEMBER SHROYER: So a facade 24 variance?
12
1 MR. FRANCIS: Yes. 2 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Any other 4 questions? 5 MEMBER BAUER: (unintelligible) 6 make sure that we make a date so we work out 7 where we will have a Board. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Correct. 9 And we'll discuss -- I think 10 we should discuss whether to have the in 11 special meeting, and any dates in mind 12 during other matters. 13 And we thank you, and if you 14 want to give Ms. Backus a call tomorrow, I'm 15 sure she'll be more than happy to tell you 16 our findings. 17 MR. FRANCIS. Thank you very 18 much. I appreciate the help. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: With that, any 20 other public comments? 21 Seeing none, I'll close the 22 section of the meeting, and move on to our 23 first case. 24
13
1 Case number 05-112, filed by 2 Planet Neon Signs for Infinity Medical 3 Center, located at 28455 Haggerty Road. The 4 Petitioner is requesting two sign variances 5 to erect additional wall signs to be located 6 at said address; north of Twelve Mile Road 7 and on Haggerty Road. 8 And you're the Petitioner? 9 MR. DUWICK(ph): Yes, I'm John 10 Duwick. I'm with (unintelligible) Planet 11 Neon. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. Can you 13 please raise your hand and be sworn in by our 14 secretary. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 16 or affirm that the information that you're about 17 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 18 MR. DUWICK: I do. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Please state 20 your address and proceed, please. 21 MR. DUWICK: (Unintelligible) 22 located at 46593 Grand River, Novi, 23 Michigan. 24 I'm here on behalf of the
14
1 general contractor, JB Donaldson, who built 2 the facility, and the owner Infinity 3 Medical. 4 As you have before you, we are 5 requesting to put two additional wall signs 6 on this building. There are two primary 7 tenants in this facility. We put a ground 8 sign out front, as the facility was opening 9 this last month. We needed to get something 10 up. And we're now requesting for two 11 additional wall signs. 12 As you can see by the back -- 13 the site plan there, our setback on this 14 particular building is about 370 feet back 15 from the road. I think that setback is -- 16 will make it difficult to find that 17 building; along with the fact that the 18 property's -- especially on the one side -- 19 there is a proposed building, which sits in 20 front of our building, which make it even 21 more difficult to see when driving down the 22 road. 23 This is a medical facility. 24 It's important for people to be able to
15
1 locate this easily. It's -- I've been 2 before this Board before. We've -- there's 3 been similar properties that -- in that 4 area, that I think have multiple signs; not 5 only a ground sign, but wall signs. So, I 6 don't believe we're asking for anything that 7 you guys haven't looked at before; 8 understanding that every case is different, 9 this is -- particular facility. 10 The other thing regarding the 11 parking lot, if you look at the entrance on 12 the site plan, you'll see that when you 13 drive into this property -- when the 14 proposed building on the opposite side, 15 there will be the ability for people to turn 16 multiple directions. I think the name on 17 the building will also help guide traffic 18 through, and back to the property -- the 19 building, as well. 20 I'm open for any questions you 21 guys may have. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you very 23 much. 24 And for the Board, in this
16
1 case there were 24 notices mailed. There 2 were zero approvals and zero objections. 3 Is there anyone in the 4 audience that wishes to comment on this 5 case? 6 Seeing none, I'll move to the 7 Building Department for any comments? 8 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment. 9 MR. SAVEN: Just one comment. 10 Is this the double faced sign, 11 one on each side of the wall? 12 MR. DUWICK: No, it's a single 13 faced sign. (Unintelligible) wall sign 14 facing the road. There's two wall signs, 15 one on each side. 16 MR. SAVEN: Thank you. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 18 And I'll open it up for Board 19 discussion. 20 Member Krieger? 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: I have one 22 question regarding the one sign that says 23 West Bloomfield Family Practice. 24 That's the name of the
17
1 practice? 2 MR. DUWICK: Actually, that 3 particular name is going to change. So the 4 names are not quite correct on the drawing 5 that you have. One's going to say 6 Rehabilitation Physicians; and the other one 7 would say Infinity Primary Care. So there 8 is a slight change to the verbiage; but the 9 signs themselves would continue to be same 10 size. 11 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: And the 13 lettering, as well, that would stay the same? 14 MR. DUWICK: Same square 15 footage as (unintelligible.) 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 17 Any other Board Members? 18 Member Bauer. 19 MEMBER BAUER: I have no problem 20 with it. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 22 Member Bauer. 23 Member Shroyer? 24 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you,
18
1 Mr. Chair. 2 I'm almost certain this is 3 correct, but I want to double check. 4 The signs that you're 5 proposing are the same color as the monument 6 sign out front? 7 MR. DUWICK: Yes. 8 MEMBER SHROYER: So basically, 9 almost near the color of the brick on the 10 building, itself. So really the only thing 11 that's going to show is the white lettering? 12 MR. DUWICK: Correct. 13 MEMBER SHROYER: I mean, you'll 14 see a little bit of a background. 15 MR. DUWICK: We tried to blend 16 it in as best we could. 17 MEMBER SHROYER: According to 18 your letter, it does indicate that it is smaller 19 than the allowable size, if you were granted the 20 wall sign variance. So with that, I don't have 21 any problem. I think it's actually attractive; 22 make the building more attractive to have those 23 signs up there. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,
19
1 Mr. Shroyer. 2 And Member Gronachan? 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I concur with 4 the previous speakers' comments. Also, this is 5 knew and different area; in that amount the 6 amount of growth and the amount of new buildings 7 tends to cause some confusion out there. And I 8 don't feel this is overkill. I really feel that 9 in this particular case, it is for definite 10 building identification; but also Twelve Mile is 11 no place no get lost or try to be making a turn 12 or trying to figure out where you're going. 13 In driving out there today, I 14 noticed that the other previous buildings 15 that we approved, the site focuses you right 16 into that building. So -- and that's a good 17 thing. I think that's what this request 18 will do, as well. 19 So I'm in full support. 20 And if you'd like a Motion, 21 Mr. Chair, I'll be more than happy to do 22 that. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: I agree with 24 everyone.
20
1 I'd like to hear it. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 3 In Case Number 05-112 filed by 4 Planet Neon Signs for Infinity Medical 5 Center, I move that we approve the two 6 additional wall signs, given that the 7 Petitioner has indicated substantial needed 8 at this point; that there are two tenants -- 9 one being Rehabilitation Physicians, and 10 Infinity Primary Care -- for identification 11 purposes. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 14 Motion and a second. 15 Any further discussion? 16 Seeing none, Ms. Backus will 17 you please call the roll. 18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 21 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Shroyer?
21
1 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 4 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five 5 to zero. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance 7 has been granted. Please see the Building 8 Department, and good luck. 9 MR. DUWICK: Thank you. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 11 12 And we'll move along to Case 13 06-001, filed by Matthew Gudaitis, for a 14 property at 2115 West Lake Drive. The 15 applicant is requesting six variances for 16 the construction of a new home, located at 17 said address. 18 The applicant is requesting a 19 five foot front yard setback; eight foot 20 rear yard setback variance; north side yard 21 variance of six feet; south side yard 22 setback of 13 feet; and an aggregate side 23 yard of 19 feet; and a lot coverage variance 24 of 23 percent.
22
1 And you are the Petitioner? 2 MR. GUDAITIS: Yes, I am. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: And if you 4 could please raise your hand and be sworn in by 5 our secretary. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Both of you, 7 please. 8 Do you swear or affirm that 9 the information that you're about to give in 10 the matter before you is the truth? 11 MR. GUDAITIS: I do. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Please state 13 your name and address and please proceed. 14 MR. GUDAITIS: My name is Matt 15 Gudaitis. My current residence is 23233 16 Tucket in Farmington Hills. And this is my 17 architect, Lee. 18 MR. MAMOLA: Lee Mamola, Mamola 19 and Associates Architect, Novi. 20 I'll prepare the case. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 22 MR. MAMOLA: We had a strange 23 beginning to this project. A few days 24 before Christmas, Matt calls me out of the
23
1 blue from the courthouse, district 2 courthouse. He had just receive an Order 3 from the Judge, that he had to file for a 4 zoning variance on or before December 30th; 5 and by the way, the City Offices are closed 6 on December 30th this year. So we really 7 had to get it in by December 29th. 8 Which meant, that we had to 9 design a house and be very accurate -- as 10 accurate as we could, with our request for 11 variances. We did best we could, and got 12 the paperwork submitted on the 29th. I 13 believe you have that in front of you. 14 However, since that time, we have done a 15 number of other things. We've tried to 16 advance the design, in a manner that's 17 improved the functionalilty of the house; 18 but also in a manner that's sensitive to the 19 needs for mitigating the zoning variances -- 20 in the extent of the variances in this; as 21 well as being sensitive to the neighbors on 22 either side -- to the north and to the side. 23 Mr. Gudaitis has some specific 24 needs for this house, some of which involve
24
1 the necessity for a two-car garage and a 2 front door. If you drive within and around 3 some of the houses around the lake, you'll 4 notice the doors are actually to the side. 5 He wanted the door to face the front yard, 6 the street. 7 He also let it be known that 8 his parents will come and visit him from 9 time to time, and they needed to have a 10 bedroom on the main level. And a bedroom 11 with a private bath attached to it. 12 So those were some of the more 13 critical requirements, there were other 14 requirements, obviously. The total house is 15 a rather modest house in Novi. Totals about 16 2800 square feet. A little modest house, if 17 you compare it to some of the newer homes 18 around the lake area. 19 The dimensions of the 20 building -- now when we initially submitted 21 them, I think it was like 28 feet, eight 22 inches. It's now narrowed down to 27 feet, 23 it's widest part. We also recently found 24 out only in the past week, as we got a more
25
1 accurate survey, that the site which we were 2 lead to believe was 34 feet wide, is now 3 only 33 and a half feet wide. So lost some 4 space there on the site. 5 But the dimensions of the 6 house, if you look at the basic dimensions 7 on the floor plan in front of me here, it 8 sets forth the criteria (unintelligible) if 9 you start with the garage. We have not only 10 a car, but the walls where the garage doors 11 are, also needs some additional width for 12 structural reasons. If you can imagine the 13 side walls of a garage tipping a little bit 14 sideways, we have to take care and be very 15 careful to the attention to the structure 16 and the width of the walls. 17 Mr. Saven can (unintelligible) 18 Building Code I'm referring to, to give 19 proper stiffness to the house. If we could 20 go downward on the plans, we have a five 21 foot sidewalk, and about five foot four, I 22 believe, a little portion of a wall where 23 the front door is. So if you take that 24 garage and you take our side door entry
26
1 area, and that total is the maximum width 2 within that -- we had to work with the 3 confines of the rather narrow gally kitchen. 4 It's less than nine feet wide. The hallways 5 are less than four feet wide, I believe. 6 And the guest room has a door 7 to it that leads in the bathroom, that 8 causes the bathroom to be otherwise little 9 bit wider; but it's because of that privacy 10 factor for the parents that we need to 11 maintain that. So we believe we've made the 12 house as narrow as we can, given the 13 requirements for (unintelligible.) I think 14 they're rather modest requirements. 15 But in addition to that, we 16 also tried to make it narrower where it did 17 not have to be so wide. So in the initial 18 print, the site plan submitted back in 19 December, we showed basically a square box, 20 that was approximately 98 feet -- 90 feet by 21 28 feet and a few inches wide. 22 We've reduced that now to, I 23 said, 27 feet. We've also reduced the 24 length to about 85 feet, and we've reduced
27
1 the width. The garage and towards the -- 2 let's say the lakeside of the rear yard 3 side, by not extending that south wall. We 4 are requesting a variance -- or I'm sorry. 5 We're asking you to allow us to have a 6 setback along the north line, four feet. 7 There is four feet between the house to the 8 north of us and their wall line. 9 So it would result in about an 10 eight foot area between the two structures. 11 There is an existing structure 12 that's currently under construction 13 immediately to our south, as well. And 14 we've chosen to have the narrower strip of 15 grass, if you'd like, (unintelligible) it 16 will now be two feet. I think we had 17 indicated two and a half feet. I think we 18 had indicated two feet previously. 19 We feel we can get away with a 20 lesser setback there, because that house is 21 ten feet off our property, our southerly 22 property line. So we'll have a -- at the 23 worse case scenario, we'll have 12 and a 24 half feet from wall to wall. Also in moving
28
1 from west to east, the house, we did cut 2 about five feet off the length. We believe 3 we're within inches where the back wall of 4 the Matt's house will align with his 5 neighbor's back wall immediately to the 6 north. 7 So we're (unintelligible) 8 through their view, as they look out the 9 rear of their house, they don't want to see 10 another house. They don't want to see a 11 wall. It's proposed open space in that 12 area. The only area that I think is a 13 little unusual, is that we have -- we have 14 (unintelligible) width garage. We did not 15 have a basement planned for this house. And 16 it's very difficult to put basements in 17 houses that abut the lake this way. But we 18 do have a garage that's a little deeper than 19 normal, to accommodate (unintelligible) some 20 storage requirements. We're about ten feet 21 -- eight to ten feet deeper than normal. 22 That, again, is a necessity for certain 23 yards tools and other common storage needs. 24 So that's the essence of why
29
1 we need these variances, and we feel given 2 the history of the lot, property, 3 development, how it's platted, and the 4 constraints of the site, that we've done all 5 we could to mitigate these things -- to 6 mitigate the extent of the requirement. 7 I also have -- and I'm going 8 to ask the Board -- I submitted a memo to 9 Mr. Saven this afternoon. 10 Does the Board have a copy of 11 that February 7th -- 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes, we do. We 13 were given one tonight. 14 MR. MAMOLA: With that, we 15 stand for questions, and -- 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you very 17 much. 18 In this case, there were 28 19 notices mailed. There were two approvals 20 and two objections. 21 Madam Secretary, could you 22 please read the correspondence. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 24 The first one is from Cathleen
30
1 Kennedy at 2023 West Lake Drive. I approve 2 the plan and variances. I welcome him to 3 the neighborhood. 4 Next approval is from Sean 5 Brennan at 1720 South Lake Court. 6 Next one is from Jay 7 Rosenthal. It's an objection. We object to 8 a side yard setback of less than five feet. 9 This includes the deck. We feel that the 10 proposed three foot setback will cause undue 11 hardship to Mr. Rosenthal, who 12 incidentally has observed the ten foot 13 setback. We object to any variance being 14 granted, unless the applicant specifies that 15 the material design and architectural style 16 to be used, will be consistent in the 17 quantity -- quality -- I'm sorry -- with 18 Mr. Rosenthal's house. 19 Mr. Rosenthal's house 20 (unintelligible) brick and stone, and the 21 high standard has not compromised on the 22 north facade, which faces the subject 23 property. We would expect equal attention 24 to detail and quality of construction and
31
1 materials on the proposed home; and in 2 particular on that south facade. We believe 3 that this should be a pre-condition of 4 granting the five foot setback. 5 We would request the applicant 6 specify the proposed type of construction 7 with respect to windows located along the 8 north upper story of Mr. Rosenthal's house. 9 We request the construction not to be 10 detrimental to the view from those windows. 11 The next objection is from 12 Mick and Laurie Malles at 2111 West Lake 13 Drive; and the last name is M-a-l-l-e-s. We 14 strongly object with having our view 15 obstructed in the way of new structures 16 should not be any closer to the lake than 17 the existing structure. We have 35 foot 18 wide lots. A home 24 foot or less in width 19 is appropriate. 20 And that concludes the 21 correspondence this evening in this case. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 23 Madam Secretary. 24 Does anyone in the audience
32
1 wish to comment on this case? 2 Seeing none, I'll ask the 3 Building Department -- 4 I'm sorry. Go ahead, come 5 down. 6 MR. NECCI: Hi. My name is 7 Doug Necci. I'm the architect for Jim 8 Rosenthal, the property owner, located 9 immediately south of the subject property. 10 As we stated in our little 11 objection notice there, we feel that because 12 we've observed the ten foot setback for this 13 house on the south, that a five foot setback 14 would be reasonable request. And that we 15 feel something is -- not only understanding 16 as little as a two foot setback would be 17 detrimental to Mr. Rosenthal. 18 We also want to emphasize that 19 we see a direct linkage between the quality 20 of the design; inasmuch as the home to the 21 south is a very upscale home with very 22 unique materials. It's all brick and stone, 23 and there was no compromise to that when we 24 designed the north facade. In other words,
33
1 the windows on that facade are rimmed with 2 limestone, and it's fully (unintelligible), 3 very attractive facade. 4 So I know on some of these 5 homes there's a temptation to lessen the 6 quality of materials on the side 7 (unintelligible), because they're not seen 8 from the front of the house. But we would 9 simply request that there be a like mode of 10 design with respect to how we designed the 11 one to the south. There is a issue with 12 respect to the height, because there is a 13 bedroom along the -- on the upper story of 14 Mr. Rosenthal's home with several windows 15 that look out presently out to the lake. 16 Now, we understand this new home is going to 17 obstruct that view to some extent, but we 18 haven't been able look at any drawing that 19 tell us how tall this house is and what the 20 vertical expression of house. So we're very 21 interested to see that. 22 Also, we looked at the plans 23 on file. Now we understand the plans being 24 submitted are different than what's on file
34
1 with the City. We want to take a look at 2 those, as well. 3 Thank you. 4 MR. HAMMOND(ph): Michael 5 Hammond. I'm one of the designers on the 6 project working with Doug and Mr. Rosenthal. 7 When I heard about the variances going on, 8 Sunday night, I took the liberty of 9 designing a home for that lot. And I have 10 copies of that, if I could pass those out to 11 you. 12 Would that be okay? 13 MEMBER FISCHER: No, sir. 14 MR. SAVEN: It's the 15 Chairman's call, Board's call. 16 MR. HAMMOND: What I'm saying, 17 I believe that more work can be done on the 18 design of the house, from what I saw from 19 pictures. Now I designed a house that's 15 20 feet wide, that accommodates living room. 21 Dining room, bedrooms, second floor 22 (unintelligible.) Everything that he has in 23 his house, except I didn't know his wants 24 and needs, so I don't have a private bedroom
35
1 downstairs; but I have the space. 2 I'm not suggesting that they 3 do a house that's 15 feet wide. I'm just 4 suggesting that it's possible, with some 5 indepth research and looking at the project, 6 a house lesser than 27 feet can make the 7 accommodations of the home needs. 8 That's all I'm saying. And I 9 have the drawings here, if you'd like to see 10 them again. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: I think we're 12 all set for now, but thank you for your comments. 13 Anyone else? 14 MR. MALLES: Hi, I'm Nicholas 15 Malles, and I'm at 2111 West Lake Drive. I 16 border Matt's property to the north. 17 As you guys probably have 18 heard before, my main concern is my property 19 value. A new home is going to have a 20 positive impact on property values. A new 21 home that obstructs my view, will probably 22 have a negative impact on my property value. 23 And it sounds like Matt pretty much is 24 sensitive to my concerns. You said it's
36
1 going to be within a couple of inches of 2 your existing structure -- I haven't seen 3 the plans. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: If you could 5 address the Board, though, at this time. 6 MR. MALLES: Oh, sorry. 7 So if he says it's within a 8 few inches of the existing structure that's 9 there now, I don't have a problem with the 10 obstruction part of, you know, my concern. 11 I guess I would like to see -- as lake front 12 owners, there's really nothing in the 13 setback requirements that protects us. 14 There's everything else, but in the 15 writings, I don't see anything in there that 16 protects the lake front owners', the 17 obstruction of a new structure. 18 Can you guys comment on that? 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Not at this 20 time. Maybe during Board discussion, it might be 21 brought up. However this just the time for you 22 to tell us your comments. 23 MR. MALLES: I was concerned 24 about my view.
