View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting


Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, Tuesday, April 4, 2006.

Justin Fischer, Chairman
Cynthia Gronachan
Brent Canup
Gerald Bauer
Tim Shroyer
Mav Sanghvi
Linda Krieger

Don Saven, Building Department
Thomas Schultz, City Attorney
Alan Amolsch, Ordinance Enforcement
Timothy Schmitt, Planning Department
Sarah Marchoni, 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 April 2006 City of Novi

7 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.

8 Although it's not on the

9 agenda, please all rise for the saying of

10 the pledge of allegiance.

11 BOARD MEMBERS: I pledge

12 allegiance to the flag of the United States

13 of America. And to the republic for which

14 it stands one nation, under God,

15 indivisible, with liberty and justice for

16 all.

17 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you.

18 Will you please call the roll,

19 Ms. Marchoni.

20 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?

21 MEMBER BAUER: Present.

22 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?


24 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Fischer?






3 Gronachan?


5 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Krieger?


7 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Sanghvi?


9 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Shroyer?


11 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a

12 quorum present so the meeting is now in

13 session.

14 Mr. Saven, would you like to

15 make any comments?

16 MR. SAVEN: I sure would.

17 Board Members, I'd like to

18 introduce at this time -- it is an honor and

19 a privilege to have to introduce Robin

20 Working, who will be taking over for Sarah

21 Marchoni who is duly overworked and let's me

22 know it everyday.

23 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you,

24 Mr. Saven.




1 Ms. Marchoni, thank you for

2 your interim duties and everything you did

3 in the past couple months.

4 And Robin, we look forward to

5 working with you, so --

6 MS. WORKING: Thank you.

7 MEMBER FISHER: -- it's sure to

8 be a good fit. Welcome on board.

9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Unintelligi

10 ble) last name.

11 MR. SAVEN: Slave, is that it?

12 MEMBER FISHER: All right. I

13 would like to go over a couple rules of conduct.

14 If you get a chance, please look over all of

15 them. I'd like to point out that it would be

16 nice if everyone would please turn off all

17 cellphones and pagers.

18 And also, we do have a pretty

19 full agenda tonight, so I'll be asking the

20 secretary to hold individuals to the five

21 minutes and groups to ten minutes for

22 addressing the Board.

23 The Zoning Board of Appeals is

24 a Hearing Board empowered by the Novi City




1 Charter to hear appeals seeking variances

2 from the application of the Novi Zoning

3 Ordinance. It takes a vote of at least four

4 members to approve a variance request; and a

5 vote of the majority present to deny one.

6 Tonight, we do have full Board, so any

7 decisions made will be final.

8 Looking for an approval of the

9 agenda.

10 Are there any changes at this

11 time?

12 SARAH MARCHONI: I'd like to

13 add election of officers.

14 MEMBER FISHER: Okay. We'll add

15 election of offices to other matters.

16 SARAH MARCHONI: And also Case

17 Number 4 (unintelligible) to be 25320 Beck Road

18 --

19 MEMBER FISHER: One more time.


21 (Unintelligible) Number 4 should be 25320.


23 All right. We do have some

24 changes.




1 I'll ask for approval of the

2 agenda as amended.

3 MEMBER BAUER: So moved.

4 MEMBER FISHER: All in favor say

5 aye?


7 MEMBER FISHER: We do have an

8 agenda.

9 In our packages we received

10 February 7th, 2006 Minutes.

11 Are there any changes to

12 those?

13 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you.

14 I did have a couple.

15 Corrections on page four, line seven and

16 eight should be since the attack on America

17 in 2001 on 9-11; and then on the following

18 page, page five, obviously line 19 when

19 we're talking about the pledge of

20 allegiance, I pledge allegiance to the flag

21 of the United States.

22 I know those are minor

23 corrections, but I thought it was important

24 to included those.




1 MEMBER FISHER: No problem.

2 Any other changes to the

3 Minutes?

4 Seeing none, I'll entertain a

5 Motion to approve as amended?

6 MEMBER BAUER: So moved.

7 MEMBER FISHER: All in favor say

8 aye.


10 MEMBER FISHER: Those are

11 approved.

12 We'll move to the public

13 remarks section of the meeting. All

14 comments related to a case on the agenda

15 should be held until that case is called.

16 However, if anyone wishes to the -- to

17 address the Board on any matter or case not

18 on the agenda tonight, please come forward

19 now.

20 Seeing none, we'll close the

21 public remarks section of the meeting and

22 move on to our first case.


24 Case number: 06-007 filed by




1 Planet Neon signs for Roche Bobois, at 43223

2 Twelve Mile. The Petitioner is requesting

3 one sign variance to allow placement of

4 window graphics at said address.

5 Okay. Is the Petitioner here

6 today?

7 Please come forward.

8 MR. VANGORIC(sic)(ph): Yes.

9 My name is John Vangoric. I'm with

10 (unintelligible) Planet Neon. I have two of

11 the representative here with me, as well.

12 MEMBER FISHER: Sir, are you a

13 (unintelligible) (interposing?)

14 MR. IDELMAN: Yes. My name is

15 Greg Idelman. I'm a partner with Edgar

16 Hagopian for Roche Bobois.

17 MEMBER FISHER: Okay. I'll

18 remind the other two gentleman that your swearing

19 in last time (unintelligible) to day, but we need

20 to swear in the new gentlemen.


22 raise your right hand, please.

23 Do you swear or affirm that

24 the information that you're about to give in




1 the matter before you is the truth?

2 MR. IDELMAN: I do.


4 MEMBER FISHER: State your name

5 and address and proceed.

6 MR. VANGORIC: My name is John

7 Vangoric, 7844 West Central Avenue, Toledo,

8 Ohio.

9 We were tabled, as you well

10 know. We were asked to do a couple things

11 and we were tabled at that meeting. And the

12 Board was also going to do a couple things,

13 as well.

14 One of the things that we did

15 do is we redid the drawings, to show the

16 proposal as I believe the Board had guided

17 us to, to get the amount of signage you guys

18 were looking to get us down to. And then

19 also show the locations and put them as an

20 A, B and C so they would be (unintelligible)

21 identifiable.

22 The other thing I did is I

23 spoke with the fire department. I believe

24 you guys have an E-mail stating that there




1 will be no effect on the -- what we're doing

2 would have no effect -- the fire department

3 would see no involvement on their part. I

4 would ask that at this point being that we

5 have heard what the City attorneys had to

6 say, and other comments that you guys were

7 going to -- we listened to what you guys had

8 to say before (unintelligible) comment any

9 further.

10 Is that acceptable?

11 MEMBER FISHER: Yes, at this

12 time.

13 MR. VANGORIC: Okay.

14 MEMBER FISHER: Seeing no

15 objection, okay.

16 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess to start

17 this out, and I hope that Mr. Submit will pipe in

18 at any time (unintelligible) our office to put

19 together the memo in which you all got.

20 (Unintelligible) internal staff discussions here

21 outlining that. And I didn't make it

22 confidential, so I'm actually apologizing. The

23 proponent didn't get a copy in advance.

24 But basically we went through




1 an analysis that started out by saying you

2 can look at this one of two ways. Either as

3 a facade issue, since theoretically, these

4 are, you know, kind of large

5 (unintelligible.) Feels a little strange to

6 call them signs because they're big and

7 they're pictures, photographs or whatever

8 they are.

9 If you look at them from the

10 facade perspective, they meet probably a

11 percentage requirement, but they seem to fit

12 within some language that prohibit them, if

13 you consider this a facade; (unintelligible)

14 they're not vision glass, they're

15 obstructive. And they are not a design

16 glass area. So, our -- I guess the advice

17 in the letter, if you want to call it that,

18 we probably shouldn't be looking at this as

19 facade, because it wouldn't be permitted.

20 And it probably does fit the

21 other perspective, which is of a sign. If

22 you look at the definition of a sign, it's

23 any kind of depiction that draws attention

24 to your business, which I think the




1 proponent would admit really is the purpose

2 of this here. So if considered as a sign,

3 it's got a couple of issues. And I think

4 that the variance requested is probably

5 framed, it's a temporary kind of thing; not

6 a permanent fixture.

7 And so it doesn't meet the

8 requirement that we set forth in the memo.

9 In terms of how long it's supposed to be in

10 place, what it's supposed to have on it. So

11 it is kind of a true variance where the

12 Board basically has a sign that's just not

13 permitted and being asked to approve it. So

14 the rest of memo then basically really

15 reminds the Board what the standard is, the

16 practical difficulty standard.

17 Suggest that the Board should

18 look at what kind of evidence the proponent

19 has put in front of the Board to

20 substantiate the practical difficulty. And

21 that sets forth, I guess, more from a

22 Planning perspective, some of the concerns

23 that might be raised by sort of entering

24 into this new area of picture -- large




1 picture mural type signs in the business

2 district or elsewhere. Really, I think the

3 focus at this point as the memo

4 (unintelligible) probably has to be dealt

5 with as a sign; not a facade issue.

6 Make sure that the Board when

7 you're going through it understands the

8 nature of the test you're to apply; and then

9 just give some consideration to, I guess,

10 the Planning issue is is this something we

11 want to encourage. And if the Board decides

12 that it is interested in pursuing granting

13 relief here -- we didn't get into this in

14 the memo -- but obviously, I think the Board

15 has certainly been good at this. We need to

16 make sure that if there's something about

17 this building or about this application that

18 leads the Board to think it is a good idea,

19 we need to make some pretty careful findings

20 about why it is that this kind of a thing --

21 because we really don't have an example

22 elsewhere in the City is going to be

23 permitted here; and with an eye towards

24 making sure that it's not something that




1 sort of becomes an expectation.

2 That's it in the nutshell. We

3 kind of did some checking with the fire

4 marshal and (unintelligible) I think from --

5 except from a traffic safety planning type

6 perspective, I think this is a call to the

7 Board on whether this is a type of signage

8 you want to see.

9 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you,

10 Mr. Schultz.

11 Did you have anymore

12 presentation tonight?

13 MR. IDELMAN: Okay. I want to

14 thank you for hearing this Petition. And as

15 an architect and a designer, I'm very

16 familiar with the Novi Planning Commission,

17 and also I've had great experiences with the

18 issues that are happening within Novi, and

19 Main Street in particular.

20 Edgar and I bought into Roche

21 Bobois about four and a half years ago. And

22 at that time, I considered Roche Bobois as

23 an identifiable brand related to furniture.

24 And Roche Bobois was in Michigan, in




1 Birmingham, late when I moved to Michigan

2 about late '80's -- '86. And they'd since

3 pulled out of this market. So the people

4 that remembered Roche Bobois as a brand are

5 from that particular genre of people. But

6 beyond that, no one really recognizes this

7 as a furniture destination.

8 Now, the building itself in

9 terms of precedence, if you're concerned

10 about precedence for signage, I can assure

11 you that this is a very unique location, to

12 say the least. I mean, we have had major

13 difficulties trying to get people to

14 understand our location. It's a combination

15 of an actual visibility of the building

16 where the entrance is located. The

17 address -- we have a Twelve Mile Road

18 address, yet we have no entrance on Twelve

19 Mile Road.

20 We have the Hagopian business,

21 that is on the second level of the building.

22 The building is very, very definitively

23 signed as Hagopian. Hagopian has three

24 major signs on the building. Roche Bobois,




1 I've got 15,000 now square feet of space on

2 the lower level that faces Sears. And

3 what -- whether you want to consider it the

4 facade of the building as just what faces

5 the Sears facade; or whether it is the east

6 faces facade or whether it's the facade

7 facing Twelve Mile Road, any combination of

8 those are confusing.

9 Being at the store pretty much

10 every day, feeling phone calls as the owner

11 and manager, I can tell you that I've had

12 people call me. They're in the parking lot

13 of Gorman's, and they don't know where the

14 store is. Our sign on 12 mile road is in a

15 diminutive location. It's not on the main

16 sign band like the Hagopian sign. We do not

17 have a sign on the east elevation, which is

18 a -- considerably a major facade. If you're

19 going west on Twelve Mile Road, you can see

20 the facade of the building just soon as you

21 cross over the crest of Twelve Mile Road at

22 the medical center there.

23 And, so I guess what I'm

24 saying is that as a precedence, this




1 building is totally unique. So if you're

2 concerned about us putting in signs or

3 graphics in the window that other stores

4 would use as an excuse to promote their

5 establishment, I don't think they'd have a

6 leg to stand on. The -- Roche Bobois is a

7 very, very high end store, and we draw

8 customers from Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills,

9 on the westside of the State, Grand Rapids,

10 Traverse City. We're a designation(sic)

11 store. We are a high end store, and we have

12 to be announced.

13 And to give you a case in

14 point, the mall let all of the tenants --

15 not the tenants, but all establishments in

16 there ring road Twelve Oaks Mall -- a

17 notification for the construction for the

18 Neiman Marcus, and there would be a

19 disruption in traffic and that sort of

20 thing. And it just -- for me -- when I got

21 the notification -- because I was copied on

22 it from the Hagopian store upstairs, it just

23 was further, I don't know, nail in the

24 coffin for -- not even the mall knows that




1 we're there. They think that we're part of

2 Hagopian. We are not part of Hagopian. We

3 are a separate tenant, and we pay our rent

4 every month to Hagopian.

5 Edgar is my partner. We are a

6 separate entity, and we do not have a

7 presence in that area at Twelve Oaks Mall,

8 that high rent area, we do not have a

9 presence that represents our dollars per

10 square foot rent that we're paying.

11 And we cannot continue in this

12 way. We have to have some help basically in

13 trying to make our image what it's supposed

14 to be.

15 And I'm done.

16 Thank you.

17 MR. HAGOPIAN: My name is

18 Edgar Hagopian. I'm partnered with Greg

19 Idleman. No other member of my family is

20 involved in this business. It is, like he

21 said, a separate entity. And ever word he's

22 spoken is absolutely correct.

23 But, I had like to ask

24 Mr. Schultz a question, specifically. And




1 that's, how a graphic in a window is any

2 different than a rug hanging in a window?

3 We've got -- we've have rugs in our windows

4 now. Sometimes they are left there for

5 months on end. They're not a distraction to

6 traffic. Ever retailer in America that has

7 a window has placed products in their

8 window. We can't put a sofa up at the level

9 of our windows. If we could, we would.

10 None of those windows are a

11 distraction to traffic. The signs we're

12 putting up they are not signs. They are

13 representations of the products we sell.

14 And I'd like a definitive

15 explanation of how a graphic is different

16 from a run hanging in a window.

17 MEMBER FISHER: Anything else?

18 Seeing no other comments, I'll

19 ask anyone in the audience if they have any

20 comments on this case?

21 Seeing none, I'll let the

22 Board know that in this case nine notices

23 were mailed, with zero approvals and zero

24 objections.




1 Any comment from the Building

2 Department?

3 MR. SAVEN: Basically, I just

4 want to (unintelligible) City's attorney has

5 recommended in regards to looking at this

6 particular case. One thing in particular

7 I'd like to ask is how much over percentage

8 of the 25 percent window cover do you have?

9 MR. HAGOPIAN: We are actually

10 under the percentage.

11 On the mall side, we're at

12 17.1 percent. On the east side, we're 50

13 percent. And on the north side, we're 18.2

14 percent.

15 MEMBER FISHER: Any other

16 comments or questions from the Building

17 Department?

18 MR. SAVEN: That's it.

19 MEMBER FISHER: Seeing none,

20 I'll open it up for Board discussion.

21 Board Members?

22 Member Shroyer?

23 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you

24 Mr. Chair.




1 Excuse me. Couple equals for

2 the applicant.

3 First of all, how long have

4 you been doing business at this location,

5 doesn't matter to me who answers it.

6 MR. HAGOPIAN: I can answer

7 that.

8 We officially opened April

9 of -- May a few years ago, May 1st, three

10 years ago.


12 have you requested any additional signage

13 before, previously?

14 MR. HAGOPIAN: We have signage

15 on the building at that time we requested

16 signage.


18 beyond that.

19 MR. HAGOPIAN: Nothing

20 additional.

21 MEMBER SHROYER: I know you'd

22 indicated that the store in Birmingham or

23 wherever it was is closed.

24 Is there other stores?




1 MR. HAGOPIAN: No, we have no

2 store in Birmingham. That was part --

3 MEMBER SHROYER: Years ago.

4 MR. HAGOPIAN: That's

5 (unintelligible) (interposing) furniture

6 store.

7 MR. IDELMAN: We have a store

8 at the Michigan Design Center. It's not a

9 store though. It's to the trade so. It

10 works with architects and other designers.

11 So it's not a retail establishment.


13 wondering what signage was there, but it's

14 not apples and apples.


16 (Unintelligible) furniture store that was on

17 the corner where the (unintelligible.)

18 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay, thank

19 you.

20 Now first we need to determine

21 if these concerns are signs based on the

22 City's definition and Section 28-1. I agree

23 that with my interpretation, that they are,

24 indeed some type of sign. It's the closest




1 we have to it in our Ordinances.

2 Section 2814 regarding

3 business signs displayed through a building

4 glass is the standard that we look at. It's

5 closest to the request. I'm not concern

6 about whether we exceed or don't exceed the

7 25 percent. I think there's a lot bigger

8 issue here at hand. I don't have a problem

9 really with the one above the entrance. I

10 think that's actually attractive, and would

11 help identify the item or what the store is

12 selling.

13 And I want to hear the rest of

14 the Board's comments on the side of the

15 building. I'm pretty open to comments on

16 that.

17 Under Section 3104-2, though,

18 to me the rear signs I believe create a

19 disturbance to the public regarding traffic

20 a long Twelve Mile Road. I think it's -- I

21 think that can create a safety hazard. I'm

22 very concerned about the rear signage. And

23 bottom line to all this, si the applicant

24 does have other signage options available




1 that are not so potentially distractive as

2 the current request.

3 Whether we go that route or

4 not, is indifferent at this point.

5 RIGHT2: What are they,

6 Mr. Shroyer?

7 MEMBER SHROYER: Well, you can

8 always come back to the Zoning Board with

9 other requests, such as another sign, a

10 larger sign, a sign that says furniture

11 attached to it, as opposed to just the name

12 plate. Things like that. And I'm -- you

13 know, you guys are the architects or -- you

14 have access to that information.

15 So that would be up to you to

16 determine.


18 (Unintelligible) A comment.

19 MEMBER FISHER: I'm sorry. This

20 time is for Board discussion. If we have

21 questions, we'll ask them. But no questions are

22 to be asked by the Petitioner at this time.

23 Please continue, Mr. Shroyer.

24 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you,




1 Mr. Chair.

2 So at this time, for me the

3 bottom line is, I'm okay with the entry way

4 sign. I'm opposed to the rear sign along

5 Twelve Mile Road; and I'd like to hear

6 comments from the other members regarding

7 the east or the side of the building

8 signage.

9 Thank you.

10 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you,

11 Mr. Shroyer.

12 Member Gronachan?


14 Mr. Chair.

15 For documentation purposes,

16 can someone please give us the streets and

17 the locations for sign C and the percentage.

18 Since the Board Members are looking at the

19 diagrams, I would like it to be crystal

20 clear.

21 MEMBER CANUP: Look on your

22 back page.

23 MR. HAGOPIAN: Twelve Mile is

24 C.





2 Mile.

3 MR. HAGOPIAN: And that is

4 18.2 percent.


6 is the rear of the building facing the mall; is

7 that correct?

8 MR. HAGOPIAN: Amount is the

9 entrance of the building facing the mall,

10 yes.

11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And that is

12 17. --

13 MR. HAGOPIAN: 17.1 percent.


15 the --

16 MR. HAGOPIAN: B is the east

17 facade of the building, and the number I

18 gave you was incorrect.

19 MEMBER CANUP: 50 percent.

20 MR. HAGOPIAN: It's eight over

21 600 -- the third window is eliminated, so

22 there's only two windows. And there's --

23 that was 200 over 600, 33 and a third

24 percent.





2 reduce one of the windows as we asked, and it

3 would be two windows.

4 RIGHT2: Yeah 33 and a third

5 percent.


7 "Let's think outside of the box", so I guess I'm

8 up to bat here.

9 I appreciate what the attorney

10 had to offer to us and with the previous

11 speakers had to say. I can support this,

12 and for the following reasons: I think that

13 the Petitioner has substantiated and has

14 documented a definite problem in locating

15 this business, as well as identifying this

16 business. The idea of a sign is for

17 identification purposes. And this -- due to

18 the fact that this business is an exclusive

19 business, number one; number two, due to the

20 fact that this building is a unique -- that

21 this business is in a unique building, and

22 that it has established a long history of

23 difficulty.

24 I don't feel that adding these




1 signs in any way, shape or form would take

2 away from the business that shares the

3 building with it. And I feel that in lieu

4 of the traffic safety concerns given -- and

5 we're going to look at these signs -- I want

6 to get the traffic safety concerns that were

7 mentioned also by the attorney, the Planning

8 Department and the previous speakers, I feel

9 are minimal due to the fact of the distance

10 and location of the building.

11 I do have concerns, and I

12 spoke of this in the previous meeting, in

13 regards to the B side of the building. And

14 I can appreciate for a time -- I'm not

15 reading my back -- but how far or does

16 someone know or can someone answers, perhaps

17 from the Planning Department, how far is

18 that window from the existing street --

19 that's the B side.

20 MR. SCHMITT: From Twelve Mile

21 Road?


23 is Informs Twelve Mile.

24 MR. HAGOPIAN: That's sign C.





2 sign C is Twelve Mile. The B sign.

3 MR. SCHMITT: Sign B is from

4 the adjacent mall ring road then?



7 approximately -- approximately 125 feet to

8 where wall B begins to the mall ring road or

9 to the access drive in front of this

10 building.


12 average speed limit on that road?

