| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting REGULAR MEETING - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, Tuesday, November 14, 2006. BOARD MEMBERS Mav Sanghvi, Chairman ALSO PRESENT: Don Saven, Building Department REPORTED BY: Machelle Billingslea-Moore, Certified Shorthand Reporter. 1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3 7:30 p.m. 4 - - - - - - 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: I'd like to 6 call the order the November 2006 meeting of 7 City of Novi Zoning Board of Appeals. 8 Will you please all rise and 9 join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. 10 Thank you. 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, indivisible 15 with liberty and justice for all. 16 Thank you. 17 Please be seated. 18 Ms. Working, will you please 19 call the roll. 20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup? 21 Member Fischer? 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Present. 23 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 24 MEMBER GATT: Here. 3
1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 2 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer. 6 MEMBER SHROYER: Here. 7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger. 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Present. 9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup 10 would be absent, Mr. Chairman. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 12 We do have a quorum so the 13 meeting is now in session. 14 I'd like to go over the rules 15 of conduct. You can find them in your 16 agenda, which is right, as you'll see, in 17 the front door. 18 Just a reminder, please turn 19 off all cell phones and your pagers. 20 Individual applicants may take up to five 21 minutes and groups may take up to ten 22 minutes to address the Board. 23 The Zoning Board of Appeals is 24 a Hearing Board empowered by the Novi City 4
1 Charter to hear appeals seeking variances 2 from the applications of the Novi Zoning 3 Ordinance. It takes a vote of at least four 4 members to approve a variance -- a variance 5 request, and a vote of the majority of 6 members present to deny a variance. 7 Tonight, we have a full Board, 8 so all decisions made will be final. 9 Let's look at the agenda. 10 Other there any changes to the 11 agenda, Miss Working? 12 None? 13 ROBIN WORKING: No, changes, 14 (unintelligible.) 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Motion to 16 approve as submitted. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Member Shroyer? 18 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, 19 Mr. Chair. 20 I'd like to request that we 21 open the Public Hearing for cases 06-086, 22 06-087, and 06-088 simultaneously, because 23 they all fall within the same variance 24 request, and they're all submitted by the 5
1 same applicant, with additional applicants 2 with them. 3 Obviously, we'll make separate 4 Motions on all three. 5 I'd like to change the agenda 6 to reflect simultaneous. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: There is no 8 problem with that. 9 Is it okay with Counsel? 10 MR. SCHULTZ: That's fine. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's fine. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Motion to 13 approve as amended. 14 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: A Motion has 16 been made and seconded. 17 Will you please call the roll. 18 We don't need to call the 19 roll. 20 Next thing, we have some 21 minutes for approval. 22 Everybody had an opportunity 23 to look at the Minutes. 24 MEMBER BAUER: Move that they be 6
1 approved. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Second. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: The Minutes for 4 September, as well as October's Minutes 5 (unintelligible.) Motion has been made and 6 seconded. 7 Nobody has any changes, 8 amendments or deletions to the Minutes, so 9 would you please call the roll 10 (unintelligible) Minutes. 11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 13 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 14 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 15 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 17 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 18 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 19 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 21 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 22 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 23 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good. 7