37
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 2 MR. MALLES: It sounds like he 3 took care of that. That's really all I 4 have. 5 Thank you. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you very 7 much. 8 I see one more person? 9 MS. BRASHFIELD: My name is 10 Deborah Brashfield. I own the property at 11 2105 West Lake Drive. My residence there 12 will be the third house north of property 13 that we're discussing this evening. 14 In regards to the actual 15 setback requested, I can't speak to how much 16 feet it should be on either way, I'd just 17 like to say that when I had the experience a 18 couple of years ago coming before the 19 Board -- (unintelligible) my home, too -- 20 that what we ended up doing was a 21 compromise; a modification of my original 22 request. And my house ended up being 23 23 feet wide, with lot that's about 31 and a 24 half feet wide.
38
1 And it was a matter of 2 compromise in working with the Board, and I 3 appreciated the effort that was put forth to 4 do that. I don't know how this exactly will 5 need to end up, but I just hope that 6 everyone can work together. 7 The improvements in that 8 neighborhood are ongoing, and they're all 9 welcome. 10 And that's -- I just hope to 11 see it continue. 12 Thank you. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 14 Is there anyone else in the 15 audience? 16 Seeing none, I'll ask the 17 Building Department for any comments? 18 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, on the 19 lake side, it's a very difficult situation, 20 because of the existing lot configuration that 21 are done in that particular area. When you're 22 involved in a lesser lot width, it becomes a very 23 difficult situation to try to make things work in 24 that area. Couple of things that bear in mind.
39
1 The gentleman that was up here 2 earlier, Mr. Malles -- 3 MR. MALLES: That's correct, 4 yes. 5 MR. SAVEN: -- in regards to 6 what the City has as far as Ordinance goes, the 7 City of Novi has a Ordinance that basically 8 dictates what the front, side and rear yard 9 setbacks are for the entire community, for buying 10 the lot, district and area. The other issue is 11 that certain projects are allowed into the rear 12 yard; example, decks. They're allowed to project 13 up to 18 feet into the required rear yard 14 setback, which is also on the lake side, okay. 15 I just want this known, 16 because these are part of (unintelligible) 17 that's allowable for things to happen. 18 Certainly, the issue with the setback 19 requirements and the (unintelligible) that 20 Mr. Mamola was presenting tonight, you can 21 see that by his drawing -- which you cannot 22 see -- if he turned this around, you could 23 probably see this -- but there are so many 24 other entities that are involved tonight and
40
1 questions that maybe out there. 2 I think that maybe the 3 gentleman should probably take some time to 4 go over this with the rest of the adjacent 5 neighbors, because there's a change to what 6 was there before. I can see it. The length 7 of the wall that is adjacent to -- I believe 8 it's Mr. Rosenthal's house -- is a lesser 9 amount than what was initially looked at, to 10 be begin with. And this is critical to this 11 gentleman's variance. And to my own mind, I 12 think they need to take a little more time, 13 probably to discuss these issues. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Any other 15 comments from the Building Department? 16 Seeing none, I'll open it up 17 for Board discussion. 18 Member Bauer? 19 MEMBER BAUER: I think we should 20 take Don's suggestion or advice and have these 21 people go over this with the people next door. 22 Seems that they have not done so before. And to 23 give these number of variances right now, I would 24 turn it down until they can get together with
41
1 them. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 3 Number Bauer. 4 I would tend to agree, as 5 well. When I first saw the amount of 6 variances, I was quite nervous about how 7 this discussion would take place. And given 8 the changing plans and what not, I would 9 tend to agree. 10 Member Gronachan? 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you, 12 Mr. Chair. 13 My favorite saying is back to 14 the drawing board, boys. My strong 15 suggestion -- I am totally confused, and I 16 sit here and do this every month. So I can 17 imagine where you guys are. I want to thank 18 the gentleman who wanted to come up and give 19 us a suggestion on what should be built; 20 however, I think that you need to work with 21 your neighbors. You're going to live in 22 this neighborhood. And if it's going to 23 start off on this foot, (unintelligible) is 24 going to take place once construction
42
1 starts. 2 This is too overwhelming, and 3 needs to be given serious consideration with 4 your future neighbors. I don't feel that 5 you're prepared to come in front this Board 6 tonight, and personally, I need to check 7 with the Board -- with Mr. Saven. 8 Am I understanding that what 9 we've advertised and what we have before us 10 are two different figures? 11 MR. SAVEN: Yes, that's correct. 12 It's based on the lesser -- a 13 lesser variance -- 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I understand 15 that. 16 MR. SAVEN: -- he's presenting 17 tonight, and we encourage that. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Right. 19 MR. SAVEN: But unfortunately, 20 the configurations that was in the packet and the 21 information that was presented tonight, is not 22 consistent with what was (unintelligible.) 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And I can 24 appreciate that the Petitioner is trying to go
43
1 for less, but a word of caution: Less is better. 2 So, I don't know if you want to meet with them 3 tonight and come back later on this evening to 4 talk with us; see what you can get resolved; or 5 actually table this, go back to the drawing board 6 (unintelligible) working with the neighbors, and 7 see what can happen. 8 They don't know what's going 9 on. Even though it's less, I think that a 10 lot of clarification needs to be done here; 11 and I don't know that it's going to get done 12 tonight. It's up to the Petitioner. 13 Thank you. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Shroyer? 15 MEMBER SHROYER: I agree. 16 However, I think we should provide the applicant 17 with some key concerns that our group has. 18 Because they're going back to the drawing board, 19 and they bring back something that hasn't 20 addressed my concerns, I'm going to look at a 21 denial, as well. So I would encourage us to 22 spend a little bit of time, just to provide them 23 with feedback; and then suggest that it be 24 tabled; where not only you can look at the
44
1 neighbors concerns, but at our concerns, as well. 2 Thank you. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Would you like 4 to share any? Do have any in mind right now? 5 MEMBER SHROYER: Absolutely. 6 I've got a whole list -- no. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: You've got the 8 floor. 9 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. 10 A couple real key concerns 11 that I have -- one of them is the south side 12 yard setback, two or two and a half feet, 13 whichever it is. To me, that's a real 14 concern. How can you even maintain that 15 portion of property without infringing upon 16 your neighbors' property. 17 So that's the first thing that 18 stuck out in my mind. Two of the other real 19 concerns I have, is the lengths of the 20 house. We very easily could avoid a couple 21 of the variances by whacking off, two, two 22 and half -- maybe three feet maximum of the 23 garage. And I know storage is important. 24 You brought that up, eight to 10 feet
45
1 additional was added. But taking away two 2 and a half or three feet is minimal, and it 3 would fall within the variance requirements. 4 Same thing on the rear end. 5 If you're looking at -- I believe it was 6 probably three and a half to four feet. Now 7 is it necessary that the bedroom be -- I 8 have here, 15 and a half feet in length; and 9 the living room be 16 feet seven inches in 10 length. 11 So those are some areas that 12 I'd like to see some type of compromise or 13 concern. So you could lose that variance 14 request, as well. 15 So right off the bat, that's 16 two that perhaps could be easy; and also 17 would address some of the neighbor concerns 18 about the view of the lake. I do have a 19 concern about the overall coverage of the 20 lot. I do know that a lot of the other 21 properties on the lake have exceeded the 22 lot. So, the percentage, even though I'd 23 like to see percentage reduced, I would not 24 expect you to fall totally within the
46
1 Ordinance on a lot -- plot coverage. 2 Those are probably the main 3 issues that I have. 4 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 6 And I appreciate you bringing 7 those out. Many of them were my concerns, 8 as well. Often times we tell people to 9 going back to the drawing board, but we 10 don't often give them much direction as I 11 would like to see. 12 So thank you. 13 Another comment? 14 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes, I'm sorry. 15 Yeah, I did want to make one other comment, or 16 may be even a couple members of the audience 17 talked about the looks of the building. And if 18 they don't come forward to us with variance 19 requests on facades, we don't have any say in 20 that. I believe I'm correct in that. If I'm 21 not, please let me know. 22 If there's nothing here for us 23 to address, we can't talk about what the 24 building looks like.
47
1 MR. SAVEN: That's an issue that 2 goes before Similar Ordinance Review. Our 3 consultants (unintelligible) reviewing the plans 4 (unintelligible.) The recommendation, at least 5 from my Department, is I will be looking at this 6 based on the fact that (unintelligible) 7 neighbors. This is not a Zoning Ordinance issue. 8 What I'm about to say, this is a good neighbor 9 issue -- I guess if you want to call It that. 10 (Unintelligible) talking with 11 them, regards to the placement where their 12 windows are located, how it looks at this 13 particular building and where it's at. The 14 point that I want to make is, there's very 15 little room for this house to be shifted 16 back and forth. And I have been very honest 17 with you in regards to the setback that's -- 18 their configuration of the lot is at an 19 angle. No matter what we're going to do 20 with this things, it's going to make it very 21 difficult to try and achieve certain 22 requirements and be functual(ph) for these 23 individuals. I mean, to have a house 15 24 foot wide is pretty tough.
48
1 I know it's (unintelligible) a 2 garage sometimes, it's a little difficult. 3 But the bottom line is, they need -- really 4 feel the need to be talking to their 5 neighbors in regards to those areas not 6 covered by the Ordinance. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Saven, 8 anything else? 9 And going along with that, as 10 well, I think height was also brought up. I 11 think that's something -- 12 MR. SAVEN: (Unintelligible) 13 (interposing.) 14 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl 15 e) not being brought before us, it's not 16 something we can necessarily discuss. 17 MR. MAMOLA: Mr. Chairman, we 18 would he have no objection to a tabling 19 Motion to the next meeting. I'd like to 20 remind the Board, we were here -- kind of a 21 rush Order by the Court to be here tonight. 22 We would normally be a little bit more 23 prepared. Some of the concerns 24 (unintelligible) address by the neighbors
49
1 are our concerns, as well. We don't want 2 them looking into our windows; we don't care 3 to look into their windows. 4 We certainly want the house -- 5 it's going to be a very attractive 6 (unintelligible) nice material, as well, 7 too. But again, given the amount of time, 8 it's been very difficult to get to that 9 level. We certainly welcome a month to take 10 that into consideration. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: I think the 12 Board would be agreeable with that. 13 Would make a Motion? 14 MEMBER BAUER: So moved. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Ms. Backus, 17 would you please call the roll. 18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 19 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Shroyer?
50
1 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 4 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five 5 to zero. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: We look forward 7 to the plans next month. 8 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. 9 10 MEMBER FISCHER: The next, Case 11 Number: 06-002, filed by NorthStar Signs 12 4180(sic) Bridge Street, for Campus Tech Park 13 located at said address. 14 The applicant is requesting 15 one sign variance to erect a construction 16 identification sign, prior to building 17 permit being issued. 18 Is the applicant here today? 19 Please come forward. 20 Raise you right hand and be 21 sworn in by our secretary, please. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you 23 solemnly swear or affirm that the information 24 that you're about to give in the matter before
51
1 you is the truth? 2 MR. ASH: Yes, I do. 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: If you could 5 please state your name and address and proceed. 6 MR. ASH: My name is Robbie 7 Ash. My address is 30835 John R. Road, and 8 that's Madison Heights, Michigan? 9 Our client has been in the 10 process of developing plans or processing 11 plans for this development; however, just 12 due to a number of circumstances outside of 13 their control, they have been unable to get 14 something finalized; and therefore being 15 able to apply for the permits. They were 16 just hoping the Board will allow them to get 17 the sign up now, so we can instigate some 18 activity; be able to move some businesses 19 into this development as quickly as 20 possible, once it is completed. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you very 22 much. 23 In this case, there were 16 24 notices mailed, one approval -- zero
52
1 approvals; one objection. 2 Madam Secretary, will you 3 please rad the correspondence. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: This is from 5 Paul Finkel, F-i-n-k-e-l, at 41200 Bridge Street. 6 In a telephone conversation 7 with our office on Thursday, February 2nd, 8 regarding 41180 Bridge Street. This 9 property has a building that is not part of 10 Campus Tech Park. We are the owners of 11 record on this piece of property. We do not 12 approve of any sign; and therefore would 13 seek remedy if this is granted. 14 Further we have no knowledge 15 of Mr. Robbie Ash, NorthStar Signs, nor 16 Campus Tech Park. We do not object to a 17 variance (unintelligible) subject property 18 in question is a vacant land located east of 19 our property. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 21 Madam Secretary. 22 Is there anyone in the 23 audience that wishes to make comment on this 24 case?
53
1 Seeing none, Building 2 Department? 3 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. I'll 5 open it up for Board discussion -- or 6 Mr. Schultz. 7 MR. SCHULTZ: Just very briefly. 8 Based upon the contents of the 9 letter -- which again I'm hearing for the 10 first time, maybe an inquiry to the 11 proponent. 12 (unintelligible) the right 13 address? And if not, I think we need to 14 renotice it. 15 MR. ASH: I would have to 16 assume based on that correspondence that the 17 address that was used on the application is 18 incorrect. I do have a site plan with 19 parcel ID number. Perhaps that should have 20 been used in it's place. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: It looks like 22 on the application that wasn't listed either. 23 MR. SAVEN: The parcel ID number 24 is located on the plot plan at the base of the
54
1 plot plan, about the third page in, handwritten. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: 2213351003. 3 MR. SAVEN: (unintelligible.) 4 MEMBER FISCHER: 1004. 5 MR. SAVEN: That's correct. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 7 Mr. Schultz. 8 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chairman, I 9 think it appears that while there maybe some 10 correct information on the plan, ultimately, the 11 notification (unintelligible) less confusion -- 12 confusion for at least one individual. I think 13 under the circumstances tabling it and renoticing 14 it for the next meeting is an appropriate action. 15 Ultimately, we're giving due process to the other 16 property owners, but everybody else. We've got 17 some confusion. We need to clear it up. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Shroyer? 19 MEMBER SHROYER: Even in 20 addition to that, the letter -- if I heard it 21 correct -- saying it's not part of Campus Tech 22 Park, and the proposed sign indicates Campus Tech 23 Park, and there's currently a sign out there. 24 It's about four foot by four foot -- I assume
55
1 that's yours -- that says Campus Tech Park. It 2 reads exactly like this, except it's four by 3 four; and this one appears to be nine by seven. 4 So there's confusion above and 5 beyond even the lot parcel. So I would be 6 in favor of, you know, tabling it, as well 7 and trying to get all the correct facts and 8 details together before we review this case. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Is that a 10 Motion, Member Shroyer? 11 MEMBER SHROYER: It can be. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Ms. Backus, 14 would you please call the roll. 15 GAIL BACKUS: Member Shroyer? 16 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 17 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 19 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 20 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 21 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 23 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
56
1 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five 2 to zero. 3 MR. ASH: Okay. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: We'll see you 5 next month. 6 MR. ASH: Thank you. 7 8 MEMBER FISCHER: And we will 9 move on to Case Number 06-003, filed by Gerry 10 Gibbens with City Sign Company, for Dollar 11 General located at 30560 Beck Road. The 12 applicant is requesting one sign variance to 13 erect a wall sign at said address. 14 The variance needed is 28.75 15 square feet; permitted is 40 square feet. 16 Would you please raise your 17 hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 19 or affirm that the information that you're about 20 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 21 MR. GIBBENS: Yes, I do. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 23 Please state your name and 24 address and proceed.
57
1 MR. GIBBENS: My name is Gerry 2 Gibbens, (unintelligible) Pontiac, Michigan, 3 48240. 4 My client, Dollar General, 5 they have 40 feet of frontage there. They 6 feel a 40 square foot sign wouldn't give 7 them the visibility they need. That's 8 pretty much my only request. So they'd like 9 (unintelligible) next size up they build, 10 which is the variance I asked for. They 11 don't make a lot of sizes. There's no size 12 that falls between that size and 40 square 13 feet. 14 So once again, 15 (unintelligible) visibility. They feel if 16 they put all that money into the site, they 17 want to make sure they have a sign big 18 enough to attract attention. They don't 19 have any signage on the road, so there's 20 nothing to be added there. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you very 22 much. 23 And in this case, there were 24 42 notices mailed; zero approvals, zero
58
1 objections. 2 Is there anyone in the 3 audience that wishes to comment on this 4 case? 5 Seeing none, building 6 Department? 7 MR. AMOLSCH: We have no 8 comment, sir. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: And Board 10 discussion? 11 Member Bauer? 12 MEMBER BAUER: First of all, 13 this is in the -- Beck Road, where all the stores 14 (unintelligible) Beck Road and Grand River. And 15 it is final spot where people will go to. 16 They're not going to see a sign from Grand River. 17 And I don't think it should be from Grand river. 18 I think the sign's too big. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 20 Member Bauer. 21 Member Shroyer? 22 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, 23 Mr. Chair. 24 On the 40 square foot size
59
1 that's permitted, how wide would that be? 2 Because this you're showing at 27.6. 3 MR. GIBBENS: 27 feet, six 4 inches. 5 MEMBER SHROYER: That's the 6 current. 7 If you were limited to the 8 permitted area, how wide would your sign be? 9 MR. GIBBENS: According to 10 measurements, 27 feet, six inches and 30 11 inches tall. 12 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. I'm not 13 asking this right -- that is your requested area. 14 MR. GIBBENS: Okay. 15 MEMBER SHROYER: And have a sign 16 that large, 27.6 that's the 68.75 square feet. 17 MR. GIBBENS: Yes. 18 MEMBER SHROYER: If you were to 19 stay within the permitted 40 square foot area, 20 how wide would your sign be? 21 MR. GIBBENS: The next size 22 down, which is 24 inches tall, and that 23 (unintelligible) 44 square feet actually. 24 MEMBER SHROYER: So six inches
60
1 less high? 2 MR. GIBBENS: It would be 22 3 feet -- it would be 22 feet long. So I 4 would need a four foot variance. 5 MEMBER SHROYER: And 22 foot 6 long. 7 MR. GIBBENS: (unintelligible) 8 18 inches. That's really small. 9 MEMBER SHROYER: Because I agree 10 with Member Bauer. I believe the sign is too 11 large. The sign that was there before was for a 12 video store. Evidently, that was the previous 13 occupant. And the area that they had was no more 14 than 50 percent of the size of your current sign 15 or the requested sign. The area still shows in 16 the -- on the facade. 17 And I think when you extend 18 the dollar sign and the words beyond the two 19 vertical columns, it actually looks 20 overwhelming. I looked at a couple other 21 competitors, Dollar Days and Dollar 22 something -- I don't know what it was, and 23 basically measured their signs, and they 24 were more in line with the required size.
