View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting

TUESDAY, October 3, 2006

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, October 3, 2006.

Mav Sanghvi, Chairman
Tim Shroyer
Brent Canup
Gerald Bauer
Justin Fischer
Robert Gatt
Linda Krieger

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

Mona L. Talton, Certified Shorthand Reporter.

1 Novi, Michigan

2 Tuesday, October 3, 2006

3 7:30 p.m.

4 - - - - - -

5 MEMBER SANGHVI: I'd like to call to order the

6 October 2006 meeting of the City of Novi Zoning Board of

7 Appeals.

8 Would you please all rise and join me in the

9 Pledge of Allegiance.

10 BOARD MEMBERS: I pledge allegiance to the flag

11 of the United State of America. And to the Republic for

12 which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible with

13 liberty and justice for all.

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

15 Ms. Working, would you please call the roll.

16 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?

17 MEMBER BAUER: Present.

18 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?


22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: He will be coming in a little

24 bit.



1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt has informed us he

2 will be here about 30 minutes late.

3 Member Krieger?


5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


9 ROBIN WORKING: All present, with the exception

10 of Mr. Gatt.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good. We do have a quorum

12 and the meeting is now in session.

13 I would like to go over the rules of conduct.

14 You can find them on the agenda. Just to remind you that

15 to please turn off your cell phones and pagers.

16 And individual applicants may take up to five

17 minutes and the groups may take up to ten minutes.

18 Let me go to the next item. (Unintelligible.)

19 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chairman, I would just like

20 to note that we can put under other matters a date change

21 for the 2007 ZBA calendar.

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. That's fine with

23 me. All right. And we will go ahead. And would anybody

24 like to make a Motion to accept the agenda?



1 MEMBER BAUER: So moved.

2 MR. FISCHER: Second.

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: All those in favor of approving

4 the agenda please signify by saying aye.


6 MEMBER SANGHVI: All those opposed same sign.

7 We have an agenda.

8 I don't think we have any meetings here today,

9 so we will move onto the next thing is public remarks

10 section at this point.

11 If anybody would like to address the Board for

12 anything, other than the cases which are here today on the

13 agenda, you can come up right now and do it.

14 Thank you. Come on.

15 MR. HAROLD: Hi, my name is Ed Harold, Varsity

16 Lincoln Mercury. We were on the agenda for a sign

17 ordinance and approval of a new business coming in,

18 Varsity Lincoln Mercury. The architectural didn't get in

19 in time, so we would like to postpone it until next month.

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good, thank you. Yeah,

21 (unintelligible) no problem and we will take note of it

22 and move that way when the time comes.

23 All right. So we are already in the public

24 remarks section. Nobody is here for anything else that I



1 see.

2 So we will call the first case in. Tabled Case

3 Number 06-072, 41730 Crane Way filed by Singh Homes.

4 Would you please identify yourself, would you

5 state your name and address and be sworn in by our

6 secretary and make your presentation.

7 Thank you.

8 MR. TUCKER: Hi, my name is Russ Tucker. I work

9 for Singh Homes. I live at 5471 Parkside Drive in

10 Brighton, Michigan.

11 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand.

12 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth

13 regarding case: 06-072?

14 MR. TUCKER: I do.

15 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

16 Go ahead.

17 MR. TUCKER: So, as it states, we have a

18 temporary construction trailer. We are asking for renewal

19 of at this address. It's the Tollgate Woods Subdivision,

20 and we have an existing construction operation there,

21 where we build single family homes. We use the trailers

22 for (unintelligible), internet access, meetings with

23 contractors, customers, storage. And, you know, we also

24 meet city inspectors out there from time to time and house



1 our approved plans and stuff we use to build the homes

2 for. So we're looking to renew that permit.

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

4 Building Department?

5 MEMBER SAVEN: Well, first and foremost, the

6 temporary construction trailers come under the what we

7 call a temporary use of -- portion of the Zoning Board --

8 or the Zoning Ordinance. And as the Building Official, I

9 have the authority to deal with this over a period of

10 time. Based on the fact that this is -- this is more than

11 after a year or two, it's time to move it onto a different

12 Board at this particular time. This is a move, and the

13 move is consistent with the construction that's going on

14 in this particular area. Where he has proposed the

15 building on that particular lot is not in any way going to

16 affect the existing homes that are there.