1 Thank you. 2 All right. Moving along. The 3 next item on the agenda is Public Remarks. 4 Is there anybody in the 5 audience who would like to address the Board 6 regarding anything other than the items in 7 the agenda today, this is the time to do it. 8 Seeing none, we will move 9 along to the next -- we're closing the 10 public remarks section, and now start with 11 the first case on the agenda. 12 13 That's Case Number: 06-076, 14 filed by Rick Castanos of Varsity Lincoln 15 Mercury for Quick Lane, located at 49251 16 Grand River Avenue. 17 Is the applicant here? 18 MR. CASTANOS: Yes. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Chair, as 20 they walk down, may I have the floor for a 21 minute? 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Most certainly, 23 sir. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 8
1 Once again, I just want to 2 remind the Board that while I am an employee 3 of Ford Motor Company (unintelligible) but 4 I'm here, nonetheless. 5 And this parcel of land is -- 6 this property and this business does not 7 represent any financial, personal, or pure 8 association to the organization, so, I know 9 I can act unbiasedly in this case. 10 MEMBER BAUER: No problem. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: So if there's 12 no objection by the Chair -- 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: I have no 14 objections. Please, if you are very 15 (unintelligible) deliberations, and I appreciate 16 your comments. 17 Thank you. 18 Yes, sir. Will you please 19 identify yourself and -- name and address, 20 and be sworn in by our secretary. 21 MR. CASTANOS: First of all 22 Members -- Members of the ZBA, thank you for 23 hearing our case tonight. 24 My name is Rick Castanos. I'm 9
1 with Varsity Lincoln Mercury, requesting 2 some signage approvals for a new franchise 3 we're looking to open up at our dealership. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or 5 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case, 6 06-076? 7 MR. CASTANOS: Yes, I do. 8 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 9 MR. CASTANOS: I also brought 10 some additional renderings with me. I 11 thought it would be appropriate at this 12 point in time, so that it'll clarify some of 13 the things I turned in earlier, hopefully. 14 With that, (unintelligible.) I've got 12 of 15 them here. 16 Want to pass those up. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please proceed. 18 MR. CASTANOS: Okay. First of 19 all, I want to let everybody know that we 20 are seeking to put a new franchise within 21 our dealership. This franchise will have a 22 separate statement to it's own 23 franchisedentity(sic) (ph). 24 It will also have new 10
1 employees that will be coming to the 2 dealership working for this franchise, as 3 well as like everybody else in business 4 nowadays with the economy being tough, we 5 definitely took a long hard look at a 6 resurgency within the City of Novi, and our 7 own business. 8 And this was a way that -- in 9 common conjunction with Ford Motor Company, 10 an opportunity had come for us to open this 11 franchise within our dealership. 12 There's some requirements 13 there that Ford Motor Company asked to us 14 do, and that with the signage to have us as 15 a franchise within the dealership. So we're 16 looking to have -- as you look at the photos 17 and renderings I've presented to you, these 18 are the Quick Lane signs that are going on 19 the facia that I submitted for your 20 approval. 21 Also, there's a stand alone 22 pylon that would be on our parking lot 23 facility as you're coming off of Grand River 24 to turn into the dealership, and that is the 11
1 reason why we are here. The -- when you 2 look at the facia sign that's in front of 3 you on the big sheet, the Quick Lane sign is 4 the illuminated sign. 5 It is all in black. It'll 6 face the facia facing the east, east side of 7 the building, with the service entrance. 8 There's another facia sign that will be 9 facing north. 10 The entrance to the franchise 11 will have a separate entrance to itself. It 12 also has a separate facility within our 13 dealership, which will be a separate write 14 up area for the technicians, for the manager 15 that's hired to run the facility; as well as 16 parking -- additional parking for those 17 customers to come in. We also will be 18 servicing other makes and models. 19 This gives us an opportunity 20 to serve our community here in Novi. We're 21 going to be now looking at servicing all 22 Chryslers, GM's, Pontiacs, Toyotas and so 23 forth. 24 So we found this to be very 12