61
1 Of course, they weren't in 2 Novi. They were in other communities. But 3 I feel that this is overwhelming. Anybody 4 that pulls into that shopping area would 5 easily be able to see a Dollar General sign 6 within the 40 square foot currently 7 permitted. 8 So consequently, that would be 9 my -- the way I would lean at this point. I 10 don't see the hardship as being instrumental 11 enough to grant a variance. 12 Thank you. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 14 Member Shroyer. 15 Member Krieger? 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: He said that 17 within a 40 square foot variance, that he 18 would request a four foot variance. I would 19 be willing to go with that. 20 MEMBER SHROYER: I would, too. 21 Thank you. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: I would tend to 23 agree. I don't think that the size of this sign 24 would be fair to the community there. I think
62
1 it's overwhelming (unintelligible) to put there. 2 I also don't think it does substantial justice to 3 the area neighbors at this size. 4 Member Gronachan, do you have 5 any comments? 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No, I concur 7 with Member Shroyer. 8 Are you interested in 9 entertaining a smaller sign with us this 10 evening? 11 MR. GIBBENS: I would go with 12 the 44 square foot. As I said, the next 13 size down is way small. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No, I agree 15 (unintelligible.) 16 MEMBER BAUER: I agree. 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So it's your 18 agreement to go with the 40 square foot -- 19 MR. GIBBENS: 44. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: 44 square 21 foot; 24 inch tall sign; 22 feet long. 22 MR. GIBBENS: Yes. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 24 That's my Motion.
63
1 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: (unintelligibl 3 e) findings of fact with the Motion, please. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Oh, okay. 5 (unintelligible.) 6 MR. SCHULTZ: I've been very 7 quiet. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: In Case 9 Number 06-003, filed by Gerry Gibbens for City 10 Sign Company for Dollar General, located at 30560 11 Beck Road, the variance requested has been 12 changed to, and the following will be approved: 13 The sign will be 44 square 14 feet; the height would be 24 inches tall; 15 and the length will be 22 feet in length. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Shroyer? 17 MEMBER SHROYER: Point of 18 clarification. Did you say the letters was 26 19 inches? 20 MR. GIBBENS: 24. 21 MEMBER SHROYER: It is 24, so it 22 was a six inch variance in height, okay. 23 Do we need to include that? 24 MEMBER FISCHER: No. We're just
64
1 looking at the area. 2 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: For business 4 identification. 5 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 7 Motion and a second. 8 Any further discussion? 9 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, will 10 you please call the roll. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 13 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 14 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 15 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 17 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 18 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 19 GAIL BACKUS: And Member 20 Shroyer? 21 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 22 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five 23 to zero. 24 MR. GIBBENS: Thank you very
65
1 much. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 3 Good luck and please see the 4 Building Department. 5 6 MEMBER FISCHER: And we'll move 7 along to Case Number 06-004, filed by Paul 8 Hedemark with Provincial Glades Subdivision, 9 located northeast corner of Nine Mile and Napier. 10 The applicant is requesting one sign variance to 11 erect a subdivision business sign prior to a 12 building permit being issued. 13 Could you please raise your 14 hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 16 or affirm that the information that you're about 17 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 18 MR. HEDEMARK: Yes. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: And if you 20 could state your name and address and proceed. 21 MR. HEDEMARK: Paul Hedemark 22 is my name; and our address is 41115 Joe 23 Drive, Novi, Michigan. The Ordinance that 24 I'm requesting a variance from pertains to
66
1 the advertising sign for subdivisions, homes 2 for sale. 3 The way the Ordinance is 4 currently written, you must first get a 5 building permit to erect the sign and 6 advertise what it is you're selling. And 7 that is a timely process. We are currently 8 in for a model permit. But, you know, there 9 are a lot of things to be wrapped up; and 10 the permits are in for review. This being 11 the height of the selling season; and the 12 sign being what the public needs to know 13 that we are going to build there. 14 We have been before the Board 15 before twice, and they were gracious enough 16 to grant us at least a temporary variance 17 that got us through that period of time when 18 we were waiting for building permit, and 19 that's what we're requesting again today. 20 It doesn't have to be a permanent variance; 21 just a temporary variance for six months to 22 a year is plenty of time to get the ball 23 rolling and have the sign up for that period 24 of time.
67
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 2 And in this case there were 12 3 notices mailed; zero approvals and zero 4 objections. 5 Is there anyone in the 6 audience that wishes to comment on this 7 case? 8 Seeing none, Building 9 Department? 10 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Board Members? 12 Member Gronachan? 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I just want 14 to verify where exactly this sign is going to be. 15 MR. HEDEMARK: On the 16 application, we had indicated -- I'm sorry 17 if it didn't show up that well in that 18 drawing. On the site plan, we have it drawn 19 in on the right-hand side, which would be 20 the eastside, behind the landscaping wall. 21 When I went out to set up the -- erect the 22 mock sign, I looked and that is so high, I 23 thought, you know, it's not in your best 24 interest; it's knots in our best interest.
68
1 It would look, actually, a little bit 2 awkward. 3 So, instead, I moved it over 4 and back, and I have it right now set up in 5 the island. So it's well out of the way, 6 but because the road is a boulevard, it's 7 very spacious, and I think people would be 8 able to see it just fine. (Unintelligible) 9 it's less obtrusive, and it doesn't look 10 like -- quite frankly -- so goofy being up 11 there -- three feet, four feet 12 (unintelligible) ground. Above the road, I 13 should say. It is ground level up there. 14 The ground is raised behind the landscaping 15 wall. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm sorry. 17 So you are going to put it in the island; not up 18 in the -- 19 MR. HEDEMARK: Correct, 20 correct. 21 Yeah, It would be down, much 22 (unintelligible) level. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, Nine 24 Mile and Napier is quite a unique area all in
69
1 itself. And not as a Board Member's perspective, 2 but as a resident living out there, it's going to 3 change. 4 As a Board Member, I know the 5 change is coming. I want it to be not as 6 intrusive, as some people would like it to 7 be. And I say that because I'm in support 8 of this, only because Nine Mile is just so 9 (unintelligible) at this time of year. It's 10 not very -- 11 MR. HEDEMARK: The gravel? 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The gravel. 13 MR. HEDEMARK: It is paved up 14 to that entrance. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 16 MR. HEDEMARK: It's much 17 cleaner than it was. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 19 And still, it's going to be a 20 lot of other things going on out there, and 21 I agree that it should be put in the island; 22 and it does properly identify this piece of 23 land; given to the lay of and the topography 24 there. And when you're driving out there,
70
1 you're going to have in your mind 2 (unintelligible) where you're thinking 3 you're going to be going (unintelligible.) 4 And this sign will help clear that confusion 5 up, if that makes any sense. 6 (unintelligible.) 7 MR. HEDEMARK: I hope 8 everybody that drives out there has the same 9 feeling you do. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 11 Member Gronachan. 12 Any other Board Members? 13 Member Bauer? 14 MEMBER BAUER: (Unintelligible) 15 into the island? 16 MR. HEDEMARK: Yes, and beyond 17 the 60 feet right of way, correct. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: 19 MEMBER BAUER: Then that takes 20 care of one of the variances. 21 I don't have any problem. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is that a 23 Motion? 24 I'm sorry.
71
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Are you all 2 set, Member Bauer? 3 MEMBER BAUER: (Unintelligible.) 4 MEMBER FISCHER: I have a 5 question. 6 And these types of requests 7 always confuse me, Mr. Amolsch. 8 If this Ordinance variance 9 wasn't being requested, are any other 10 Ordinances being broken size-wise? If he 11 had the permits, would this sign be allowed? 12 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes, it would be 13 out there. There's nothing wrong with a 14 sign (unintelligible) building permits, yes, 15 sir. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: That's always 17 -- it always gets me as to whether there's 18 something hiding behind this variance. 19 So, at this time -- 20 Member Shroyer? 21 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. 22 To the City, what is the 23 reasoning behind not giving a permit until a 24 building permit has been approved?
72
1 MR. AMOLSCH: Because we have 2 restrictions on real estate signs, various 3 sizes, depending on what type of property. 4 We only allow 16 (unintelligible) real 5 estate sign (unintelligible.) 6 MEMBER SHROYER: Has it been 7 approved before with time limitation? 8 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes. 9 MEMBER SHROYER: That has been 10 brought up. And Council didn't like that, I 11 assume? 12 MR. AMOLSCH: I can't remember 13 what. It's been on the books for quite a 14 while. 15 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 16 I think it's a very attractive 17 sign, by the way. It's one of the best 18 looking ones in Novi. I wish all of our 19 signs looked this good. I think the 20 location is ideal. 21 MR. HEDEMARK: Thank you, 22 again. 23 MEMBER SHROYER: You indicated 24 that you have the model permit requested. When
73
1 you do you anticipate -- 2 MR. HEDEMARK: I think March. 3 It's a process, as you know, with the City 4 of Novi (unintelligible) consultants and 5 reviewing. But I'm saying March on the good 6 side. It could definitely go into April; 7 and, you know, God forbid (unintelligible) 8 March and April; let them know what it is 9 we're selling out there. It's the hot time 10 of the season (unintelligible.) 11 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. I don't 12 have any problem with granting this request. 13 That's all. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Does the Board 15 or Petitioner wish to make a time suggestion, 16 time limit? 90 days? 17 MR. HEDEMARK: Could I ask for 18 -- just in case on this permit -- I just 19 don't know. Give me an extra 30 days -- 20 120. I would be very happy. 21 MEMBER BAUER: (Unintelligible.) 22 MR. HEDEMARK: That's what I 23 (unintelligible.) Once I get the permit, 24 the sign is there forever until I sell out
74
1 the subdivision. But, hopefully, it's not 2 forever. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Any Board 4 Member wish to make a Motion? 5 Member Gronachan? 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: In Case 7 Number 06-004, filed by Paul Hedemark of 8 Provincial Glades, LLC; I move that we approve 9 the business sign for the next 120 days, based on 10 the testimony from the Petitioner, for sign 11 identification -- sorry -- property 12 identification, until the Petitioner receives his 13 permit. 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 16 Motion and a second. 17 Any other discussion? 18 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, will 19 you please call the roll. 20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?
75
1 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 4 GAIL BACKUS: And Member 5 Shroyer? 6 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 7 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five 8 to zero. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: 120 days it is. 10 Best of luck to you. 11 MR. HEDEMARK: Thank you very 12 much. 13 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair 14 just briefly. 15 Unrelated really now that 16 you've had your Motion. The City is in the 17 process of actually looking at a number of 18 these kinds of things in the sign Ordinance. 19 I think Mr. Amolsch pointed out the kind of 20 reasoning that was behind the Ordinance as 21 it exists now. (unintelligible) take away 22 from this while we're going back and forth 23 at the Administration Level, pretty much 24 (unintelligible) Board did not have a
76
1 problem with this, because say for example, 2 he had his final site plan approval, and was 3 really in the process of -- maybe we could 4 look at changing the standard a little bit, 5 you've got to have some development 6 (unintelligible) approvals before you get 7 this. 8 So I guess (unintelligible) 9 feedback so this won't come back to you 10 again in six months, maybe (unintelligible.) 11 MEMBER FISCHER: I think you 12 summed it up pretty well, as far as I'm 13 concerned. 14 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you. I 15 appreciate it. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Shroyer? 17 MEMBER SHROYER: Mr. Schultz, 18 I'd just like to add that as long as there is 19 continued progress being made toward the 20 development. You know, if they go so far and 21 they stop and they don't do anything for six 22 months, they got to come back. But as long as 23 there's continuous progress being made, I have no 24 problem with that.
77
1 MR. SCHULTZ: (Unintelligible.) 2 3 4 MEMBER FISCHER: And we'll move 5 along to Case Number: 06-005, filed by Jim 6 Anderson with Huron Sign Company for Melting Pot, 7 located at 26425 Novi Road. The applicant is 8 requesting one sign variance to erect an 9 additional wall sign on the west elevation -- no 10 building is allowed with more than one sign. 11 And so, if you could raise 12 your hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 14 or affirm that the information that you're about 15 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 16 MR. ANDERSON: I do. 17 RIGHT2: I do. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: And if you 19 could state your names and addresses and proceed. 20 MR. ANDERSON: Jim Anderson, 21 Huron Sign, 663 (unintelligible) Ypsilanti, 22 Michigan. 23 MR. TANIK(ph): Mark Tanik, 24 Clarkston, Michigan, 5716 Perwood Court.
78
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 2 Please proceed. 3 MR. ANDERSON: Good evening. 4 We are here based on the 5 Ordinance regarding that no parcel of land 6 shall be allowed more than one sign 7 permitted under the sign Ordinance. 8 However, we do feel that the 9 section H (unintelligible) to this case, 10 particularly. In the case of a corner lot, 11 a parcel occupied by a single business, but 12 situated on two or more thoroughfares, signs 13 may be permitted on each thoroughfare in 14 accordance with the chapter. 15 And the Melting Pot at 26425 16 Novi Road is situated as a private business 17 on two different thoroughfares; one being 18 Novi Road and the other being Civic Center 19 Drive. And I'm going to post this on the 20 easel for you. We made this copy -- 21 apologize; it's a little small. 22 This is based on the master 23 plan, indicating that -- 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Sir, I might
79
1 make a suggestion. There's an overhead to your 2 right, if you wanted to place that diagram on the 3 overhead (interposing) (unintelligible.) 4 MR. ANDERSON: Will it pull 5 up? 6 Oh, okay. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: (unintelligibl 8 e) behind us. Hopefully more people can see -- 9 MR. ANDERSON: Okay, thank you 10 very much. 11 What we have here, is a copy 12 of the master plan that we obtain from the 13 City. And the parcel of the Melting Pot is 14 located right here, abutting the highway. 15 And we feel with Novi Road here, and this 16 being a major thoroughfare, Expo Center 17 Drive, that they would be allowed this 18 additional sign on the west elevation. 19 And the sign is actually -- we 20 are proposing a sign that would be smaller 21 in size that the one on the Novi road 22 elevation, as well. So it's only a 39 23 square foot sized sign, as opposed to 51. 24 So it's moderate in size; and that
80
1 particular elevation of the restaurant has 2 64 feet of lineal frontage; and the parking 3 lot sets back over 200 feet, as well. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 5 Any other comments. 6 MR. TANIK: Not at this point, 7 thank you. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 9 MR. TANIK: We are open to any 10 questions that you have. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Perfect. 12 Thank you. 13 In this case there were 15 14 notices mailed; zero approvals and zero 15 objections. 16 Is there anyone in the 17 audience that wishes to comment on this 18 case? 19 Seeing none, I'll ask the 20 Building Department for any comments? 21 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes, sir. 22 This is not a corner lot, as 23 defined by the Ordinance, no way, shape or 24 form it can be. The lot has frontage on
81
1 Novi Road and has frontage on Expo Center 2 Drive; and it abuts the freeway. There's an 3 approved sign for Novi Road elevation and 4 the freeway side, because it abuts a 5 freeway. (Unintelligible) one exception to 6 the number of signs permitted 7 (unintelligible) parcel of land. It is not 8 a corner lot. (Unintelligible.) 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 10 Any other comments? 11 Seeing none, I'll open this up 12 for Board discussion. 13 Member Krieger? 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: From what it 15 seems, it would be -- once you've seen the 16 Novi frontage, that you can get around; you 17 should know already that this is where you 18 want to be. 19 So the sign in the parking lot 20 would not be necessary. 21 Thank you. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 23 member Krieger. 24 Member Bauer?
82
1 MEMBER BAUER: I agree with her 2 understanding of it. (Unintelligible.) It's not 3 necessary. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 5 Member Bauer. 6 Member Gronachan? 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I concur with 8 both previous speakers' sentiment. I feel that 9 this should be a test case. I think that you 10 should go ahead and see how your business does. 11 And if for some reason there's true proof that 12 this cannot be located, based on the map that 13 you've presented to us from the freeway, or if 14 people are having problems getting to the 15 building, or truly identifying it, then I think 16 that you should come before us. But I don't feel 17 it's been substantiated as to the need for this 18 additional sign at this time. 19 Thank you. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 21 Member Gronachan. 22 Member Shroyer? 23 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. 24 I just wanted to comment.
83
1 Any new business coming into 2 the City, I think we owe it to give them the 3 opportunity to try to, you know, bring the 4 business and make it a-go. However, in this 5 case I do have to agree with my fellow Board 6 Members. Anybody that wanted to visit Bob 7 Evans figured out how to get into there; 8 they were able to approach from the rear and 9 come in off of the Convention Center Drive. 10 On the flip side, I do see -- 11 and I hope as we review signage and 12 Ordinances, any property that abuts the 13 freeway or a freeway or even the exit ramps, 14 I'd like to see us look at the possibility 15 of allowing a sign that would face that 16 side. So I agree with them that I think 17 this could be a good test case for you guys; 18 get going, see how it works. If need be, 19 come back to the ZBA. And if you're going 20 to ask for an additional sign, you might 21 want consider having it on the north side, 22 as opposed to the west. Not saying that 23 we'd agree with that or I'd agree with that. 24 I'd have to see the proposal, but it's
84
1 something that I'd like to see us consider. 2 MR. ANDERSON: Okay. We felt 3 the west would be important, though. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm sorry. 5 I'll ask Mr. Schultz. 6 Do you have any comments? 7 MR. SCHULTZ: A couple of 8 comments. 9 The first is just by way of 10 clarification. The original request to the 11 city was three signs -- one on the front, 12 which is the east elevation; the one on the 13 north, which is the freeway elevation; and 14 the one on the back, which is the west 15 elevation -- the one they're here for. 16 The City staff permitted, under the 17 Ordinance, the front sign on Novi and the sign on -- 18 the expressway sign. Even though, I have to say it's 19 a pretty close call. There's a little piece of 20 property that is (unintelligible) between them and the 21 freeway. It's very small. So that, I think, was 22 actually a little bit of an extension to the property 23 owner here. I'm hearing a little bit that in addition 24 to asking for the variance for the west side, he's
85
1 still trying to argue that he doesn't need the 2 variance. 3 So I think as part of any Motion, I 4 think the first thing that I think the Board ought to 5 do is make a finding on whether it thinks this is, in 6 fact, a corner parcel. I think from our perspective, 7 it's not on the corner of the intersection of two 8 streets. It's one parcel in. So from our 9 perspective, the administration's call on that was 10 right. 11 I think in light of the presentation, 12 you should make a finding on that first. And then 13 with regard to the variance, it sounds to me like the 14 consensus of the Board seems to be, he hasn't 15 presented the evidence of practical difficulty, 16 because, they haven't shown that the two signs that 17 are going to be permitted, don't make the property 18 visible. 19 So those are, I guess preliminary 20 comments. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Would a finding 22 that the property is not a corner lot, hinder his 23 ability for the north side and the east side 24 sign?