13 MR. SCHMITT: I don't believe

14 the ring road is marked, because it's a

15 private road. I want to say they have a

16 sign at 15 -- 10 or 15 I believe is the

17 signed speed limit on that road.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: As oppose to

19 sign C, which is on Twelve Mile, and the average

20 speed limit is 112 given any work day.

21 MR. SCHMITT: It's signed at

22 45, I believe.


24 that's what the Novi police are trying to explain




1 to people (unintelligible) all those people

2 pulled over.

3 Okay, thank you.

4 So we are looking at sign B,

5 and we're 10 or 15 -- with a 10 or 15 mile

6 an hour speed limit, 125 feet away from the

7 road, I again don't feel that with this kind

8 of distance, speed, and location, that we're

9 talking about an extreme safety hazard.

10 On Twelve Mile, I understand

11 the concerns. But again, the building is so

12 high that it's not -- you're really not

13 looking necessarily right at ground level,

14 if I'm not mistaken. And so again, I don't

15 feel that it's going to be a hazard, as

16 well. I'm not a safety hazard expert. I've

17 driving by this building enough. Knowing

18 that, I pulled this out of the box, and so I

19 was going to do my homework the best I

20 could.

21 And I'm in full support of

22 sign A. I think it's tastefully done. It's

23 minimal. It's below the percentage of the

24 window covered. I feel that this




1 Petitioner, along with other people at the

2 City and their advice and their guidance,

3 along with the City Attorney, I feel this

4 has been talked to death at this point --

5 will be in full support.

6 And if there's any other

7 verbiage that's needed, I have it prepared

8 Thank you.

9 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you,

10 Member Gronachan.

11 Other Board Members?

12 Member Sanghvi?

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

14 I think we are -- we recognize

15 that we are in the process of charting new

16 areas here, which we never faced before.

17 But on the other hand, if you have lived in

18 Novi long enough, you might know that very a

19 similar -- even though it was not graphic --

20 a very similar situation occurred at Ten

21 Mile pile and Meadowbrook, where there used

22 to be an ice cream shop (unintelligible)

23 Mickey Mouse and other types of pictures on

24 the wall. And they were written up by the




1 City. And issue was, (unintelligible) a

2 sign or not. I won't go into detail about

3 the litigation and what happened, but I

4 think we are all (unintelligible) research.

5 That it was considered a sign, and they had

6 to take it down. That was a Court Order.

7 So again here, we are in

8 another situation (unintelligible) going to

9 call this a sign. And with a precedent like

10 that -- that is what my memory tells me --

11 we would very careful. Maybe it's time to

12 review some of these Ordinances and try and

13 get it straightened out that situation like

14 this is going to occur. We're going to come

15 (unintelligible) and mirrors on the facade

16 now. People might like to utilize it. And

17 as far as I'm concerned, it's nothing, so

18 long as it doesn't cause a public nuisance

19 or a hazard for anybody else.

20 So that bring us down to this

21 particular case here. Is it likely to cause

22 any kind of a hazard or public nuisance. At

23 this point, I don't want to discuss the

24 (unintelligible) and area covered and all




1 that. If (unintelligible) that as a Board

2 we accept this as the form of identification

3 for a business, these graphics, then you can

4 call them what you may like to call it --

5 doesn't matter, then I think the rest of

6 the discussion is (unintelligible.)

7 So I thought I might like to

8 suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that we decide in

9 principal this kind of graphics are

10 acceptable as a sign, so to speak, first,

11 then go into the different walls and

12 different sizes of the windows

13 (unintelligible) with the applicant whether

14 they can live within the limits of

15 (unintelligible) sign.

16 Thank you.

17 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you,

18 Member Sanghvi.

19 Other Board Members?

20 Member Canup?

21 After a long three month

22 sebatical(ph), welcome back.

23 MEMBER CANUP: I will try to

24 keep it short them.




1 I guess I don't have a problem

2 with the signage in the front. I do call it

3 signage, because it is, in my opinion, it is

4 signage. And if you were here quite a few

5 years ago when the Bob Evans came in, their

6 whole building was a sign -- was determined

7 as a sign.

8 So, I think for

9 clarification -- at least in my opinion --

10 this is a sign. And, with (unintelligible)

11 a sign, that's fine. But it's still a sign.

12 I wouldn't have a problem with the front

13 sign. But I would with the A and B -- or B

14 and C, rather. The A (unintelligible) in

15 the front. Front or back, whichever you

16 want to call it.

17 So, I guess that's my opinion.

18 I would support that, nothing else.

19 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you,

20 Member Canup.

21 Member Krieger?

22 MEMBER KRIEGER: In regards to

23 definition of a sign, I guess from what our

24 attorney explained, it is a sign




1 (unintelligible) what we've been talking

2 about is to support identification. And

3 that the speaker showed that he had

4 practical difficulty in having

5 identification. And I guess to verbalize

6 it, that it is a unique area and specific to

7 this group would be acceptable.

8 Thank you.

9 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you,

10 Member Krieger.

11 What I like about cases like

12 this when we have three different options,

13 it seems like each Board Member looks like

14 they're leaning in a way of a sign, but it

15 looks like each Board Member has a different

16 idea of which ones they want and which ones

17 they don't want. Although, (unintelligible)

18 in signage, and I would totally agree. I

19 think my opinions most accurately reflect

20 those of Member Gronachan.

21 In looking at the standards

22 set forth that is in the City Attorney memo,

23 I believe that those are met in this case.

24 This is an interesting building; high off




1 the road; the entrance facing the mall, as

2 well as having to go through the ring road

3 and a back road, I think it's interesting

4 situation, an interesting place.

5 AB that's why I would be for

6 sure in support of sign A. And as far as

7 sign B, I'm also in support of that. Sign

8 C, I do have some concern about the facing

9 Twelve Mile. I do reflected those concerns,

10 those of Member Shroyer.

11 So I would be interested to

12 see a vote. But if it's appropriate, my

13 suggestion to the Board would be to

14 (unintelligible) sign A and B.

15 And I will end my comments at

16 that point and see if there's any Motion.

17 Member Canup?

18 Oh, Member Bauer, would you

19 like to make some comments?

20 MEMBER BAUER: Why not.

21 I think first of all, they are

22 signs. And he has taken one away from the

23 east side, sign B; so he only has two signs

24 there. He has two signs on the eastside and




1 two on the northside. I can see on A and I

2 can see B, but I cannot see a sign on Twelve

3 Mile. They also have been here to have an

4 extra sign, which we did give them.


6 Gronachan?


8 question for the Petitioner.

9 For clarification purposes,

10 the picture that we have, and also when I

11 drove by the building, there's these white

12 boards in the window. Will you please

13 clarify what that is and are there staying

14 or are they going? How do they fit in the

15 whole --

16 MR. IDELMAN: Well that's a

17 complicated question, and I'll do the best I

18 can.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Leave it to

20 me to ask it.

21 MR. IDELMAN: Yeah.

22 The white panels in the window

23 again reflect the unique "situation" of the

24 space that we're in. It is a 30 foot high




1 retail space with one floor. Okay. So,

2 from the Twelve Mile Road perspective, if

3 you were to stand on the sidewalk and look

4 through those windows, you would see nothing

5 but bar joists and wire hanging down and

6 light fixtures, etc. There's no visual

7 interest other than that.

8 And that basically is the

9 purpose of those white panels in the

10 windows. The -- there is no use for visual

11 to look into that building from anywhere,

12 whether there's white panels or not. The

13 reason they were designed the way they were

14 is because, looking at how the sun patterns

15 work on the building and the projections

16 that that sun would threw in the space, we

17 designed these panels so that they would

18 create an interesting pattern on the floor

19 with the sunlight. But, the future of the

20 panels, I must say it is contingent upon the

21 Board's ruling tonight.

22 Because, whether you want to

23 (unintelligible) A, B and C, it's a holistic

24 problem that we're faced with here. And I




1 can't without a crystal ball, I can't tell

2 you what the outcome for those panels would

3 be. But to suffice it to say that they are

4 (unintelligible) how we utilize them

5 (unintelligible) windows that aren't covered

6 with the white panels.

7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you for

8 your answer.

9 MR. IDELMAN: Oh, I'm sorry.

10 Can I say one other thing?


12 MR. IDELMAN: Roche Bobois as a

13 tenant of the Hagopian Building, has never

14 asked for any additional signage. The

15 additional signage that was asked for was

16 asked by the Hagopian, the owners of the

17 building. (unintelligible) not ours. That

18 sort of illustrates part of the problem that

19 we are asking right there -- right then and

20 there in a nutshell.


22 MEMBER FISHER: Point of

23 information, Mr. Amolsch, can you comment on

24 that? I see two signs on two sides. And usually




1 the Ordinance to me means they're allowed one.

2 Do you want to comment on

3 that?


5 Mr. Chair, in 19 -- 2002,

6 Roche Bobois receive a variance, a

7 dimensional variance on the Grange Road side

8 of ten square feet. They received a

9 variance for an additional wall sign on the

10 northside of the building, in addition to a

11 little ground sign out front.

12 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you.

13 Member Gronachan,

14 (unintelligible?)

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I concur with

16 the other Board Members that this is a sign, and

17 I don't know how you want to go about this. If

18 you want a Motion to start -- to go with each

19 sign (unintelligible) Motion? How would you best

20 like to do this?

21 MEMBER FISHER: I think the best

22 way to go would be Motion on A, a Motion on B,

23 and a Motion on C.

24 Board Members are nodding




1 their heads.


3 number 06-007, filed by Planet Neon Signs for

4 Roche Bobois, at 43223 Twelve Mile.

5 I move that we support sign A,

6 which is the entrance of this building.

7 Percentage of the sign is 17.1 percent;

8 based on discussion at this table and also

9 the previous Minutes from the previous

10 meeting of March(sic) of 2006. Petitioner

11 has substantiated a need for this signage,

12 based on identifying the business --

13 exclusively to this business at this

14 location only -- not to be expended to any

15 additional business, if they expand.

16 Based on the established long

17 history of difficulties, and without taking

18 away from any other businesses within that

19 building.

20 Therefore we -- I would

21 support that sign A be approved.

22 MEMBER SHROYER: I'll second

23 the Motion.

24 MEMBER FISHER: There's a Motion




1 and a second.

2 Member Schultz -- or

3 Mr. Schultz?

4 MR. SCHULTZ: A couple of

5 things.

6 And again, in the spirit of

7 making -- you know, we're entering new

8 territory here with this large thing. From

9 what I'm hearing from the discussion, a

10 couple of things in particular are relevant

11 to this sign.

12 Number one, because of the

13 location, it's not -- I think Member

14 Gronachan said in her opinion, it doesn't

15 have any effect on passing traffic because

16 of the distance from the --

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Unintelligi

18 ble) eastside.

19 MR. SCHULTZ: Okay.

20 I think you ought to address

21 whether or not you believe there's

22 (unintelligible) impact on traffic which is

23 slower in this area than on Twelve Mile; is

24 that fair comment?





2 Based on the fact that there's

3 no traffic and safety concerns due to the

4 distance and the location, slower speed

5 limits and entering the parking lot.

6 MEMBER FISHER: Let's let

7 Mr. Schultz finish his full comments. Maybe he

8 can make an amendment to your Motion.

9 MR. SCHULTZ: However, you want

10 to do this.

11 The second thing -- and this

12 is some what in answer to Mr. Hagopian's

13 statements. I think that the straight

14 forward comment is that the rug is a display

15 of items on sale (unintelligible) and it's

16 permitted. Here, I think you can make an

17 argument similar because it's a picture of

18 what the items on sale are. I think that's

19 relevant in terms of the finding by this

20 Board for granting this particular variance,

21 and I'll suggest (unintelligible) as well.

22 (unintelligible.)

23 And then the third thing, just

24 actually based on the comments by the




1 applicant a minute ago with respect to

2 what's going to happen with those other

3 panels, I'm assuming as part of all of these

4 Motions that you're about to do, your

5 expectation is this is the only sign that's

6 going to be on it. We're not going to get

7 25 percent (unintelligible) that meets the

8 Ordinance. (unintelligible) sale, 50

9 percent off (unintelligible) is going to say

10 on paper or cardboard or whatever it is.

11 This is it; I assume, unless you expect to

12 see more signs.

13 But if you don't expect to see

14 other signage, I think you want to address

15 it. If you do expect it or don't care, I

16 just raised the point.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'll just say

18 yeah, all that.

19 MEMBER FISHER: If you could

20 please amend your Motion?

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I would amend

22 my Motion to adding that this sign, this

23 Petitioner has substantiated the difficulty in

24 identifying the specific items that this




1 particular business sells. And therefore has

2 demonstrated the need for displaying some signs,

3 since furniture is cannot be suspended in air

4 without a better explanation.

5 And that this would be in

6 place of any and all future signage within

7 this window; that there would be no other

8 sale signs, and the white panels would have

9 to be removed?

10 I don't have to address the

11 white panels.

12 MR. SCHULTZ: I don't think you

13 need to address the white panels --

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Strike that

15 last statement. The white panels have nothing to

16 do with this.

17 Now, I hope you don't ask me

18 to do that again.

19 MEMBER CANUP: Your Motion was

20 for that window.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: For window A.

22 MEMBER CANUP: (Unintelligible)

23 to amend your Motion to say any other signs on

24 the building.





2 Motion to say --


4 interpreted your Motion, there can be no other

5 signs in this window.


7 to address the other part --

8 MEMBER CANUP: Why don't you

9 just make it simpler --

10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: For all the

11 windows for the entire building?

12 MEMBER CANUP: The entire

13 building.

14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes, I accept

15 that.

16 MEMBER CANUP: Say that again?


18 accept that friendly amendment.


20 comments, Member Shroyer, do you accept the

21 amendment?


23 accept the amendments. I'm in favor of all

24 of them, except the temporary signage. I




1 don't think it's fair to limit the applicant

2 that somewhere down the road, doesn't come

3 in front of the group, in front of the City

4 and request a special sale, a ten percent

5 off; that they put a sign in the window for

6 30 days, I don't think that's fair to limit

7 that (unintelligible.) So I'm not in

8 agreement with all of the amendments.

9 MEMBER FISHER: Are we going to

10 discuss that or another (unintelligible)

11 (interposing.)

12 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

13 MEMBER FISHER: There's a Motion

14 and a second.


16 (Unintelligible) time limit or time

17 (unintelligible) indefinitely?

18 MEMBER FISHER: As far as this

19 business goes, they're requesting indefinitely.

20 Any other discussion?

21 Seeing none, we'll call roll

22 on sign A.


24 Gronachan?





2 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?


4 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?


6 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Fischer?


8 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Sanghvi?


10 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Shroyer?


12 SARAH MARCHONI: Motion passes

13 five to one.

14 MEMBER FISHER: That takes care

15 of part of it. Is there a Motion for another

16 sign?

17 Member Canup?

18 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a

19 Motion that in Case Number: 06-007, sign B, that

20 we deny the request as stated.

21 MEMBER FISHER: Is there a

22 second on that Motion?

23 Seeing none, I'll open the

24 floor again.




1 Member Gronachan?


3 make a Motion that in Case Number: 06-007, that

4 sign B be approved based on the previous

5 information discussed and so stated in a Motion

6 for sign A. Again the safety concerns are

7 basically non-existent due to the distance,

8 location of the building from the side street;

9 that the speed is ten to 15 miles on this street,

10 and pose no existing threat; and as all

11 previously stated at this table this evening.

12 And that the percentage of the window coverage be

13 25 percent.

14 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

15 MEMBER FISHER: Do you need to

16 address similar findings in this one, as well?

17 MR. SCHULTZ: I believe you

18 should.


20 there would be no other additional temporary

21 signs for this window or any window on the entire

22 building.

23 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

24 MEMBER FISHER: There's a Motion




1 and a second.

2 Any discussion?

3 Seeing none, Ms. Marchoni,

4 will you please call the roll.


6 Gronachan?


8 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?


10 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?


12 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Fischer?


14 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Sanghvi?


16 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Shroyer?


18 SARAH MARCHONI: Motion passes

19 four to two.

20 MEMBER FISHER: And I'll open up

21 the floor one last time to address sign C.

22 Member Gronachan?

23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I move that

24 in Case: 06-007, filed by Planet Neon Signs that




1 sign C be denied base on information discussion

2 at this table, specifically, with the safety

3 concerns as presented by other Members at this

4 table this evening; and that it would not add to

5 further identifying the building; also that

6 there's a named -- identification name sign on

7 this building; and giving the exact location of

8 this building, (unintelligible) this sign be

9 denied.


11 MEMBER FISHER: There's a Motion

12 and a second.

13 Any other discussion by the

14 Board?

15 Seeing none, Ms. Marchoni,

16 please call the roll.


18 Gronachan?


20 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Shroyer?


22 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?


24 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?





2 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Fischer?


4 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Sanghvi?


6 SARAH MARCHONI: Motion passes

7 six to zero.

8 MR. SCHULTZ: I would like to

9 add one final for amendment to this entire case,

10 that (unintelligible) point of clarification to

11 say --


13 particular case has been review by the Zoning

14 Board and that the information discussed at this

15 table is for this particular business only at

16 this address. And that based on the discussion

17 and the evidence presented by the Petitioner,

18 given the difficulty of the location as duly

19 (unintelligible) earlier and mentioned several

20 times, that this signage was considered for this

21 business only; and that we are approving for this

22 business, and do not wish to have the Ordinance

23 changed or -- reviewed or changed at this time.

24 MR. SCHULTZ: (unintelligible) I




1 don't know if you need to have it as a formal

2 vote or an amendment to all three Motions or

3 offer it (unintelligible.)

4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Unintelligi

5 ble) amendment to all three Motions.

6 MEMBER CANUP: I'll second

7 that.

8 MEMBER FISHER: Do we need the

9 seconders to each Motion to agree to that.

10 MR. SCHULTZ: (unintelligible)

11 you can vote on this Motion (unintelligible.)

12 MEMBER FISHER: It would be an

13 amendment to those Motions though.

14 (unintelligible) have to agree.

15 MR. SCHULTZ: I think you can

16 vote on this as an amendment and second

17 (unintelligible.)

18 MR. HAGOPIAN: Mr. Chairman --

19 MEMBER FISHER: You are out of

20 Order, sir. There is a Motion on the table. We

21 have to call roll on that.

22 MR. HAGOPIAN: I understand.

23 But you can dismiss the Motion because the

24 restrictions you've imposed don't allow us




1 to utilize the signage.

2 MEMBER FISHER: We'll call the

3 roll.

4 MR. HAGOPIAN: All this is

5 academic.

6 MEMBER FISHER: Ms. Marchoni,

7 please call the roll.

8 SARAH MARCHONI: I'm sorry, who

9 seconded that?

10 MEMBER FISHER: Member Canup.

11 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?



14 Gronachan?


16 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?



19 Fischer?


21 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Sanghvi?



24 Shroyer?





2 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?


4 SARAH MARCHONI: Motion passes

5 five to one.

6 MEMBER FISHER: That concludes

7 that case. Thank you for your time.


9 And moving along to Case

10 Number: 06-013, filed by Novi Urgent Care,

11 24230 Karim. The Petitioner's requesting

12 two sign variances to add language of Novi

13 Urgent Care, north of Ten Mile and west of

14 Haggerty Road.

15 Could you please raise your

16 hand and be sworn in by our secretary.

17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear

18 or affirm that the information that you're about

19 to give in the matter before you is the truth?

20 DR. MASRI: Yes, I do.

21 Good evening. I'm Dr. Masri.

22 I'm medical director for Novi Urgent Care,

23 co-owner. We opened the urgent care on

24 March 1st, and when we moved to the present




1 building, we didn't have enough space for

2 our sign. So we submitted a request to add

3 the sign to the present sign.

4 MEMBER FISHER: If you'd place

5 it there, it should turn on.

6 DR. MASRI: You see on the top

7 of the present sign, the bottom was the

8 proposed addition. However after we did

9 this, we ran into a problem, which is the

10 light fixture -- you can barely see -- it's

11 blocking the center of the sign. So, we

12 asked that we can raise the sign so the

13 urgent care part can be viewed.

14 (Unintelligible) for

15 discussing the sign with the sign man, he

16 say he cannot raise the sign. He can add

17 something to the top. So we came up with

18 this proposal here. So what we're saying

19 we're going to add probably 12 inches to the

20 top of the present sign; move the name of

21 the building to the top, and squeeze our

22 sign just below the name of the building and

23 the address.

24 Now, I want to make couple




1 points. In considering the sign, you should

2 consider two things. Number one, for us as

3 an urgent care business only, we cannot

4 function without a sign. Just like asking a

5 gas station not to have a sign with the

6 price. We cannot have a (unintelligible)

7 business without a sign. We are solely

8 dependent on walk-ins. Number two, you do

9 have the things about the sick and the ill

10 in the City of Novi when they're looking for

11 that urgent care, where is it, you know,

12 have to call in the information line, you

13 know, in the night -- in the middle of the

14 night, in the rain and snow. So there has

15 to be a sign.

16 Having said that, I want you

17 to look at two other places that we are

18 competing with. The first one is the urgent

19 care in the City of West Bloomfield on

20 Haggerty (unintelligible) and see, a big

21 medical building, has a good sign. The

22 urgent care has a good size in the front of

23 the building; alerting the public to the

24 service available in the building.




1 Okay. This is another

2 example. This is the Providence urgent

3 care, and it's four, five story building;

4 probably ten to 15 times the size of the

5 building we are in, yet they are allowed the

6 urgent care sign to be present and actually

7 added the time that the urgent care will

8 function.

9 Finally, this is the sign of

10 the medical office across the street. It's

11 like two, three times our sign. So when

12 considering (unintelligible) the size, the

13 legal points, and everything else, just look

14 across the street 20 feet away from our

15 sign; look at the size of the sign.

16 Thank you very much, and I

17 hope you will understand where I'm coming

18 from; help me out.

19 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you very

20 much.

21 Is there anyone in the

22 audience that wishes to make comment on this

23 case?