17 The only thing that I do get concerned about is

18 the construction trafficking and making sure that we're

19 not having any cement trucks backing up to or coming

20 closer to the existing homes. Where this is located is

21 pretty well much in a vacant area of that subdivision.

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

23 There were -- 22 notices were mailed; zero

24 approvals, zero objections, and out of 22, 20 were



1 returned.

2 Okay, I have no personal comments to make. I'll

3 open up to the Board.

4 Yes, Mr. Canup?

5 MEMBER CANUP: Seems like this is a pretty

6 simple case. And if there was no discussion on it, I

7 would make a Motion.


9 MEMBER CANUP: In that case, I would make a

10 Motion that Case Number 06-072, that we grant the variance

11 as requested due to a practical hardship dealing with the

12 Ordinance, and having a temporary construction trailer

13 on-site to meet the needs of the workers.

14 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

16 The Motion has been made and seconded.

17 Any --

18 Yes, Mr. Shroyer?

19 MEMBER SHROYER: The request is for two years.

20 Did you want to put a time frame in your Motion?

21 MEMBER CANUP: I read that and was

22 comfortable with two years, because of the present state

23 of our economy.

24 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. I just want to make sure,



1 because sometimes we look at changing the timeline.

2 MEMBER CANUP: Is that something that, Mr.

3 Shroyer, that you'd rather not see or --


5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

6 Anybody else?

7 No?

8 All right. Ms. Working, would you please call

9 the roll.

10 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


12 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?


14 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


16 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


18 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


22 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 6-0.

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

24 All right. Well, you got your permit and good



1 luck.

2 MR. HAROLD: Thank you very much.


4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Next case number on the agenda

5 is Case Number: 06-073, filed by ABC Sign & Awning Design

6 for Crowne Plaza located at 27000 Sheraton Drive.

7 Would you please identify yourself?

8 JASON: Hi, my name is Jason. I'm with ABC

9 Signs, and I'm here to request a sign variance to change

10 the existing sign and have a whole (unintelligible.)

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Would you please be

12 sworn in by our secretary, please.

13 MEMBER BAUER: Raise you right hand.

14 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth

15 regarding Case: 06-073?

16 JASON: I do.

17 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. Please carry on.

19 JASON: As we know (Unintelligible), and since

20 then we tried to work with the existing signs. We didn't

21 have any problem with the -- actually, we had five -- four

22 small signs and one high-rise sign. The only sign we had

23 the problem with is the monumental sign, which located

24 inside, actually facing the front address of the hotel.



1 The way they made it, it's too much customized

2 to the old logo which is Doubletree logo. So we tried to

3 work with this sign with the new hotel, and tried to match

4 whatever we had with the Crowne Plaza, like sign criteria,

5 but we couldn't because of -- actually the circle accent

6 on the top of the sign and the way they made it. So

7 unfortunately we couldn't do that. We couldn't work with

8 this sign, with this particular sign.

9 The rest of the sign, we didn't have any problem

10 with. We working on. We pulled the building permit to

11 put the new name up. So that's the only sign we need to

12 replace in order to put the new name on it and move it

13 over.

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

15 Is there anybody in the audience who would like

16 to make any comments about this case?

17 Seeing none, Building Department?

18 MR. AMOLSCH: We have no comment, sir.

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: No comment, very good.

20 We had -- 47 notices were mailed; zero

21 approvals, zero objections.

22 Open up to the Board.

23 Any comments from anybody?

24 Yes, Mr. Shroyer?



1 MEMBER SHROYER: I suppose I could start here.

2 A couple questions for the City.

3 You talked about being a non-conforming sign.

4 Is that because it's a different company, a different

5 hotel, or because it exceeds the maximum size and height?

6 MR. AMOLSCH: Actually, it's a structural

7 alteration of the existing sign that was originally

8 approved for the Sheraton some years ago. The sign that's

9 being proposed is actually four feet shorter and about ten

10 square feet less in area than the original sign was

11 approved for back in '81.

12 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Were there variances

13 granted for the first sign originally?

14 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes.