86
1 MR. SCHULTZ: No, not at all. 2 It purely relates to the westside sign. I think 3 his initial argument was, I shouldn't even be 4 here, because I'm on a corner lot. And, you 5 know, from our perspective, under the Ordinance, 6 he is not; but that's your call. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Right. 8 I just wanted to make sure -- 9 while that's not even in front us, so I 10 guess I won't even comment on that. 11 Member Gronachan? 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Based on the 13 evidence presented to us this evening, I do 14 concur that this is not a corner lot; given the 15 information presented by Mr. Amolsch. And 16 therefore would look at this business as a 17 individual -- as a regular business with 18 (unintelligible) access to additional signage. 19 Is. 20 Is that -- do you want a 21 Motion? 22 MR. SCHULTZ: That's fine as 23 part of the Motion. Now you need to make some 24 kind of finding on the -- determination on the
87
1 variance. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. So you 3 want me to do the whole Motion then? 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Might as well. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. How 6 did I end up doing this. 7 MEMBER SHROYER: Because you're 8 good at it. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yeah. 10 In Case Number 06-005, filed 11 by Jim Anderson of Huron Sign Company for 12 Melting Pot, located at 26425 Novi Road, 13 which is south of I-96 and west of Novi 14 Road. It is the finding of this Board that 15 this piece of property is not considered to 16 be a corner lot, based on the testimony 17 given and supported by our Building 18 Department this evening. 19 Therefore, we deny the request 20 for the additional sign which is the west -- 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Elevation. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: -- elevation 23 of the building, at this time; based on there is 24 no degree of practical difficulty presented to
88
1 this Board to substantiate the need for this 2 building -- the need for this sign at this time. 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 6 Motion and a second. 7 Any other discussion? 8 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 9 you please call the roll. 10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Shroyer? 19 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 20 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five 21 to zero. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: At this time, 23 the request for that west side sign has been 24 denied. However, we do wish you the best of
89
1 luck. 2 3 Is the Board fine with hearing 4 this case and then maybe looking at a break, 5 or would you (unintelligible) a break now? 6 7 Okay. Move on to Case Number 8 06-006, filed by Patti Krula of Metro 9 Detroit Signs, for Huntington Bank, located 10 at 27250 Wixom Road. The parcel is located 11 south of Grand River, north of Eleven Mile 12 Road; and the applicant is requesting four 13 sign variances for said address. The 14 variances include allowing more than one 15 sign; a height variance, a setback variance 16 and a (unintelligible) area regulation 17 variance. 18 Could you please raise your 19 hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 21 or affirm that the information that you're about 22 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 23 MR. DEEDERS(ph): Yes, I do. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Please state
90
1 your name for the record. 2 MR. DEEDERS: My name is Paul 3 Deeders from Metro Detroit Signs, 23544 4 Hoover Road in Warren. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: And if you'd 6 like to proceed. 7 MR. DEEDERS: Okay, thank you. 8 We're here on behalf of 9 Huntington Bank this evening. As you can 10 see, the purpose for the request is for them 11 to add a monument sign that they'd like to 12 have in front of the building. And if you 13 folks have had an opportunity to go by the 14 facility, you see particularly as you're 15 heading north or excuse me, southbound on 16 Wixom Road, there is a very dense -- densely 17 wooded area that's just to the north of that 18 property; which makes it very difficult to 19 see the building. 20 And because the entrance to 21 the building is just passed that, and 22 there's not an opportunity to turn around 23 for quite a distance after that, Huntington 24 has asked us come before the Board and see
91
1 if there's anyway that you might entertain a 2 variance that would ahead them to have a 3 monument sign out there to make it little 4 bit easier for their customers to identify 5 that there is a bank coming up there; and 6 giving them an opportunity to turn in or 7 enter the facility in a safe manner. 8 They do have an issue also as 9 you're headed northbound, the visibility is 10 not as difficult for them; however, it is an 11 unusually shaped building, with somewhat of 12 a protruding radius wall at the south end of 13 their building, and it really does not look 14 like a bank; that facility is sort of an 15 unusual design that they have -- an open 16 glass area. And the wall sign that they 17 have facing Wixom Road is difficult to see 18 when you're heading northbound, also, until 19 you're right up on the bank. 20 And with their entrance on the 21 south side of the property, once again, it 22 might be little difficult. 23 So, whereas the request before 24 you is for a number of variances -- and I
92
1 had some discussions with Huntington about 2 this. Really, the thing that they'd like to 3 see -- and this -- this was something that 4 fit in with their standard portfolio. I let 5 them know that we'd try to minimize the 6 variances as much as possible, in order for 7 you to be fair to other companies that are 8 can requesting variances, as well. 9 Really what they'd like to 10 see, is would the Board entertain a monument 11 sign, and then I can go back to them, I 12 think, and also say that we can find away to 13 get the sign to fit within your setback 14 height and square footage parameters, if at 15 all possible. The critical thing for them 16 is to be able to have that sign on there if 17 at all possible. 18 That's it. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you very 20 much. 21 And in this case, there were 22 eight notices mailed; zero approvals and 23 zero objections. 24 Is there anyone in the
93
1 audience that wishes to comment on this 2 case? 3 Seeing none, we will ask the 4 Building Department for any comments? 5 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: And Board 7 Members? 8 Member Gronachan? 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: My kind of 10 Petitioner. He's been paying attention. Well, 11 there's 15 sign cases before me -- sorry, little 12 lightheartedness. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Is that a 14 question? 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I am in 16 support of the monument sign for this particular 17 location. And given -- Wixom Road is another 18 unique entity in its own right, and there's so 19 much changing. I am in full support of what the 20 Petitioner is asking for; and to let Huntington 21 Bank know, that yes, we would support -- at least 22 this Board Member -- would support a ground sign; 23 especially if you have a Petitioner that's asking 24 to remove everything else and fit within our
94
1 Ordinances. 2 I feel that given the 3 topography, the speed in which Wixom Road 4 travels, angles, of everything going on 5 there, and any other adjective I can use to 6 describe that area. I do feel that there is 7 a need for some additional identification. 8 I concur also that on -- I 9 will point out to my fellow Board Members 10 that the Petitioner is correct. If you're 11 driving down Wixom Road, you cannot tell 12 there is really a bank. Usually that's 13 something that I say, I realize that this is 14 a destination location. However, for 15 identification purposes, I would think it 16 would be -- make it safer as well as help 17 clarify the confusion on that street with 18 everything that's going on. 19 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 21 Member Bauer? 22 MEMBER BAUER: You have it in 23 your parking lot right now, correct? 24 MR. DEEDERS: There's an
95
1 island. It's there, sir. 2 MEMBER BAUER: Is that an 3 island? 4 MR. DEEDERS: Yes. There's 5 just quite a bit of snow there right now. 6 MEMBER BAUER: That's why I 7 couldn't (unintelligible.) 8 MR. DEEDERS: It's difficult, 9 but it is in an island. 10 MEMBER BAUER: And that's where 11 your 55 feet come to? 12 MR. DEEDERS: Yes. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Okay, fine. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Shroyer? 15 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, 16 Mr. Chair. 17 This was a fun one. I mean, 18 they have, I think 14 items on the agenda, 19 but some of them weren't. This one was. In 20 looking at the sign, the height variance 21 requested -- it's 32 percent requested; but 22 when you basically take off the peak, it 23 meets everything. Now, of course, you need 24 that because that's part of your logo. I
96
1 understand that. 2 So -- but that's really the 3 only thing that takes that out of whack. So 4 I don't have a problem at all with the 5 height. 6 The overall area, in looking 7 at it, to me -- keeping the letters the same 8 size and everything -- the width could 9 probably be reduced by six and a quarter 10 inches; and you still wouldn't meet the full 11 variance request. But you'd had be a lot 12 shorter. You'd only be 22 percent 13 requested, as opposed to 27 percent. I 14 don't know if they're already pre-made up 15 signs that you can't shorten the width of it 16 or how that works; but that's something that 17 could be looked at. 18 MR. DEEDERS: Uh-huh. 19 MEMBER SHROYER: But the biggest 20 thing -- and it has to do with the setback from 21 Wixom Road. Where you currently have it in the 22 island, you can't see it going north or south. 23 But the main reason you can't see it is because 24 of the pine trees on the berm.
97
1 MR. DEEDERS: It is difficult, 2 and we agree with that. The berm, I believe 3 it's required by the City -- didn't leave us 4 with a whole lot of options. I agree it's 5 not the greatest of situations for us, but 6 it would be a significant improvement over 7 what we do have; realizing that there are 8 some difficulties that we're going to have 9 to deal with at that site. I noticed that 10 driving up and down several times, as well. 11 If you're looking for it, you 12 can see it. It's not the best of scenarios, 13 but we'll take it. 14 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl 15 e) some trees -- not just the pine, but some 16 trees and pull foliage. You're going to have to 17 cut off a third of the bottom of the tree in 18 order to see the monument sign. I agree with 19 Member Gronachan, that it is -- you know, a 20 monument sign would be appropriate and useful and 21 helpful. 22 I guess one of the questions I 23 would have is, or than the setback variance 24 from Wixom Road is there an Ordinance
98
1 against having a sign on the berm? 2 MR. AMOLSCH: No. The issue 3 is the second sign. 4 MEMBER SHROYER: The second 5 sign. 6 MR. AMOLSCH: (Unintelligible) 7 Automatically eliminates that sign. 8 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. I didn't 9 think there was. Because what I see there, is 10 you have basically an arc of creekbed(ph) type 11 stone right in the middle, right up on top of the 12 berm from that island. It's not quite as high as 13 the berm, but to me that is the perfect place for 14 the signage. It would be -- you'd be able it see 15 it heading north and south. It would require a 16 larger variance -- and usually I'm not 17 encouraging anybody to ask for more of a 18 variance -- but, if you're going to go back and 19 look at things, to me that might be a 20 consideration that we'd entertain, if it doesn't 21 create a hardship with the City. 22 I don't know how that happens, 23 but -- in other words, I'm in favor of the 24 sign. I don't think the placement of the
99
1 sign is the most advantageous for business, 2 due to the landscaping requirements of the 3 pine trees and indigenous trees. 4 MR. DEEDERS: Obviously, we'd 5 prefer it to have it as close to the road as 6 possible, but realizing also, that we're 7 asking for a variance. We no that it's a 8 very restrictive code and we're going to 9 adhere to that. Any relief we could have, 10 it would be certainly help. 11 MEMBER SHROYER: I'm also 12 looking that if it's moved up on top of the berm, 13 you won't need as big a sign. So you could, you 14 know, eliminate two of the variance requests in 15 order to have your setback variance request. 16 MR. DEEDERS: We 17 (unintelligible) to do that, as well. 18 MEMBER SHROYER: (unintelligibl 19 e) a problem as well. (unintelligible) it's from 20 the level at the top of the berm, okay. So much 21 for that recommendation. 22 But I'm in favor. 23 Thank you. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: (unintelligibl
100
1 e) experience on the Board to remind us of those 2 things. We appreciate that. 3 I would (unintelligible) agree 4 with everything that's said. Although we 5 did have a possible other proposal, I think 6 it's a nice compromise between the City and 7 the Petitioner. (unintelligible) that the 8 least amount of variances being requested, 9 and that's (unintelligible) like to take 10 into consideration when making my decision 11 up here. 12 I am in favor. 13 Any comments? 14 Member Krieger? 15 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. I'd 16 like to go ahead and make a Motion. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Please do. 18 MEMBER KRIEGER: In Case 19 Number 06-006, filed by Patti Krula of Metro 20 Detroit Signs for Huntington bank, located 21 at 27250 Wixom Road, located south of Grand 22 River and north of Eleven Mile Road. That 23 we grant the request for the variances 24 listed below.
101
1 MEMBER FISCHER: And do you wish 2 to include any findings of fact on that? 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: 4 (unintelligible) difficulties that were 5 mentioned, especially like driving south and 6 the trees (unintelligible) monument sign 7 (unintelligible.) for people to find the 8 bank. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. So 10 (unintelligible) landscaping requirements, it 11 (unintelligible.) I can support. 12 Is there a second? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 15 Motion and a second. 16 Any further discussion? 17 Member Shroyer? 18 MEMBER SHROYER: I just wanted 19 to ask the maker of the Motion did you 20 intentionally mean to exclude the statement that 21 the applicant made regarding being able to 22 (unintelligible) of size, correct? 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: 24 (Unintelligible.)
102
1 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may, through 2 the Chair. I guess that I believed I heard the 3 Petitioner say they removed all variances, except 4 the one for the second sign. And if that's the 5 Board's intent, I think that should be expressed 6 as part of the Motion; that instead of saying 7 variances as listed, it would be just the second 8 sign; and then no other variances, pursuant to 9 his comments -- if that's the intent of the 10 Board. 11 MEMBER KRIEGER: Then 12 that's -- 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Is the that 14 intent to the Board? 15 MEMBER KRIEGER: That was our 16 intent, right. 17 MR. SCHULTZ: So that would 18 work then with that modification. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: On the table, 20 we have a Motion to approve the second sign with 21 the no other variances approved. 22 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: That's agreed 24 with by the seconder?
103
1 Any other discussion? 2 MR. DEEDERS: 3 (Unintelligible.) In fact, I just received 4 some correspondence from them, they have a 5 new design which eliminates peaks from their 6 signs. So that's why they've given me some 7 (unintelligible) will no longer be an issue; 8 find something that'll fit within 9 (unintelligible) as well. 10 MR. AMOLSCH: And the setback? 11 MR. DEEDERS: Actually, if the 12 signage is a little smaller, we'll be able 13 to come a little bit closer within the 14 Ordinance, if I understand it correctly. 15 MR. AMOLSCH: (unintelligible) 16 53 foot setback. 17 MR. DEEDERS: We will be able 18 to get that. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Any other 20 discussion? 21 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, will 22 you please call the roll. 23 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
104
1 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 2 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 3 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 5 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 7 GAIL BACKUS: Member Shroyer? 8 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 9 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five 10 to zero. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance 12 has been requested(sic) and amended in the 13 Motion. 14 Please see the Building 15 Department, and good luck. 16 MR. DEEDERS: Thank you for 17 your help. 18 19 MEMBER FISCHER: And at this 20 time, the Board is going to take a quick recess 21 for ten minutes and we'll assume thereafter. 22 (A brief recess was taken.) 23 (Back on the record.) 24
105
1 MEMBER FISCHER: We will resume 2 the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. 3 4 And move to Case Number: 5 06-007, filed by Planet Neon Signs for Roche 6 Bobois 43223 Twelve Mile Road. The 7 applicant is requesting one sign variance to 8 allow placement of window graphics at said 9 address. 10 And the Ordinance states that 11 a message referring to current, temporary 12 merchandising or promotional activities, I 13 believe, is not allowed, so. 14 If you could please raise your 15 hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 17 or affirm that the information that you're about 18 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 19 MR. DERICK(ph): I do. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: And could you 22 state your name and address and proceed, please. 23 MR. DERICK: My name is John 24 DeRick. I'm from the sign -- Planet Neon,
106
1 46593 Grand River, Novi, Michigan. 2 The drawings that I have 3 presented to you, I'd like to, you know, 4 make some modification to them. Me and 5 Mr. Hagopian, who's here with me tonight, 6 have went over multiple revisions of what we 7 wanted to do on this building. So I'd like 8 to put the elevations -- is this -- 9 MEMBER FISCHER: It'll turn on 10 by itself. 11 MR. DERICK: What you have 12 before you is the mall side, which we 13 considered side A on the elevation drawing 14 that you have. The drawing that I presented 15 to you had multiple more signs than that. 16 You can see we have reduced that down to 17 just putting window graphics in the front 18 and that center window. 19 Is everybody -- 20 MEMBER SHROYER: There is a zoom 21 on that to make it larger. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: I feel like I'm 23 right there. Okay. 24 MR. DERICK: Okay. So we've
107
1 reduced that down. We also did the same 2 with the B elevation; and the XL sign that 3 you're looking (unintelligible) the two end 4 banks of windows on that particular 5 elevation. And then on the C elevation, 6 actually, we're going (unintelligible) both 7 of those windows -- one -- even one in the 8 circle is included. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm sorry. 10 What are you doing with that elevation? 11 MR. DERICK: Both of those 12 will be included in that particular 13 elevation. 14 So, the Sign Code refers -- 15 you know, when it talks about window 16 signage, it talks about advertising; and it 17 limits the amount of time that the signage 18 is allowed to be on the windows. This is 19 significant investment in signage. It's not 20 just like a simple, you know, peel-and-stick 21 window graphic. And if you put something 22 like this up, we want to keep it up for a 23 longer period of time. 24 The Code doesn't allow for
108
1 anything to be put up for extended periods 2 of time, and that's -- we could have put 3 some of this up without coming before the 4 Board, but we'd have to pull it down within 5 a short period of time. We felt we would 6 come before the Board; present really 7 everything we desire for this building. 8 Another -- you know, another thing it 9 doesn't have -- like I said, it doesn't have 10 any advertising on it. 11 Roche Bobois, the name, 12 itself, doesn't really identify what type of 13 business that is. You know, it's a high end 14 furniture store, and we feel that the 15 graphics will identify the building, without 16 really adding any signage to the building. 17 Mr. Hagopian, would you like 18 to add any comments? 19 MR. HAGOPIAN: Yes. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: You need to be 21 sworn in by our secretary, please. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 23 or affirm that the information that you're about 24 to give in the matter before you is the truth?
109
1 MR. HAGOPIAN: I do. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 3 MR. HAGOPIAN: My name is 4 Edward Hagopian, 43223 Twelve Mile Road, 5 Novi. I'm the owner of the Roche Bobois 6 Showroom. And this is essentially our third 7 year there. And we've experienced 8 significant hardship frankly over the years 9 in getting traffic. People identifying what 10 our showroom is all about. And we feel that 11 this is really an essential thing for us to 12 communicate properly to people that this is 13 furniture showroom. 14 And that's why we -- you know, 15 we felt that the original presentation was 16 overkill. It wasn't that necessary, as long 17 as we could get on the facets of the 18 building that are visible from the three 19 sides. It's an unusual building, unusual 20 thing. We've had other kinds of sign 21 problems in the past, but I think this would 22 solve our problems. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, sir. 24 Any other comment?