24 Seeing none, I'll make the




1 Board aware that there were 169 notices

2 mailed in the second case; two approvals and

3 zero objections.

4 The approvals coming from Dean

5 and Mary Claftka(ph) at 24599 Bashian, good

6 for community. And Mary Jean Claftka(ph).

7 That must have been previous

8 (unintelligible.)

9 So two approvals.

10 Building Department, any


12 MR. SAVEN: Just basically the

13 last meeting we discussed the issue regarding the

14 where light was (unintelligible) maximum height

15 they can work with regarding the sign.

16 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you,

17 Mr. Saven.

18 Board Members?

19 Member Canup?

20 MEMBER CANUP: I think the

21 pictures that were shown to us were --

22 enlightened what I was thinking with this

23 sign is very a sterile looking sign. It has

24 absolutely no class. If you look at signs




1 that you showed us with the fieldstone on

2 it, I would be in favor -- let's put it this

3 way. I would be more likely to vote for

4 something like this, than I would this sign.

5 This sign is nothing but (unintelligible.)

6 So, you showed us a nice picture. I think

7 you could do a lot better than what you're

8 showing us here.

9 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you,

10 Member Canup.

11 Any other Board Members?

12 So talkative in the previous

13 case, now you guys are going moot on me

14 here.

15 Member Shroyer?

16 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you,

17 Mr. Chair.

18 The sign already exists, so

19 it's not like we're -- I don't think we're

20 able to basically say tear it down and build

21 a brand-new one. I agree with the previous

22 speaker that a more classy sign could be

23 constructed. Maybe finances or whatever

24 down the road will be able to permit that.




1 But in this case, for now, I'm

2 going to make a Motion regarding Case Number

3 06-013, filed by Novi Urgent Care, located

4 at 24230 Karim. I move to approve the two

5 sign variances requested, due to the grounds

6 of the appeals statement submitted with the

7 appeal application.


9 MEMBER FISHER: There's a Motion

10 and a second.


12 Ms. Marchoni, please call the

13 roll.


15 think -- you know, again this is not a

16 very -- to me, it's not a classy sign.

17 (unintelligible) give these people time to

18 get their act together (unintelligible) want

19 to use that term and put a time limit on how

20 long we'd allow this sign to stay as a

21 non-comforming sign, and give them an

22 opportunity to come back with something that

23 is a lot more esthetically pleasing.

24 Anybody else have any opinions




1 on that? I guess not.

2 Could I ask --

3 MEMBER FISHER: Personally, I

4 don't disagree.

5 I would ask Mr. Schultz, you

6 know, if that's something that we can do

7 (unintelligible) the materials of the sign

8 and ask that --

9 MR. SCHULTZ: Sure.

10 MEMBER BAUER: Would you like to

11 ask the Petitioner if he'd like to do that?

12 MEMBER FISHER: Any comments

13 from you regarding --

14 DR. MASRI: All I need is a

15 sign. Type of the sign, I cannot determine.

16 I have to go back to the owner and probably

17 six, seven additional physicians and talk to

18 them, and see if we can come up with a sign,

19 a new sign. Standing hear before you, I

20 think it's going to be extremely difficult.

21 So if you want to approve it

22 for now and ask me if I can do a better job

23 in the near future, you know, I can talk to

24 the other physicians and the owner of




1 building. But it's going to be a big

2 headache for you and for me. Number two,

3 the sign by itself, you know you have been

4 for there to see the sign. The sign is not

5 cheap. The sign is very good quality. And

6 for a medical building, black and white sign

7 is very appropriate. You don't need

8 anything fancy.

9 The fact that I showed you the

10 West Bloomfield brick sign, does not mean

11 all medical buildings have to be brick signs

12 with red in the center. So black and white

13 is very appropriate for a medical building;

14 red is appropriate for urgent care.

15 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you.

16 MEMBER CANUP: I would ask

17 (unintelligible) give them one year to come up

18 with a better sign. Give them a variance based

19 on this sign for a period of one year.

20 MEMBER FISHER: Member Shroyer?

21 MEMBER SHROYER: What would

22 happen after a year? They'd have to come

23 back and reapply with another fee?

24 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. This




1 variance -- the way I had presented it, my

2 intention would expire in one year. That

3 gives them a year to go see -- talk to their

4 people and find out -- eventually they'd

5 better do something.

6 MEMBER FISHER: Member Sanghvi?

7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,

8 Mr. Chair.

9 Having been involved in the

10 medical business for nearly 50 years, I have

11 some understanding of problems the applicant

12 is facing. It wasn't very long time ago

13 where it was considered unethical -- almost

14 practitioners were threatened with being

15 more or less losing their license for

16 putting up signs with some many inches of

17 the letters and other things.

18 (unintelligible) the fact

19 still remains that this particular

20 establishment needs a sign saying it's an

21 urgent care business. Without it, it can't

22 exist. And we need to look at in a

23 sympathetic way and see whether he can

24 (unintelligible) live with the sign. And we




1 have an esthetic problem with the sign. You

2 sound like we are trying to raise an issue

3 about the esthetics of the sign

4 (unintelligible) content of the sign.

5 Maybe we want to keep away

6 from these esthetic objections. There's

7 lots of signs (unintelligible) not

8 particularly appealing to me, but they maybe

9 quite appealing to other people.

10 (Unintelligible) esthetically acceptable

11 standards. So as far as I can see, if the

12 applicant wants to have this sign. He's

13 happy to live with it; so be it.

14 Thank you.

15 MEMBER FISHER: Back to the

16 point at hand.

17 As far as I know, did you

18 accept the friendly amendment? I did not

19 see an exception.


21 not -- I will not.

22 MEMBER FISHER: Last question.

23 There were some temporary signs, urgent care, on

24 Karim Boulevard. (Unintelligible) plans for




1 those small signs? Like four by four.

2 DR. MASRI: I talk to Alan,

3 and he say this is allowable. It's not on

4 Ten Mile Road. (Interposing)

5 (unintelligible) I thought we didn't need a

6 permit for these.

7 MR. AMOLSCH: (Unintelligible)

8 grand opening sign, (unintelligible) pull a

9 permit for it. As we discussion before,

10 only one sign ten square feet in area is

11 allowed for 30 days with a permit.

12 DR. MASRI: Oh, I didn't know

13 that. Then I will submit a request for a

14 permit. That's no problem.

15 MEMBER FISHER: As long as those

16 are addressed, I can agree with the Motion.

17 Any other discussion?

18 Seeing none, Ms. Marchoni,

19 please call the roll.

20 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Shroyer?



23 Gronachan?





1 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?


3 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?


5 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Fischer?


7 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Sanghvi?


9 SARAH MARCHONI: Motion passes

10 five to one.

11 MEMBER FISHER: Your variances

12 have been granted. Good luck. Please see the

13 Building Department.

14 DR. MASRI: Thank you very

15 much.

16 MEMBER FISHER: Make sure you do

17 take care of those permits with those other

18 signs.

19 DR. MASRI: I will.


21 MEMBER FISHER: Moving right

22 along to Case Number 06-024, filed by Home Depot,

23 at 48950 Grand River. The applicant is

24 requesting a temporary use permit to allow a




1 sidewalk sale in the front apron of the Home

2 Depot at said address. This location is located

3 west of Beck Rod and north of Grand River.

4 Gentlemen, you were sworn in

5 last month.

6 Were both of you sworn?


8 here last time. I apologize. I was out of

9 town.

10 MEMBER FISHER: Can you please

11 raise your hand and be 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?



17 MEMBER FISHER: State your name

18 and address and proceed with the case.

19 MR. CAMPBELL: My name is

20 Howard Campbell, 3270 South Milford Road,

21 Milford, Michigan, 48381.

22 As you all know, this matter

23 was tabled last week for more specific

24 dates, instead of the black-out period that




1 we requested. We submitted those current

2 dates, blocking out seven specific holidays

3 or the seven specific weekends throughout

4 the summer regarding the sidewalk sale.

5 What we did is we outlined the

6 basic location of where the merchandise

7 would actually be outside of the building.

8 This is the first location, which is

9 actually underneath the covered overhang,

10 which is taken from the parking lot directly

11 if front of the entrance of Home Depot.

12 This picture was actually taken from Leo's

13 parking lot, facing the Home Depot, which is

14 to the left of the entrance of the garden

15 gate.

16 And I would also like to show

17 this one where if see the one from

18 (unintelligible) that's the primary exit

19 point for all the (unintelligible) shown on

20 this photo, which shows the outside garden

21 gate, which is the primary exit point for

22 all customers. And the only exception would

23 be in inclimate weather. We do have

24 interior doors, if it is raining outside.




1 If you look to the right of

2 the screen, you'll see the back of the red

3 pick-up truck, and that is actually a

4 designated loading zone for large quantities

5 of top soil and mulch. So the merchandising

6 on the sidewalk will not be interfering with

7 any vehicles actually parking to actually

8 load the product.

9 MEMBER FISHER: Anything else?


11 MEMBER FISHER: All right.

12 And is there anyone in the

13 audience that wishes to make comment on this

14 case?

15 Seeing none, I will let the

16 Board know that 16 notices were mailed, with

17 zero approvals and zero objections.

18 Building Department?

19 MR. SAVEN: Basically, this is a

20 recap of what we discussed at the last month

21 regarding the location of outdoor storage in this

22 particular matter to insure public safety was

23 there; identifying this area, is what they did.

24 And also the fact of the dates of




1 (unintelligible) as to what those dates were.

2 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you,

3 Mr. Saven.

4 Board Members?

5 Member Krieger?


7 question for the applicant.

8 Are the orange cones going to

9 be out during those dates.

10 MR. CAMPBELL: The orange

11 cones are out (unintelligible) is open, that

12 way the customers do get outside of the

13 building (unintelligible) oncoming traffic.

14 That is the end of the compound, so there is

15 no really thru-traffic there, other than to

16 load their vehicles. So it gives the

17 vehicles more time to actually notice the

18 customers, and they are not actually allowed

19 into the orange cones.


21 lets a customer maybe backing up in that

22 area from coming into contact with a

23 customer that maybe exiting the building

24 (unintelligible) cart, they can't see over




1 (unintelligible) all the time.

2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.

3 MEMBER FISHER: Other Board

4 Members?

5 Member Sanghvi?

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,

7 Mr. Chairman.

8 Looks like they're complying

9 with the (unintelligible) request of the

10 previous discussion, and that I have no

11 hesitation in supporting this.

12 And if I may, I'd like to make

13 a Motion. That in Case Number 06-013(sic)

14 filed by Home Depot at 47950 Grand River,

15 that the Petitioner's request be granted for

16 the temporary use, as described.

17 Thank you.

18 MEMBER FISHER: There's a Motion

19 on the table.

20 MEMBER CANUP: Second.

21 MEMBER FISHER: There is a

22 second.

23 Any further discussion?

24 Member Shroyer?




1 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you.

2 Since we have the pleasure of

3 the presence of Mr. Schmitt, I'd like to ask

4 a question to him. He sits up and says

5 huh-uh, what's this.

6 The question is, what does

7 this City look at regarding safety along the

8 lines of a -- what I used to call Class

9 Three bikeway or walkway? In other words, a

10 walkway that abuts the curbing? Is it a

11 four foot buffer, is it a six foot buffer?

12 MR. SCHMITT: Along a public

13 right-of-way, you cannot have a sidewalk

14 closer than five feet to the back of the

15 curb or travel portion of the roadway.

16 Indicates, with a situation like this where

17 it's internal to the site, frankly we would

18 (unintelligible) sidewalk (unintelligible)

19 it's just proper design, especially

20 (unintelligible) to the building.

21 If that was the case,

22 (unintelligible) it other way around. This

23 is a pretty typical situation with respect

24 to the sidewalk on this site.





2 you, Mr. Schmitt.

3 I am in support of the Motion.

4 I do, first of all, want to thank the

5 applicants for working with the Board. I

6 know sometimes we can get a little tight on

7 things. And you took all of our comments

8 went back and reworked the request and came

9 back in front us. I for one appreciate

10 that. I am a little concerned about not

11 having a restriction between the curbing and

12 the merchandise. And perhaps, the maker of

13 the Motion would allow some type of

14 amendment to require -- I guess is the right

15 terminology from the back of the curb to the

16 beginning of the merchandise; that minimum

17 amount of feet, such as five feet be

18 retained as a buffer to allow safe

19 pedestrian walkway in front of the

20 merchandise and not on the street -- or I

21 shouldn't say street, the parking drive

22 area.


24 (Unintelligible.)




1 MEMBER FISHER: Please do so.

2 (unintelligible) better clarification

3 (interposing) (unintelligible.)

4 MR. CAMPBELL: You see the

5 yellow line on the pavement, that is

6 actually the fire lane.


8 MR. CAMPBELL: The merchandise

9 would actually be behind those brick walls.

10 That way, no cars could actually get

11 anywhere near the pedestrians while they're

12 shopping (unintelligible.)

13 MEMBER SHROYER: As I think we

14 all know, people drive on the fire lane,

15 whether they're permitted to or not. I was

16 referring to where it shows the red line to

17 the beginning of the merchandise, some type

18 of a buffer area to allow safe pedestrian

19 walkway. Right now, if merchandise is all

20 the way out, they'd have to walk out into

21 the fire lane to go around the columns.

22 MR. CAMPBELL: I see that.


24 Realistically, because of the fact that those




1 columns are there, what merchandise -- we do have

2 to allow people to be able to get by with a

3 flat-cart between the back of that column and the

4 beginning of the merchandise.



7 Realistically, I'm not going to create a

8 situation where people are going to have to walk

9 out into the fire lane and back in the next side

10 of those columns. So, will it be any --

11 realistically, it's going to be more than 48

12 inches from that red line, just because of the

13 fact that somebody can't get (unintelligible)

14 create a shopping problem, much less, you know,

15 not to make light of the safety issue; but you've

16 got to make it convenient for customers to shop.

17 So I think that should resolve

18 itself. I have no issue with, you know, you want

19 to say 48 inches back from the red line, is fine.

20 MEMBER SHROYER: I'll leave it

21 up to the maker of the Motion then.

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: As far as I'm

23 concerned, so long as there's no safety issue

24 involved, the Motion can stand by itself.




1 MEMBER FISHER: Any other

2 discussion?

3 Seeing none, Ms. Marchoni,

4 please call the roll.

5 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Sanghvi?


7 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?


9 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Fischer?



12 Gronachan?


14 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Shroyer?


16 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?


18 SARAH MARCHONI: Motion passes

19 six to zero.

20 MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you very

21 much.


23 MEMBER FISHER: Best of luck to

24 you guys.





2 At this time I'd like to call

3 Case Number 06-025, filed by Maurice Cherf

4 25320 Beck Road. The applicant is

5 requesting two variances for the

6 construction of an addition and new porch

7 located at said address. You're looking at

8 a one foot front yard setback and the 16

9 foot four inch rear yard setback request.

10 If you could please raise your

11 hand and be 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. CHERF: Yes.


17 MEMBER FISHER: State your name

18 and address and proceed.

19 MR. CHERF: My name is Maurice

20 Cherf. My wife, Joyce and I reside at 25320

21 Beck Road for the last 33 years. As far as

22 starting -- stating the case, the hardship

23 that I'm addressing is the fact that both

24 the wife and I are 65-years plus. My wife




1 won't say how much plus, but we are senior

2 citizens, and our existing home is not

3 conducive for senior living. It has to

4 provisions or potential either for providing

5 any unassisted living (unintelligible)

6 convalescent if it's ever needed.

7 Secondly, the rear setback is

8 due to the zoning, which is residential

9 acreage. Originally, back in 1989, it was

10 actually R-1, so it has been increased. Our

11 homestead presently (unintelligible) closely

12 fits the R-4 zoning description, if you're

13 to actually consider it today.

14 The rear variance will provide

15 only about 600 square feet of living space.

16 And presently there is about 110 feet

17 between our house and the house behind us.

18 The house next to the house behind us, it

19 appears theirs is probably less or possibly

20 35 feet. So, as you can tell, we are not

21 actually going to (unintelligible) some way

22 to alter the existing character of the

23 neighborhood.

24 And I've also contacted the




1 neighbor behind us and to the south of us,

2 which would be the only people who would

3 actually see the addition, because we have a

4 vacant lot to the north of us that has a

5 garage on it.

6 And so therefore, I don't

7 think any other people -- other than these

8 two -- would be involved, and neither of

9 them had any objection to what I'm actually

10 proposing. And that's my case.

11 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you, sir.

12 Is there anyone in the

13 audience that wishes to comment on this

14 case?

15 Seeing none, in this case

16 there were 29 notices mailed, with zero

17 approvals and zero objections.

18 Building Department, any


20 MR. SAVEN: Yes. This is

21 probably one of most difficult subdivisions

22 (unintelligible) area and size. We've had

23 considerable variances in this particular area.

24 (Unintelligible) Zoning Ordinance




1 (unintelligible) since the time that the

2 subdivision was developed. (Unintelligible) you

3 have two separate parcels adjacent to this

4 subdivision, but not really including the

5 subdivision, but got caught up the R-A Zoning

6 district requirements.

7 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you,

8 Mr. Saven.

9 Board Members?

10 Member Canup?

11 MEMBER CANUP: Seems like a

12 pretty simple case. I live where I can

13 throw a rock and his house.

14 MEMBER FISHER: Let's not do

15 that.

16 MEMBER CANUP: I really do live

17 fairly close to him. I don't have a problem with

18 it.

19 So if there's no further

20 discussion, I would enter a Motion in Case,

21 06-025, 23520 Beck Road, that we grant the

22 variances as requested, due to the hardship

23 created by the size of the lot.

24 MEMBER BAUER: Second.




1 MEMBER FISHER: This is 25320;

2 is that what you said?

3 MR. CHERF: 25320.

4 It's the wrong --

5 MEMBER CANUP: Oh, we've got

6 the wrong address here?

7 MEMBER FISHER: Any further

8 discussion?

9 Member Shroyer?

10 MEMBER SHROYER: Just a quick

11 question for the applicant.

12 The slope of your rear yard --

13 MR. CHERF: Yes.

14 MEMBER SHROYER: -- is the

15 property line at the bottom of the slope,

16 where the two come down --

17 MR. CHERF: Yes. Our lot

18 basically slopes towards the neighbor behind

19 us, whose lot is probably four or five feet

20 higher than ours, so down, yes.

21 MEMBER SHROYER: I thought

22 that's what it was, but I wanted to make

23 sure.

24 MR. CHERF: Yes.





2 read the blueprint correctly, the proposed

3 front yard porch is actually a foot smaller

4 --

5 MR. CHERF: Yes, it will

6 actually be --

7 MEMBER SHROYER: -- than the

8 old porch?

9 MR. CHERF: No, it's actually

10 a foot larger. Existing parts of the wood

11 structure that's placed over the original

12 concrete porch -- the wooden structure will

13 be removed, and a new porch will be added,

14 which is a foot larger.

15 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Looked

16 like it was the other way around on the

17 blueprint.

18 MR. CHERF: Uh-huh.

19 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you.

20 I have no objections to the

21 Motion. I'm in full support.

22 Thank you.

23 MR. CHERF: Thank you.

24 MEMBER FISHER: Ms. Marchoni,




1 will you call the roll.

2 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?


4 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?


6 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Fischer?



9 Gronachan?


11 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Sanghvi?


13 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Shroyer?


15 SARAH MARCHONI: Motion passes

16 six to zero.

17 MR. CHERF: Thank you very

18 much.

19 MEMBER FISHER: Your variance

20 has been granted. Best of luck to you.

21 MR. CHERF: Thank you.


23 MEMBER FISHER: At this time

24 we're going to take short recess --




1 Sorry about that. I saw you

2 coming down. That's why I did it. No.

3 -- about ten minute recess.

4 We'll be back about 9:05 --

5 Thank you.


7 (A brief recess was taken.)

8 (Back on the record.)


10 MEMBER FISHER: I'd like to call

11 Case Number 06-026, filed by Arkin Enterprises

12 representing Shiro Restaurant at 43180 Nine Mile.

13 The Petitioner is requesting three sign variances

14 for an awning sign, a ground sign, and 18

15 temporary ground signs to be located at said

16 address.

17 If you could raise your hand

18 and be sworn in by our secretary.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear

20 or affirm that the information that you're about

21 to give in the matter before you is the truth?

22 MR. ARKIN: Yes, I do.


24 MEMBER FISHER: If you could




1 state your name and address and proceed with your

2 case.

3 MR. ARKIN: (Unintelligible)

4 Arkin, business address, 43180 Nine Mile

5 Road.

6 Good evening, Board Members.

7 I'm here representing Shiro Restaurant for

8 three requests. One being a ground sign at

9 the corner of Nine Mile and Novi; one sign

10 on the awning, itself; and the other

11 temporary signage.

12 The first two I guess are of

13 the upmost necessity. I call them needs.

14 The third request is really a want. The

15 Shiro Restaurant has a real hardship. It's

16 very, very well hidden in the industrial

17 area. Focusing on the exhibits I've given

18 you, (unintelligible) these packets, e

19 you'll see Exhibit 1 shows the signage with

20 the arrowing showing 600 feet. And the

21 vertical signage is very necessary because

22 of (unintelligible) and the elevation of the

23 land (unintelligible) drop off, and it's

24 behind a cyclone fence that has been put up.




1 So we have that four foot

2 fence that we have to (unintelligible)

3 above.

4 Exhibit 2 shows the cyclone

5 fence and the slope; Exhibit 3 shows the

6 northeast corner of Nine Mile and Novi Road.

7 Exhibit 4 shows you the view travelling east

8 on Nine Mile from Novi Road. Exhibit 5

9 shows looking west on Nine Mile passing the

10 Shiro Restaurant. Exhibit 8, shows the

11 northeast corner of Nine Mile and Novi Road.