15 MEMBER SHROYER: I calculated that it was about

16 four feet lower, four feet shorter; square footage is

17 about maybe five square feet smaller.

18 Does that sound about correct?

19 MR. AMOLSCH: The original variance was for 216

20 square foot sign, 50 feet tall.

21 MEMBER SHROYER: That's all I have,

22 Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Anybody else?

24 Yes, Mr. Canup?



1 MEMBER CANUP: I know the sign looks good, and

2 it's under an old variance; if I understood that

3 correctly. And it's lesser now than what it was; and it's

4 I wouldn't say no lesser attractive than it was.

5 So if there's no further discussion I would like

6 to make a Motion.

7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please go ahead.

8 MEMBER CANUP: I make a Motion that in Crowne

9 Plaza located at 27000 Novi Road(sic) Case Number:

10 06-073, we grant the request as stated, due to existing

11 nonconforming sign. And the only change in it is the

12 downsizing and its verbiage.

13 MEMBER BAUER: Second the Motion.

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: The Motion has been made and

15 seconded.

16 Seconded by Mr. Bauer.

17 Yes, Mr. Fischer?

18 MEMBER FISCHER: 27000, did you say Sheraton or

19 Novi?

20 MEMBER CANUP: Did I say Novi Road?

21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Sheraton --

22 MEMBER FISCHER: Sheraton Drive, to make sure of

23 the address.

24 Thank you.



1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

2 All right. Any other discussion?

3 Seeing none, please call the roll.

4 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


6 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?


8 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


10 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


12 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


14 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Bauer?


16 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 6-0.

17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good.

18 Thank you.

19 JASON: One more issue.

20 Can I ask for some clarification for the --

21 since the City adopted a new sign Ordinance, digital signs

22 are allowed now in the city; is that correct?

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: What he is talking about?

24 JASON: Digital signs.



1 MEMBER KRIEGER: (Unintelligible.)

2 JASON: A digital sign, like (unintelligible.)

3 MR. SAVEN: The digital sign, you are taking a

4 digital sign?

5 JASON: Yes.

6 MR. SAVEN: Electronic message sign?

7 JASON: Right.

8 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair. We'll get into

9 that at the other matters issue. But changeable copy

10 signs are permitted in certain districts for certain uses

11 which may or may not include a hotel.

12 We'll go through that in a little bit.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right.

14 You can get in touch with the Building

15 Department regarding that question later on.

16 Thank you.

17 JASON: Okay, thanks.


19 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right, moving on.

20 Next one is Case Number: 06-075, filled by

21 William Eland for Wah Yee and Associates for David's

22 Bridal, located at 43831 West Oaks Drive.

23 And the Petitioner is here. And while he's

24 setting up he is requesting a variance to allow placement



1 of an accessory structure, a dumpster and enclosure in the

2 front yard of David's Bridal, a new tenant space in the

3 West Oaks 1 Shopping Center.

4 Could you identify yourself, sir, name and

5 address.

6 MR. VALENTINE: Ross Valentine. My address is

7 31500 Northwestern Highway, Farmington Hills. I'm a

8 private manager for (unintelligible.)

9 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand.

10 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth

11 regarding Case: 06-075?

12 MR. VALENTINE: Yes, I do.

13 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

15 Please make your presentation.

16 MR. VALENTINE: Good evening. First of all, the

17 -- our new tenant, David Bridal, just opened up last

18 Thursday, I believe. We're trying to get a trash

19 enclosure in. And by the way the Ordinance is, we're not

20 allowed to put a trash enclosure in our front yard.

21 We have three front yards. We have Novi Road,

22 which is on this side of West Oaks 1; we have West Oaks

23 Drive, which is on the north side; and we is Donaldson

24 Drive and Connolly. David's Bridal is right here in the



1 corner of Gander Mountain.

2 So I'm asking -- we have a hardship here, and

3 what I'm asking for is a variance that we can put a trash

4 enclosure -- which if you look at the blowup down below --

5 if I can point here -- we're right back in the corner of

6 an enclosed area. The doors face towards the David's

7 Bridal, which on the overall site plan is way back here in

8 this corner.

9 That will take approximately four parking spaces

10 up.

11 And I'm open for questions.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

13 I don't think (unintelligible) if anybody's

14 there, this is the time to do it.

