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.

Justin Fischer, Chairman
Cynthia Gronachan
Gerald Bauer
Tim Shroyer
Linda Krieger

Don Saven, Building Department
Thomas Schultz, City Attorney
Alan Amolsch, Ordinance Enforcement
Gail Backus, ZBA Recording Secretary


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?


16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger,

19 absent.

20 Member Sanghvi, absent

21 excused.

22 And Member Shroyer?


24 MEMBER FISCHER: We do have a




1 quorum and our meeting is now in session.

2 And Member Shroyer?


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




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.


8 (unintelligible) a Motion. (Unintelligible)

9 there's a second?

10 There's a Motion and a second.

11 All in favor say 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.


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,




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




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.




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.


9 Then I'll entertain a Motion

10 to approve as amended?

11 MEMBER BAUER: So moved.


13 MEMBER FISCHER: All in favor

14 says 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.


23 will open it up for public remarks from anyone in

24 the audience.




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




1 meeting at a date prior to your March 7th

2 meeting, for the purpose of expediting our

3 request.


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




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,




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.


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?





2 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you.


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.


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.





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




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




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




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




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.


13 lettering, as well, that would stay the same?

14 MR. DUWICK: Same square

15 footage as (unintelligible.)


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,




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,




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.




1 I'd like to hear it.


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?


20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?


22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?


24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Shroyer?





2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger?


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.


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.




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.


22 MR. MAMOLA: We had a strange

23 beginning to this project. A few days

24 before Christmas, Matt calls me out of the




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




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




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




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




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




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




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.


24 The first one is from Cathleen




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




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




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,




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




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?


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




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




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.





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.




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.




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




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




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?


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




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.


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.)


24 appreciate that the Petitioner is trying to go




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?


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




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




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




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.




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.




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.


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




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.


16 MEMBER FISCHER: Ms. Backus,

17 would you please call the roll.

18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?


20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger?


24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Shroyer?





2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?


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.


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.


23 solemnly swear or affirm that the information

24 that you're about to give in the matter before




1 you is the truth?

2 MR. ASH: Yes, I do.


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




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?




1 Seeing none, Building

2 Department?

3 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir.


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




1 plot plan, about the third page in, handwritten.

2 MEMBER FISCHER: 2213351003.

3 MR. SAVEN: (unintelligible.)


5 MR. SAVEN: That's correct.


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?


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




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.


10 Motion, Member Shroyer?

11 MEMBER SHROYER: It can be.


13 MEMBER FISCHER: Ms. Backus,

14 would you please call the roll.

15 GAIL BACKUS: Member Shroyer?


17 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


19 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?


21 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?


23 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger?





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.


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.




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




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.


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




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




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.




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




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?


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.


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.


24 That's my Motion.





2 MEMBER FISCHER: (unintelligibl

3 e) findings of fact with the Motion, please.


5 (unintelligible.)

6 MR. SCHULTZ: I've been very

7 quiet.


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?


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




1 looking at the area.


3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: For business

4 identification.



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?


13 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?


15 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?


17 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger?


19 GAIL BACKUS: And Member

20 Shroyer?


22 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five

23 to zero.

24 MR. GIBBENS: Thank you very




1 much.

2 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you.

3 Good luck and please see the

4 Building Department.


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?


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




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.




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.




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.


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.


24 Mile and Napier is quite a unique area all in




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.


16 MR. HEDEMARK: It's much

17 cleaner than it was.


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,




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.


19 MEMBER BAUER: Then that takes

20 care of one of the variances.

21 I don't have any problem.


23 Motion?

24 I'm sorry.




1 MEMBER FISCHER: Are you all

2 set, Member Bauer?

3 MEMBER BAUER: (Unintelligible.)


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?




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?


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.


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




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




1 the subdivision. But, hopefully, it's not

2 forever.


4 Member wish to make a Motion?

5 Member Gronachan?


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.


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?


22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger?


24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?





2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?


4 GAIL BACKUS: And Member

5 Shroyer?


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




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.




1 MR. SCHULTZ: (Unintelligible.)



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.





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




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




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.


9 MR. TANIK: We are open to any

10 questions that you have.


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




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?




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.




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




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


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




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


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?




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.


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




1 variance.


3 want me to do the whole Motion then?

4 MEMBER FISCHER: Might as well.


6 did I end up doing this.

7 MEMBER SHROYER: Because you're

8 good at it.


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




1 this Board to substantiate the need for this

2 building -- the need for this sign at this time.




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?


12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?


14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?


16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger?


18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Shroyer?


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




1 luck.


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?


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




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




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




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




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.


7 Members?

8 Member Gronachan?


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?


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




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




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




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.




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




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




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.


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.


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




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?


16 like to go ahead and make a Motion.

17 MEMBER FISCHER: Please do.


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.




1 MEMBER FISCHER: And do you wish

2 to include any findings of fact on that?


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.


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?


24 (Unintelligible.)




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.


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.


23 MEMBER FISCHER: That's agreed

24 with by the seconder?




1 Any other discussion?


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?





1 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?


3 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?