12 The -- all the Exhibits 3, 4,

13 5 and 8, illustrate the restaurant's

14 absolutely hidden. You can't see it. The

15 boards I have in front are other pictures

16 showing that no matter what direction

17 (unintelligible) you cannot see the

18 restaurant. And granted, if you're passing

19 by, they do have a ground sign, but the

20 house is so attractive, you're

21 (unintelligible) to the house

22 (unintelligible) you see an awning that you

23 cannot barely see with just the name Shiro

24 on it or nothing on it. You take it for a




1 funeral home or some other use, other than a

2 restaurant.

3 The -- Exhibit 10 -- other

4 people I think (unintelligible) other people

5 have had similar problems, and Novi has

6 recognized them. Your Exhibit 10 shows the

7 Rotary Park with an arrow, right on Nine

8 Mile Road, showing the arrow for Rotary

9 Park. Exhibit 11 shows the signage also in

10 front of Rotary Park. Exhibit 12 shows Novi

11 Road right on Novi Road, Novi Ice Arena and

12 the Sports Club signage, also giving the

13 directions to the facilities that can't be

14 seen from the road.

15 Exhibit 13 shows Novi Ice

16 Arena Sports Club in front of the old

17 facilities. (Unintelligible) the Nine Mile

18 entry Road (unintelligible) Road

19 (unintelligible) the hidden areas. Exhibit

20 15 shows signage on Meadowbrook for Orchard

21 Hills Subdivision (unintelligible) it's

22 still hidden. (Unintelligible) and the

23 restaurant has similar problems. So this is

24 nothing new. (Unintelligible) necessary in




1 the past and approved.

2 Referring to the directional

3 sign of six hundred feet. The 600 feet

4 (unintelligible) we feel is the upmost

5 importance. Many of you are

6 (unintelligible) on the expressway

7 (unintelligible) one time or another see a

8 sign, restaurant with an arrow; and you get

9 off and you can't see the restaurant and you

10 don't care to travel that unknown, thinking

11 it might be five miles down the road

12 (unintelligible) five miles back. You just

13 don't go that unknown distance.

14 It's important to have at that

15 distance peace of mine. I guess the old

16 saying, out of sight out of mind. It's very

17 important to have directional assistance

18 (unintelligible) as good as the restaurant

19 may be with the best of food, they still

20 need an impulse customer and

21 (unintelligible) out of sight, out of mind.

22 Exhibit 6 and 7, I think you

23 will find pretty interesting. I own the

24 property to the east and to the west of the




1 restaurant; as well as the restaurant

2 property. When Novi wanted to widen it's

3 intersection at Nine Mile Road,

4 (unintelligible) property owners on the four

5 corners -- they could have taken some from

6 each side. I voluntarily gave up all of my

7 property for that intersection. It ended up

8 being 45,738 square feet 1.05 acres of land.

9 (unintelligible.) was pointed out to me

10 (unintelligible) came off my parcel; didn't

11 have to do it. (unintelligible) I asked

12 nothing for it.

13 The property could have come

14 from (unintelligible) come from Chelsea

15 Knolls, the condos people that opposed me

16 one time to have signage. Could have taken

17 parts of their frontage. I didn't think

18 that was the right thing to do. I voluntary

19 gave mine. Furthermore, I think that people

20 made some kind of a (unintelligible) and

21 maybe signage would be a negative thing.

22 But, if you look at my corner, there's about

23 four acres of woodland and a stream that I

24 can't build on.




1 That's pretty nice

2 beautification for Novi, for everyone to

3 enjoy. So I don't think it's unreasonable

4 for me to ask for the sake of Shiro

5 Restaurant (unintelligible) square, in view

6 of all the square footage I've given up.

7 (unintelligible) and the last two pages

8 ground signage (unintelligible.) The sign

9 is exactly -- it's 225 feet from the road

10 (unintelligible.) And having nothing on

11 that awning is a negative and having

12 (unintelligible) is also a negative.

13 (Unintelligible) a funeral home.

14 (Unintelligible.)

15 Exhibit B shows

16 (unintelligible) looked before and D

17 (unintelligible.) F shows (unintelligible)

18 distance and the last two pages are the

19 proposed signage (unintelligible.) And The

20 third request is absolutely less importance,

21 trying to get some temporary signage showing

22 the restaurant was open on Sunday. I was

23 trying to come up with something cheaper

24 using a number of signs like, I don't know,




1 probably showing signage -- I don't know if

2 any of you remember (unintelligible) was

3 trying to (unintelligible.)

4 Like I say, this was a want

5 more than a need. It would be helpful.

6 This is actually like a token

7 (unintelligible) they were very badly

8 effected by the improvement of Nine Mile

9 Road, the directional going to the west's

10 rather than travel east and taking 20

11 minutes sometimes to get there. They

12 practically lost their business. If it

13 wasn't for me trying to support them, they

14 probably would be out by now. I think it's

15 important to know the I've gone

16 (unintelligible) try to get relief for Shiro

17 by way of tax relief, which has been an

18 impossible task.

19 The property itself has much

20 greater value than the business is. And

21 I've been trying single handily to keep that

22 landmark. I think it's a wonderful landmark

23 in Novi for everyone to enjoy

24 (unintelligible) public facility




1 (unintelligible.) And if we don't get some

2 kind of help -- like I say, the land is

3 worth more than the building.

4 (Unintelligible) we need help.

5 Can't get it from the tax

6 people; can't get it any other place. So

7 two (unintelligible) we need signage. If

8 every one of you would try the restaurant,

9 it really has good food. (Unintelligible)

10 Japanese restaurant. (Unintelligible)

11 Japanese food and I love it there.

12 So like I say, a temporary

13 sign would be helpful, but it's not -- it's

14 a want.

15 The last thing I'm sort of

16 fighting or compromising with myself, but

17 I've tried to listen to the homeowners, and

18 I've read some of the people that did come

19 across negatively, because they wanted

20 (unintelligible) by Novi. (Unintelligible)

21 signage is going to hurt (unintelligible)

22 they see some four or five acres of trees

23 (unintelligible) piece of wood. It doesn't

24 look very good right now. (Unintelligible)




1 it could be very well -- look very nicely.

2 We really wanted to ask for

3 (unintelligible) but that doesn't work. I've

4 heard someone say that all those little signs

5 would be a little tacky. It's only a temporary

6 request. But like I say it's tacky we can live

7 without that. But (unintelligible) Exhibit 1,

8 which is the signage we've asked for; Exhibit 2

9 showing what it looks like behind the cyclone

10 fence. Keep in mind, the land goes down.

11 (unintelligible) pull it -- in front of the

12 cyclone fence (unintelligible) slopes, so we have

13 to go up above.

14 MEMBER FISHER: (Unintelligible)

15 we have that in our packet.

16 MR. ARKIN: (Unintelligible)

17 this though.


19 MR. ARKIN: The third is

20 Exhibit 1A; the fourth is Exhibit 2A, which

21 (unintelligible) I've shortened the sign.

22 So I made this (unintelligible.)

23 MEMBER FISHER: (Unintelligible)

24 let the Board start to discuss that sign. If




1 (unintelligible) they'd like to look at the

2 different proposals, we'll go that route.

3 However at this time, we're going to discuss the

4 sign as is.

5 Is there anything else you'd

6 like to say regarding the request? Any

7 other comments?

8 MR. ARKIN: I think that the

9 sign doesn't negatively impact any neighbor,

10 and also the character of the land.

11 Thank you for your time and

12 appreciate (unintelligible) much needed

13 cure.

14 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you very

15 much.

16 Is there anyone in the

17 audience that wishes to comment on this

18 case?

19 Please come forward to the

20 podium.

21 MEMBER FISHER: State your name

22 and --

23 MR. BLETZER: Steve Bletzer,

24 (Unintelligible) West Nine Mile. I've had a




1 business in Novi for about 28 years. I'm

2 about four doors down. We're an information

3 facility. We manufacture medical tools.

4 And when I got this notice, it kind of

5 seemed like a surprise. I mean I've been in

6 the restaurant business (unintelligible)

7 pizzerias. I know how important advertising

8 is. People have to know you're there.

9 I've eaten at this facility

10 couple times. It's excellent. Expensive,

11 but nice, and it is tough to see. And I

12 know when that road was being done, it had

13 to be hell on the business. Fortunately, it

14 didn't bother us any, because we don't need

15 people; we don't have people coming in. If

16 I had a restaurant in there, it would have

17 been tough.

18 I think even these small

19 signs -- it may seem like a little thing,

20 but at the same time, it's a chance to get

21 back into the business again. Let people

22 know that the restaurant is open.

23 Sometimes, you don't even know if it's open.

24 And it's shame because the place is




1 beautiful, as far as a landmark. It's got a

2 great history. And all the ghost stories

3 that have been going through, I suppose

4 anybody's been here for 20 years or more,

5 knows all about the ghost stories of the

6 place.

7 And it's something that

8 Mr. Arkin has taken care of. I think people

9 in Novi should be proud of it. I'm in the

10 industrial manufacturing end of it, like I

11 said four buildings down. And it's nice to

12 go buy it. I mean, it does something. So I

13 think out of fairness -- at least the way I

14 would feel -- and I hope those on the

15 Council feel the same way -- is, he deserves

16 a chance anyways on this.

17 So, that's about it. And I

18 can remember in the old days -- as I was

19 telling him -- when you first opened

20 business, we used to get business from the

21 Planning Commission and the Council. They'd

22 come in and say -- you know ask us what

23 we're doing, how we're doing. They're

24 always there. It was like visitor's day;




1 and you don't see that anymore.

2 I know the City's grown and

3 it's changed, but it was nice in the old

4 days.

5 So that's my point.

6 Thank you.

7 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you, sir.

8 Anyone else in the audience

9 that wishes to comment on this case?

10 How old I am, I even know

11 those ghost stories. I'm getting too old.

12 In this case, 72 notices were

13 mailed; seven approvals, three objections.

14 Madam Secretary, would you

15 please read the correspondence.


17 objection is from John Dean at 23425 Russell. I

18 object to the requested variances because of sign

19 C. I believe two signs on the property are

20 adequate. I have noticed that your

21 (unintelligible) temporary signs on Nine Mile and

22 Meadowbrook Road, which I find annoying and

23 unnecessary. (Unintelligible) granted the same

24 variance (unintelligible) unsightly and




1 unreasonable.

2 The next objection is from

3 James and Maggie Gargoni at 22383 Shelby

4 Lane. Our objection is we are in a

5 residential area, and once the flood gates

6 are open to commercial signs, we lose the

7 appearance and value to our homes and

8 surroundings.

9 The next objection is from

10 Frank W. Boyd at 22191 Shelby Lane.

11 Regarding the request from Arkin Enterprises

12 for three sign variances, (unintelligible)

13 18 temporary ground signs located at said

14 address. (Unintelligible) object to be --

15 (unintelligible) signs. I, as well as

16 others (unintelligible) objected to any

17 signs be placed at this location in May of

18 2000. The Zoning Board denied the request.

19 I again urge the Zoning Board to again deny

20 this request. Allowing signs of this nature

21 will do nothing to enhance the

22 beautification of Novi.

23 Should this be allowed, others

24 will request signs that are (unintelligible)




1 look like interstate 75 (unintelligible.)

2 The next set of letters are

3 approvals, and for the record I'll read the

4 names. (Unintelligible) Arkin, 43180 Nine

5 Mile; approval by Vicky Matreal,

6 M-a-t-r-e-a-l, 43180 West Nine Mile.

7 (Unintelligible) time she supports the

8 request. And Mr. Chen, 43180 West Nine

9 Mile, Chaft Tool Company 22605 Huslett; and

10 Mr. Guecho, who spoke earlier, an approval

11 (unintelligible.)

12 And that concludes the

13 correspondence, Mr. Chair?

14 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you, Madam

15 Secretary.

16 Building Department, any


18 MR. AMOLSCH: No comments,

19 sir.

20 MR. SAVEN: Very difficult

21 situation. Those of us a little bit older in

22 regards to this particular building, remember --

23 besides the ghost stories (unintelligible) went

24 through to try to (unintelligible) this landmark.




1 This is one of the probably most beautiful

2 buildings that we have in the City of Novi.

3 One of the issues that helps

4 maintain the beauty in itself is the fact

5 that the usage of this building to maintain

6 it as some type of landmark (unintelligible)

7 during that course of time (unintelligible)

8 restaurant and bring people in to really

9 enjoy this particular building. I do know

10 there's been a couple of entrepreneurs that

11 I know interested into that building.

12 Mr. Arkin (unintelligible) tried to make the

13 restaurant (unintelligible.)

14 MR. ARKIN: Two, three --

15 MR. SAVEN: Three.

16 MR. ARKIN: (Unintelligible)

17 restaurant right now. We have

18 (unintelligible) as four.

19 MR. SAVEN: You know, those are

20 difficult situations, certainly difficult case to

21 deal with. The logistics of the building

22 (unintelligible) sits far back (unintelligible)

23 why he's before you tonight.

24 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you,




1 Mr. Saven.

2 Board Members?

3 I'll first say, personally, I

4 think it might be easier to take Sign A,

5 Sign B and Sign C; but, of course, that's up

6 to the Board. If you want no tailor those

7 subjects separately, I think that might be

8 easier than talking about all three of them

9 and trying to figure out where everybody

10 else -- just as a suggestion.

11 Member Bauer?

12 MEMBER BAUER: What the biggest

13 problem is, everybody's missing it. Those folks

14 just don't eat too much. No I can see

15 (unintelligible) for him. I think that would

16 possibly help. The ground sign, your second one,

17 I think would be probably much better. But the

18 temporary signs, I'm against.

19 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you,

20 Member Bauer.

21 Member Gronachan?


23 Mr. Chair.

24 I must be too young to




1 remember the ghosts, okay. I wasn't from

2 here, but I know that when I moved here one

3 of the landmarks, if you will, or references

4 was, in fact, this building. And I think

5 it's nice that Novi has those kinds of

6 historic items to look at; specially with so

7 much new going on.

8 I am in support of the awning

9 sign. I like the way the Petitioner

10 presented in his first part of his

11 presentation in regard to the reasoning for

12 identifying it, because there are a lot of

13 times -- and given the location of the

14 building, how far it's set back, the fact

15 that there is a tree line to the west kind

16 of shields it and makes it darker. On a

17 dreary day, you can't really tell exactly

18 what it is.

19 I would like to see the

20 Petitioner's paperwork on the smaller signs.

21 I feel that this business has been around,

22 and in and attempt to truly identified it --

23 although I'm not usually in favor of

24 directional signs -- I feel in this




1 particular case, it's been established that

2 there is a need, given on the fact that this

3 is a business. It's an establish business,

4 and we're trying to help it along.

5 Especially, since there are people that

6 cannot locate it.

7 A restaurant is based, a lot,

8 too, on driveway. (Unintelligible) looking

9 for some place to eat. (Unintelligible) of

10 the City I think it's important to help

11 identify the location.

12 I cannot however support the

13 request for the lower ground signs. I just

14 feel that that would be -- that's thinking

15 way outside the box (unintelligible)

16 thinking is jumping off the bridge.

17 I'll leave my comment.

18 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you.

19 Mr. Canup?

20 MEMBER CANUP: Could we see

21 the alternate sign that Mr. Arkin --

22 MEMBER FISHER: (Unintelligible)

23 coppy or one copy?

24 Okay.




1 MEMBER CANUP: Mr. Arkin is

2 very well prepared all the time. I've been

3 seeing him at the ZBA for, how long

4 Mr. Arkin?

5 MEMBER FISHER: I wasn't even

6 born then. Just like to throw those things out.

7 MEMBER CANUP: What was the

8 height of the original sign?

9 MR. ARKIN: The height was

10 eight feet above -- eight feet above the

11 (unintelligible) cyclone fence. That was

12 eight feet. And this -- I got -- I've given

13 all my copies out.

14 MEMBER CANUP: I guess I don't

15 have a problem with A and B, but C is just

16 out of the question.

17 MEMBER FISHER: Is that a Motion

18 on A?

19 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a

20 Motion that we grant the variance on A.

21 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

22 MEMBER FISHER: Are there any

23 other findings you'd like to place on that,

24 Member Canup?




1 MEMBER CANUP: I'm sorry?

2 MEMBER FISHER: Are there any

3 findings you'd like to place (unintelligible?)

4 MEMBER CANUP: I would like to

5 place a finding on that it's applicable for this

6 (unintelligible) only as Shiro Restaurant. And

7 if the (unintelligible) should change ownership,

8 or name that these variances would be null and

9 void.

10 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

11 MEMBER FISHER: There's a Motion

12 and a second on the table. Any further

13 discussion on Sign A?

14 Seeing none, Ms. Marchoni,

15 please call the roll.

16 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?


18 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?


20 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Fischer?



23 Gronachan?





1 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Sanghvi?



4 Shroyer?


6 SARAH MARCHONI: Motion passes

7 six to zero.

8 MEMBER FISHER: (Unintelligible)

9 the ground sign?

10 MEMBER CANUP: I'd make a

11 Motion that we grant a variance on B, based

12 on the proposed Exhibit 1A, which is a five

13 feet and a quarter tall -- signage of five

14 feet and a quarter of sign; and four feet

15 above grade.

16 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

17 MEMBER CANUP: Again, this is

18 due to the extreme circumstances as

19 experienced by this establishment.

20 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

21 MEMBER FISHER: There's a Motion

22 and a second.

23 I would ask, are we going to

24 grant this on a permanent basis, or are we




1 looking at some sort (unintelligible) some

2 type of restriction on it. I don't think

3 I'd be willing to support something

4 permanent.

5 MEMBER CANUP: Well, I think

6 if this doesn't work, we don't have to worry

7 about it being permanent. They've been

8 there quite a while and they're struggling.

9 If this doesn't help, they probably won't be

10 there. I think the way I would make the

11 Motion is this sign (unintelligible)

12 applicant, to this restaurant only.


14 Gronachan?

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Unintelligi

16 ble) clarification. Is Exhibit 2A Exhibit 1A?

17 It's the actual 1A sign, correct? Am I reading

18 this --

19 MR. ARKIN: Exhibit 1A would

20 be the same as Exhibit 1, but shorter.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I understand

22 that. But the new package that you gave us, 2A

23 (interposing) (unintelligible) if you can go back

24 to the mic, so they can hear you at home.




1 MEMBER SHROYER: Can we have

2 him put it up on the overhead, so the

3 audience can see as well, please.

4 MEMBER FISHER: No, face up.


6 you're looking at it.

7 MR. ARKIN: What we've done

8 is, we've dropped off (unintelligible) to

9 shorten the sign.


11 So just for clarification, Exhibit 2A in this new

12 packet that you gave us, is this 1A sign,

13 correct?

14 MR. ARKIN: Correct. Just

15 showing it on sight.


17 all I needed. I will be in support, thank you.

18 MR. ARKIN: Thank you for

19 bringing me into the 21st Century.

20 MEMBER FISHER: Member Shroyer?

21 MEMBER SHROYER: Well, I got

22 to be different, I guess, on this. Sign B

23 reminds me of a sign that I see in resort

24 towns. You know, this is this way, this is




1 this way. I probably wouldn't be as opposed

2 to it if it wasn't at a major intersection.

3 The other examples that were shown in the

4 packet really are designating; either

5 non-profit location business or they don't

6 front a major road like Nine Mile Road, or

7 -- or they're on entrance roads.

8 So I like the looks of the

9 corner the way it is. It's so pretty; it's

10 so nice. Unfortunately as you mention it,

11 probably can't be developed into anything

12 because of the deep ravine, etc. But, if we

13 put a time limit on it, maybe I could

14 support it. I mean, we talked about if it's

15 not going to be -- if the restaurant doesn't

16 go, it's not going to be up there anyway.

17 MEMBER FISHER: But if it does

18 go, it'll be there.


20 (Unintelligible) Motion to accept. If you'd

21 like to ask for a friendly amendment, I

22 would be willing to -- as the maker of the

23 Motion, I would be willing to accept that.

24 MEMBER SHROYER: I think the




1 only way I'd be able to approve this would

2 be if there would be some type of a friendly

3 amendment that would put a time limit on the

4 sign of a year.

5 MEMBER CANUP: (Unintelligible)

6 a limit for the Motion amendment.

7 MEMBER SHROYER: Perhaps one

8 year, or whatever the maker of the Motion

9 would recommend.

10 MEMBER CANUP: How about 18

11 months.

12 MEMBER SHROYER: 18 months?

13 MEMBER FISHER: I like it.


15 MEMBER FISHER: So the seconder

16 agrees, as well.


18 (Unintelligible) 18 months, you probably

19 won't be there anymore.

20 MEMBER FISHER: The person who

21 has the table wishes to hear your comments?

22 MEMBER CANUP: No, I'll make it

23 18 months and we'll grant or accept the friendly

24 amendment.




1 MEMBER FISHER: All right. And

2 the seconder did agree.

3 Any further discussion?

4 Member Sanghvi?

5 MEMBER SANGHVI: I just have one

6 question. Is this or is it not an off-site sign?

7 MEMBER BAUER: Off-site.


9 (Unintelligible.)

10 MEMBER CANUP: But Mr. Arkin

11 also owns that property.


13 (Unintelligible.) And the only thing that's

14 bothering me is setting a precedent with

15 (unintelligible) off-site signs, because you

16 don't like the location where you are

17 situated (unintelligible) on a major road.

18 And this is really a concern to me.

19 Thank you.

20 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may, through

21 the Chair, make my comments prematurely. I guess

22 if that were the Motion that was going to be on

23 the floor after the Board finished discussing, I

24 was going to suggest a couple of findings to




1 maybe address that concern that Member Sanghvi

2 has.

3 Number one, the distance off

4 the main road that the restaurant is; and

5 number two is the kind of historic landmark

6 character of the building that the city is

7 trying to keep occupied. It's been a

8 problem in the past. (Unintelligible)

9 findings if Member Canup would accept them

10 as a basis for the off ground variance.