15 I don't see anybody coming through.

16 Thank you.

17 Building Department?

18 MR. SAVEN: I think if we go back into the

19 -- what the Planning Review people have looked at as far

20 as this is concerned, we're talking about the approval

21 subject to the placement of the dumpster. A dumpster is

22 definitely needed in this particular operation. It's

23 unfortunate that this gentleman is basically locked in on

24 three sides. (Unintelligible) has got to have a place to



1 put it somewhere.

2 And I don't know what else to say. It's up

3 to the Board to say if that's an appropriate area.

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

5 Okay. (Unintelligible) three notices were

6 mailed, with no approvals, zero objections.

7 Open it up to the Board.

8 Before that, maybe I should make

9 (unintelligible) to myself in that there's no other place

10 to put this any way.

11 Thank you.

12 Yes, Mr. Fischer, first.

13 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Schultz, just a

14 clarification in this case. When we're looking at it, can

15 you clarify which standard of proof we need to be looking

16 at, whether it would be an undue hardship or a practical

17 difficulty. So when I'm speaking and if the Motion is

18 made, we can make sure that that's used.

19 Would this be considered a use variance?

20 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair.

21 This is not a use variance. This is the

22 lesser standard of a practical difficulty as a non-use

23 (unintelligible.)

24 MR. FISCHER: Perfect. That clears up a



1 couple things.

2 As you said, it is a less stringent

3 standard to set by.

4 I agree with it having three front yards,

5 there really is no other option. And it's really not a

6 self created issue either. Lastly, it really doesn't

7 alter the essential area; the character of the area.

8 So I don't seem to have a problem with it.

9 Thank you, Mr. Chair.

10 (Whereupon Member Gatt entered the

11 meeting.)

12 MEMBER SAVEN: I am sorry, but I did want

13 you to take a look at the letter from the Planning

14 Department, please.

15 Based on the fact on the flip side -- and

16 it's basically underlined -- is they're basically

17 supporting this particular location, in fact. But they

18 had asked that another condition be placed on this. And I

19 wanted to make sure that if you are entertaining the

20 thought of doing this, that that condition be

21 (unintelligible).

22 MEMBER FISCHER: Correct. I do have that

23 written down, and would appropriate that as a condition of

24 any Motion.



1 Thank you, Mr. Chair.

2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, thank you.

3 Yes, Mr. Bauer?


5 MR. SAVEN: Yes.

6 MEMBER BAUER: For any business that comes

7 in, we should have a letter (unintelligible) okaying that;

8 am I correct?

9 MR. SAVEN: That is correct, that is

10 correct.

11 MEMBER BAUER: We can approve it --

12 MR. SAVEN: Subject to --

13 MEMBER BAUER: -- subject to the letter.

14 MR. SAVEN: That will be fine.


16 Thank you. All right.

17 Yes, (unintelligible).

18 MEMBER KRIEGER: The maps that are

19 displayed there are the same as what we received?

20 MR. VALENTINE: I believe the bottom one is

21 the one that you received, which is a blowup of the

22 David's Bridal area. I just brought the overall site

23 plan, so that you could see the Novi Road and a better

24 orientation.



1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Just so the viewers know

2 that they are the same.

3 MR. VALENTINE: They are the same.


5 Anything else?

6 Yes, Mr. Fischer?

7 MEMBER FISCHER: If there's no further

8 discussion, I would move that in Case Number: 06-075,

9 filed by William Eland for David's Bridal at 43831 West

10 Oaks Drive, that we approve the Petitioner's request due

11 to practical difficulty, given that the situation is

12 unique with the three front roads; and that it does

13 substantial injustice to this Petitioner, as well as the

14 surrounding businesses. With the condition that the

15 recommendations of the Building Department from their plan

16 review center report of September 7, 2006, be included --

17 the subject to the construction of the enclosure.


19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

20 And one more condition is subject to

21 receiving the letter from Petitioner's landlord of the

22 property.

23 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes, as well as -- yes.

24 The approval of the landowner.




2 MEMBER SANGHVI: The Motion has been made

3 and seconded.