110
1 MR. DERICK: No. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: In this case 3 there were nine notices mailed; zero approvals, 4 zero objections. 5 Is there anyone in the 6 audience that wishes to comment on this 7 case? 8 Seeing none, Building 9 Department? 10 MR. AMOLSCH: Just one 11 comment. 12 (Unintelligible) Section 2814 13 does not allow window signs (unintelligible) 14 the back faces Twelve Mile. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 16 And Mr. Schultz? 17 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess just 18 briefly. I know that the section that's quoted 19 in the notice is the section that relates to a 20 message and referring to current, temporary 21 merchandising or promotional activity. It's not 22 clear to me that this would fall even under the 23 25 percent limitation, because it's not a 24 message. It's more just a typical sign. And so I
111
1 think what the proponent said is more correct at 2 the beginning of the presentation, this is just 3 not anything contemplated under the Sign 4 Ordinance. 5 So I think, you know, as the 6 Board considers this -- considers their 7 request, it should be considering it as 8 essentially a substantial amount of 9 additional sign material, as well as -- 10 nothing wrong with having any 11 (unintelligible) window sign. It is in the 12 windows, but it's a variance from that, as 13 well. There's no message. There's no 14 temporariness to this at all. 15 So it's really just a variance 16 to all the standards, and it's just not 17 permitted. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 19 And for further clarification, 20 are we looking at more of an interpretation 21 then or are we still looking at a variance 22 -- granting a variance from this -- 23 MR. SCHULTZ: These are all 24 signs. They're -- so, it's our (unintelligible)
112
1 variance. They don't fall within the temporary 2 nature of the sign. They're on the rear 3 elevation. I mean, this is a substantial 4 deviation. I mean, you can (unintelligible) make 5 an interpretation (unintelligible) this is even 6 permitted temporarily considered City-Wide, what 7 that might be. 8 We're not talking about 9 messages -- sale, you know, (unintelligible) 10 going out of business, or any of that kind 11 of stuff. This is intended to be permanent. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 13 Mr. Schultz. 14 Any other comments? 15 Seeing none, I'll open this up 16 for Board discussion. 17 Member Shroyer? 18 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, 19 Mr. Chair. 20 Now this was an interesting 21 one. I had to actually walk in the store to 22 figure out what was being sold. Obviously, 23 I'd never been there before. I've been next 24 door looking at rugs -- and bought a very
113
1 nice one -- but had never been in this 2 store. And so, to my surprise, it sold 3 furnishings. I thought it was an 4 advertising group or a -- perhaps even 5 leasing place for property or furnishing or 6 interior design, something a long that line. 7 So obviously, there is an 8 issue there that needs to be addressed. 9 Part of what I wrote -- and actually I need 10 to ask this question first. How, are the 11 signs to be attached? Are they on the 12 inside of the window, attached to the window 13 like a film? Are they hanging behind the 14 window, six inches or so? 15 MR. DERICK: They will be 16 attached to the window, either from the 17 interior or the exterior, depending on the 18 weather. The warmer weather 19 (unintelligible) on the outside whether; 20 cold weather, (unintelligible) on the 21 inside. 22 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 23 My initial thought coming in 24 was anything would be more attractive than
114
1 the wooden panels with holes in them that 2 are hanging in every window. That's just my 3 personal opinion, but I'm not a fan of 4 contemporary furniture. So that all 5 probably falls into the mystique of that 6 type of activity. 7 And one of the first things I 8 wrote here was, interestingly enough is, I 9 would probably be open to the possibility of 10 one sign in the front. And you've come 11 through and changed that. That was the 12 first thing you said is we've modified this 13 to only put the one sign. I was quite 14 concerned about the side, which is the 15 eastern side and the rear on the northern 16 side. 17 I would probably be more in 18 favor of adding some kind of a word such as 19 furnishings, besides the Roche Bobois -- 20 MR. DERICK: Bobois. 21 MEMBER SHROYER: -- sign to 22 indicate, you know, exactly what they're selling. 23 I'd be more in favor of that than these large 24 window coverings. Now granted, they Hagopian
115
1 side of the business does have rugs hanging in 2 the window or just inside the window. That is 3 not signs. I would assume the City interpreted 4 that that's not a sign. They're hanging a piece 5 of their product. 6 Now, I don't think it would be 7 very easy to hang a couch or a love seat or 8 something inside the window. So there's a 9 lot of things that we're looking at here. 10 And our legal aide here or lawyer has 11 indicated a lot of areas that we need to be 12 seriously concerned with and looking at. 13 And I'm always concern about setting a 14 precedent, as well. 15 And so that's why I wanted to 16 ask how they were attached. Are they 17 hanging behind -- is it part of the -- I 18 guess bottom line is -- depending upon how 19 the other Board Members feel, I might be in 20 favor of the temporary sign permit for the 21 front of the building. Even to the point of 22 coming back periodically and requesting a 23 new temporary permit; maybe even changing 24 what the sign looks like, because you had
116
1 several different designs here in your 2 windows. 3 But I'm not in favor of a 4 permanent picture in every single window. 5 And then -- like I said, I probably would be 6 more applicable on the Twelve Mile side of 7 adding the word furnishings. I'd be more in 8 a favor doing that to try to identify 9 exactly what your store provides for 10 furniture or whatever the appropriate 11 wordage would be; than to have all the 12 pictures hanging up. 13 I guess that's my comments at 14 this point. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 16 Member Shroyer. 17 Member Bauer, did you have 18 anything right now? 19 MEMBER BAUER: The reason that 20 they did not (unintelligible) windows, first all, 21 security. People go by at night. 22 (unintelligible) the police can't see in. 23 Second, you are selling an item here. 24 MR. DERICK: The windows are
117
1 all above the ceiling height. 2 MEMBER BAUER: (Unintelligible) 3 facing Twelve Mile Road, they're not. 4 MR. DERICK: Yes, they are. 5 Yes, they are. It just the angle of the 6 road there. 7 MEMBER BAUER: (Unintelligible. 8 )One of the reasons they don't want these. But 9 again, I would prefer to see you put like my 10 colleague said, furnishing underneath your name. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 12 Gronachan? 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's 90 14 degrees in here, so I'm going to think out side 15 of the box. I drive by this building everyday, 16 and I no that after being on this Board for a 17 couple of years, this building -- given the 18 elevation, the location, the several different 19 locations and entrances in this building, it is 20 very difficult to figure out what it is; let 21 alone, how to get into it. 22 This particular Petitioner has 23 been back in front of this board on numerous 24 occasions with identification; and for the
118
1 most part, I think we've -- identification 2 problems; and I think we've addressed most 3 of those in the past. And I don't usually 4 like to bring the past up when I look at a 5 case, but I do because I want to clearly 6 state that this is an unusual building. The 7 elevations, the -- given that entering into 8 the back, there is a decline into the 9 building; a decline elevation -- you've got 10 Twelve Mile and Novi Road. By the time 11 you're up on the building, you're not quite 12 sure what it is. 13 When I first saw the 14 pictures -- I'll be honest -- I said, "Oh, 15 how cool. And then common sense prevailed 16 and said this cannot happen. And the reason 17 why it couldn't -- and I'm going to give you 18 my -- going through my thought process here, 19 because, like Member Shroyer said, what 20 would we be doing and what kind of can of 21 worms would we be opening in the event that 22 we started this. 23 But then I look back to my 24 first process of thought, and that was,
119
1 there is no other building like this in 2 Novi. I feel that the Petitioner is true in 3 saying that they have a hardship in terms of 4 identifying their business. And although I 5 don't agree that all the windows should be 6 filled -- and I said I'm thinking outside 7 the box -- I can support the front window on 8 this building. 9 But then it doesn't address 10 the other two sides, which do truly 11 contribute to the problem. And I would want 12 to know what exactly would be put in one 13 window on both sides, if I can convince my 14 other fellow Board Members -- even if it 15 meant tabling this -- having something else 16 out there. 17 I have to tell you for as much 18 time as I spend on Twelve Mile and Novi 19 Road, this building -- I don't care what 20 kind of sign they have out there, you're not 21 going to see it. It's not going to identify 22 what's out there. Hagopian has had a 23 problem in the past. We've had to work on 24 the signs there, and that's in the back.
120
1 But when you're looking at that front of 2 that building on a gray day, I don't care 3 what's going to be there, it's not going to 4 happen. 5 And that's why, I say that we 6 look at this particular building -- and I've 7 said that several times now while I'm 8 talking about this particular building -- 9 has indicated that they have a unique 10 identification problem -- their furniture 11 store. 12 We don't really support signs 13 all over buildings, and this is 2006, folks. 14 This is definitely out side of the box. I 15 would like to see a temporary use permit, 16 based on the marketing, temporary 17 merchandising -- let me back up here. That 18 this variance would be -- could be allowed 19 under the temporary merchandising portion of 20 the Ordinance; in that it addresses at least 21 just the one window on Twelve Mile, and two 22 windows on the side that has the five 23 windows. 24 And I'm sorry. My pictures
121
1 are not marked. 2 And one picture on the four 3 window side. Even if it took the Petitioner 4 to go back and table this and help the Board 5 Members to take a look at this, and again, I 6 stress the importance of this unique 7 building. 8 This is a big business in 9 Novi, and they have a very good location. 10 But for as many times as I go out there -- 11 with all due respect -- this building 12 doesn't do anything to for you when you 13 drive up to it. 14 You can spot Hagopian when 15 you're going down the road, when you're 16 driving behind it; that's helped it. But I 17 think that this needs outside of the box 18 thinking, and I would duly document that 19 this is for this building only, and I would 20 not support it under any other Petitioner 21 that was bringing it in front of this Board. 22 I would have a hard time. Nothing could 23 substantiate the problems that this 24 particular building has. And has had
122
1 consistently through the past. 2 I hope I've painted a picture 3 outside of the box. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Several 5 pictures. 6 Member Krieger? 7 MEMBER KRIEGER: I understand 8 the hardship. I've driven by there 9 (unintelligible) Twelve Mile and Novi Road 10 area. You go past, and you don't know -- if 11 you don't know what that building is, it 12 could be an office building. And I would 13 had agree with the previous speakers that 14 have said that the Roche Bobois sign, if 15 they added furniture to it, I could support 16 that. I could support maybe a one window 17 that's like a stain glass window with 18 furniture on it. 19 I apologize, I cannot support 20 any kind of covering on any window. 21 Thank you. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 23 Member Krieger. 24 It's fun to be Chair, but it's
123
1 interesting, too, because everyone takes 2 what you have to say. 3 First and foremost thing -- 4 first -- (unintelligible) Member Bauer's 5 safety concerns. Police seems as 6 (unintelligible) concerns (unintelligible) 7 taken care of, but also fire, too. I do 8 have a concern with that. And should it be 9 tabled, if that is the direction from the 10 Board, I would like some direction from some 11 of our public safety (unintelligible) in the 12 City. 13 That being said, I think this 14 is a fantastic idea. Not to the extent 15 (unintelligible) not too excited, I think 16 it's a great idea. I can agree with the one 17 on the front. I think Member Gronachan's 18 idea of one or two on either of the sides, I 19 can agree with that amount. And the reason 20 I say that I think it's a great idea, is 21 because it is out of the box. 22 Two often we have people come 23 back and say we need more identification, 24 and what do they want to do, throw up more
124
1 signs; throw up larger signs. I think this 2 is a subtle way of advertising what you 3 have, and I think that this would -- on a 4 smaller scale -- would fit in with the area. 5 I think it provides substantial justice to 6 the City's other businesses in the area. 7 I've be excited to entertain a 8 scaled down version, and that's why I would 9 promote tabling the issue, and having you 10 guys come back with some plans. 11 And that's what I would 12 support personally. 13 Any other Board Members? 14 Member Krieger? 15 MEMBER KRIEGER: I would also 16 agree to table it and have them come back to 17 us; and then take into consideration what I 18 our attorney -- what he said 19 (unintelligible) deviation impact for other 20 businesses. 21 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may, through 22 the Chair, just a brief Follow-up. 23 (Unintelligible) Petitioner 24 know, is I'm not certain (unintelligible)
125
1 Zoning Ordinance that are issues. So we 2 will try to do that before the next meeting. 3 And you know, as Member Krieger said, and 4 some staff and other comments to assist, but 5 it maybe tight to do that before the next 6 meeting, but that's certainly what we'll 7 attempt to do. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: I think there's 9 some research to do. I look forward to looking 10 into that (unintelligible.) 11 MR. HAGOPIAN: I just wanted 12 to make a further comment in that, you know, 13 as it was mentioned in our rug department, 14 we have the ability to hang a rug in the 15 window. And basically, these would never 16 have any copy on them. It would always be 17 graphic. And essentially, it's not much 18 different than hanging a rug in a window. 19 I mean, it's display of a 20 product. So, you know, I don't think it's 21 objectionable. I know during the Super 22 Bowl, (unintelligible.) Of course, those 23 were temporary. We really have -- it's been 24 over three years now. We really have a
126
1 hardship problem. People after this length 2 of time don't have a clue as to what we're 3 are all about. I think it's an important 4 thing for us. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: And I think we 6 appreciate that and we definitely would like to 7 see you stay there. I think that's why this 8 Board would like to see some alternative ideas, 9 as far as the -- given the comments that -- the 10 concerns that people do have, I think that would 11 be best option. 12 MR. HAGOPIAN: I'd also like 13 to comment, whatever we do would be in good 14 taste. I mean, it's always our policy. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: It does look 16 that way from the photos. 17 Mr. Shroyer? 18 MEMBER SHROYER: Couple of other 19 things I had mentioned. If we do table this, I'd 20 also like to see the history as to what they have 21 brought forward in the past as considerations. 22 And basically, I agree with Member Gronachan. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Cindy. 24 MEMBER SHROYER: Cindy, Member
127
1 Cindy -- C. G -- I think on the back I'd still 2 prefer the words as opposed to the pictures. I 3 think the pictures could be distracting to the 4 drivers on Twelve Mile Road. And I see no reason 5 at all to have pictures on the side. But I do 6 agree, there should be some additional 7 identification on he rear; and I am in favor of 8 the one sign in the front, as well. 9 Just to give some more 10 feedback. 11 Thank you. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 13 Gronachan? 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I think 15 that -- from the sound of it, that everyone's in 16 agreement to table this. So in order to make 17 sure that all of the bases are covered, there's a 18 list of things that it's my understanding that 19 should be done before the next meeting or within 20 next 60 days. 21 One is, to be -- to get a 22 safety report, if you will, from fire 23 department -- if having one or two or three 24 of these items in the window prevents or
128
1 presents any type of safety concern in the 2 building. (Unintelligible) if there's a 3 fire -- I don't know if we can ask 4 (unintelligible) to take a look at this. 5 Also, to address Member 6 Bauer's concern about just exactly these 7 windows, I think we should have it on record 8 that these windows actually are not at floor 9 level; that they are in -- above ceiling 10 level; so that there's not this vision -- 11 we're not blocking any vision; and that goes 12 along with the safety concerns. 13 Number three, I would like to 14 see from Petitioner exactly what pictures he 15 would have in mind; and if he could, to 16 please identify specifically which side is 17 which, okay. Again, in our packet, the 18 picture -- I know the building but, because 19 we are (unintelligible) It's out side of 20 the box, it's never been done. I'd like it 21 really documented as to which building on 22 which road; what's north, what's south, so 23 we can have proper identification. 24 And also, what those pictures
129
1 are going to be. I would like to also 2 indicate when you represent this -- somebody 3 else had a concern. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl 5 e) regarding future -- 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Unintelligi 7 ble) previous cases that were brought before this 8 Board on this building. I don't think there's an 9 attorney statement that we need -- 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Regarding -- 11 MR. SCHULTZ: My only comment, I 12 just want to make sure that the Board 13 (unintelligible) staff enough time to get all 14 this together. I think next month might be 15 pushing it, but -- 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Going along 17 with Member Krieger, if I'm correct with what she 18 said, if you could provide anymore insight as to 19 the ramifications of approving something like 20 this, and how we can keep it from setting a 21 precedent, if I'm correct. 22 Member Krieger, is that were 23 you were? 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: Correct.
130
1 MEMBER FISCHER: And that's what 2 I would appreciate, as far as I am concerned. 3 (Unintelligible.) 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And I did 5 bring it up earlier about this building, this 6 location, based on (unintelligible) if there is 7 something, some sort of legal catch hold or 8 loop-hold, (unintelligible.) Those are my 9 requests. (unintelligible) If there's anything 10 else that the Board Members would like to see, I 11 think we should move to table this. 12 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: I'll second 14 that Motion. 15 MR. SAVEN: (Unintelligible.) I 16 know the Board has mentioned the fact you wanted 17 additional signage (unintelligible.) 18 MR. DERICK: No. 19 MR. SAVEN: (Unintelligible) I 20 want to make sure this is clear. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 22 Motion and a second. 23 Any other discussion? 24 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would
131
1 you please call the roll. 2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 4 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 6 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 7 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 8 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 10 GAIL BACKUS: And Member 11 Shroyer? 12 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 13 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five 14 to zero. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: We'll be 16 tabling this. We look forward to seeing you with 17 some more documentation, given that we are 18 treading new waters. 19 Good luck to you. 20 MR. DERICK: Thank you. 21 MR. HAGOPIAN: Is that March 22 7th or if we determine it to be longer? 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The City may 24 need more time, so it may be 60 days.
132
1 2 MEMBER FISCHER: I'll now call 3 Case 06-008, filed by William Lutz with Sign 4 Graphix, Incorporated for Citizen's Bank, at 5 49125 Grand River Road, southside of Grand River, 6 east of Wixom Road and West of Beck Road. 7 The applicant is requesting 8 two sign variances to erect a wall sign and 9 a ground sign to be located at said address. 10 Would you raise your right 11 hand to sworn in by our secretary. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 13 or affirm that the information that you're about 14 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 15 MR. LUTZ: I do. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 17 MR. LUTZ: My name is Bill 18 Lutz with Sign Graphix at 39255 Henry Club 19 Drive, Farmington Hills, Michigan. I 20 presume that you all have been by this 21 location. This is on Grand River, at the 22 intersection of Twelve Mile Road on the 23 southside of Grand River; not far away from 24 the proposed Providence Hospital location.
133
1 What we are asking for here, 2 is an additional wall sign on the east 3 elevation of the building, because we -- 4 because of the setback of the building and 5 because of the configuration of the building 6 (unintelligible) too much like a bank. It 7 really looks more like an architectural 8 style building; and it is -- this is the new 9 prototype for the Citizen's branches in the 10 Oakland County area; maybe a larger area 11 than that, geographically. 12 There's some -- the size of 13 the building, I think (unintelligible.) 14 They're proposing a building sign on the 15 east elevation as you can see there, as well 16 as a ground sign out front. As we work 17 through this, I'm going to show you some 18 elevations. 19 I don't know, can we dim the 20 lights a little bit or can you all see that 21 just fine? 22 MEMBER FISCHER: They dim what 23 they could. 24 MR. LUTZ: This is if you're
134
1 westbound on Grand River, so you're starting 2 to see the very beginning. And if you look 3 into the center of the photo there, is the 4 burgundy ground sign. You can probably even 5 pick out maybe the wall sign that's actually 6 on that elevation. If you get a little bit 7 closer, you will see a little more 8 perspective. 9 Off the left-hand side, you'll 10 see the ground sign. If you really look at 11 the wall signs on these locations -- and 12 we've done a number of these for Citizen's 13 now -- it's kind of long range way finding 14 tools. This is a high-speed road. We 15 anticipate a lot of traffic coming from the 16 east, westbound as result of the new 17 hospital and medical facility, and all the 18 development that's going on down Beck Road. 19 So, it's kind of critical that we have 20 long-range visibility. 21 I think (unintelligible) 22 long-range visibility, with the wall 23 signage, the ground signs really come into 24 play as we get up close, because frankly,
135
1 you really can't see what they say from very 2 far away. So the ground signs function more 3 as a turning and directional symbol, if you 4 will, at the curb cut. 5 Now, this is a curb cut that 6 we have; off to the right-hand side, we have 7 Twelve Mile Road; to the left-hand side or 8 the southside of Grand River, we really have 9 an entry into the shopping area. The party 10 store's back there; there's a Big Box 11 Merchants back there. As you can see, 12 there's a tremendous amount of clutter, in 13 terms of light poles and overhead wiring. 14 It's just a very busy area. 15 (Unintelligible) if you go 16 farther west, here it gets even more so. 17 This is a very congested area, and I could 18 probably say it's going to get to a larger 19 degree, more congested as time goes on, as 20 this area develops, which it's bound to do. 21 This is very close now -- really, I'm at the 22 stop light here practically at that 23 intersection or getting ready to stop at 24 that stop light. As you can see now, the
136
1 long-range way finding tool, if you will, 2 which is the additional sign that we're 3 asking for on that side of the building -- 4 and you'll start to notice the beginning of 5 the round central entry way that's being 6 constructed. The crane (unintelligible) you 7 can see that the light pole's coming up the 8 middle of it -- that sign is now starting to 9 disappear from view and becoming very 10 difficult to read. 11 So from up close, the ground 12 sign kind of takes over. We have agreed -- 13 not agreed to, but we have reconfigured 14 their basic (unintelligible) or ground type 15 sign into a different configuration. So if 16 it were the only sign on the property, it 17 does meet the City of Novi Ordinance in 18 terms of height and square footage. 19 We had to reconfigure to do 20 that, because normally their signs are 21 taller and more vertical. This is a more 22 horizontal ground sign. It had eight inch 23 high copy, though not particularly large; 24 and works very well from up close.