11 MEMBER CANUP: I would accept

12 them.

13 Let the Minutes so read.

14 MEMBER FISHER: All right.

15 Any other friendly amendments,

16 discussions or anything?

17 Seeing none, Ms. Marchoni,

18 will you please call the roll.

19 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?


21 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?


23 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Fischer?






2 Gronachan?


4 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Sanghvi?


6 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Shroyer?


8 SARAH MARCHONI: Motion passes

9 six to zero.

10 MEMBER FISHER: And the floor's

11 open again.

12 Member Canup?

13 MEMBER CANUP: I'd make a

14 Motion in the same case, Sign C, that we

15 deny the request as stated.

16 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

17 MEMBER FISHER: Findings?

18 MEMBER CANUP: The findings

19 are the number of signs, the locations,

20 etc., are inappropriate for the surrounding

21 communities.

22 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

23 MEMBER FISHER: Any other

24 discussion?




1 Seeing none, Ms. Marchoni,

2 please call the roll.

3 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?


5 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?


7 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Fischer?



10 Gronachan?


12 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Sanghvi?


14 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Shroyer?


16 SARAH MARCHONI: Motion passes

17 six to zero.

18 MEMBER FISHER: Your variance

19 has been granted with those stipulations.

20 MR. ARKIN: Thank you for your

21 consideration.

22 By the way, unfortunately, the

23 restaurant is a nonprofit situation. And if

24 I understood you correctly, you granted for




1 an 18 month period?

2 MEMBER FISHER: The sign -- the

3 awning sign is granted permanently; Sign B, the

4 directional sign, is for 18 months. That doesn't

5 disclude(sic) you from coming back before the

6 Zoning Board. However, my concern as that if it

7 did take off, if it didn't go well, maybe the

8 sign could come down. We need to keep those

9 types ore restrictions within the City when we're

10 going off premises, such as that.

11 MR. ARKIN: Just seems like

12 the restaurant is going to need it on a

13 continuous basis.

14 MEMBER FISHER: Yes, Mr. Saven?

15 MR. SAVEN: I just want to point

16 out, this is Exhibit 1A (unintelligible)

17 presented to the Board tonight.

18 MR. ARKIN: That's correct.

19 MR. SAVEN: Okay.

20 MR. ARKIN: I understand that,

21 okay.

22 Thank you.

23 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you.

24 Please see the Building




1 Department for any other questions. And

2 best luck to you and Shiro Restaurant.

3 MR. ARKIN: Thank you.


5 MEMBER FISHER: All right.

6 Case Number 06-028 filed by

7 Fawzi Tomey for Jimmy John's at 31204 Beck

8 Road. Mr. Tomey's requesting a variance for

9 temporary outdoor seating at said address.

10 If you could raise your hand

11 and be 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. TOMEY: It's true.

16 MEMBER FISHER: Name and address

17 and proceed.

18 MR. TOMEY: Yeah. My name is

19 Fawzi Tomey. I live at 22355 Asbrook(ph)

20 Drive, Northville, Michigan, 48167. And I'm

21 petitioning for Jimmy John's at 31204 Beck

22 Road to have more seats in the outside. The

23 seating on the outside of the Jimmy John's

24 will enhance the businesses that --




1 (unintelligible) to enhance the City of

2 Novi. And requesting four tables plus

3 chairs. As you have it in your exhibits --

4 maybe I could show it to you on -- I don't

5 know how.

6 MEMBER BAUER: It's just too

7 dark.

8 MR. TOMEY: The footage from

9 the front of the store all the way to the

10 curb is about 32 feet. And from the post,

11 as you see there, the two posts, is 20 feet.

12 So that's why I'm proposing is to put four

13 tables with umbrella -- that's what attract

14 more customers, especially in the

15 summertime.

16 That's what I'm requesting.

17 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you.

18 Is there anyone in the

19 audience that wishes to comment on this

20 case?

21 Seeing none, in this case

22 there were 82 notices mailed, with zero

23 approvals, zero objections.

24 However, I would like to note




1 that the leasing company, as part of the

2 agreement for tenancy in that area -- "The

3 tenant may set up outdoor seating in a

4 mutually agreeable location."

5 Building Department?

6 MR. SAVEN: (unintelligible) our

7 agreement that needs to be entered into with the

8 leasing company, number one; number two is access

9 (unintelligible) to the building for handicapped

10 purposes, making sure that walkway is not

11 blocked. I would like, if you decide to approve

12 this Motion -- (unintelligible) be able to go out

13 there and take a look at chairs and locations.

14 No chairs or tables can be

15 located under the canopy area.

16 MR. TOMEY: Absolutely not,

17 absolutely not. All the chairs and tables

18 will be on the outside, because you can see

19 there's a 20 feet from the post -- in the

20 outside post all the way to the curb. So

21 there is not a space to put four tables in

22 there.

23 MR. SAVEN: One other thing I'd

24 like to bring up. Sometimes we have this ability




1 to put little verbiage on these umbrellas or

2 signs. And I want to clarify that normally we

3 don't get involved with (unintelligible) for

4 verbiage on canopies or awnings or whatever. Be

5 very careful about that.

6 MR. TOMEY: I'm sorry.

7 Verbiage where, on the canopy?

8 MR. SAVEN: On the umbrellas

9 that you wanted to put up.

10 MR. TOMEY: I only have the

11 Jimmy John's umbrellas. And there's nothing

12 on there but Jimmy John's umbrellas

13 specifically to Jimmy John's. It not any --

14 I don't know if you saw the umbrellas on my

15 current store at Grand River and Haggerty

16 Road, it's the same umbrella that's only

17 specified for Jimmy John's.

18 MR. SAVEN: (Unintelligible)

19 part of the Motion should you decide to approve

20 this.

21 MEMBER FISHER: Board Members?

22 Member Canup?

23 MEMBER CANUP: The question I

24 have is the sidewalk as put there basically for




1 pedestrian traffic. If you look at this thing,

2 how would you like to be walking along and have

3 to dodge through those tables.

4 That's my question.

5 MR. TOMEY: The sidewalk?


7 How does the pedestrian who

8 wants to --

9 MR. TOMEY: The sidewalk --

10 there is two flower beds on each side of the

11 post. It's not shown in this picture. So,

12 the sidewalk would be from the inside,

13 inside -- under the canopy. That's our

14 sidewalk.

15 In the outside of the picture,

16 there's two flower beds in there, so there

17 would be no trespasses from, you know, other

18 stores. You could walk under the canopy.

19 MEMBER CANUP: Again, that's my

20 point. I feel that you're cluttering the

21 sidewalk area, which people are going to have a

22 tendency to walk out on that sidewalk area. And

23 I think another point was well-taken about the

24 verbiage on the umbrella. (Unintelligible.) I




1 have a problem with pedestrians not having a

2 place to walk.

3 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you,

4 Member Canup.

5 MR. SAVEN: If I could address

6 the question in regards to the sidewalk. There

7 is a sidewalk under the canopy, where the

8 frontage on that particular building. We have

9 access points from the parking lot

10 (unintelligible) this particular sight. This is

11 a rather wide area that we're dealing with in

12 this particular area.

13 I think that's what we're --

14 he's trying to explain tonight, how wide

15 that area is for accessibility. It's not as

16 those we're limiting that area for

17 accessibility to that particular store.

18 It's just that it needs to be wide enough.

19 And that's why I asked earlier on if it's

20 the Board's decision to approve this

21 particular case, that I have the ability to

22 make sure that walkway is clear so they have

23 access to the building.

24 MEMBER CANUP: With that




1 clarification, I'd make a Motion in this case, if

2 that's acceptable.

3 MEMBER FISHER: That's fine with

4 me.

5 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a

6 Motion in Case Number 06-028; 31204 Beck

7 Road, that we grant the variance as

8 requested, due to the uniqueness of the

9 hardship of seating for the summer traffic;

10 and that the umbrellas, there should be no

11 identification considered as signage, or

12 than what is permitted by Ordinance.

13 MEMBER FISHER: The Building

14 Official has --

15 MEMBER CANUP: And limited to

16 four tables, and this will expire on October

17 31st of '06.

18 MEMBER FISHER: Is there a

19 second?

20 MEMBER BAUER: Second.


22 Gronachan?


24 accept a friendly amendment to allow for the




1 Building Department to review the proper setting

2 of the tables.

3 Is that --


5 accessibility.


7 accessibility and safety.

8 MEMBER CANUP: I don't have a

9 problem with that, if the Building

10 Department doesn't. (Interposing)

11 (unintelligible.) So accepted.

12 MEMBER FISHER: I would also

13 like to add a friendly amendment that this is

14 contingent upon the tenant area also agreeing.

15 We don't want the City getting involved in any

16 tenant owner situation.

17 MEMBER CANUP: It expires

18 October 31st, as stated.

19 MEMBER FISHER: The plan has to

20 agree -- the tenant has to agree with the plan on

21 how the seats are arranged. And I think that

22 will all take care of your concern about people

23 can't get through. People complained

24 (unintelligible) other businesses




1 (unintelligible.)

2 MEMBER CANUP: Amendment

3 accepted.


5 MEMBER SHROYER: May I ask our

6 legal counsel (unintelligible) need to

7 include an additional friendly amendment,

8 that it meets (unintelligible) requirements.

9 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair,

10 (unintelligible) the Building Department will

11 make sure that occurs.


13 Thank you.

14 MEMBER FISHER: Member Krieger?


16 (Unintelligible.)

17 MEMBER CANUP: He asked for May

18 1st.

19 MEMBER FISHER: Ms. Marchoni,

20 will you please call the roll.

21 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?


23 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?





1 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Fischer?



4 Gronachan?


6 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Sanghvi?


8 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Shroyer?


10 SARAH MARCHONI: Motion passes

11 six to zero.

12 MEMBER FISHER: Your variance

13 has been granted with some concessions.

14 Best of luck.

15 MR. TOMEY: Thank you very

16 much.

17 MEMBER FISHER: Good luck.

18 MR. TOMEY: Thank you.


20 MEMBER FISHER: And we'll call

21 Case Number: 06-029, filed by Patrick Ruddy nat

22 44622 Kali Court.


24 MEMBER FISHER: Yes, sir.





2 because I am a member of the board of

3 directors for the subdivision which this is

4 located, I feel it would be necessary that I

5 recuse myself in this case, and like to be

6 leave the room.

7 MEMBER FISHER: Fair enough.

8 All Board Members in favor,

9 say aye?


11 MEMBER FISHER: I'll just tell

12 the Petitioner, that we will still have a full

13 Board because our Alternate Member, Member

14 Krieger, will be here, so you'll have six people

15 voting on it.

16 MR. RUDDY: Very good.

17 MEMBER FISHER: Just to finish

18 up with the description. The Petitioner is

19 requesting one variance for the construction of a

20 screened porch. This property is located north

21 of Ten Mile, east of Taft Road.

22 If you could raise your hand

23 and be sworn in by our secretary.

24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear




1 or affirm that the information that you're about

2 to give in the matter before you is the truth?

3 MR. RUDDY: I do.


5 MEMBER FISHER: State your name

6 and address and proceed.

7 My name is Patrick Ruddy and

8 I'm at 44622 Kali Court in Novi. We

9 currently have a deck coming off the back of

10 our house (unintelligible.) It's 14 by 14.

11 (unintelligible.) We're seeking to enclose

12 that porch so we can use it in the summer

13 time. We're almost adjacent to a pond, a

14 wetland. And apparently, we need to seek a

15 variance for 16 feet.

16 Again, it would be

17 (unintelligible) mosquitos are just awful

18 and the dust and the bees and then some.

19 MEMBER FISHER: Perfect.

20 Is there anyone in the

21 audience that wishes to make comment on this

22 case?

23 Seeing none, I'll let the

24 Board know that 32 notices were mailed; and




1 zero approvals and zero objections.

2 However, we did receive (unintelligible)

3 board of directors from Cedar Springs

4 Estates, an approval of the plans of this

5 deck enclosure.

6 And Building Department?

7 MR. SAVEN: Just to point out

8 the property's unusual in nature (unintelligible)

9 in shape. You can see the deck approaches the

10 rear property line, the length is a little bit

11 less than what would normally be in line for a

12 regular setback requirement of 35 feet. Also the

13 fact this is on an existing deck, which is

14 allowed to project up to 18 feet in the required

15 rear yard setback.

16 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you,

17 Mr. Saven.

18 Any Board Members?

19 Member Canup?

20 MEMBER CANUP: I see there's a

21 letter from the association; is that correct?

22 Signed by Cedar -- it doesn't say it's

23 representing the association. It says that as a

24 Board Member of Cedar Springs, I approve the




1 plans.

2 Is that speaking for the

3 association?

4 MR. RUDDY: He's speaking for

5 the association.


7 wouldn't have a problem with it. Looks like

8 something -- the deck's already there. They

9 just want to enclose it. Pretty simple.

10 MEMBER FISHER: Is that a

11 Motion?

12 MEMBER CANUP: I'd make a

13 Motion in Case Number: 06-029, that we

14 grant the variance as requested, due to the

15 fact that the structure is already there and

16 they're just enclosing it.


18 MEMBER FISHER: There's a Motion

19 and a second.

20 We also include the unique

21 shape of the lot (unintelligible.)

22 MEMBER CANUP: Friendly

23 amendment.

24 MEMBER FISHER: Ms. Marchoni,




1 will you please call the roll.

2 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?


4 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Krieger?


6 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Sanghvi?


8 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?


10 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Fischer?



13 Gronachan?


15 SARAH MARCHONI: Motion passes

16 six to zero.

17 MEMBER FISHER: Your variance

18 has been granted. Best of luck.

19 MR. RUDDY: Thank you very

20 much.


22 MEMBER FISHER: Now to Case

23 Number 05-099, filed by Rino Soave for Pinebrook

24 Professional Plaza. The applicant is requesting




1 three variances for the construction of a

2 proposed project. The project will contain two

3 buildings; and the applicant is requesting a .8

4 acre lot variance -- lot area variance, a 13 foot

5 front yard setback, and a 533 square foot

6 variance for the loading/unloading area, located

7 at the southeast corner of Grand River Avenue and

8 Joseph Avenue.

9 I'll let everyone get

10 situated.

11 And we'll welcome Member

12 Shroyer back.

13 Raise your hand and be sworn

14 in by our secretary.

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear

16 or affirm that the information that you're about

17 to give in the matter before you is the truth?

18 MR. SOAVE: Yes.

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you have

20 anyone else with you that's going to speak

21 tonight, or are you going --

22 MR. SOAVE: No. I have Brian

23 Press from the Press Group (unintelligible)

24 architect for the project.





2 right hand.

3 Do you swear or affirm that

4 the information that you're about to give in

5 the matter before you is the truth?

6 RIGHT2: Yes, ma'am.


8 MEMBER FISHER: If you could

9 state your name and address.

10 MR. SOAVE: Thanks, again.

11 My name is Rino Soave, 20592

12 Chestnut, Livonia.

13 Just to give you a brief

14 background introduction to my project, back

15 when we first purchased the property, we sat

16 down with our architect and the engineers --

17 you know, we realized the property did have

18 it's irregularities. You're looking at a

19 piece of property that's roughly 120 by, you

20 know, 500 feet in depth. It pretty much

21 looks like a bowling alley type of piece of

22 property, so to speak. You know, it's long

23 and narrow.

24 So sitting down, like I said




1 with the architects and engineers, you know,

2 we wanted to give a plan that would kind of

3 maximize the potential, as far as a

4 development that was not only marketable,

5 but add value and character, you know, to

6 the area (unintelligible) marketability

7 standpoint for us. You know, that was

8 leasable (unintelligible) leasable.

9 So we put together our first

10 plan, which I believe I referred to right

11 below me. We went through site plan

12 approval with some (unintelligible) on this

13 project. Receiving preliminary approval

14 back in November; and following through with

15 the Board in our first Zoning Board meeting,

16 which would have been early 2005(sic) this

17 year, we came across a few stumbling blocks

18 with the current association to the south as

19 far as a few D restrictions that kind of

20 interfered with the configuration of our

21 development.

22 So coming forth with our

23 second proposal, which is the other end

24 where you see to the left of me, our first




1 one consisted of one building, approximately

2 8,000 square feet in size. It was serviced

3 by two parking lots and two entrances; one

4 to the north, one to the south.

5 So that was pretty much the

6 issue with the association, as far as having

7 a second entrance off of Joseph. So our new

8 proposal is based on two buildings with --

9 consistent around thirty-hundred and

10 fifty(sic) square feet; combined total is

11 around 7700 square feet, which will be

12 serviced by one parking lot.

13 (unintelligible) parking lot and one

14 entrance. Going forward, like I said,

15 receiving approval from the Planning

16 Commission a couple weeks ago, you know,

17 we're still -- we're subject to receive a

18 few of the variances we're asking for

19 tonight.

20 The first variance is

21 consistent of the lot area. The property is

22 1.2 acres. We are working currently on

23 (unintelligible) two acres. Having the

24 deficiency of the .8 acre -- by not




1 obtaining this variance, we're forced with

2 the hardship of this property being pretty

3 much unusable. The property being zoned

4 NCC, you know, so many years back and

5 platted for preliminary residential

6 purposes, it's like I said, it would make

7 the property unbuildable.

8 Without obtaining this

9 variance tonight, like I said, it would make

10 our property unusable. The second is kind

11 of a unique variance as far as loading

12 spaces. Our first variance -- our first

13 proposal rather consists of one loading

14 space; that the Planning Commission approved

15 at the time. But due to the fact that we

16 have two buildings now, we're now forced to

17 have, you know, two loading spaces. I

18 believe the current Ordinance is ten square

19 feet for every foot of building. And our

20 property -- not being able to access our

21 property off of Grand River, and entering

22 off of Joseph, which makes the combined

23 requirement around 1400 feet.

24 And obviously not being able




1 to obtain that due to the fact that our

2 property is a deficient area and what the

3 lengths, you know, we're looking for a

4 variance due to the fact that, you know, for

5 one reason, the property -- you know, the

6 development won't even really need the --

7 the need for loading space, is going to

8 require, you know, long big trucks coming in

9 there. A lot of deliveries will pretty much

10 -- will be pretty much professional. We're

11 marking (unintelligible) professional.

12 Our current building

13 development company is going to be one of

14 the tenants in there. Right now, we house

15 three employees. That may change over the

16 next year. For the most part, we're not

17 anticipating any major deliveries coming

18 through this project. (Unintelligible) lot

19 of professional real estate, mortgage,

20 mortgage brokers, business like that would

21 be pretty much leasing the space.

22 And also, the loading spaces

23 are pretty much 30 feet from each other.

24 So, like I said, this is kind of -- it's




1 almost kind of excessive to the extent our

2 Ordinance -- the Ordinance kind of -- I

3 guess in the way it doesn't reflect our

4 project, because it's almost kind of site

5 specific. Had our project being developed

6 off of Grand River, I could see --

7 understand that. But it being off of

8 Joseph, we feel, you know, we don't -- we're

9 able to obtain this Ordinance or a variance,

10 rather.

11 With the third one, is -- has

12 to do with the covered entryway of our

13 building. Even though our building could be

14 built pretty much without these entryways --

15 even though I think we're encroaching

16 roughly around -- right around ten feet in

17 the setback line, it kind of goes back to

18 what I was saying from like a marketability

19 standpoint.

20 I mean, we want a building

21 that's gonna -- when people drive down Grand

22 River, and be able to see that, you know,

23 that's an appealing building. Taking off

24 these entry ways, we don't want to have this




1 like a box, a narrow type (unintelligible)

2 offices (unintelligible) stand out and be

3 marketable, not only for the community but

4 for our customers, as well.

5 So I guess with that said,

6 we'll look to the Board to answer any

7 questions (unintelligible.)


9 Is there anyone in the

10 audience that wishes to comment on this

11 case?

12 Seeing none, there were 23

13 notices mailed; looks like two approvals; is

14 that correct?


16 (Unintelligible) one.

17 MEMBER FISHER: I'm not sure.

18 We have a letter from Leslie Park

19 (unintelligible.)


21 (Unintelligible) home owners association

22 (unintelligible) correct?

23 MR. SOAVE: Correct.

24 SARAH MARCHONI: (Unintelligibl




1 e.)

2 MEMBER FISHER: You're right,

3 I'm wrong. Thank you for the clarification.

4 If you could read both,

5 please.


7 letter is from the Leslie Park Subdivision. The

8 Leslie Park Subdivision Committee has reviewed

9 the plans for the Pinebrook Professional Plaza

10 developed on Lot 18. We appreciate that you have

11 worked with us to come to an agreeable plan that

12 serves the Leslie Park Homeowners' Association ;

13 in keeping with the homeowners' association,

14 reported deed descriptions and the latest plans

15 that fit within those guidelines; and therefore,

16 received approval by our committee.

17 As previously discussed, I

18 want to (unintelligible) will include a six

19 foot berm on the top end of your property,

20 and will include six to eight foot

21 evergreens will -- similar to the berm

22 that's bordered by residents. We would like

23 to continue to maintain communication has

24 your development begins to take form




1 (unintelligible) any changes for the plan

2 are within the deed restrictions Leslie

3 Park.

4 The next letter is from Peach

5 Tree Development, Cliff Seibert,

6 administrative manager. I receive the

7 notice regarding this sole corporation's

8 request for three variances. These

9 variances (unintelligible) minimal lot area,

10 front yard setback and loading yard. Peach

11 Tree Development owns the office building

12 located intiguous(sic)(ph) to and east of

13 subject property.

14 Let the owners of this

15 property please be advised that we have no

16 objection to the issuance of such variances

17 and subject the granting of the variance --

18 and support -- sorry -- support the granting

19 of the variances by the Zoning Board of

20 Appeals.

21 And that concludes the

22 correspondence.