4 Any further discussion?

5 Yes, Mr. Shroyer?

6 MEMBER SHROYER: I just wanted to ask, do

7 we want to say Building Department or Planning Department?

8 MEMBER FISCHER: Plan review center report

9 of September 7th. That's --

10 MEMBER SHROYER: In your motion you said

11 Building Department.


13 MEMBER SHROYER: I think we need to clarify

14 that.

15 MEMBER FISCHER: The document that was in

16 our packet, the recommendation of whoever it was.

17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very nice.

18 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Shroyer.

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. Shroyer for

20 being so specific.

21 Thank you.

22 All right. Any further discussion?

23 Seeing none, Ms. Working, would you please

24 call the roll.



1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?


3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


13 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 6-0.

14 MR. VALENTINE: Thank you very much.

15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go to the Building

16 Department and get your permit, and good luck to the new

17 bridal shop.

18 MR. VALENTINE: Thank you.


20 MEMBER SANGHVI: And moving on. We have

21 all heard from the applicant earlier. The next case is

22 number 06-076 filed by Rick Castanos of Varsity Lincoln

23 Mercury.

24 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Chair, may I have the



1 floor for a minute?


3 MEMBER FISCHER: Going through the

4 information regarding conflicts of interest. As we know

5 this case is concerning Varsity Lincoln Mercury, and I am

6 an employee of the Ford Motor Company. However, this

7 parcel of land and this property and this business does

8 not represent any financial interest or personal interest

9 or true association to their organization; and, therefore,

10 I believe I can act impartially with respect to the

11 request. And so I will be sitting in on the case.

12 MEMBER BAUER: Absolutely.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's no problem.

14 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. I know we will

15 probably be entertaining tabling, but I will remind you

16 next month, as well.

17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, again, for

18 being so technically correct.

19 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the

20 opportunity.

21 MEMBER SANGHVI: You all heard from the

22 applicant earlier. They would like this case to be

23 tabled.

24 So I would like to entertain a Motion.



1 MEMBER BAUER: Move to table Case 06-076

2 back to November (unintelligible) the applicant has had

3 problems getting his (unintelligible) together.

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

5 MEMBER CANUP: Support.

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been made and

7 seconded.

8 And I don't see any further discussion here.

9 Would you kindly call the roll, please.

10 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


12 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


14 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?


16 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


18 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


22 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 6-0.

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

24 That concludes our hearing for the day



1 officially.

2 And then we move onto other matters.

3 And, in fact, do you want to go, Mr. Saven, and

4 talk about any of those things?

5 MR. SAVEN: Yes, I do have a couple of issues I

6 would like to bring up.

7 Most of you are aware that I'm very involved in

8 FEMA projects and the changes that have taken place over

9 time. We are now in the process of obtaining the new FEMA

10 maps, in which we do have at this particular point. Major

11 changes have been part of this particular program.

12 City Center Plaza was involved in the

13 variance where the City was having a difficult time doing

14 anything. So the maps (unintelligible) and it just came

15 about as it exists right now. I would ask that

16 consideration be for this particular Zoning Board of

17 Appeals case for the next six months, so they can

18 completely plan their project now, based upon the

19 information that we just received. It will take some time

20 to put this thing together. So I believe six months is

21 plenty enough time to do this for the Statute.

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

23 Any discussion on his comments?

24 MEMBER BAUER: So moved.



1 MR. SANGHVI: So moved.

2 MEMBER CANUP: Support.


4 MR. SAVEN: Six months from this date.

5 (Interposing) (unintelligible.)

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's fine.

7 A Motion has been made (unintelligible) and

8 duly seconded.

9 And I don't see any further discussion.

10 So would you kindly call the roll.

11 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chairman, who made the

12 Motion?

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion was made by

14 Mr. Bauer and supported by Mr. Canup.

15 ROBIN WORKING: Thank you.

16 Member Bauer?


18 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?


22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?




2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


4 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 6-0.

5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

6 So, tell the City to go and get the permit.

7 I'm just kidding.

8 MR. SAVEN: This and the -- one of the

9 other issues before we get on to the new sign ordinance --

10 which will fall right into that shortly. We have a number

11 of projects that are be coming or will be coming before us

12 that is dealing with phase construction. And I guess I'm

13 more in tuned to the Board over many years. I've sat as

14 an advisor with the Board as to what you want to see; how

15 you want to be able to approach certain conditions.