137
1 This photo is from Twelve 2 Mile. If you were coming to the south -- 3 now we're facing south, you can see both -- 4 you can really see the signs -- you won't be 5 able to see the sign that we're requesting 6 on the left side or the east side of the 7 building, because it will be obscured by the 8 whole entryway there that's being 9 constructed. And that will all be glass. 10 Because of the angle of the glass, you 11 really won't be able to see that sign at all 12 from that direction. 13 (Unintelligible) certain sign 14 from the front on the north elevation helps 15 and the ground sign has minimal effect at 16 this angle (unintelligible) to the sign. 17 If we approach from the other 18 direction, now we're westbound -- oh, I'm 19 sorry -- eastbound, coming from the west, 20 coming from Wixom Road. Because of the 21 trees, you really cannot see the wall sign 22 from this particular vantage point. 23 (Unintelligible) all that far. I'm about 24 adjacent to -- a little bit east of the
138
1 entryway of the automobile dealership. So 2 we're not all that far, physically. 3 The ground sign, you can kind 4 of see a footprint of it, but you certainly 5 can't read it. You wouldn't be able to read 6 it until you get closer. As we get closer, 7 now the wall sign will start to come into 8 play. As you can see, it's way over into 9 the right-hand side of your -- of the photo 10 in this case; and really out of your line of 11 sight. 12 If you're a passenger or a 13 even a driver in a vehicle, we hope that 14 you're not looking too far field from your 15 line of sight. And so those wall signs will 16 become much more difficult because of that. 17 And there the ground sign comes into play, 18 because essentially, we're marking the curb 19 cut. 20 When it comes to short-range 21 way finders, if you will, (unintelligible) 22 into that curb cut. This particular 23 location is a little problematic and it's 24 very tights. We got one-way traffic, so we
139
1 want to try to encourage people to enter 2 from this location, from this main entry. 3 You can enter from the backside of this, but 4 it really creates some traffic problems for 5 us, because it's a one-way circuit around 6 there. 7 This is a blow-up of the 8 individual ground sign. I think if I take 9 you back to the site for a second, because 10 you all have this in your packets, I 11 believe, so I don't think we have to look 12 at; but I want to flip back through here a 13 minute and go back to the site plan. You'll 14 notice -- you'll see the arrows here, this 15 is that rotation that's counter-clockwise 16 from the very north side. So that's why we 17 need to encourage people to enter from that 18 road, that access road -- which is opposite 19 Twelve Mile off of Grand River. 20 If we try to get them in the 21 backside -- which is really to the west -- 22 we create some real issues here. We have to 23 have the directional signage on this site, 24 which will meet the City Ordinance. Of
140
1 course, that will direct people to the 2 right, and go around the outside of the 3 drive-through. Because if we go the other 4 way, you can see it narrows down 5 considerably there, and that's one-way 6 traffic. 7 So, we really can't do that. 8 So we're really not going to encourage 9 people from the backside, even though we 10 can't really discourage it. It has to be a 11 safely accessed thing. We need access from 12 that backside. But we're not signing it. 13 We don't intend to sign it, but that's why 14 we are trying to encourage people off of 15 Grand River; and we anticipate an awful lot 16 of traffic. 17 We think this is very 18 consistent with the whole way this area has 19 been developed. It's certainly consistent 20 with other variances that have been granted 21 in area; and probably point in the recent 22 past to the National City variance that has 23 just been granted on the opposite side of 24 street. They're a similar situation
141
1 (unintelligible) granted additional wall 2 signs, and well as ground signage. 3 So I think it's consistent 4 with the kind of development and the kind of 5 decisions this Board has made in the past, 6 and we submit it for your consideration. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you very 8 much. 9 In this case there were 17 10 notices mailed; zero approvals and zero 11 objections. 12 Seems to be the case tonight. 13 Is there anyone in the 14 audience that wishes to comment on this 15 case? 16 Seeing none, Building 17 Department? 18 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: And I'll open 20 it up for board discussion. 21 Member Shroyer? 22 MEMBER SHROYER: If you wish. 23 Am I the only one who ever 24 goes first?
142
1 MEMBER FISCHER: I will, but I 2 like letting you guys go. 3 MEMBER SHROYER: Mr. Lutz, on 4 the plan that you provided us a copy of, and I've 5 highlighted sign number one, sign number two and 6 sign number three; and none of those are 7 currently located on the lot. What are those to 8 read? 9 MR. LUTZ: The sign number -- 10 I'd have to look at my notes to tell you 11 which is sign is which, to be honest with 12 you. We submitted that preliminarily. We 13 had found that -- itemizing only the items 14 that come before you is probably the best 15 plan. 16 The wall sign that's 17 mentioned -- I don't know what number it is, 18 Mr. Shroyer -- on the northside of the 19 building, is a permitted wall sign. So 20 that's really not before you this evening. 21 But I think that was probably the same plan 22 that we submitted originally 23 (unintelligible) the application for that 24 (unintelligible.)
143
1 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl 2 e) the wall sign, somebody hand wrote in, 3 approved under that. 4 MR. LUTZ: Yes. 5 MEMBER SHROYER: These are 6 free-standing signs. They look similar to 7 monument type signs. 8 MR. LUTZ: The only 9 free-standing sign we're proposing is the 10 one out front. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Might they be 12 directional signs; is that a possibility? 13 MR. LUTZ: Directional signs 14 (unintelligible), but they will be within 15 the City Code. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Correct. I'm 17 just trying to clarify (unintelligible.) 18 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl 19 e) directional signs have the verbiage, Citizen's 20 Bank, on them, or is it just one-way or enter, 21 exit? 22 MR. LUTZ: Typically, they 23 would. But we would again defer to City 24 Code in that.
144
1 MR. AMOLSCH: 2 (Unintelligible.) you could have the name of 3 the bank, name of the business on there. 4 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 5 And the west entrance, if I 6 remember correctly, is really attached to 7 the dealership, and has a gate. So that 8 really won't be used, except in the case of 9 emergency; is that correct? 10 MR. LUTZ: (Unintelligible.) 11 I am not familiar with that situation. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 13 or affirm that the information you're about to 14 give in the matter before you is the truth? 15 MR. LINCOLN: Yes. 16 My name is Jonathan Lincoln, 17 328 Saginaw, Flint, Michigan for Citizen's 18 Bank. The directional signs that we are 19 proposed here are -- they do not have our 20 name on it, nor do they have our logo on it. 21 We found that that's difficult, because it 22 becomes signage. 23 The entrance into the westside 24 there for the Ford dealership or Mercury
145
1 dealership, that is their service area, too. 2 So they will have traffic going back and 3 forth there. So it is not a gated -- they 4 gate it just to keep people out of the 5 there, they don't want traffic going through 6 there. But typically it's open all the 7 time. 8 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 9 MR. LINCOLN: And that is a 10 fire lane there. 11 MEMBER SHROYER: That's what I 12 figured. I thought it was just for emergency; 13 they'd keep it gated except in case of emergency. 14 MR. LINCOLN: No. That is -- 15 hey have a stop sign located there, and 16 we're proposing some stop signs, also for 17 the -- to make sure that traffic is properly 18 directed. 19 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 20 So your other wall or monument 21 type sign would say like ATM wit an arrow? 22 MR. LINCOLN: That is correct, 23 sir. 24 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl
146
1 e) entrance? 2 All right. And thank you, 3 Mr. Lutz, by the way, for your presentation. 4 It was one of the better ones that I've 5 seen. 6 MR. LUTZ: Thank you very 7 much. 8 MEMBER SHROYER: Clearly 9 identifies the issue and the hardship that you do 10 face. 11 On the eastbound, I know that 12 some of that will be removed, some of the 13 blockage that were shown in your pictures. 14 The work zone obviously is going to come 15 down eventually, and the construction 16 trailer won't be there. I hope it's not. 17 MR. LUTZ: The mound of dirt 18 will go. 19 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. But I 20 saw the -- one of your banks -- I believe it was 21 on Eight Mile Road, and it had the signage on 22 either side or both side of the circular entrance 23 that you have, and it was attractive. I mean, it 24 didn't detract from anything.
147
1 Where I'm wrestling and I hope 2 to get some additional comments from other 3 Board Members, I'm wrestling with the need 4 of both a monument sign and the proposed 5 wall sign on the eastside. 6 MR. LUTZ: Well, 7 (unintelligible) quite frankly. And we 8 looked at that as being two distinctly 9 different needs. The one being a long-range 10 need, so the people got into the right lane 11 to decel and go ahead and make the turn; 12 because the last thing we'd want is for 13 people to miss it have to turn around on 14 that road and come back at it. 15 It's getting so congested in 16 that intersection (unintelligible) very 17 difficult and is a getting worse. And I 18 suspect we'll see an increase in traffic on 19 that road that's going to be generated by 20 the hospital. Once that's up and running, 21 it's going to be a lot worse. So we really 22 need to get people into the left-hand lane 23 to turn if they're westbound. So the wall 24 sign would come (unintelligible) real
148
1 critical piece of our way-finders. And then 2 the ground sign, really becomes visible when 3 you get close; and kind of reinforces what 4 we're already seeing. Or if you miss the 5 wall sign, now (unintelligible.) 6 So it functions differently. 7 So it's a little different scenario, 8 partially (unintelligible) because of the 9 speed of the road; partially because it's a 10 two lane (unintelligible) midlane, if you 11 will, so it's a wide intersection there. 12 It's a lot going on in that area. So we 13 struggle with that, too. I understand where 14 you're coming from. 15 MEMBER SHROYER: And you 16 indicated that you reduced the size of the 17 monument sign (interposing) (unintelligible.) 18 MR. LUTZ: (Interposing) 19 essentially, the monument is taller and more 20 vertical, so that would interfere with our 21 height issues in the City of Novi. We 22 reconfigured that sign so that would not be 23 an issue. We know how to pick our battles 24 here in the City of Novi; we try to conform
149
1 to the Ordinance whenever possible. There 2 are exceptions, obviously. 3 MEMBER SHROYER: If you were 4 permitted to have the vertical sign, would you 5 still see a need to have the wall sign? 6 MR. LUTZ: Probably, because 7 we can't get -- height helps you somewhat. 8 But as soon as you start to expand copy it 9 gets longer; and you need to be able to see 10 what you're seeing. The footprint doesn't 11 help you much. You need to be able to see 12 what the language is, what the copy is. 13 Letters on the wall are 21 inches; and 14 that's key to the visibility. And that's 15 based on (unintelligible) highway studies 16 that were done, and so that's 17 (unintelligible) consistent with that kind 18 of engineering. 19 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay, thank 20 you. 21 The -- back to the City, 22 again. 23 Are we aware of any request 24 that have come forth, anything for the
150
1 property immediately to the east? Do we 2 know what's going to go in there? Is there 3 a proposal? 4 MR. SAVEN: Not that I'm aware 5 of, not at this time. 6 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. But 7 whatever goes in there, obviously, it will be 8 developed some day. It would have the same 9 requirement for building setback and what-have 10 you. 11 I'm not -- still not 12 convinced, I guess. And what I'm going to 13 do is wait to hear from other Board Members 14 as to their opinions. I'm not sure we need 15 both signs. 16 So with that, I'll relinquish 17 the floor. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 19 Member Shroyer. 20 Member Krieger? 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: I agree that 22 it will be a highly traffic area, and I 23 would support the monument sign. But a bank 24 is designation, and so I only be able to
151
1 support the one sign that's already existing 2 (unintelligible) monument, and that's it. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 4 Member Krieger. 5 Member Gronachan? 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I brought the 7 box back in, sorry. Normally, I agree that a 8 bank is a destination location, but I have to 9 thank the Petitioner for those wonderful 10 pictures. And I'd like to recap how I look at 11 those pictures, as well as driving out to the 12 sight. 13 When you're going westbound 14 and you're looking at that ground sign, 15 there's almost a detachment from the 16 original bank building; that was my first 17 impression. It's not fluent, and there's 18 not a continuation from the bank building to 19 the ground sign. The trees in the 20 dealership don't help you; but I agree that 21 the building sign is what immediately 22 identifies that bank. 23 Given that you continue on, 24 this ground sign does not serve any purpose
152
1 going west; it's coming east. That's where 2 the problem is. So although normally when 3 you look at signs, and we say, yeah, this 4 building (unintelligible) something for 5 identification purposes, this is a unique 6 configuration of a lot. And given the type 7 of roads that we're dealing with; the 8 speeds, the angles that we saw in the 9 pictures, you cannot see the Citizen sign 10 building -- the Citizen's sign going east 11 down Twelve Mile, but you can spot the 12 ground sign. 13 The trees and the dealership 14 again play havoc into identifying your 15 building. And it's the actual ground sign 16 that brings to the fact that there is a bank 17 there. 18 MR. LUTZ: From that 19 direction. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: From that 21 direction. 22 MR. LUTZ: Right. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So when I 24 first looked at it, I thought that there would
153
1 not be a need for a ground sign, but that ground 2 sign is there serving the purpose of going west. 3 It's coming east. And for that reason, and for 4 this case only, I'm saying this because 15 people 5 will be here next month (unintelligible) you did 6 this on Twelve Mile. But given the specific 7 testimony that you have given here tonight, and 8 the pictures that you provided, is how I can 9 support your request. 10 You clearly indicated that 11 there's many different areas -- and we're 12 not talking about one road. We're talking 13 Twelve Mile; we're talking Grand River; 14 we're talking Wixom. And I agree with you, 15 that when you're coming off of Wixom and 16 your coming down that road, I had a hard 17 time looking for this. 18 And my first thing was, was 19 writing it off saying, there's a lot of 20 construction. I don't think I can make this 21 decision. But the bottom line is, I took 22 all of that out of the picture. Those trees 23 are still going to be there; the dealership 24 is still going to take away from it. So as
154
1 much as I do not like proposing that we have 2 this many signs on a bank building, I have 3 to follow my own rule and say, I look at 4 each case individually; and in this 5 particular case I feel the Petitioner has 6 substantiated the need for all three signs. 7 Therefore, I will be 8 supporting the request. 9 Thank you. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 11 Member Gronachan. 12 Member Bauer? 13 MEMBER BAUER: I agree with her 14 (unintelligible.) 15 MEMBER FISCHER: I'll go ahead 16 and say I agree, too. I see this as a safety 17 issue. And although we do look at each case 18 individually, I've actually said it before on 19 this road. 20 And as usual, I'll also 21 stipulate that we've established that Member 22 Gronachan speeds through the City, and so we 23 need her to be able to find this. But 24 although this is normally a designation
155
1 location, this area of the City is growing 2 in such a manner, with the hospital people; 3 is going to become a regional area. It's 4 not just the City anymore. We have the 5 hospital; we have the Expo Center. 6 And actually since our last 7 meeting, we don't know what's going to 8 happen across Wixom Road now at the Ford 9 Center. So I think that although normally 10 this would be seen as a destination 11 location, I can't see it as that because 12 people from all over the State will be 13 around these corridors. 14 And that's why I'm willing to 15 support it as a safety issue; given the 16 speed, given the size of Grand River, Twelve 17 Mile, Wixom, etc. 18 So, with that said -- 19 MEMBER BAUER: Sounds like a 20 (unintelligible), too. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: I'll leave that 22 up to the other Board Members to make the 23 Motions. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Can I
156
1 just say that as said? I'm tired of talking. 2 I'll do it. 3 MR. SCHULTZ: Actually, if I 4 may, through that Chair. I think that if a 5 Motion were made to approve and she appended the 6 comments that she made -- which were pretty 7 substantial -- that would be acceptable of 8 findings of fact; would be fine. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. That's 10 what I'd like to do, as said by the attorney. 11 In Case Number 06-008, filed 12 by William R. Lutz of Sign Graphix for 13 Citizen's Bank, at 49125 Grand River. I 14 move that we approve the variances 15 requested, based on the discussion taken 16 place at this table; the testimony given by 17 the Petitioner this evening, indicating that 18 these signs are for identification purposes, 19 and as previously discussed? 20 MR. SCHULTZ: As previously 21 mentioned by you, the maker of the Motion. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: As previously 23 mentioned by myself -- 24 MR. SCHULTZ: In your
157
1 discussion. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: -- in my 3 discussion. 4 MR. SCHULTZ: Correct. 5 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 7 Motion and a second on the table. 8 Any further discussion? 9 Member Shroyer? 10 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. 11 I'm not going to support this 12 Motion, and I want to say why. 13 It appears it's going to be 14 approved and that's part of the reason. But 15 in my opinion, the monument sign is needed, 16 but I prefer to see the wall sign held off 17 until the property to the east is developed. 18 And once that's developed, I think we will 19 have the true understanding as to whether a 20 hardship exist or not. 21 So that would be my 22 preference. So the Motion as it reads, I 23 would not be in support of. 24 Thank you.
158
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Point of 2 clarification on the Motion. 3 We did specify practical 4 difficulty, correct? 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Unintelligi 6 ble.) 7 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unidentified) 8 as opposed to undue hardship. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Configuration 10 of the lot -- 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: -- 13 (Unintelligible) the dealership -- 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 15 Any other discussion? 16 MR. LINCOLN: Can I get a 17 clarification real quick? 18 MEMBER FISCHER: We're in the 19 middle of a Motion. 20 We'll go ahead and take a roll 21 call -- a vote. 22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?