23 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you, Madam

24 Secretary.




1 Building Department, any


3 MR. SAVEN: Just to point out,

4 that on sheet number 61001 at 01 in your packet,

5 you will note that the projection in the front

6 yard setback and the dimensional setback, you'll

7 see that (unintelligible) entry way. And the

8 amount of area that it is covering. So it should

9 be pointed out for your review.

10 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,

11 Mr. Saven.

12 Any other comments?

13 Mr. Schmitt, you've been so

14 quiet. Wondered you were here.

15 MR. SCHMITT: This is why I'm

16 here; this and another plan. You know, I

17 like coming to the ZBA.

18 This was an odd one for us.

19 We very rarely have a situation with a deed

20 restriction like this come to play.

21 Frankly, this is the first time I can recall

22 one having been here. So the applicant went

23 back to the drawing board and came back with

24 two one story buildings. Previously, it was




1 one building more toward the center of the

2 site. Taking one at a time, the two acre

3 issue is only specific zoning district. The

4 NCC was originally intended to be Gateway

5 East District.

6 NCC (unintelligible) to do

7 that. It never really took off, but you

8 ended up with several of these smaller lots,

9 zoning NCC. So, frankly, there is no other

10 land they could pick up the property

11 (unintelligible) Peach Tree on the east and

12 west: Grand River's at north and Leslie Park

13 is South.

14 So unfortunately, that is an

15 issue the Ordinance doesn't really take into

16 account in looking at the Grand River

17 corridor (unintelligible) NCC is currently

18 located. The loading issue, had the

19 Planning Department been able to look at

20 this as Grand River being the front yard,

21 the loading issue wouldn't be in front of

22 you, because they wouldn't meet the

23 requirement for Grand River being the front

24 yard.




1 Because they're double

2 fronted. Their access is truly off of

3 Joseph. That was, at best, a difficult

4 interpretation for us to make; leading to

5 the deficiency in the loading zone. Lastly,

6 the covered entry way, it is projecting into

7 the front yard setback on Joseph Drive. The

8 staff planner on this has been very adamant

9 about saying he's not necessarily in support

10 of that, because it's really architectural

11 features. We certainly understand that it

12 provides interest to the building, it does.

13 We don't argue with that. It's really -- we

14 have an Ordinance issue in front of us.

15 You're permitted X feet of projection into a

16 side yard for unenclosed situation, and this

17 is exceeding that. And that's where we are

18 in our review of this.

19 We certainly appreciate the

20 applicant having responded positively to the

21 Leslie Park residents in a situation like

22 that. I don't know that I would have been

23 as positive frankly. It's a late in the

24 game thing that came up, and the applicant




1 responded admirably to that. But, really,

2 that's brings where we're at today. The

3 issue's the same -- the loading zone is the

4 only issue that really changed from the

5 previous submittal.

6 They still have two acre

7 issue. (Unintelligible) setback issue,

8 although the setback issue is now twice as

9 much with the two buildings. So, that's

10 really the difference between the two plans

11 and how we got here.

12 And with that statement, I'd

13 be happy to answer any questions you may

14 have.

15 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you, sir.

16 I'll open it up for Board

17 discussion.

18 Member Gronachan?

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I need some

20 clarification.

21 Down here on the floor you had

22 a one plan, one building?

23 MR. SOAVE: Yes. Originally,

24 it was one building around 8,000-plus or




1 minus, square feet, serviced by two

2 entrances. (unintelligible) site plan with

3 us tonight. Originally, it was one parking

4 lot to the north of the property that's

5 serviced by 15 or 16 parking spots. As we

6 went further down Joseph, (unintelligible)

7 maybe 150 feet down Joseph (unintelligible)

8 second entrance, (unintelligible) pretty

9 much the bulk of the parking that services

10 that south end of the building. And there

11 was, you know, a big difficulty. The issue

12 came up with the association adamantly not

13 wanting that second entrance off of Joseph.

14 So we revised the plan. We

15 revised the plan pretty much as quick as we

16 could to get the back in, and we came up

17 with the new plan for the two buildings now.

18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So the reason

19 that you changed buildings -- if I understand

20 this right -- is to satisfy the neighbors.

21 MR. SOAVE: Correct.

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Which created

23 this larger variance for the front of the

24 building; is that correct?




1 MR. SOAVE: Which variance are

2 you referring to?

3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The overhang

4 on the building.

5 MR. SOAVE: Yeah, exactly.

6 The current -- the previous

7 plan had the same variance. I mean, but

8 before it was just one building; now we're

9 having two buildings. Like I said the main

10 reason for that variance -- I mean, yeah we

11 could build these buildings without that.

12 But I mean, it kind of undermines the

13 project. I mean, the whole problem we've

14 have been having --


16 from your earlier testimony, and you did a good

17 job. I just trying to get a clarification

18 (unintelligible) I thought Mr. Schmitt said.

19 MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, when it

20 was one building it was one specific area of

21 overhang. Now it's two buildings with two

22 variance overhangs.


24 the reason why it's now greater, because he




1 satisfied the residents' concerns, thus creating

2 this larger variance.

3 MR. SCHMITT: You're entirely

4 correct, yes, ma'am.


6 what I wanted to clarify.

7 I'm going to reserve any

8 further comments until I hear from the rest

9 of the Board Members at this time.

10 Thank you, Mr. Chair.

11 MR. SOAVE: Thank you.

12 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you.

13 Member Canup?

14 MEMBER CANUP: It seems like

15 there's been an awful lot of work done on

16 here to try to make this work with the

17 homeowners' association and with our

18 Planning Department. And if I understand

19 this as I think I do, there's probably not

20 much other ways this piece of property could

21 be used; is that correct, Mr.

22 Schmitt?

23 MR. SCHMITT: Essentially. I

24 mean either you build one building or two




1 building, the one building had the problem

2 with the residents, for all intense and

3 purposes. They're kind of (unintelligible)

4 the general design. It's when you get down

5 to the architectural detail is where the

6 sticky point is.

7 MEMBER CANUP: No matter what

8 you build there, you've got the two acres is the

9 problem, right?

10 MR. SCHMITT: That is correct,

11 sir.

12 MEMBER CANUP: So with that as

13 a given, this is probably unusable as a two

14 acre piece; is that correct?

15 MR. SCHMITT: That is correct.

16 MEMBER CANUP: No matter what

17 you do, you've got to have (unintelligible) acre

18 variance, okay, and setbacks, again to try to get

19 the thing to work on a less than two acre piece;

20 that pretty much requires that you're going to

21 have to have some kind of setback areas.

22 MR. SCHMITT: Staff doesn't

23 necessarily agree with that position. The

24 issue for the setback is the architectural




1 overhangs, themselves. Just looking at the

2 white box, are within the setbacks. So

3 buildings themselves function perfectly

4 acceptable right now.

5 MEMBER CANUP: But the overhang

6 is a facade issue gingerbread (unintelligible.)

7 doesn't serve anything other than the fact it is

8 a facade.

9 MR. SOAVE: That is correct.

10 I mean --

11 MEMBER CANUP: So the point

12 acre -- .8 acre is a given. In my opinion,

13 we should grant that variance.

14 I would make a Motion that we

15 go through these and grant the variances as

16 we see fit to do that.

17 And I would make a Motion that

18 in this case, the items number one, dealing

19 with the .8 acres, that we grant that

20 variance as requested, due to hardship of

21 the fact that it's by Ordinance it's

22 required to be two acres; and it's just not

23 possible.





1 MEMBER FISHER: In this case we

2 do have some questions (unintelligible) regarding

3 the deed restrictions and checking if there's any

4 (unintelligible) requested plan.

5 What would be your comments

6 regarding that and the Motion we're

7 currently making?

8 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess my comment

9 is officially (unintelligible) association are

10 always relevant and useful. On the other hand,

11 we don't enforce the restrictions, and I would

12 take the comments into account. You're enforcing

13 only the Ordinance requirements.

14 (Unintelligible) is absolutely right. This is

15 (unintelligible) willing ready to say no

16 development. I think we look at our Ordinance,

17 we combine it and take note of the deed

18 restriction, (unintelligible) enforce that.

19 MEMBER FISHER: Fair enough.

20 MR. SCHMITT: Just to

21 follow-up on some of the comments that were

22 in the letter. All the comments regarding

23 (unintelligible) standard Ordinance

24 requirements (unintelligible) commercial




1 (unintelligible) we're going to enforce them

2 regardless.

3 MEMBER FISHER: Yeah, thank you

4 for that clarification, as well.

5 Thank you for allowing me to

6 ask a question.

7 There's a Motion.

8 And was there a second?


10 MEMBER FISHER: Any further

11 discussion?

12 Seeing none, Ms. Marchoni,

13 please call the roll.

14 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?



17 Gronachan?


19 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Sanghvi?


21 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Shroyer?


23 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?





1 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Fischer?


3 SARAH MARCHONI: Motion passes

4 six to zero.

5 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. Now we're

6 dealing with the front yard setback, variance for

7 13 feet.

8 Building Department,

9 Mr. Schmitt, you mentioned that you had

10 issues with that?

11 MR. SCHMITT: The staff

12 planner, (unintelligible) similar actually

13 to what you said, it's really not usable

14 space, why are you putting yourself through

15 the hassle needing to go to the variances.

16 You can have three feet of projection under

17 the Ordinance right now. I think there are

18 showing 10 feet. So, (unintelligible)

19 proposing it to be over. You know, it

20 really is an architectural feature. It

21 serves no purpose other than --

22 MEMBER CANUP: Serves no

23 purpose; really takes up no space, because it's

24 overhead, correct?




1 MR. SCHMITT: I guess I'd

2 defer that to the applicant. I think their

3 builder's (unintelligible.)

4 MR. POST: If I comment

5 briefly. The Planning Commission looked at

6 this and did agree it did provide for

7 substantive architectural for the site; and

8 it also helped -- and this is the Planning

9 Commission's comments, helps screening a

10 little bit of Grand River from the residents

11 in the back.

12 And this doesn't have value.

13 This only costs the applicant money to do

14 this, but it does create a covered canopy.

15 It is beneficial, and it does create an

16 element of design, that we believe the city

17 would like to see. He doesn't gain -- the

18 applicant doesn't gain by adding deem this.

19 It cost him money, but it's a feature that

20 we feel is better for Novi; better for the

21 homeowners; better for the applicant in

22 terms of beautification of the building on a

23 restrictive site.

24 This is the reason we're




1 asking for this.

2 MEMBER CANUP: Thank you for

3 the clarification.

4 I guess with that, I would

5 make a Motion that we grant a variance for

6 the required setback of 13 feet, due to the

7 fact that it is benefit to the neighboring

8 residents.


10 MEMBER FISHER: Any other

11 discussion?

12 Seeing none, Ms. Marchoni,

13 please call the roll.

14 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?


16 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?


18 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Fischer?



21 Gronachan?


23 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Sanghvi?





1 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Shroyer?


3 SARAH MARCHONI: Motion passes

4 six to zero.

5 MEMBER FISHER: You still have

6 the floor, or would you like to pass it along,

7 sir?

8 MEMBER CANUP: Somebody else

9 would like to (unintelligible.)

10 Otherwise, you're asking for a

11 variance of 533 square feet. And the way

12 the Ordinance is written, it's ten square

13 feet for each frontage for the building; is

14 that correct?

15 MR. SCHMITT: That is correct.

16 MEMBER CANUP: Is there a need

17 for that much square footage for these types

18 of buildings? These are more professional

19 buildings, rather than any industrial type

20 buildings.

21 MR. SCHMITT: Not really.

22 I mean I think the Ordinance

23 standard you will note covers all the

24 business -- the Regional Center, the Town




1 Center -- it covers a broad spectrum of

2 uses. Office is permitted in this district,

3 obviously, or we wouldn't be here. So

4 it's -- you wish you could say it would fall

5 under the office requirements. It caps it

6 at 360 square feet per building. But you

7 can't -- we can't administratively.

8 I don't see a need to be

9 perfectly honest. If they had a semi-truck

10 pull into this site, I'd love to see them

11 try to get it out. You're going to have

12 FedEx trucks; you're going to have the

13 Office Max guy.

14 MEMBER FISHER: (Unintelligible)

15 information (unintelligible) fronts two streets?

16 MR. SCHMITT: Yes. If we

17 really tried, we could have set it fronting

18 Grand River, and taken the calculation off

19 that. But that's a position I don't think

20 we really wanted to try to defend, because

21 it accesses on Joseph.

22 So those are really the two

23 issues into this (unintelligible.)

24 MEMBER CANUP: If there's no




1 further comments, I would make a Motion that

2 again, grant the variance in case 05-099 for a

3 533 square feet of loading and unloading area.


5 MEMBER FISHER: Are you going to

6 place findings on that one? The two fronts and

7 also it's not necessary --

8 MEMBER CANUP: So included.

9 MEMBER FISHER: The seconder

10 agree?

11 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

12 MEMBER FISHER: Please call the

13 roll.

14 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?


16 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?


18 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Fischer?



21 Gronachan?


23 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Sanghvi?





1 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Shroyer?


3 SARAH MARCHONI: Motion passes

4 six to zero.

5 MEMBER FISHER: All three of

6 them have been granted. Best of luck.

7 And I would also like to take

8 a minute and thank you for working with the

9 residents so far (unintelligible) not work

10 well with developers, but it's much easier

11 to do so when they're working so hard with

12 the residents.

13 So thank you very much.

14 MR. SOAVE: Thank you for

15 cooperating with us, too.


17 MEMBER FISHER: Okay. We're

18 going to take another quick break. Just about

19 five minutes.


21 (A brief recess was taken.)

22 (Back on the record.)


24 MEMBER FISHER: Like to welcome




1 you all back from back.


3 Let's call Case Number:

4 06-030 filed by Robert Cummings at 1254 East

5 Lake drive. The applicant is requesting six

6 variances for the construction of a new home

7 at said address. The address is located

8 east of -- east of East Lake Drive and north

9 of New Court. The existing house is being

10 demolished.

11 Would you please raise your

12 hand and be sworn in by our secretary.

13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear

14 or affirm that the information you're about to

15 give in the matter before you is the truth?

16 MR. CUMMINGS: I do.


18 MEMBER FISHER: State your name

19 and address and proceed with your case.

20 MR. CUMMINGS: My name is

21 Robert Cummings. I've lived in the City of

22 Novi from 1992 to 2002. The last three

23 years I've resided in Walled Lake. I'm now

24 returning to 1254 East Lake Drive in Novi.




1 I'd like to thank you for your

2 time and consideration this evening. My

3 purpose tonight is a wish to build a house

4 1254 East Lake Drive that's consistent with

5 the City of Novi; that is also consistent

6 with the neighborhood on East Lake Dive,

7 that will fit in with the other homes on

8 that street.

9 The reason for not keeping the

10 current house is that it is over 60 years

11 old. It has unleveled floors; older

12 electric and plumbing; and it has currently

13 a detached garage that is

14 unesthetically(sic) pleasing and five feet

15 from the road. My proposed floor plan is

16 2469 feet. The City Assessment Department

17 says that the average home in Novi is

18 152,000 (unintelligible) SEV equivalent to a

19 2400 square foot home.

20 With my proposed plan, I've

21 clearly considered a house that I wish to

22 build and the effect it may have on my

23 neighbors; especially my two closes

24 neighbors -- the neighbor to the south at a




1 address, 1256. That particular house is

2 some 20 feet in front of my proposed house.

3 And the neighbor to my north at 1250 East

4 Lake Drive, is owned by Mr. Ken Wilkins,

5 who's in attendance tonight. He will concur

6 and support my overall project that I have

7 designed.

8 I come to the meeting tonight

9 with a very straight forward request of the

10 least possible variances just is to maintain

11 a home that's consistent on East Lake Drive

12 and the City of Novi. I have a request for

13 two side yard setbacks. The width of the

14 lot is 40 feet. I have a side difficulty

15 meeting the 15 and 10 minimum with 25

16 aggregate.

17 The proposed house at 30 feet

18 in width has been placed as symmetric as

19 possible. The minimum on the north side is

20 five feet; and on the south side is 4.71

21 feet. When I place this house at 30 feet --

22 the current house is 28 feet. So I am

23 asking in reference to a two foot difference

24 in what is currently there.




1 The rear yard has an odd shape

2 on the north side of the lot. I have an

3 aerial view of the lake; and if I could, I

4 wish to approach. I think that the aerial

5 -- and I have copies for everyone -- might

6 be easiest to view.

7 Can I approach?

8 MEMBER FISHER: If you want, you

9 can pass them out. And if you'd also -- if you

10 have another copy, you can put it on the overhead

11 for everyone else and those at home can see.

12 MEMBER SHROYER: If you just

13 want to hand them all to me.

14 MR. CUMMINGS: Okay. Thank

15 you very much.

16 As I mentioned the rear yard

17 has an odd shape on the north side. If you

18 look at this aerial view from the north, and

19 there is an arrow that is at far north, and

20 that is the lot at 1254. It has kind of

21 what I want to call a half moon shape. The

22 half moon shape starts at the north and

23 continues to the south. This spans

24 approximately 35 homes with 35 lots. The




1 homes in the middle are much deeper.

2 The 35 foot requirement is met

3 on the south side of my lot, which is over

4 43 feet. As we move to the middle, we are

5 at 28 feet; and as we go totally to the

6 north, we're at 12.94 feet. If we were to

7 take a median of those three, we would be

8 over 28 feet total for the three. The odd

9 shape of the rear yard burdens the front

10 yard. The front yard is (unintelligible)

11 than 20 feet. And that 20 feet is to give

12 potential parking to accommodate an average

13 full-sized car, that's generally just under

14 20 feet.

15 My having an attached garage

16 that is proposed, the attached garage will

17 maintain curb appeal, and will offer a very

18 nice esthetic. It will also give ample room

19 to keep storage of such items as garbage,

20 lawn mower, snow blower, edge trimmers off

21 the property; and will maintain a street

22 that has a very nice look to it. This also

23 eliminates the detached garage that's

24 currently there, that is five feet off of




1 the property line that is very esthetically

2 unpleasing.

3 The total lot coverage -- for

4 our attention to go back to the aerial, I

5 would like to point out that my lot is not

6 as deep. And not being as deep square

7 footage as others, to be consistent with

8 other homes, this variance is required. A

9 new home done correctly will enhance and

10 beautify the neighborhood. It will enhance

11 and beautify the homes on East Lake Drive,

12 and the City of Novi.

13 Again, I want to thank you for

14 your consideration this evening.

15 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you, sir.

16 Is there anyone in the

17 audience that wishes to comment on this

18 case?

19 If you could come down.

20 MR. WILKINS: Hi. my name is

21 Ken Wilkins. My wife as I live at 1250 East

22 Lake Drive; which is directly to the north

23 of Bob's property. We also own the property

24 directly across the street at 1255 East Lake




1 Drive. We've lived there for six years on

2 the road. We've seen tremendous leaps in

3 construction on the street; and we're very

4 happy with the neighborhood we live in.

5 However, the property at 1254

6 has suffered for the last six years. The

7 previous owner did not maintain the

8 property. I haven't seem so much as a coat

9 of paint go on it in six years, let alone

10 regular cleaning of the yard. So when I saw

11 that Bob bought the property and I saw him

12 walking it the first time, I ran out to meet

13 him. I was thrilled, and to this day I'm

14 still thrilled. He's taken the time to walk

15 my wife through and myself through his

16 plans; show us the effects on the lot; even

17 take time yesterday when my wife and I

18 voiced a concern at the last minute. He

19 basically zoomed over to the house, walk

20 through with us; and we discussed the

21 impacts or not impacts on the view, both in

22 the front and rear of the home.

23 I fully support this project,

24 and I'd like to see the City of Novi do the




1 same. I've had conversations with the

2 immediate neighbors, and none of the

3 immediate neighbors have voiced any concerns

4 against this project.

5 Thank you.

6 MEMBER FISHER: Is there anyone

7 else in the audience that wishes to comment on

8 this case?

9 Seeing none, in this case

10 there were 36 notices mailed -- 36 notices

11 mailed, with zero approvals, zero objections

12 in this case.

13 Building Department?

14 MR. SAVEN: There's a couple

15 issues I'd like to point out. The one gentleman

16 who was just up testifying, in regard to

17 retaining wall that's shown on your property, I

18 guess we need to make sure that the drainage

19 we're dealing with on this property is going to

20 be workable. I can tell there's been a

21 substantial drop in topography from the beginning

22 of the lot to the rear of the lot, which is a

23 plus. But I want to make sure he gets no

24 drainage on his property (unintelligible)




1 retaining wall is going to cave in. And you both

2 have discussed this issue, I assume?

3 MR. WILKINS: We've had

4 lengthy discussions (interposing)

5 (unintelligible.)

6 MR. SAVEN: Thank you, sir.

7 Just want to make sure that's

8 taken care of.

9 Item number two is

10 (unintelligible) we have an opportunity to

11 get something in compliance here as much as

12 possible. (Unintelligible) always worry

13 about East Lake Drive and the ability to get

14 a car off the road. This one is affording

15 that particular effect, and that's good.

16 Plus effect, you're centering it on the

17 property as much as possible.

18 Thank you.

19 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you,

20 Mr. Saven.

21 Board Members, I'll open it up

22 for discussion.

23 Member Canup?

24 MEMBER CANUP: I don't see




1 what you can do with this piece of property

2 and make it liveable more than what you've

3 done. I think they've done a tremendous

4 job. And again it's a tough case to work

5 with, due to the narrowness and the depth of

6 it (unintelligible) sea wall along the lake

7 there, where I think one end of house

8 they're 12 feet off the sea wall; is that

9 correct?

10 MR. CUMMINGS: Yes, sir.


12 And with that, if there's no

13 further discussion, I'll make a Motion in

14 Case Number: 06-030 that -- filed by Mr.

15 Cummings at 1254 East Lake Drive, that we

16 grant the variances as requested; again due

17 to the previously stated conditions.