16 There is a project that will be coming

17 before us -- I want to say shortly, that have a numerous

18 amount of variances, but it's done per phase. And

19 sometimes those phases won't come before us until such

20 time -- basically at such time that they're going to be

21 ready to go before the Planning Commission for that

22 particular project.

23 This particular project will probably have

24 about six or seven variances, major variances. They're



1 dealing with quite a few buildings. And the way that I'm

2 looking at this would probably be something that we would

3 take a look at the overall of everything that is there

4 first; not to take up the Board's time with all the

5 variances that are there. But I believe that you should

6 have a general idea of what the variances are going to be

7 for these particular projects, and then attack the project

8 itself that's being before you.

9 Unfortunately, situations like this do

10 occur, but I think -- I don't want to put such a burden on

11 the Board that there's going to be a lot of confusion in

12 terms of the variances that are necessary. I think I'd

13 just like for you to take a look at the project as to what

14 the variances that they may be requesting, and then come

15 back and afford those variances at another time.

16 Normally everyone in the Board would want

17 everything done right now. Chances are that variance may

18 change down the road or there might be something that

19 might be different for the variance, not for that

20 particular project. But I think the Board should be aware

21 of those concerns.

22 So that's how I'm going to approach this.

23 If it's reasonable with the Board? Does that sound

24 agreeable?



1 MEMBER SANGHVI: It sounds good to me.

2 MEMBER BAUER: Only way to do it.

3 MR. SAVEN: Fine.

4 Thank you.

5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Schultz.

6 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair, Members of the

7 Board, Don Saven had asked that we be available to give a

8 little bit of overview on the new sign Ordinance. I'm not

9 sure how much detail the Board wants to get into, since I

10 think the first pitch was just thrown; but I will try to

11 do this pretty quickly, if that's, indeed, what --

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Give us the three minute

13 version.

14 MR. SCHULTZ: Give you the three minute

15 version --

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Just kidding.

17 MR. SCHULTZ: I can do that.

18 MEMBER FISCHER: A quick question.

19 It's been a year since we have had our last

20 seminar, and we have new Board Members. Would it be

21 possible to throw in another seminar where we could go

22 over these?

23 MR. SCHULTZ: Sure.

24 MEMBER FISCHER: And would the Board be



1 into entertaining that?

2 It's up to you guys, but I mean I don't

3 think that's a bad idea. We can go over the old rules, as

4 well as the new rules.

5 MEMBER SANGHVI: I think it would take

6 quite a long time to go through all these items. We would

7 need some time to study these (unintelligible) since we do

8 have time, and that probably would be a better forum.

9 MR. SAVEN: May I make a suggestion?

10 Just maybe you want to highlight a couple

11 items.

12 Just highlight a few of the items that are

13 here before you.

14 I don't know whether you guys seen this,

15 but I was really upset about this article. I about went

16 through the ceiling. And unfortunately what we go through

17 on this Board, we're not out here to put any business out

18 of -- put any places out of business here. But I found

19 that was very difficult for me to swallow. And I think

20 from the standpoint of view what the major issues that we

21 had -- I know that there's at least three that we're

22 looking at here that are hot issues.

23 So this is going to give you an idea of

24 what the changes are for what we're dealing with in the



1 sign ordinance. And it's major changes, even from the

2 time that I started with this Board several years ago. I

3 mean, I'm focused in on one sign and one sign only; this

4 type of a thing, and I'm not aware of the little bit more

5 freedom that was there.

6 MEMBER FISCHER: If Mr. Schultz wants to

7 hit, you know, two hours so we can round up and get the

8 extra billing, then we can (unintelligible) three points.

9 Maybe just if Robin can start thinking about putting a

10 seminar together for us again, I think that would be a

11 good idea too, to go in depth.

12 So, thank you, Mr. Chair.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Would you like to make a

14 formal Motion requesting that?

15 MR. SCHULTZ: Well, it's not necessary.

16 We'll send some dates over to Mr. Fischer

17 personally.

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

19 MR. SCHULTZ: One thing I would say, there

20 are a couple changes. One is going to be relevant to the

21 Board's next meeting. There might be several that'll be

22 relevant.