5 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


7 GAIL BACKUS: Member Shroyer?


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.


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.)





1 MEMBER FISCHER: We will resume

2 the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.


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.


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,




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




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




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?


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?






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?





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.


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




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.


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)




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




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.


23 My initial thought coming in

24 was anything would be more attractive than




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




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




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




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.


12 Gronachan?


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




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,




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.




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




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




1 consistently through the past.

2 I hope I've painted a picture

3 outside of the box.


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




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




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)




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




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.


24 MEMBER SHROYER: Cindy, Member




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.


13 Gronachan?


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




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




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?





1 MEMBER FISCHER: And that's what

2 I would appreciate, as far as I am concerned.

3 (Unintelligible.)


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.


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




1 you please call the roll.

2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


4 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger?


6 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?


8 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?


10 GAIL BACKUS: And Member

11 Shroyer?


13 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five

14 to zero.


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?


24 need more time, so it may be 60 days.





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.


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.




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




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,




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




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.




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




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




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




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




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?




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.)




1 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl

2 e) the wall sign, somebody hand wrote in,

3 approved under that.

4 MR. LUTZ: Yes.


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.





2 (Unintelligible.) you could have the name of

3 the bank, name of the business on there.


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




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.


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.


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




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.


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.


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.




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




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.


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




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




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.


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




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




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.


21 direction.

22 MR. LUTZ: Right.


24 first looked at it, I thought that there would




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




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




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.





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.


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




1 discussion.


3 discussion.

4 MR. SCHULTZ: Correct.



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.





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 --



13 (Unintelligible) the dealership --


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?


24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?





2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Shroyer?


4 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?


6 GAIL BACKUS: And Member

7 Krieger?


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.)


19 MR. LINCOLN: Thank you.

20 MR. LUTZ: Thank you very much

21 for your patience.


23 MEMBER FISCHER: I'll now call

24 Case Number 06-009, filed by Gordon Wilson, for




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




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,




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




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




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




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,




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,




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.





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 --





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




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?





2 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,

3 Member Krieger.

4 Member Gronachan?


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




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.


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.


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,




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.


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?





2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger?


4 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?


6 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?


8 GAIL BACKUS: And Member

9 Gronachan?


11 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five

12 to zero.


14 variance has been granted. Thank you very much.


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.




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.


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.






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.




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?


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




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.


8 we're at 24 square feet, which mean you need an

9 18 foot variance.

10 MR. LEWIS: Yes.


12 going to be eight feet, which means you need a

13 three foot height variance, correct?

14 MR. LEWIS: Yes.


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




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?


23 suggestions?





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.


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?


16 MEMBER FISCHER: Anything else?

17 MR. AMOLSCH: (Unintelligible)

18 Motion includes the new sign?


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.




1 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


3 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger?


5 GAIL BACKUS: Member Shroyer?


7 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?


9 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?


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




1 to give in the matter before you is the truth.

2 MR. LEWIS: I do.


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.


24 discussion?




1 Member Gronachan?

2 Member Shroyer?

3 MEMBER SHROYER: You want --


5 MEMBER SHROYER: I -- this is a

6 difficult location. I mean, it's easily seen

7 northbound.

8 MR. LEWIS: Right.


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?




1 MR. LEWIS: Right. With the

2 same setback from the road.


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.


24 something to add, I'm sorry.




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.



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.




1 MEMBER KRIEGER: For one year.


3 sold.


5 sold.

6 MEMBER FISCHER: Very good.

7 There's a Motion and 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?


16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Shroyer?


20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?


22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?


24 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes five




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.


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?



24 MEMBER FISCHER: Please state




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




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 --


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.




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.


8 Gronachan?


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.





1 And at that point, outside

2 storage would be done then, correct?

3 MR. SOUILLIERE: Correct.


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.)


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




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




1 business in Novi.



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.




1 Any further discussion or

2 more?

3 Member Shroyer?


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




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.


23 agrees?

24 Any other comments, Member




1 Shroyer?



4 discussion by anyone?

5 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would

6 you please call the roll.

7 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?


9 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer?


11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?


13 GAIL BACKUS: Member Krieger?


15 GAIL BACKUS: Member Shroyer?


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.


23 MEMBER FISCHER: That takes

24 care of the cases portion of our agenda.




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




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)




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.


11 Gronachan?


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",




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?


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




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.


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.


23 What is the date?

24 MR. SAVEN: This date was on




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.)




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.




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




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




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 --


21 job you do.

22 MR. SAVEN: Pardon?


24 job you do.




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




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?




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.




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?



22 our Minute taker.

23 MR. SAVEN: You know, we'll

24 struggle along for a couple of months.





2 MR. SAVEN: Pardon?


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,




1 I will entertain a Motion to adjourn.

2 MEMBER BAUER: Hear, hear.

3 MEMBER FISCHER: All in favor

4 say aye?



7 stands adjourned.

8 (The meeting was adjourned at

9 11:09 p.m.)

10 - - - - - -


















1 C E R T I F I C A T E


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.



13 ___________________________

Machelle Billingslea-Moore,

14 Certified Shorthand Reporter


16 March 22, 2006.