159
1 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Shroyer? 3 MEMBER SHROYER: No. 4 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 6 GAIL BACKUS: And Member 7 Krieger? 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 9 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes four 10 to one. 11 MR. LUTZ: Thank you. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance 13 has been granted. 14 MR. LINCOLN: This east 15 property, this (interposing) 16 (unintelligible) here, that's all water over 17 in there. (Unintelligible.) 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 19 MR. LINCOLN: Thank you. 20 MR. LUTZ: Thank you very much 21 for your patience. 22 23 MEMBER FISCHER: I'll now call 24 Case Number 06-009, filed by Gordon Wilson, for
160
1 property at 1322 East Lake Drive, located east of 2 Old Novi road and north of Thirteen Mile Road. 3 The applicant is requesting three setback 4 variances for construction of a deck in the rear 5 of said address. 6 The applicant is requesting a 7 three foot rear yard setback; a north side 8 yard setback of 7.7 feet; a south side yard 9 setback variance of 9.25 feet. This case 10 had been heard for this property for the 11 construction of a new home on July 6th, 12 2004. 13 And Mr. Harrington is here to 14 represent the Petitioner. 15 MR. HARRINGTON: I am, indeed, 16 Mr. Chairman. 17 James Harrington, 2411 Novi 18 road, Novi, Michigan, for Mr. Wilson. I 19 appeared on Mr. Wilson's behalf two years 20 ago, approximately in July, 2004, regarding 21 the principal variances needed to construct 22 this home. At that time, it was my judgment 23 that proceeding on a deck variance based on 24 blueprints without having a home actually
161
1 constructed (unintelligible.) 2 The house is just about 3 completed; however, it would be impossible 4 to get a certificate of occupancy, because 5 the original drawings, of course, have 6 sliding door walls on a lakeside; which now 7 opens into empty space. A deck was 8 contemplated then, and we're now seeking the 9 variance, which allow construction of the 10 deck; and basically the completion of the 11 home. 12 We had a unique lot size 13 configuration in Mr. Wilson's property. 14 First of all, his reconstruction -- it's a 15 beautiful home -- I was very impressed with 16 the final product. The land slopes up 17 slightly from the street, and then basically 18 goes down and drops towards the lake. The 19 street level is actually the first floor of 20 the home. When you come around to the lake 21 side, the definition changes sufficient that 22 you've got room for a lower level. 23 And so the deck would be 24 basically at the first floor level,
162
1 approximately eight foot off the ground. 2 Without a deck, Mr. Wilson cannot occupied 3 his house. I reviewed the actual site with 4 Mr. Wilson after he submitted his initial 5 application. His initial application for 6 this deck, request's a 14 foot deck, 7 which -- if I understand the City Code -- 8 would require a three foot variance. And in 9 fact, the pillars that are part of the deck, 10 would actually extend another eight inches 11 toward the lake, for a total of 14.8 inches. 12 When I looked at that site, I 13 thought the deck was too big, and I told 14 Mr. Wilson that. And I suggested to him and 15 recommended that he reduce his variance 16 request this evening but to 12 -- two foot 17 off -- two feet out of the three foot 18 variance he was looking for. With the 19 pillar -- and again, I don't know if that 20 counts as a (unintelligible) or not, but the 21 total deck toward the lake would be 12.8 22 inches, which is substantially less than the 23 variance he requested. 24 The side yard variances are
163
1 interesting, because the house doesn't sit 2 squarely on the lot. To the north side, the 3 property line is a couple of feet from the 4 his existing wall. And reason his existing 5 north side wall is a couple of feet from the 6 property line, is to follow the foundation 7 of the original construction. 8 Similarly on the south side -- 9 because the house is off-set -- there's a 10 slightly greater setback there. But again, 11 he followed the foundation essentially of 12 the initial construction. The deck side -- 13 to the north side and south side of the 14 deck, are inset approximately one foot, four 15 inches. So they're not even tracking 16 squarely the foundation or the footprint of 17 the house. There's a slight inset there. 18 But he's basically tracking the 19 configuration of the home in that regard. 20 The other thing I asked 21 Mr. Wilson to do, besides reducing size of 22 his request when he first called me up, I 23 said, Gordon, you have to get the support of 24 your adjacent neighbors, or you're not going
164
1 to get a variance from this board. Mr. 2 Wilson went and received a written approval 3 from Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Smith, who are his 4 north side neighbors on December 4th. I 5 think their support is unqualified; and that 6 was attached with our initial application. 7 They also received support on January 7th 8 from Dr. Robert Solomon, who's on the south 9 side. 10 So the two adjacent neighbors 11 not only have no problem with the deck. 12 Presumably, they have even more enthusiasm, 13 knowing that the size of the variance 14 requested shrunk. And with respect to the 15 neighbor, I've attached a photograph, which 16 I took about two weeks ago, before the 17 recent snow storm. The south side view 18 demonstrates that there is screenage and 19 screening and landscaping on the south 20 neighbor; so I don't think there's anyone on 21 the south side with any reasonable eyesight 22 of this deck who would have any problem. 23 But the view to the north in 24 the other configuration, shows that two or
165
1 three houses farther down, there's a deck 2 which is even closer toward the lake than 3 Mr. Wilson's. The little -- on the north 4 side photograph, you'll see there's a little 5 stake there, a little pink thing -- that's 6 my unscientific stake that I put out there; 7 and that is 12 feet. And because of my 8 placement of that 12 foot stake, I felt that 9 two feet toward the lake was too much, but 10 that's what's necessary to get this deck 11 done correctly. 12 The final point I would make, 13 is that I think that the twelve feet for 14 this house makes absolute common sense, and 15 I think there are actually safety 16 considerations. When I put my deck in 17 (unintelligible) in Novi 25 years ago, I put 18 that deck in with a ten foot length. And 19 the last 24 years I've dreaded, because 20 there's a huge difference between 10 feet 21 and 12 feet. If you have anything out there 22 other than little rocking chairs, lawn 23 chairs, if you have a table and you have a 24 party, and you have people milling around,
166
1 they're tripping all over each other. 2 And I don't think Mr. Wilson 3 wants the liability exposure of people 4 tripping all over themselves on his deck, 5 which is eight foot off the ground. 6 So, those are the reasons. 7 There are significant practical 8 difficulties. I think it's a wonderful 9 plan. If any of you have had the 10 opportunity to see the house, it's an 11 absolutely gorgeous house. And if you take 12 a look at the -- and the pillars and the 13 brick work that's going to go into this 14 deck, I think it will be an absolutely 15 outstanding compliment to the lake. 16 Do Board Members have any 17 questions? 18 Oh, one other thing. Unlike 19 other decks, there will only be limited 20 access to this deck from the first floor of 21 the house. You are not going to have a 22 traffic pattern of people coming in off the 23 lake going upstairs and the like. I did 24 notice that that's common in that area,
167
1 where you actually have larger deck 2 encurgeons(ph) toward the lake side, because 3 you have stairs and the like. 4 So the traffic will be 5 limited; and limited to people coming in 6 there from the first floor of his house. 7 Thank you. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 9 Mr. Harrington. 10 Just interesting to point out, 11 your deck was installed about two years 12 before I was born. I always like to point 13 those things out for the Board, just remind 14 them. 15 MR. HARRINGTON: I appreciate 16 that, Mr. Fischer. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: No problem. 18 MEMBER BAUER: You like to rub 19 it in, don't you? 20 MEMBER FISCHER: I do, I do. 21 MR. SAVEN: They didn't have 22 Ordinances back then. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: I don't think 24 so.
168
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I didn't 2 think they had decks back then. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: In this case 4 there were 40 notices mailed, with the approvals 5 which Mr. Harrington pointed out, and no 6 objections. 7 Is there anyone in the 8 audience that wishes to comment on this -- 9 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the chair, 10 just along that line just to keep this 11 consistent, typically, I mean, unless there's an 12 individual here saying they approve, I know it's 13 (unintelligible) to neighbor and they approve. 14 Just to the Board's clear, in the absents of 15 some kind of more direct proof, I guess I'd 16 rather not see that on your reasons for 17 (interposing) (unintelligible.) 18 MEMBER FISCHER: (interposing) 19 (unintelligible.) 20 MR. SCHULTZ: As long as there 21 are written letters from those persons in the 22 packet that's entirely appropriate. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. and Mrs. 24 Smith and Robert Solomon, are those the two --
169
1 MR. HARRINGTON: That's 2 correct. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: They're in our 4 packet right here. 5 Is there anyone in the 6 audience that wishes to comment on the case? 7 Seeing none, Building 8 Department? 9 MR. SAVEN: My turn. 10 I just want to point out to 11 the Board that this particular house had 12 previous ZBA approval. If you take a look 13 at that particular house and the setbacks 14 that were approved, this is not -- the deck 15 is not going outside (unintelligible) that 16 point of the house. Just make that point of 17 interest. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 19 Mr. Saven. 20 I'll open it up for Board 21 discussion. 22 Mr. Shroyer? 23 MEMBER SHROYER: Very quick 24 comments. When I visited the site Saturday, the
170
1 day before the snow storm -- I'm glad I went out 2 that day -- and walked down then -- and I'll say 3 left and right, I got totally turned around as to 4 which way was north. I walked down the left side 5 on hay. There's straw to get to the back. It's 6 absolutely gorgeous. And the proposed deck is 7 only going to continue to make the house even 8 more attractive. I would love to be a neighbor 9 and have this beside me. 10 I will be supporting the 11 variances as amend or as changed on the 12 proposed yard setback. 13 MEMBER BAUER: You just want to 14 be invited over to his deck. 15 MEMBER SHROYER: Yeah, grand 16 opening, ribbon cutting or whatever. 17 Thank you. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Bauer? 19 MEMBER BAUER: Superb job; which 20 you could have done that to my house. I would 21 certainly vote for this. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 23 Member Bauer. 24 Member Krieger?
171
1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Ditto. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 3 Member Krieger. 4 Member Gronachan? 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm looking 6 for a new neighbor, so if there's a vacancy next 7 door, let me know. I'll move right in, because 8 I'm girl without a house. 9 MEMBER BAUER: Poor little girl. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I concur with 11 this. I appreciate Mr. Harrington bringing up 12 safety factors. When we're looking at this, 13 that's always a concern. I also would like to 14 commend the Petitioner for the fact that you're 15 not going to add stairs; you're not going to have 16 that traffic out on the lake (unintelligible) 17 going to be kind of a pain to go out to the water 18 from the house; is that right, you're not going 19 to be able to go from the deck. 20 MR. WILSON: You go down the 21 stairs and come out of the house. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Unintelligi 23 ble) great house with a great work-out, as well. 24 But I commend you for your intent on aiding to
172
1 the neighborhood. And based on this, I'm in full 2 support. 3 Thank you. 4 (unintelligible) empty house 5 next door, I'll move in. That's all I have 6 to say. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm in 8 agreement. I'm (unintelligible) Board Member to 9 make a Motion. 10 Member Shroyer, do you want to 11 -- 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You want to 13 have it? It's late; nobody's really watching 14 now. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Schultz 16 will help you along. 17 MEMBER SHROYER: Go ahead. Go 18 for it. 19 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. In 20 regard to Case Number 06-009, filed by Gordon 21 Wilson for a property at 1322 East Lake Drive, 22 which located -- which is located east of Old 23 Novi Road and north of Thirteen Mile Road. I 24 move that we approve the requested variances,
173
1 with the change on the propose rear yard setback 2 from 14 feet to 12 feet, eight inches -- if 3 that's stated correctly -- with the following 4 reasons. That it does not infringe upon the 5 properties on either side; plus, as a matter of 6 record, we have received letters of approval from 7 (unintelligible) and Dennis Smith; and Robert 8 Solomon, who are the property owners to either 9 side of house. 10 Anything else I need to add? 11 Or should add? 12 MEMBER FISCHER: If you wanted 13 to add, given the shape and circumstances 14 regarding the lot. 15 MEMBER SHROYER: Shape and 16 configuration of the lot helps dictate the 17 variance requested that are requested. 18 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 20 Motion and a second. 21 Any further discussion? 22 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 23 you please call the roll. 24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Shroyer?
174
1 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 4 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 5 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 6 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 8 GAIL BACKUS: And Member 9 Gronachan? 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five 12 to zero. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Your has 14 variance has been granted. Thank you very much. 15 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Moving right 17 along to Case Number 06-010, filed by Brian Lewis 18 of Certified Management for 41200 Bridge Street, 19 located between Eleven and Twelve Mile Road. 20 Applicant is requesting permission to erect one 21 real estate sign with a 30 square foot variance 22 and three foot variance in height. 23 Please raise your hand and be 24 sworn in by our secretary.
175
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 2 or affirm that the information that you're about 3 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 4 MR. LEWIS: I do. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Please state 7 your name and address and proceed, please. 8 MR. LEWIS: My name is Brian 9 Lewis, property management, Certified 10 Management Company. 11 Actually, I would make a 12 correction on the requested square footage. 13 It's going to be 18 square feet for the 14 variance that we're requesting for the sign. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Your sign will 16 be 18 square feet or the variance? 17 MR. LEWIS: The variance is 18 18 square feet. Talked to the ownership, and 19 we have a standard sign that we do go with 20 (unintelligible) four by six. As you notice 21 on your example, we have one or two options. 22 We did it that way, so we didn't block the 23 marquee sign and/or the stop sign that's at 24 Bridge Street.
176
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Any other 2 comments? 3 MR. LEWIS: No, not at this 4 time. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. And in 6 this case, there were 16 notices mailed; with 7 zero approvals and zero objections. 8 Anyone audience that wishes to 9 comment on this case? 10 Seeing none, Building 11 Department? 12 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir. 13 MR. SAVEN: Is the height going 14 to be adjusted on this (unintelligible?) Are you 15 reducing the size of the sign? 16 MR. LEWIS: Yes. 17 MR. SAVEN: What is going to be 18 the height then? 19 MR. LEWIS: Well, it's going 20 to be -- I think Code is five feet. 21 MR. SAVEN: Because you're 22 changing the size of the sign from 30 square -- 23 or was it 36? 24 MR. LEWIS: It's 36, right.
177
1 MR. SAVEN: To 24 square feet. 2 MR. LEWIS: Actually, no, the 3 height won't change, because it was a six by 4 six. 5 MR. SAVEN: Okay. 6 MR. LEWIS: So the height is 7 still the same. 8 MR. SAVEN: Thank you. 9 MR. LEWIS: Uh-huh. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Any other 11 comments from the Building -- 12 Board Members? 13 And I refuse to call Member 14 Shroyer first. 15 Member Gronachan? 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. So can 17 you clarify for me option one and option two? 18 We're dealing with which option here, or do you 19 know? 20 MR. LEWIS: Well, option 21 one -- 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: (unintelligi 23 ble) showing in these pictures? 24 MR. LEWIS: Yes. And for the
178
1 safety issue of the stop sign that's at 2 Bridge Street, so it doesn't obstruct that. 3 Actually, talking with the owners, we were 4 going to just eliminate, I think, option 5 one. So it was further away from the 6 marquee sign and the stop sign, itself. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Now 8 we're at 24 square feet, which mean you need an 9 18 foot variance. 10 MR. LEWIS: Yes. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And it's 12 going to be eight feet, which means you need a 13 three foot height variance, correct? 14 MR. LEWIS: Yes. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. And 16 for the record, in our packet, there is a photo, 17 option number two, which is what you want -- this 18 is what the sign would look like. So option one 19 has now been removed? 20 MR. LEWIS: Yes, ma'am. 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: (unintelligi 22 ble) placement of that sign. 23 I have no problem with this 24 request. I think the Petitioner has -- I
179
1 like it when they come in and ask for a 2 smaller sign. I don't think that this is -- 3 I'm at a loss for words. It's late. It's 4 not intrusive, and it's in good taste. I 5 have no problem with it. 6 I think the Petitioner has 7 (unintelligible) request, and therefore I 8 will be in support. 9 Thank you. 10 A Motion? 11 In Case Number 06-010, filed 12 by Brian Lewis of Certified Management for 13 41200 Bridge Street, I move that the request 14 for one real estate sign, and I previously 15 mentioned the and clarified the area and 16 height be approved, based on the testimony 17 given by the Petitioner this evening. 18 Member Krieger: Second. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Would the 20 Motion maker like to place a time limit on the 21 sign? 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Any 23 suggestions? 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Any
180
1 suggestions, Mr. Lewis? How long were you 2 looking for? 3 MR. LEWIS: I believe the 4 Ordinance states it's one year. 5 MR. AMOLSCH: There's no time 6 limit on real estate signs. Nas long as you 7 need it until the property's sold. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: One year or 9 until the property is sold or until property is 10 sold. (unintelligible) if the property's not 11 sold in a year, come back and see us. 12 MR. LEWIS: Sure thing. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl 14 e) And the seconder agrees? 15 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Anything else? 17 MR. AMOLSCH: (Unintelligible) 18 Motion includes the new sign? 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. We 21 have a Motion and second. 22 Any other discussion? 23 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 24 you please call the roll.
181
1 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 3 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 5 GAIL BACKUS: Member Shroyer? 6 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 7 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 9 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 10 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five 12 to zero. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: This variance 14 has been granted. I don't think you're going too 15 far. 16 Then we'll call Case Number 17 06-011, filed by Brian Lewis, Certified 18 Management at 25795 Meadowbrook Road, 19 between Grand River and Eleven Mile. The 20 applicant is requesting a real estate sign, 21 36 square feet in area and eight feet in 22 height. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 24 or affirm that the information that you're about
182
1 to give in the matter before you is the truth. 2 MR. LEWIS: I do. 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 4 MR. LEWIS: Again in this 5 case, we're going to change the size of the 6 sign. We're requesting a variance for 18 7 square feet; the height to be same as 8 requested for the variance. The sign, 9 itself, sits much more lower off the road on 10 Meadowbrook, on the westside of the road. A 11 smaller sign is just impossible to see. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 13 And this case, there were 26 14 notices, with zero approvals and zero 15 objections. 16 Is there anyone in the 17 audience that wishes to make comment on this 18 case? 19 Seeing none, Building 20 Department? 21 MR. SAVEN: No comment. 22 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Board 24 discussion?
183
1 Member Gronachan? 2 Member Shroyer? 3 MEMBER SHROYER: You want -- 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Go ahead. 5 MEMBER SHROYER: I -- this is a 6 difficult location. I mean, it's easily seen 7 northbound. 8 MR. LEWIS: Right. 9 MEMBER SHROYER: And the 10 southbound, I mean, the monument sign's going to 11 block it come coming over the high overpass. The 12 other sign on the other side of the entrance is 13 obviously -- you couldn't put it by it or in 14 front of it or anything. It's a much larger 15 sign. It's vertical. 16 Did you look at other options? 17 Was there any other place on the property 18 that this could have been place, to give you 19 more visibility? 20 MR. LEWIS: Well, actually, 21 from that location, we were going to move it 22 farther south towards Grand River. 23 MEMBER SHROYER: So it would be 24 farther away from the monument sign?
184
1 MR. LEWIS: Right. With the 2 same setback from the road. 3 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. I was 4 afraid that perhaps you'd even have to go higher 5 than the height variance requested. In order for 6 somebody to see it. But moving it south, I guess 7 it won't take it away from that, and it would be 8 visible. 9 So with that I, do not have 10 any problem with the request. 11 Thank you. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Any other Board 13 Members? 14 Member Krieger? 15 MEMBER KRIEGER: I also would 16 be able to support it, because of the 17 difficulty -- practical difficulty 18 (unintelligible) located farther down. 19 So I'd be happy to make a 20 Motion. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: You may, you 22 have the floor. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I have 24 something to add, I'm sorry.