23 There are a couple of sections in the

24 Ordinance where additional signs were granted --



1 restaurants get an extra sign, for example; some

2 additional wall signs on businesses where -- in office

3 areas where there -- buildings are large and have multiple

4 tenants who have large spaces.

5 And then, you know, as the gentleman

6 pointed out, we have got some provisions in here for

7 things like changeable copy signs that weren't in there

8 before. Those kinds of details we can go over. But one

9 thing that did change was the standard for granting

10 variances for signs. You are going to find that at the

11 end of the Ordinance. One of the things that Boards of

12 Appeal -- ZBA's that mostly do zoning variances have, you

13 know, from (unintelligible) complain about, is that the

14 standard, the practical difficulty standard in the Zoning

15 Ordinance is really difficult for -- to apply to a sign.

16 Because it's really contemplated that it's

17 got possible or at least very difficult to use the

18 property. Kind of like the case with the three front

19 yards. For signs it's kind of hard to say that, you know,

20 something bad is really going to happen if you don't get

21 an extra sign.

22 So on page 39, we have changed the

23 standards to be a little bit more realistic and a little

24 bit more applicable to a situation where somebody is



1 asking for a sign variance. Not that it's completely

2 relaxed or anything, but that it just reads a little bit

3 differently. Still kind of a three part test. You still

4 use the word practical difficulty or the phrase practical

5 difficulty; but instead of the substantial burden test as

6 the first test, the Board will look for circumstances or

7 features that are exceptional and unique to the property;

8 and not generally applicable to other places in the City.

9 And then the next standard is that you can

10 grant relief if the failure to do so would unreasonably

11 limit the use of the property more than a mere

12 inconvenience; but less probably than a land use variance

13 would be.

14 And then finally, the last provision talks

15 a little bit more in detail about making sure that you are

16 not adversely affecting adjacent property. So it's a

17 little bit differently written standard. It's a little

18 bit of a relaxation, but not, by any means, a complete

19 relaxation. And then kind of to help Don and Robin out,

20 we changed the notice provision so that they are not the

21 really difficult provisions that apply to zoning use

22 variances; which we're stuck with until they change the

23 Zoning Ordinance. But this is a sign ordinance separate

24 from the Zoning Ordinance, so we get a little bit of



1 leeway in creating those tests.

2 So that may come up if you have sign

3 variances up next month. So whenever we do the seminar,

4 we'll go over the rest of the substantive changes if you'd

5 like.

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good.

7 Thank you very much.

8 Anything else?

9 MR. SAVEN: No, I will shut my mouth.

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Are you all done?

11 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chair, last month this

12 Board approved the 2007 ZBA meeting calendar dates, and we

13 were informed this week that there needed to be a change

14 made.

15 You will now be meeting on Monday, November

16 5th of 2007 instead of Wednesday, November 7th, 2007.

17 Because --

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligible.)

19 ROBIN WORKING: Right. And because the

20 Planning Commission was meeting on Wednesday.

21 MEMBER FISCHER: Did we just get kicked out

22 (interposing) because of the Planning Commission?

23 Who made that decision?

24 I have a problem with that. We'll take



1 that up later.

2 Mr. Chair, Motion to adjourn?

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing)

4 (unintelligible.)

5 MEMBER FISCHER: Motion to adjourn,

6 Mr. Chair?

7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Will you kindly please

8 make a Motion?


10 MEMBER FISCHER: Motion to adjourn.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: There's a Motion?

12 MEMBER CANUP: Support.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: And supported.

14 And no discussion.

15 All those in favor, (unintelligible)

16 signify by saying aye.


18 MEMBER SANGHVI: The meeting is adjourned.

19 Thank you.

20 (The meeting was adjourned

21 at 8:08 p.m).






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



4 I, Mona L. Talton, do hereby certify that I have

5 recorded stenographically the proceedings had and

6 testimony taken in the above-entitled matter at the time

7 and place hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify

8 that the foregoing transcript, consisting of (36)

9 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript of my

10 said stenographic notes.





15 _____________________________

16 Mona L. Talton,

17 Certified Shorthand Reporter


19 October 21, 2006