18 MEMBER BAUER: Second the

19 Motion.

20 MEMBER FISHER: Member Krieger,

21 a question?


23 applicant, the tree that's right next to the

24 garage, will you have to remove it?




1 MR. CUMMINGS: No, we will

2 not.

3 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.

4 MEMBER FISHER: Member Shroyer

5 also has a question.

6 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes, that was

7 one of them. And another one was the

8 retaining wall. Those have both been

9 addressed.

10 I do want to make sure for the

11 record, it is noted that since Mr. Wilkins

12 did talk and say he was in full approval of

13 this. That was my only concern with the

14 potential blocking of the lake view for the

15 address at 1250 East Lake Drive.

16 And since there is no

17 objections, I'm in full support of this

18 Motion.


20 Any other discussion?

21 Member Gronachan?

22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I concur with

23 the -- Member Canup that these lots are very

24 difficult. And sitting on this Board, I've




1 certainly seen my share of creativity. However,

2 I have a concern about the 4.71 feet on the side.

3 I'm not real happy about the five feet. Less

4 than five feet in the side yard, we get into

5 safety concerns.

6 So, I realize that the rest of

7 you may be in support of this, but for that

8 reason, alone, I will not be. I think

9 something should be done. There should be

10 either less house -- a little less house --

11 to get a full five feet on that side. I

12 understand that this lot is pretty unique in

13 shape, but when we get less than five feet

14 on those side yards, I get real nervous.

15 I understand it may not be a

16 lot but, in the past we've always stuck to

17 it. I don't see any difference in this.

18 Even if they -- I was looking at this to see

19 what can be done, so I'm open to any

20 suggestions.

21 But if it can't be done, I

22 won't be supporting.

23 Thank you.

24 MEMBER CANUP: (Unintelligible)




1 would be roughly eight inches, correct?

2 MR. CUMMINGS: 4.75, three

3 inches.

4 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. We're at

5 4.75 feet -- whatever it is -- it's roughly four

6 inches different?

7 MR. CUMMINGS: Yes, three

8 inches. (Unintelligible) (interposing.)

9 MEMBER FISHER: Mr. Saven, don't

10 we have some type of fire protection material

11 that could be used?

12 MR. SAVEN: There is a fire

13 protection material. I'll just point this out.

14 Is there a possibility, that because this wasn't

15 allowed, and you wouldn't have to worry about

16 renoticing, if the garage to the south could be

17 moved over, and that (unintelligible) in line or

18 do you need that break such that you'd have other

19 architectural issues here. (Unintelligible)

20 bring that over.

21 MEMBER CANUP: Over to the other

22 side.

23 MR. SAVEN: If you add that .34

24 to the other side, you'd give us five foot,




1 correct?

2 MEMBER FISHER: I guess --

3 MR. SAVEN: There's a little

4 offset in the garage of .34 feet between the

5 garage and the house. If you move that garage

6 which is at the five foot point, move it over a

7 little bit more, you'd be able to pick up that

8 additional .34 feet on the other side.

9 MR. CUMMINGS: I understand

10 what you're saying. If we move that garage

11 (unintelligible) (interposing.)

12 MR. SAVEN: Just move it over to

13 the five foot and keep it all in line

14 (unintelligible) and add it on to the .71.

15 MR. CUMMINGS: I understand

16 what you're saying.

17 My builder's here tonight. I

18 would like to --

19 MR. SAVEN: She's nodding

20 (unintelligible) asking the question.

21 MEMBER FISHER: That's your

22 builder (unintelligible) (interposing?)

23 MR. CUMMINGS: He is here, yes.

24 Can he speak?




1 MEMBER FISHER: Oh, yeah. Bring

2 him on up and we'll swear him in. No problem at

3 all.


5 right hand.

6 Do you swear or affirm that

7 information that you're about to give in the

8 matter before you is the truth?


10 (Unintelligible) the garage

11 could be moved over.

12 MR. SAVEN: (Unintelligible) .34

13 feet that you're going to absorb on the -- it

14 would be the north side, and you still maintain

15 that five feet.


17 MR. SAVEN: And that's where

18 you're picking up that additional .34 feet.


20 (unintelligible) five foot side yards, we

21 can accomplish that (unintelligible.)

22 MR. SAVEN: Thank you.

23 MEMBER FISHER: How does the

24 applicant feel about that?




1 MR. CUMMINGS: I think that

2 would be very acceptable.

3 MEMBER FISHER: All right.

4 MEMBER CANUP: I amened the

5 Motion that it be readed(sic) in the record.

6 MEMBER FISHER: (interposing)

7 (unintelligible) .34, the house will be centered?

8 MEMBER CANUP: (unintelligible)

9 call for a vote on the Motion.

10 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

11 MEMBER FISHER: Any other


13 Seeing none, Ms. Marchoni,

14 please call the roll.

15 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?


17 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?


19 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Fischer?



22 Gronachan?


24 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Sanghvi?





2 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Shroyer?


4 SARAH MARCHONI: Motion passes

5 six to zero.

6 MEMBER FISHER: Your variance

7 has been granted with that minor restriction.

8 Thank you for working with us

9 and your neighbors, compromising and best of

10 luck to you.

11 MR. CUMMINGS: Thank you for

12 your time.


14 MEMBER FISHER: And next we'll

15 call Case Number: 06-031, filed by Allied Signs

16 for David's Bridal 43831 West Oaks Drive. The

17 applicant is requesting a 7.89 square foot

18 variance for a proposed sign at said address.

19 Please raise your hand and be

20 sworn in by our secretary.

21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear

22 or affirm that the information that you're about

23 to give in the matter before you is the truth?

24 MR. STEVER: I do.





2 MR. STEVER: My name is

3 Patrick Stever. Tonight, I am here

4 representing David's Bridal. While I'm sure

5 that all of you are aware of the property

6 that's in question. As stated in the

7 agenda, this is property is the actual

8 building that Gander Mountain is occupying

9 at this time. And basically David's Bridal

10 is going to be occupying a portion of that

11 building.

12 So what we're requesting it's

13 pretty simple. David's Bridal feels that

14 due to the setback of this building, that

15 they have a hardship. There's a lack of

16 identification from Novi Road. We're asking

17 for a little less than eight square feet of

18 signage to be added on to the 40 that's

19 allowed by the Code.

20 And pretty much, that's the

21 gist of it. They just feel there's a lack

22 of identification due to the setback of the

23 building.

24 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you, sir.




1 Is there anyone in the

2 audience that wishes to comment on this

3 case?

4 Seeing none, there were 30

5 notices mailed; with zero approvals at zero

6 objections.

7 Building Department, any


9 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir.

10 MEMBER FISHER: I'll open it up

11 for Board discussion.

12 Member Bauer?

13 MEMBER BAUER: Did you get the

14 okay of the merchants -- the owner of buildings?

15 MR. STEVER: Yes, we have

16 landlord approval, yes.

17 MEMBER BAUER: We should have a

18 copy of that for our records.

19 MR. STEVER: Okay.

20 MEMBER FISHER: Member Shroyer?

21 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you,

22 Mr. Chair.

23 Is David's Bridal a chain?

24 MR. STEVER: Yes, it is a




1 corporate owned store, yes.


3 chains, typically, they're pre packaged

4 signs of standard sizes. Is this a standard

5 size, and if so, what's the next size down?

6 MR. STEVER: There are many

7 standard sizes. I believe as far as their

8 signage goes, it goes up in two inches

9 increments height of the letters. So, yes,

10 I mean, we can -- there are larger signs and

11 smaller signs that could be proposed. And,

12 you know, they just have proposed this sign

13 based on what they have seen at the site,

14 and just feel that that extra few inches is

15 really going to help them.


17 inches lower in height that you're talking

18 about, would that bring you into --

19 MR. STEVER: You know what, I

20 don't have a drawing of the exact

21 calculations on the lineal length of that

22 actual sign, so I really can't accurately

23 answer your question right now about if that

24 would conform. I know that they did come up




1 with this, you know, less than seven -- less

2 than eight square feet for a reason to try

3 to, you know, make way with you guys in this

4 issue.

5 MEMBER SHROYER: Being that

6 close, that's why I was asking if the next

7 size down --

8 MR. STEVER: Right. I

9 understand.

10 MEMBER SHROYER: -- meets our

11 requirements, why even go through all this

12 hassle and everything.

13 MR. STEVER: They feel it's

14 important to get the little extra signage,

15 if they can.

16 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay, thank

17 you.

18 Thank you, Mr. Chair.

19 MEMBER FISHER: Board Members?

20 Member Krieger?


22 question for the applicant.

23 For the sign, is it going to

24 face Novi Road or north?




1 MR. STEVER: It's going to

2 face Novi Road.


4 found it a little confusing to find the

5 actual site.

6 Will the entrance also be on

7 the Novi Road side?

8 MR. STEVER: At far as I know,

9 yes, absolutely.


11 hasn't been created yet.

12 MR. STEVER: No --


14 Thank you.

15 MR. STEVER: -- it's not,

16 exactly.

17 MEMBER FISHER: Member Canup?

18 MEMBER CANUP: I think in

19 reality if you realistically look at this

20 thing -- you know, I don't wear glasses. I

21 don't think I can read this sign from Novi

22 Road. I don't think anybody in this room

23 could read it from Novi Road. So it really

24 doesn't make a difference the few feet




1 difference that they're asking for -- what

2 was it, seven square feet? 7.89 square

3 feet.

4 I don't think that's going to

5 make a difference (unintelligible) read that

6 from Novi Road. I just feel that there's no

7 reason they couldn't live within the

8 Ordinance in this particular case. Because

9 it's number one, is a designation. It's

10 not -- people just going to driveby and say,

11 I'll stop and go get married, get bridal

12 clothes or whatever.

13 MEMBER FISHER: Any other Board

14 Members?

15 I have a question.

16 Behind the letters, is there

17 going to be anything or is it just going to

18 be the building facade?

19 MR. STEVER: Yeah, the ark, it

20 is a regular raceway mounted letter set, so

21 there's nothing going to be behind it. It's

22 just going to be a wall.

23 MEMBER FISHER: So it would

24 match the other businesses, is what I'm asking.





2 MEMBER FISHER: If all the other

3 businesses don't have anything behind their

4 letters, you see the brick of the building. I

5 just wanted to make sure.

6 MR. STEVER: Absolutely.

7 MEMBER FISHER: All right.

8 I personally think that the

9 request being asked are minimal, given the

10 large store front, given the large size of

11 the whole complex, I think it's a minimal

12 request, and I would be willing to support a

13 Motion for 7.89 square feet.

14 Member Shroyer?

15 MEMBER SHROYER: I'm sorry. I

16 have another question.

17 Mr. Amolsch, if -- do you know

18 the approximate size of the Gander Mountain

19 sign?

20 MR. AMOLSCH: No, I do not. I

21 could find out if you wanted

22 (unintelligible)

23 MEMBER SHROYER: It may be

24 applicable. I mean, I'm not opposed to a




1 larger sign, but I don't think it should be

2 any larger than the current Gander Mountain

3 sign.

4 It's smaller?

5 MR. AMOLSCH: It's much

6 smaller.

7 MEMBER SHROYER: Than it's not

8 necessary, then.

9 Thank you, that's all.

10 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you,

11 Member Shroyer.

12 Member Sanghvi?

13 MR. AMOLSCH: Just for the

14 record, there were variances for these

15 signs. I don't know what the sizes were.

16 There were a number of signs

17 (unintelligible) for Gander Mountain.

18 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you.

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman,

20 I would like to make a Motion in Case Number

21 06-031, filed by Allied Signs, Inc., for

22 David's Bridal, 43831 West Oaks Drive, we

23 grant the request of the applicant because

24 of the position of the building




1 (unintelligible) main road and lettering

2 visibility.

3 Thank you.



6 Motion and a Section.

7 Any further discussion?

8 Seeing none, Ms. Marchoni,

9 please call the roll.


11 Sanghvi?



14 Gronachan?


16 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Shroyer?


18 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?


20 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?


22 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Fischer?


24 SARAH MARCHONI: Motion passes




1 five to one.

2 MEMBER FISHER: Your variance

3 has been granted. Good luck.

4 MR. STEVER: Thank you for

5 your time.

6 MEMBER FISHER: Please see the

7 Building Department.


9 I would like to call Case

10 Number 06-032, filed by SignGraphix, Inc.,

11 representing LaSalle Technology Center. The

12 applicant is requesting a variance for 30

13 feet -- "Ground signs shall not be placed

14 less than 63 feet from the centerline of the

15 thoroughfare." The proposed sign is 33

16 feet.

17 Will 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 that you're about

21 to give in the matter before you is the truth?

22 MR. LUTZ: I do.


24 MR. LUTZ: As you know, we've




1 been before you a number of times in the OS

2 properties (unintelligible) Twelve Mile Road

3 between Haggerty Road and (unintelligible.)

4 A. You see on most of these variances that we have

5 been before you on have been setback variances.

6 (unintelligible.) requires these signs be setback

7 63 feet from the centerline of the road, which in

8 many cases, puts it in the parking lots, and this

9 is a case in point.

10 MEMBER SHROYER: While he's

11 doing that, may I ask a point of clarification?

12 MEMBER FISHER: Yes, please do.

13 MEMBER SHROYER: The variance

14 requested on the cover sheet it says 30

15 feet, but the request on the application

16 shows three feet.

17 MR. LUTZ: I think that's

18 (unintelligible.) You have (unintelligible)

19 our intent was three feet. (Unintelligible)

20 little foot marks there that come through at

21 zero (unintelligible.)

22 MEMBER SHROYER: I'm reading

23 that, but on the cover sheet, it says 30

24 feet.




1 MR. LUTZ: (Unintelligible)

2 (interposing) it would be a three foot

3 setback, but I think the variance requested

4 was calculated by somebody here at the City

5 as a 30 foot variance from the requirement.

6 MEMBER FISHER: Mr. Amolsch, do

7 you have any comment or clarification to -- the

8 application shows the variance requested as a

9 three foot setback from right-of-way. But on our

10 notice we're talking about a 30 foot variance

11 requested.

12 MR. AMOLSCH: (Unintelligible)

13 63 feet from the centerline of the road, as

14 opposed to 33 feet from the centerline of

15 the road.

16 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you.

17 MR. LUTZ: Still having

18 technical difficulty. So our application

19 really is for that variance (unintelligible)

20 setback. The -- if -- in your packets,

21 there's on your site plan, the front of

22 parking lot. For reference is about 51 and

23 a half feet back from the centerline of the

24 road. You can see by moving the sign to be




1 63 feet back (unintelligible) considerably

2 back from the road.

3 If we have -- (unintelligible)

4 up here, I would show you the actual

5 photographs of the site, so it be very

6 helpful. For those of you who may have

7 visited the site, we have a (unintelligible)

8 that shows the placement of the sign. The

9 biggest problem with the visibility of the

10 sign (unintelligible), making it a little

11 problematic.

12 The setback issue I understand

13 (unintelligible) can clarify this -- is

14 being reviewed by the City as we speak.

15 (Unintelligible) along these secondary

16 streets. I would say in my experience

17 (unintelligible) which has been considerable

18 over the years. Most Ordinances require

19 that the sign be within the property line,

20 but most of them do not require setback

21 beyond the property line, except in

22 (unintelligible) areas to create traffic

23 hazards.

24 MR. SCHMITT: (Unintelligible)




1 Ordinance Review, City Council, staff, we're

2 all in the process of reviewing various

3 portions (unintelligible) right now. That's

4 one of the things that have been brought up

5 is the setback issue, is it still relevant;

6 does it need to be modified; do we need it

7 at all. It's one of a meriad(ph) of things.

8 I'm not sure of the exact status of that

9 specific issue. Suffice it to say, it's on

10 (unintelligible) as to what the issue may or

11 may not be. Obviously the ZBA

12 (unintelligible) throughout the process. I

13 think actually one of the items started with

14 the ZBA. (unintelligible)

15 So we are in the process of

16 working at it. The status of it right now,

17 is it's not that close to being an

18 (unintelligible) So, I guess

19 (unintelligible.)

20 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you,

21 Mr. Schmitt.

22 Are these pictures similar to

23 the ones that are in our packet here?

24 MR. LUTZ: They are, but




1 they're not (unintelligible.)

2 We got action here.

3 Just to familiarize you with

4 the site, at the top of your this site plan,

5 is the existing building. The bottom of

6 this full site, is the building's that's

7 proposed. It's not yet there. So if you

8 cut this display in half -- in other words,

9 if we can look at this, you can see right

10 here is the existing curb cut. This

11 building down here does not exist currently.

12 It will exist as part of the other site plan

13 approval that's been approved by Planning.

14 What we have is this entry cut

15 into this building, which doesn't exist

16 currently. The sign that we're talking

17 about placing is right at the corner of

18 that. It's going to be right here at this

19 particular curb cut. We elected not to put

20 it at the other curb cut to the north of the

21 building, but that's where Lewis Drive cuts

22 in, and makes a little problematic situation

23 here.

24 We didn't really want to




1 encourage people to go across Cabot. We

2 wanted them to turn. So as not to go

3 directly across. And frankly, orienting a

4 sign there at that particular curb cut

5 corner, is kind of awkward to begin with.

6 So we elected to put the sign in what would

7 be the southend of that particular building.

8 Those of you who have been by it understand

9 the situation, I think, in terms placement.

10 This is a view as we are proceeding

11 northbound on Cabot Drive.

12 If you first see the sign, as

13 you kind of come over the little crest of a

14 hill here, we're approximately a hundred

15 feet away from that curb cut at this point.

16 So the building is just starting to come

17 into play. This is closer, probably about

18 (unintelligible) 50 or 60 feet away from

19 that curb cut, so you can see the proper

20 placement of that sign. It's at the front

21 of that parking lot.

22 Across the street on the other

23 Cabot properties -- Cabot North Technology,

24 Cabot South Technology, we have the same




1 kind of situation there. Fortunately on

2 those (unintelligible) Lewis Drive, we have

3 a corner to put it into, so we've been able

4 to achieve a lesser setback issue. So that

5 wasn't the same kind of situation we have on

6 this one across the street, unfortunately.

7 If you look at it southbound

8 on Cabot Drive, this is a distant view. Now

9 we're really almost at the middle of the

10 building, if you will. So we're probably

11 150 to 200 feet away. You can that when

12 those trees start to leaf out in the spring,

13 the trees are going to create as much of a

14 hazard here, visibility of that sign, and

15 there's just no way around that.

16 (Unintelligible) and I'm not

17 sure of whose idea. I'm sure it was part of

18 the plan approval. We've got trees planted

19 on the property in front of the parking lot,

20 but we've got trees actually on City

21 property between the sidewalk and the curb.

22 So that's going to create a visual hazard.

23 So if we pushed this sign back,

24 (unintelligible) we're going to have a




1 problem to get people into that property.

2 A little closer, you can see

3 the position of this. So that's really the

4 meat and potatoes of this situation.

5 (Unintelligible) very sever setback that's

6 causing some hardship. We really need to get

7 that sign (unintelligible) people off the

8 road and into the property.

9 Thank you very much.

10 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you.

11 Is there anyone in the

12 audience that wishes to make comment on this

13 case?

14 Seeing none, I'll let the

15 Board know that there were 15 notices mailed

16 with zero approvals and zero objections.

17 I'll ask the Building

18 Department if they have any comments?

19 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir.

20 MEMBER FISHER: I'll open it up

21 for Board discussion.

22 Member Shroyer?


24 problem with this whatsoever. I fully




1 understand the reasons why, so I'll go ahead

2 and make the Motion.

3 In the Case Number -- in Case

4 Number: 06-032, filed by SignGraphix,

5 Incorporated, representing LaSalle

6 Technology Center, I move to approve the

7 requested variance of 30 foot, which

8 constitutes the three foot setback from

9 right of way, due to the unique situation of

10 the road and the lot layout in connection

11 with the building design; and including the

12 landscaping difficulties.


14 MEMBER FISHER: There's a Motion

15 and a second. Any further discussion?

16 Seeing none, Ms. Marchoni,

17 will you please call the roll.

18 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Shroyer?



21 Gronachan?


23 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?





1 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?


3 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Fischer?


5 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Sanghvi?


7 SARAH MARCHONI: Motion passes

8 six to zero.

9 MEMBER FISHER: Your variance

10 has been granted.

11 MR. LUTZ: Thank you very

12 much.

13 MEMBER FISHER: Please see the

14 Building Department.


16 MEMBER FISHER: I'll call Case

17 Number 05-097, filed by Dennis Miller for

18 Flagstar Bank at 39900 Eight Mile Road. The

19 applicant is requesting two variances for the

20 construction of a Flagstar Bank.

21 Please note for the Board that

22 we have seen this case before and it's

23 coming before us again.

24 The applicant is here, so




1 we'll go ahead and swear you guys in and

2 move along.


4 going to speak this evening?

5 MR. WEBSTER(sic): I think it

6 might be myself. My name is Peter Webster

7 and maybe Mr. Miller. (Unintelligible.)


9 like to raise your right hand.

10 Do you swear or affirm that

11 the information that you're about to give in

12 the matter before you is the truth?

13 MR. WEBSTER: I do.

14 MR. MILLER: I do.


16 MEMBER FISHER: State your name

17 and address and proceed.

18 MR. WEBSTER: Certainly.

19 Thank you and good evening.

20 My name is Peter Webster. I'm appearing on

21 behalf of Flagstar. My business address is

22 38525 Woodward Avenue, Bloomfield Hills.

23 We are indeed back again

24 requesting two variance. In essence, our




1 objective in requesting variances to allow

2 for parking in the front yard aspect of this

3 property. And also, for the construction of

4 a passing lane, which is part of the

5 accessory use of the building for the

6 driveway aspect of the bank on the east

7 side.