185
1 I appreciate that the 2 Petitioner came before us and requested a 3 smaller sign, despite the fact then he 4 originally requested 36 feet. I concur with 5 Member Shroyer that your height might be a 6 problem. You may need the -- so I would 7 like to leave it in the record that if this 8 sign doesn't work for the height, because of 9 the lay of this land and drop -- and the 10 fact that you have that stone marquee to 11 contend with, I would like you to know you 12 can come back and talk to us again. 13 MR. LEWIS: Okay. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 15 MEMBER KRIEGER: In Case 16 Number 06-011, filed by Brian Lewis of 17 Certified Management for 25795 Meadowbrook 18 Road, that we approve the request for the 19 sign variance, and that, as previously 20 discussed, that if he needs to come back for 21 the height, that that would be possible. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: What period of 23 time would you like? One year again? 24 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
186
1 MEMBER KRIEGER: For one year. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Or until 3 sold. 4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Or until 5 sold. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Very good. 7 There's a Motion and a -- 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 10 Motion and a second. 11 Any further discussion? 12 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 13 you please call the roll. 14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 15 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Shroyer? 19 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 23 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 24 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five
187
1 to zero. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Variances have 3 been granted. Good luck. 4 MR. LEWIS: Thank you. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Hopefully we 6 won't have to see you in a year. 7 8 And then that takes us to our 9 last case, Case Number 06-012, filed by 10 Roger Souilliere for Stone City, at 26940 11 Taft Road, located north of Grand River, 12 east of Taft Road. The applicant is 13 requesting a variance to continue use of 14 outdoor storage, in an I-1 Zoning district. 15 And this case was heard before 16 Zoning Board, Case Number: 04-003. 17 Could you please raise your 18 hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 20 or affirm that the information you're about to 21 give in the matter before you is the truth? 22 MR. SOUILLIERE: I do. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Please state
188
1 your name and address, and proceed with your 2 case. 3 MR. SOUILLIERE: Okay. Roger 4 Souilliere, 4454 22 Mile, Utica. Been here 5 before. I'm looking to extend that for -- 6 continue another three years. I did 7 recently purchase the property. We are -- 8 part of my contract was, the existing owner 9 was going to stay another two years. So it 10 gives me time to start getting my site plans 11 together to redevelop it. 12 Now, what I originally talked 13 about is storage building, you know, inside 14 storage. So, something that would be 15 allowed under current code. We're just 16 asking for another three years to get 17 through, and then start our site plans. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 19 In this case, there were 12 20 notices mailed; zero approvals, zero 21 objections. 22 Anyone in the audience that 23 wishes to comment on this case? 24 Seeing none, Building
189
1 Department? 2 MR. SAVEN: Only the fact that 3 he had been before you before regarding outdoor 4 storage. One of the issues that was in question, 5 the type of business he operates is dealing with 6 landscaping supplies and brick pavers. I should 7 -- 8 MR. SOUILLIERE: Yes. 9 MR. SAVEN: -- brick pavers, and 10 there's outdoor storage that does have exhibits 11 of patios and things of that nature in this area. 12 I can't -- I don't really have any complaints 13 (unintelligible) from this gentleman's business. 14 And I don't know to ask -- did you have 15 (unintelligible?) 16 MR. AMOLSCH: Haven't had any 17 problem. 18 MR. SAVEN: Okay. 19 That's where we're at. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 21 MR. SAVEN: I'm happy to hear he 22 bought the place. 23 MR. SOUILLIERE: Me, too. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Very good.
190
1 Any Board discussion? 2 MEMBER SHROYER: My main concern 3 obviously would be Alan, and that's already been 4 taken care of. 5 Then I'm willing to support 6 this. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 8 Gronachan? 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 10 I'm the one that made you come 11 back here. You -- you have a history with 12 Novi. I'm glad to hear there hasn't been 13 any problems. Congratulations as the new 14 owner. 15 MR. SOUILLIERE: Thank you. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And what kind 17 of changes, if any, are you going to be doing on 18 this? Do you have them planned yet? 19 MR. SOUILLIERE: I don't have 20 a plan yet. I'm looking for maybe a two or 21 three (unintelligible) of office storage 22 building, which will help support the trade 23 center that's right around the corner. 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay.
191
1 And at that point, outside 2 storage would be done then, correct? 3 MR. SOUILLIERE: Correct. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. And 5 how long will it take you to be getting it 6 together? 7 MR. SOUILLIERE: I have two 8 years (unintelligible) two year lease to 9 stay there and operate his business, which 10 doesn't do very much out of there; but 11 that's what he wanted. After the two years 12 are up, I can redevelop the site and 13 (unintelligible) in the back office or in 14 that front house, and that back shop. 15 So he's right in the middle of 16 everything, so it's kind of hard to tear the 17 back down and redevelop it and the 18 building's (unintelligible.) 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So this 20 (unintelligible) extension perhaps for four years 21 request wouldn't be out of line. 22 MR. SAVEN: All I ask is that we 23 have some kind of continuing jurisdiction. I 24 almost hate to say that term -- watchfulness. No
192
1 offense, Roger. I'm just telling you -- I know 2 the operation of your business does deal with 3 outdoor storage. 4 Got to get turned on here. 5 I know the nature of your 6 business is outdoor storage; and to the 7 extent (unintelligible) you may not have 8 outdoor storage, just by the nature of your 9 displays and things of this nature. Because 10 if you're going to be opening it up to the 11 public, (unintelligible) want to see what's 12 out there. That maybe a concern or reason 13 why you would be coming back. 14 I won't say that in it's 15 entirety there (unintelligible) no outdoor 16 storage. That probably be a condition of 17 site plan approval. 18 MR. SOUILLIERE: Correct. 19 MR. SAVEN: I just want you to 20 be aware of that. 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: (unintelligi 22 ble) problem with a three year request, based on 23 the fact that the Petitioner (unintelligible) any 24 problems, (unintelligible) long-time resident and
193
1 business in Novi. 2 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: That was my 4 Motion. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: With this being 6 a use variance, I would feel more comfortable 7 with more findings of fact, before I'd be willing 8 to support this Motion. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Unintelligi 10 ble.) 11 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the chair. 12 I (unintelligible.) 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: There you go. 14 Okay. Based on the fact that the business has 15 been -- that this is a continuation of the 16 current business; there has been no violations 17 for this business; and that this is going to -- 18 based on the Petitioner's testimony -- that this 19 is not going to be a permanent request, that I 20 feel comfortable and I can support this Motion; 21 and that's why I so moved. 22 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: I feel much 24 more comfortable now.
194
1 Any further discussion or 2 more? 3 Member Shroyer? 4 MEMBER SHROYER: Couple of 5 comments quick here. 6 Your previous approval 7 (unintelligible) you explain 8 (unintelligible) why you need more than two 9 years coming about (unintelligible.) I'm 10 glad to hear that. I was very concerned 11 with completion of the (unintelligible) 12 Expo, Paradise Park, all the other 13 properties that's being built near and 14 adjacent to your property -- I was very 15 hesitant to approve anything over a year 16 (unintelligible) new development. 17 But you've expressed the 18 reasons why. I understand them. I would be 19 in support of this. 20 One of the question I did have 21 here was, does the City recommend continuing 22 jurisdiction. Obviously they do. 23 (interposing) (unintelligible) differently. 24 Is there any other verbiage that needs to be
195
1 added to the Motion to be assured that 2 City's concerns are addressed? 3 MR. SCHULTZ: With regard to the 4 continuing jurisdiction issue here, is it 5 intention of the applicant to keep the 6 (unintelligible) pretty much where it is now? 7 MR. SOUILLIERE: Yes, I am. 8 MR. SCHULTZ: As long as the 9 Board indicates as part of the Motion 10 (unintelligible) as it exists here today, that 11 you have reviewed (unintelligible) for a period, 12 then that kind of becomes a continuing 13 jurisdiction kind of thing (unintelligible.) 14 MEMBER SHROYER: I would feel 15 better if the maker of the Motion would add such 16 verbiage. 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: As so stated 18 by the attorney, clarification of use and intent 19 there, which I would be willing to add that to my 20 Motion. 21 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Seconder 23 agrees? 24 Any other comments, Member
196
1 Shroyer? 2 MEMBER SHROYER: No. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Any other 4 discussion by anyone? 5 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 6 you please call the roll. 7 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 9 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 10 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 13 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger? 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 15 GAIL BACKUS: Member Shroyer? 16 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 17 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five 18 to zero. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance 20 has been granted (unintelligible.) Best of luck 21 to you. 22 23 MEMBER FISCHER: That takes 24 care of the cases portion of our agenda.
197
1 Although, I see there's nothing under other 2 matters -- 3 MR. SAVEN: (unintelligible.) 4 I'm going to talk fast. First 5 of all let's address issue with -- let's 6 talk real fast here, and I am going talk 7 about Steve Francis (unintelligible) PCS 8 people, regarding to have a place on the 9 agenda as soon as possible, or a date to 10 have this meeting or special meeting. 11 There are a lot of 12 complications set forth in dealing with the 13 special meetings certainly from a point of 14 having a full board available. There is 15 approximately a 15-day type of an operation, 16 (unintelligible) writing the agenda, for 17 them to supply us with the information for 18 us be able to put this together. It's going 19 to take time, plus the 15 days or ten days. 20 MR. SCHULTZ: Ten days has been 21 kind of practice. (unintelligible) but that's 22 consistent with City past action. 23 MR. SAVEN: I think based upon 24 the ability to have everybody here to the
198
1 meeting and the issue that special meetings 2 in pass were frowned upon by previous 3 Boards, based on the fact, that it is very 4 difficult to get everybody (unintelligible.) 5 Normally, when this happens (unintelligible) 6 major project or very major project. The 7 only one that I can recall was when we were 8 dealing with the sandstone project, if 9 everybody can remember that far back, where 10 we had approximately 67 variances or 83 11 variances for that project. 12 And we needed to take the time 13 specifically for that project, because of 14 the length and duration. (unintelligible) 15 it was unfair to the other people in the 16 audience for us to take up (unintelligible) 17 because it was that intense. 18 So, based upon the fact that 19 this is a facade issue, it is something that 20 the Board will have to consider. I mean, if 21 you want to do this, we certainly can do 22 this; but, I'm sure it's a monetary issue 23 for them, (unintelligible) monetary from the 24 standpoint of competition. (Unintelligible)
199
1 everywhere (unintelligible.) So I'm sure 2 they want to be first and (unintelligible.) 3 But again, in the past, with 4 the Board Members, there was one where the 5 request (unintelligible) based upon 6 intensity of what was taking place for that 7 variance. So that's the first thing. If 8 you want to discuss that or whatever right 9 now, of I'll go on to my second thing. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 11 Gronachan? 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 13 I feel that by allowing a 14 special meeting for something of this nature 15 would be inconsistent and could be 16 misconstrued by other businesses. I'm in 17 full support of all the businesses and any 18 new business coming to Novi, but that -- 19 this particular Petitioner -- easy for me to 20 say at this hour -- has not substantiated in 21 my eyes, the cause for that much 22 inconvenience at that much additional work. 23 I would not want it to be 24 misconstrued of any kind of "favoritism",
200
1 given that this is not a bigger case. This 2 is just a simple normal, for us, run of the 3 mill request (unintelligible) in Novi. 4 I could not support a special 5 meeting for this Petitioner. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Schultz, 7 did you have -- 8 MR. SCHULTZ: Nope. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Any other Board 10 Members? 11 MEMBER BAUER: Ditto. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: I guess I'd 13 (unintelligible.) 14 MR. SAVEN: (Unintelligible) 15 inform the Petitioner his request for a special 16 meeting has been denied. 17 Okay. Item number two, back 18 in Case Number 04-119, a gentleman came 19 before us (unintelligible.) He had sought a 20 variance for setback requirements, because 21 he had a mother that was in a wheelchair; 22 she was wheelchair bound. We granted the 23 variance. She ran into complications. He 24 didn't know whether or not he was going to
201
1 do this. And now they are able to do this, 2 because she's back in the wheelchair, and he 3 would like to have that variance continued. 4 I couldn't do anything, unless 5 I talked to the Board first, and I could 6 read to you what the Board had indicated for 7 that particular variance, if you wish -- and 8 I probably should do that. 9 MEMBER SHROYER: For the 10 record -- 11 MR. SAVEN: In Case Number 12 04-119, move to approve Petitioner's request, 13 given there's still sufficient setback; and 14 variance requests -- and the variance requested 15 does not impair the intent of the 16 (unintelligible.) 17 And that was the decision of 18 Board at that time. And it says, upon his 19 appeal, requested addition is needed for 20 elderly wheelchair bound mother, that cannot 21 live alone any longer. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm sorry. 23 What is the date? 24 MR. SAVEN: This date was on
202
1 December 8th, a little over a year ago -- year 2 and two months ago. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: And he had -- 4 MR. SAVEN: He had 90 days to 5 obtain a permit; apparently they didn't know what 6 was going to happen with the mother, and now we 7 have (unintelligible) condition, he wants 8 (unintelligible) the project. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Schultz, 10 any comments? 11 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess I 12 (unintelligible) ask why is there particular 13 consideration to not have this back on the agenda 14 for formal action, since it's been a substantial 15 amount of time. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's been a 17 year. 18 MR. SAVEN: (Unintelligible) 19 question, how you wish to handle it. 20 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess -- I did 21 not speak to Mr. Saven about this. It's been 22 long enough that I think I feel more comfortable 23 if they came back on as an action item. You can 24 put it on under other matters (unintelligible.)
203
1 I mean, if you want to let the 2 Petitioner know that he may not have to make 3 (unintelligible) presentation 4 (unintelligible.) 5 MR. SAVEN: If I have put 6 notices out, I'll put notices out. 7 MR. SCHULTZ: We can talk about 8 that. 9 If it seems to be consensus of 10 the Board, we can put it under other actions 11 or something. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl 13 e) see it as a regular item and suspend the rules 14 (unintelligible.) 15 MR. SCHULTZ: How about if we 16 make it clear when the agenda comes out to the 17 Board at the next meeting? 18 MEMBER FISCHER: (unintelligibl 19 e) next meeting. 20 MR. SCHULTZ: (unintelligible) 21 next meeting. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: (unintelligibl 23 e) fine with that? 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: That's fine.
204
1 MR. SAVEN: (unintelligible) the 2 costs (unintelligible) we have to notify 3 everybody. 4 MR. SCHULTZ: It's up to the 5 Board. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Unintelligi 7 ble.) 8 MR. SAVEN: (Unintelligible) 9 cost for notification. 10 MEMBER SHROYER: Can we waive 11 it? 12 MR. SCHULTZ: The Board can 13 waive it. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl 15 e.) 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I don't know 17 that -- if we're going through the motions again, 18 then I don't think we should waive anything. I 19 don't think we should pick up cost. 20 (Unintelligible) the Petitioner has not been able 21 to go through this again, but no, if we have to 22 do -- walk the line, I say we walk the line, and 23 nothing gets waived. 24 MEMBER SHROYER: It's been over
205
1 a year. 2 MR. SAVEN: (unintelligible) 3 (interposing.) 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Unintelligi 5 ble) time period. If we were talking 60 or 90 6 days, whatever (unintelligible.) 7 MR. SAVEN: Okay. The third item 8 I want to talk about, the Board gave me direction 9 to contact the Planning Department so they could 10 get in line with the Sign Review Committee, 11 talking about issues -- just like we've talked 12 about today -- in regard to landscaping and berms 13 and monument signs (unintelligible) that it was 14 take that issue into consideration. 15 The Planning Commission will 16 be having (unintelligible) their items to 17 look at, in terms (unintelligible) very 18 difficult (unintelligible) they have 19 consideration for where they place the sign. 20 So we're very hopeful. 21 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. 22 MR. SAVEN: The fourth thing 23 that I want to bring up, is that at the last 24 meeting, I was informed that Member Canup was
206
1 resigning, okay. And I placed a call to him in 2 Florida. He is not resigning. He's still a 3 Member of the Board. 4 And I made that assumption 5 that he was, based on the testimony from the 6 people here or the Board Members. I just 7 wanted to make sure that you knew the call 8 was placed. He's not resigning. And it was 9 issue that was little uncomfortable, but I 10 just wanted to bring that to everybody's 11 attention. He (unintelligible) something to 12 think about maybe in the future, if there's 13 any other concern the Board may have. 14 I expressed my concerns based 15 upon the issue of having people here and 16 available for meetings. That's all I did. 17 And that's basically what I wanted to bring 18 to your attention. 19 The third -- 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And a fine 21 job you do. 22 MR. SAVEN: Pardon? 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And a fine 24 job you do.
207
1 MR. SAVEN: I know. I'm being 2 very kind right now. 3 And another issue, and I think 4 Tom should talk to you (unintelligible) 5 issue regarding Flagstar Bank. 6 Tom, you want to just indicate 7 what you're findings are? 8 MR. SCHULTZ: Briefly. 9 I guess the letter after 10 Flagstar Bank's Motion, I believe it was in 11 December or may have been November -- pretty 12 straight forward. There was an appeal 13 filed. We took a look at the discussion. 14 And at the request from Flagstar Bank, to 15 maybe make a better presentation this time 16 around, with some actual reasons stated for 17 the two variance relief. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: (unintelligibl 19 e) Orchard Hill. 20 MR. SCHULTZ: Two primary 21 issues, and I think there was rear yard parking 22 setback issue, as well. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Oh, that one. 24 MR. SCHULTZ: They have
208
1 requested reconsideration (unintelligible.) They 2 have contacted the bank attorney. They just 3 automatically filed an appeal. So, 4 (unintelligible) at the record and request 5 (unintelligible) as part of that litigation, that 6 we probably get it remanded here by the Judge, in 7 any event. 8 (unintelligible) be back 9 (unintelligible) March agenda, for fuller 10 presentation from them. No doubt we'll have 11 the Planning Department rep here to talk a 12 little bit about the front yard issue, and 13 probably be prepared to deal with -- I think 14 the main question which (unintelligible) 15 Board Members have inquired about, was could 16 be built on that property without variance 17 relief, as opposed to what could be made on 18 the property. 19 (Unintelligible) so, that was 20 just an update. We'll see it back next 21 meeting, and I'm sure they will have more of 22 a showing this time. 23 MEMBER BAUER: We'll have our 24 December Minutes back?
209
1 MR. SCHULTZ: (unintelligible) 2 Minutes back, absolutely. 3 MR. SAVEN: And the last and 4 final thing, with very much sadness, we're going 5 to lose our young lady sitting next to me. She's 6 going to take a job somewhere else, a higher 7 paying job. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: In the City? 9 GAIL BACKUS: No. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Out of Novi 11 altogether. 12 You know, we (unintelligible) 13 too good here, (unintelligible) they leave 14 us. 15 MR. SAVEN: So, it's going to be 16 kind of hectic for a while. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Are you going to 18 take over (unintelligible?) 19 MR. SAVEN: Am I taking Minutes? 20 MEMBER BAUER: Yeah. 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No, that's 22 our Minute taker. 23 MR. SAVEN: You know, we'll 24 struggle along for a couple of months.
210
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is Sarah -- 2 MR. SAVEN: Pardon? 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Sarah? 4 MR. SAVEN: We will have Sarah 5 probably come back for the first two meetings. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: There were some 7 big shoes to fill with Denise, and I think you 8 did an excellent job, Gail. I think I speak for 9 the whole Board. We definitely appreciated your 10 service, and always there when we were calling or 11 E-mailing or annoying you. 12 So thank you very much for 13 everything you've done for all of us. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Good luck to 15 you. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Best of luck in 17 your new endeavors, sometimes scary, but best of 18 luck. 19 GAIL BACKUS: Thank you. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Thanks very 21 much. 22 MR. SAVEN: Okay. Now I am 23 done. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: At this point,
211
1 I will entertain a Motion to adjourn. 2 MEMBER BAUER: Hear, hear. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: All in favor 4 say aye? 5 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: This Board 7 stands adjourned. 8 (The meeting was adjourned at 9 11:09 p.m.) 10 - - - - - - 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
212
1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 I, Machelle Billingslea-Moore, 4 do hereby certify that I have recorded 5 stenographically the proceedings had and testimony 6 taken in the above-entitled matter at the time and 7 place hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify 8 that the foregoing transcript, consisting of (203) 9 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript 10 of my said stenograph notes. 11 12 13 ___________________________ Machelle Billingslea-Moore, 14 Certified Shorthand Reporter 15 16 March 22, 2006. (Date)
|