8 In that regard, there is a

9 seven foot variance to the 20 foot parking

10 setback requirement. The front yard setback

11 parking variance that's requested really

12 comes about because of fact that the

13 property, it's size, is less than the two

14 acre requirement in the OS Zoning, that is

15 applicable to this property. The property

16 was configured as part of original plat that

17 was (unintelligible.) And it's been in

18 existence in this shape for some time, even

19 before the current use as for a child care

20 facility.

21 There has been parking in the

22 front aspect of the existing parcel and with

23 the existing building for over 15 years.

24 And the Flagstar proposal actually reduces




1 that; that is, the number from the existing

2 15 parking spaces that are included in the

3 front aspect, will be reduced down to the

4 11. In addition, the narrowness of the

5 property -- that is, it's small size and

6 it's shape -- that is, it's rectangular

7 shape, and other setback requirements, call

8 for this practical difficulty that would

9 allow for -- and I'll give you a basis to

10 provide the parking in the front aspect.

11 The other adjacent uses in the

12 area, for example, immediately to the east,

13 also has this parking in the front aspect.

14 And then the use to the west across Orchard

15 Hill, has an orientation to the east, but

16 it's side parking again is to the south of

17 the building and fronts on Eight Mile. And

18 so, the adjoining properties also have this

19 parking in front of Eight Mile or in that

20 same front aspect area.

21 The proposed redevelopment of

22 this property for use as a bank is a use by

23 right within the zoning. The current use is

24 by special permit use; that is, it had to go




1 through a special process, because the use

2 as a day care facility is not a use by

3 right. And so the current proposed use by

4 (unintelligible) OSC Zoning.

5 The other aspect for the

6 variance that we're talking about here, is

7 on the east side. Now east side aspect

8 variance request is really kind of

9 interesting; and again focuses in on the

10 unique nature of the parcel, and if I may --

11 MEMBER FISHER: Go ahead and

12 take the microphone.

13 MR. WEBSTER: Oh, is it

14 working?

15 The other unique aspect is the

16 shape of the parcel, in which is generally

17 rectangular. But if you look in this one

18 corner right here, there's a little hitch

19 right here. And this hitch is seven feet,

20 and that's the exact variance that we need

21 to comply with the setback requirement. And

22 so the way this piece of property was laid

23 out at the time of the original plat map,

24 gives it a unique aspect in which we're




1 requesting that to be taken into

2 consideration.

3 Now, I'm going to address

4 first the physical aspects here of why

5 the -- of why this setback requirement we

6 believe should be granted.

7 First, is that the adjoining

8 use here is very similar. It's a bank use.

9 Very compatible in nature. The other aspect

10 is there's a seven foot drop off between

11 our -- the top of the proposed parking lot

12 here and the parking lot of the bank. So

13 there's a significant drop off. There's

14 significant shrubbery and wooded area, which

15 would be in addition to the proposed

16 landscaping that we're going to place here

17 on the east side.

18 Now, the other thing which I

19 just want to point out, is that we have

20 proposed as part of the site plan -- and

21 I'll address this in detail -- the strikers.

22 The drive-thru will come in through this

23 area here; and there will be stacking as

24 required in (unintelligible.) But the real




1 hitch here is that there's also required to

2 be a drive pass lane, where there is no

3 stacking. And indeed, there's signage which

4 requires no stacking, no parking for safety

5 reasons. It's required by the City to allow

6 for emergency access to be able to travel

7 around the building.

8 It is that drive-thru lane

9 that is within this -- which is the seven

10 feet that intrudes into the setback area

11 that we're asking variance for. So it's not

12 the stacking, itself. It's the drive-thru

13 lane. Now, as to the stacking itself, the

14 Ordinance requirement requires six spaces

15 for each of the three drive-thrus. That

16 totals up to 18 spaces that need to be

17 provided for, for staking.

18 In this configuration that's

19 been presented, that includes two lanes of

20 stacking, and that is additional lane. Now

21 we have provided as part of a dialogue we've

22 been having with the Planning Department,

23 our stacking data; that is data from Canton

24 Branch, from Farmington Branch,




1 (unintelligible) Sterling Heights Branch.

2 And the data shows that at

3 best in a worse case scenario, we have 12

4 cars for an entire hour that travels through

5 at a peak hour rate. And so that I was

6 trying to envision this on how I might best

7 explain it to you. If you had 12 cars

8 sitting there for a whole hour, we'd still

9 be under that stacking requirement. Of

10 course, our data in terms of stacking shows

11 that our transactions are a matter of

12 minutes; not a matter of hours. So that, we

13 wanted to highlight that.

14 That's a significant basis of

15 why there's not going to be an issue with

16 our stacking requirements here. And we've

17 even provided that to the City of Novi,

18 whose actually looking at an Ordinance

19 change. (unintelligible) committee which is

20 reviewing that, and they're looking at a

21 reduction of the stacking requirement from

22 six -- considering four (unintelligible)

23 three.

24 And so, when you look at all




1 of the detail here -- we have two variance

2 requests in essence; one for the front yard

3 parking, which is a reduction of the

4 existing parking. It's more in concert with

5 the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and it's

6 consistent with adjoining uses. And then

7 the east variance here, we're asking for a

8 mere seven feet in the parking setback.

9 We have a uniqueness here,

10 because the way this parcel is configured --

11 if it were straight rectangular on the east

12 side, we wouldn't even need that

13 requirement; and, what is actually intruding

14 there is not parking, it's a pass-thru lane.

15 For those reasons, we believe

16 that we have been work in good faith with

17 the Planning Department trying to work

18 through an appropriate site plan for the

19 reuse and redevelopment of this property.

20 I wanted to just touch on this

21 lastly. The existing building itself, is --

22 was especially constructed for the facility;

23 that's, for day care. It had to meet Day

24 Care Code Requirement.




1 And so as part of your

2 analysis, you have to consider that building

3 use. It is not amendable to renovation for

4 other commercial or standard commercial

5 uses, per se, and indeed, Flagstar intends

6 to do a tear down and do a remodel -- not a

7 remodel, do a tear down and rebuild on the

8 property. And so we believe it's in concert

9 with the area. It helps the City of Novi,

10 and we want to be a good neighbor.

11 And I have to just mention

12 that I heard Mr. Schmitt talking about, oh,

13 it's another bank that's coming in tonight.

14 We at Flagstar, of course, don't want to be

15 viewed just another bank, rather, we want to

16 be your bank. And so, that's our sales

17 pitch. Beyond that, the variances we think

18 are appropriate.

19 And I'm happy to answer any

20 specific questions.

21 MEMBER FISHER: (unintelligible)

22 line like that, how can I not give you my money.

23 Is there anyone in the

24 audience that wishes to comment on this




1 case?

2 Seeing none, in this case

3 there were 12 notices mailed with zero

4 approvals and zero objections.

5 Building Department, any

6 comment?

7 MR. SAVEN: Certainly a

8 different presentation than last time. A lot of

9 information came about.

10 Just once again reiterating,

11 the offset of the property, to which the

12 seven foot variance is being looked at.

13 It's part of the configuration of this lot

14 and the dimension where that seven foot cuts

15 in.

16 I just want to ask you a

17 question in regards to the Farmington,

18 Sterling Heights and Canton Township?

19 MR. WEBSTER: Canton, yes.

20 MR. SAVEN: (Unintelligible) for

21 the stacking requirement?

22 MR. WEBSTER: Yes.

23 MR. SAVEN: Okay. That was

24 again, 12 cars.




1 MR. WEBSTER: (Unintelligible)

2 is the absolute maximum peak per hour. In

3 fact, I did not do the calculations, but my

4 memory serves that, you know, you're looking

5 at less than ten per hour for most of the

6 hours on the site here.

7 MR. SAVEN: Your intentions were

8 a complete tear down?


10 MR. SAVEN: Thank you.

11 MEMBER FISHER: Mr. Schmitt, did

12 you have anything? I just get (unintelligible)

13 MR. SCHMITT: I shouldn't say

14 anything too bad. I guess from our

15 perspective, our position really hasn't

16 changed too terribly much. It's still under

17 two acres. There's not much other way to

18 design this site to accommodate parking not

19 in the front yard, because you're double

20 fronted. (Unintelligible) we might be

21 taking a much harder stance on this. But

22 because of that road, you've got two front

23 yards (unintelligible) and very little other

24 place to put 19 parking spaces.




1 The second issue -- and

2 Mr. Webster's correct, we are working on

3 Ordinances (unintelligible) for a while

4 after the vote of Flagstar and you may

5 recall Bank One at Grand River anticipate

6 Beck came in front of this Board and were

7 denied. Both of them were kind enough to

8 supply us with additional information

9 regarding there actual stacking requirement;

10 a long with some other information that

11 we've gotten.

12 And our initial read is that

13 it looks like Ordinance may be a little out

14 dated. With the advent of internet banking,

15 you know, people's for a while thought that

16 sticks and bricks banks were going to go

17 away. Everybody was going to bank on the

18 internet. Obviously, that's not the case,

19 but our requirement maybe sightly out dated.

20 You may recall that we revised the loading

21 requirement for banks to eliminate that

22 variance from coming to the ZBA.

23 We modified the variance

24 requirement with respect to landscaping on




1 banks, (unintelligible) to accommodate

2 drive-thrus. So, we're slowing turning the

3 Titanic in that regard. Now, what that

4 number is going to be, I can't vouch for a

5 number right now. 304 (unintelligible) what

6 we're looking at right now. But, it's still

7 in implementation committee. We expect to

8 get it out of implementation committee next

9 month. I'm preparing language in the next

10 couple weeks for that. We'll send it to

11 Public Hearing in May.

12 The effect of that Ordinance

13 on this site, would likely -- and I don't

14 want to say for sure, because, until I have

15 the actual Ordinance language, I don't

16 know -- but would likely eliminate the need

17 for the setback variance to be perfectly

18 frank. But I don't have that Ordinance yet,

19 is the problem. If I did, we'd be in a lot

20 better position. I'd be able to sit here

21 and tell you it's not really an issue

22 anymore.

23 Because what it will do

24 essentially, when they turn to the south




1 along the side of the building with their

2 stacking, one of those rows of stacking

3 would be able to go away. That would then

4 turn into a bypass lane, and they're current

5 bypass lane would turn into green space.

6 It's the hypothetical of what would happen.

7 With that said, I'd really

8 defer to Tom as to how to handle this. We

9 appreciate the applicant providing us with

10 the data. It's something we've had a little

11 bit more difficult time with respect to

12 getting from banks. I don't

13 (unintelligible) personal information with

14 this, but hopefully, you know, if it

15 ultimately goes through, something that will

16 help everyone in the future, you know, may

17 or may not have effect on this applicant.

18 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you,

19 Mr. Schmitt.

20 MR. SCHULTZ: Just very briefly,

21 Mr. Chair.

22 A reminder that this is a

23 remand from the Circuit Court. When they

24 came here the end of last year Mr. Saven




1 (unintelligible) information he's now

2 gotten. Start with the front yard

3 variances. It does appear (unintelligible)

4 requirement for no front yard parking. Part

5 of that is (unintelligible) parcel.

6 The key issue from our

7 perspective is the two front yards. You've

8 got no front parking requirement and two

9 front yards, (unintelligible.) And on top

10 of that, you've got the fact that the

11 existing use has front yard parking. So, I

12 think the proper question is, the side yard

13 setback issue. It's good to know that

14 there's an Ordinance in the works, but you

15 know, it doesn't really help this Board do

16 it's work. (Unintelligible) it may never

17 come to fruition.

18 I think for the side yard

19 setback, we're really looking at kind of

20 standard (unintelligible) analysis of this.

21 There's something unique about this site

22 here that makes complying with the Ordinance

23 a burden. You've got the (unintelligible)

24 Mr. Webster's written and verbal




1 presentation on what's next for the property

2 and what the (unintelligible) of their

3 parcel is.

4 So, just a little bit of

5 background. Hope it'll help.

6 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you, sir.

7 Anyone else from the expert

8 side over here?

9 I'll open it up for Board

10 discussion.

11 Member Sanghvi?

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

13 First of all, I want to thank

14 you for an excellent presentation, and it

15 was very -- you made it very much clearer

16 than we have been before. And I do

17 appreciate you taking time and explaining

18 all the details.

19 I also appreciate very much

20 what Mr. Schultz made comments about. And

21 looking at this problem, which is a problem.

22 But, that land there is not going to grow

23 into two acres. That's exactly what it's

24 going to stay, number one. Number two, the




1 depiction of the lot configuration and other

2 things, this is a seven yard setback is

3 probably a wash, in some way.

4 And looking at today's

5 presentation in this (unintelligible)

6 situation, Mr. Chairman, I have no

7 hesitation in supporting the applicant's

8 request for the variance.

9 Thank you.

10 MEMBER FISHER: Thank you, sir.

11 Member Shroyer?

12 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you,

13 Mr. Chair.

14 I have a couple questions for

15 the City. Regarding Bank One on Eight

16 Mile -- I don't know who to address this to,

17 but do we know -- is that two acres? And if

18 isn't, did it receive a waiver? Obviously,

19 it would have had to.

20 MR. SCHMITT: I can answer.

21 I'm pretty sure it's two

22 acres.

23 MR. WEBSTER: It's actually --

24 it's a little bit over one.




1 MR. SCHMITT: Oh, really.

2 MR. WEBSTER: So it's less,

3 and it has -- it's an OSC, and it has the

4 parking in the front.

5 MEMBER SHROYER: That's what I

6 had anticipated.

7 Second question, and you might

8 be able to answer this, as well.

9 The footprint of the current

10 building that's on there, the day care

11 center, is that larger than the footprint of

12 the Flagstar?

13 MR. WEBSTER: Much larger.

14 It's about twice as large.

15 That's what I thought, as

16 well. Okay. And last question for the

17 City.

18 If Orchard Lake is considered

19 the front yard, does that change any of

20 these variances? And what would we have to

21 do to constitute making it the front yard?

22 In other words, (unintelligible) the

23 entrance at a 45 degree angle on the corner

24 of the building?




1 MR. SCHMITT: My review

2 actually classified that as the main

3 entrance, the main front yard for this. The

4 only reason I know that is because I think I

5 told them to move their electrical

6 transformers to where they are at now.

7 It doesn't change anything

8 regardless of which --

9 MEMBER SHROYER: Which road

10 (unintelligible) (interposing.)

11 MR. SCHMITT: Still 20 feet

12 (unintelligible.)

13 MEMBER SHROYER: That's all

14 the questions I have.

15 And -- but I am prepared to

16 make a Motion, if nobody else has a comment,

17 but feel free to take the floor.

18 MEMBER FISHER: Does anyone else

19 have comments to make on this case?

20 Okay. The floor's still

21 yours.

22 MEMBER SHROYER: It's rather

23 lengthy. I've been jotting down notes. I

24 might have to add -- live a little.




1 I move that we grant two --

2 grant the two variances in Case Number

3 05-097, sought by Dennis Miller of Flagstar

4 Bank, because the Petitioner has established

5 the following practical difficulties:

6 A, Petitioner has established

7 that compliance with the strict letter of

8 the restrictions of the Ordinance would

9 unreasonably prevent the use of the property

10 to be unnecessarily burdensome, because of

11 the uniqueness of this being a corner lot;

12 similar circumstances are present with

13 neighboring properties and the history of

14 non-conformity use.

15 B, Petitioner has established

16 unique circumstances regarding the

17 narrowness and shape of the subject

18 property, because the Eight Mile Road

19 frontage restricts the development options,

20 as does the Orchard Lake frontage; plus

21 the --

22 MEMBER FISHER: Orchard Hill.

23 MEMBER SHROYER: Orchard Hill?

24 Correct. Thank you for that




1 correction.

2 Plus the seven foot offset of

3 the eastern border creates a developmental

4 difficulty.

5 Item C, Petitioner has

6 established that the proposed use

7 improvement will not be a detriment to the

8 public safety and welfare, because it is not

9 dissimilar to nearby businesses.

10 Item D, Petitioner has

11 established that the use improvement will

12 not impair an adequate supply of lighting

13 and air to the adjacent property, because

14 it's being developed as a single story; and

15 the proposed building creates a smaller

16 footprint than the existing building.

17 Item E, Petitioner has

18 established that the proposed use

19 improvement will not unreasonably impair or

20 diminish established property values within

21 the surrounding area.

22 Item F, Petitioner has

23 established that the grant of the variances

24 will not impair the intent or purpose of the




1 Ordinance.

2 Item G, Petitioner has

3 established that the need for the variance

4 is not self-created, because any new

5 business development would face the same or

6 similar variance needs.

7 And that's all.


9 MEMBER FISHER: There is a

10 Motion and a second.

11 Any further discussion?

12 Is there any comments to be

13 made?

14 Ms. Marchoni, would you please

15 call the roll in this case.

16 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Shroyer?


18 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Sanghvi?


20 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?


22 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?


24 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Fischer?






3 Gronachan?


5 SARAH MARCHONI: Motion passes

6 six to zero.

7 MEMBER FISHER: Your variance

8 has been granted. Good luck to you guys.


10 All right. We'll move over to

11 other matters.

12 Mr. Saven, do you have

13 comments to make concerning Gateway

14 Construction?

15 SARAH MARCHONI: No, that would

16 be Alan.

17 MR. AMOLSCH: Just real quick.

18 The Board granted a variance,

19 a continuing variance for Gateway Village in

20 April for another two years.

21 (Unintelligible) move the construction sign

22 from where it's located now over to the

23 Meadowbrook Road side, on the same property,

24 they just want to move it over there for




1 better visibility (unintelligible)

2 apartments, condos they're building now.

3 It's hard to see the sign.

4 I told them I would bring it

5 up under other matters to see if the Board

6 wanted to have it come back for

7 (unintelligible) variance or just --

8 MEMBER FISHER: Any comments?

9 MR. SAVEN: (Unintelligible)

10 still have some building to do still over

11 (unintelligible) east side (unintelligible)

12 Meadowbrook (unintelligible.)

13 MEMBER BAUER: I don't see a

14 problem.

15 MEMBER FISHER: (Unintelligible)

16 open it up for discussion.

17 MEMBER BAUER: I don't see any

18 problem.

19 MR. SAVEN: Meets the

20 requirements, setbacks?

21 MR. AMOLSCH: Right.

22 MEMBER SHROYER: Follow City

23 recommendations.

24 MEMBER FISHER: (Unintelligible)




1 Motion to approve?

2 BOARD MEMBERS: So moved.

3 MEMBER FISHER: All in favor say

4 aye?


6 MEMBER FISHER: All right.

7 MR. AMOLSCH: Thank you.


9 MEMBER FISHER: And move along

10 to election of officers.

11 And we'll start with Chair and

12 move down as we go. I'll open the floor for

13 any nominations for the position of Chair.

14 Member Gronachan?

15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I would like

16 to nominate Member Sanghvi.

17 MEMBER FISHER: I would second

18 that nomination for Chair.

19 Any other nominations for the

20 position of Chair?

21 MEMBER SHROYER: May I ask a

22 question.

23 Being relatively new to the

24 Board, is there any guidelines, is there




1 rules of conduct for the ZBA that I'm not

2 aware of? I mean, does it have to rotate

3 each year, or -- I'd like to nominate our

4 current Chair to a return visit.

5 MEMBER FISHER: Seeing no

6 support --


8 MEMBER FISHER: (Unintelligible)

9 She's not voting tonight. (Unintelligible)

10 Ms. Marchoni, please call the

11 roll for Mav Sanghvi, as Chair, please call

12 the roll.


14 Gronachan?


16 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Fischer?


18 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Sanghvi?


20 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Shroyer?

21 MEMBER SHROYER: Aye-yie-yie.

22 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?


24 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?





2 SARAH MARCHONI: Motion passes

3 six to zero.

4 A.

5 MEMBER FISHER: Open the floor

6 for nominations for the position of Vice Chair.

7 Seeing none, I'll nominate

8 Member Shroyer.

9 MEMBER BAUER: I'll nominate

10 him.

11 MEMBER FISHER: Is there a

12 second for the nomination?

13 MEMBER CANUP: I decline.

14 MEMBER FISHER: You decline the

15 nomination.


17 MEMBER FISHER: Is there a

18 second for Member Shroyer to Vice Chair?

19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'll support

20 (unintelligible) as Vice Chair.

21 MEMBER FISHER: Any other

22 nomination?

23 Seeing none --

24 You did accept, right?






3 Ms. Marchoni, please call the

4 roll.

5 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Fischer?



8 Gronachan?


10 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Sanghvi?


12 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Shroyer?


14 Okay, yes.

15 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?


17 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Canup?


19 SARAH MARCHONI: Motion passes

20 six to zero.

21 MEMBER FISHER: I'll please

22 accept nominations for the position of secretary.

23 MEMBER CANUP: That would be a

24 good job for you.




1 MEMBER FISHER: I decline.

2 I think that (unintelligible)

3 secretary or our past secretary did an

4 excellent job. I'd like to see one of them

5 in the position.

6 So therefore I would actually

7 nominate Member Bauer.


9 MEMBER FISHER: Do you accept?


11 MEMBER FISHER: Please call the

12 road.

13 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Fischer?


15 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Sanghvi?


17 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Shroyer?


19 SARAH MARCHONI: Member Bauer?


21 MEMBER FISHER: I think that's a

22 yes.


24 Canup?






3 Gronachan?


5 ask me.

6 SARAH MARCHONI: I was getting

7 to you.


9 SARAH MARCHONI: Motion passes

10 six to zero.

11 MEMBER FISHER: Any other

12 business?

13 Seeing none --

14 MR. SAVEN: I hope not.

15 MEMBER FISHER: I will entertain

16 a Motion to adjourn.

17 BOARD MEMBERS: So moved.

18 MEMBER FISHER: This Board is

19 adjourned.

20 (The meeting was adjourned at

21 11:35 p.m.)

22 - - - - - -






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 (215)

9 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript

10 of my said stenograph notes.



13 ___________________________

Machelle Billingslea-Moore,

14 Certified Shorthand Reporter


16 May 14, 2006.