1 fruitful for us, as well as the City of Novi 2 being able to give an opportunity for jobs 3 to other employees, technicians, and 4 hopefully continue the growth that we are 5 looking for here in Novi. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's it? 7 MR. CASTANOS: That's it, yes. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you very 9 much. 10 Is there anybody in the 11 audience that would like to address the 12 Board regarding this case, will you please 13 come forward now? 14 Seeing none, Building 15 Department? 16 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir. 17 MR. SAVEN: Just one comment. 18 In regards to the rendering 19 which you just past out, there's a sign belt 20 that goes just below the sign. 21 MR. CASTANOS: Right. 22 MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) 23 (unintelligible) request for -- 24 MR. CASTANOS: That's 13
1 something that Ford Motor Company was 2 proposing, but as of right now we are not 3 putting that up. That's something that they 4 sent to us. 5 MR. SAVEN: Make sure the 6 Board's looking at (interposing) 7 (unintelligible.) 8 MR. CASTANOS: Correct. 9 All we're looking at is the 10 Quick Lane sign that's actually on the top 11 corners, which is a twelve foot by four 12 signs that I submitted for approval. 13 MR. SAVEN: Okay. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 15 MR. CASTANOS: I wanted you to 16 you have a full understanding of what it 17 looked like, so you can have an idea what it 18 looks like on the building. 19 MR. SAVEN: Members of the 20 Board, I'd also like to point out this property 21 is a slightly (unintelligible) issue 22 (unintelligible) Wixom and Novi, 23 (unintelligible.) There's a sign located in the 24 Wixom area, too. 14
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 2 Thank you, Mr. Saven. 3 There were -- 39 notices were 4 mailed on 9-13-06; ten mails returned; zero 5 approvals, zero objections. 6 And now open it for the Board. 7 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair, just 8 briefly. This is as good of a time as any to 9 remind the Board, since the last time we met, we 10 have a new sign Ordinance in place that includes 11 a new test for practical difficulty just for 12 variances for signs. Signs are not govern under 13 the Zoning Ordinance, and what we've done in the 14 new Statute -- Council's done in the new Statute. 15 Instead of using the Zoning Ordinance test for 16 practical difficulty -- which can be restrictive 17 -- they've loosened the language up a little bit 18 so that the Board has a little bit more ability 19 to consider particular circumstances related, not 20 just to the features of the physical property, 21 but other things, as well. 22 What I handed out is the 23 document that we're going to talk about at 24 the end of the meeting that goes over the 15
1 changes. On the last page of that document 2 that I gave everybody before the meeting, is 3 the new test, which generally talks about 4 the ability to grant variances, we believe, 5 based upon circumstances that are 6 acceptable, that are exceptional or unique 7 to the property, and that doesn't result 8 from conditions generally applicable to 9 properties in the city. 10 And to grant relief from 11 provisions that are unreasonably -- not just 12 prevent, but limit the use of property as 13 long as it's more than a mere inconvenience 14 or intent to get a higher economic return. 15 It is, again, a some what less restrictive 16 standard. I just want to make sure we talk 17 a little bit more about it at the end of the 18 meeting with the Board. (Unintelligible) 19 got that Ordinance last week or last month. 20 Just a reminder. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 22 Mr. Schultz. 23 Thank you. 24 Okay. Anybody want to go, 16
1 discussion? 2 I'll make my comments while 3 you are all making up your mind on who's 4 going first. 5 I personally don't see any 6 problem. I was there this morning. I saw 7 what's there. (Unintelligible) separate 8 entrances. It's a totally different 9 business, (unintelligible) and I have no 10 objection -- personally no problem 11 supporting the applicant's request. 12 Thank you. 13 Yes, Mr. Bauer? 14 MEMBER BAUER: I don't have any 15 objections to this either. It gives them better 16 identification, also. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, 18 Mr. Fischer? 19 MEMBER FISCHER: I have a 20 quick question hopefully. 21 On the pylon sign that we got, 22 it's kind of white and blue. 23 Is that the sign that's going 24 to be used? 17
1 MR. CASTANOS: No. Actually, 2 one of the packets I gave you that signify 3 pylon, there's a sign that Lincoln Mercury 4 division puts out that they would like us to 5 have in front of -- and that would be the 6 sign you have right there if your hand, yes. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: (Interposing) 8 (unintelligible) overhead, sure, that'll be 9 great. And they'll turn it on in the back, so 10 just sit it on there. 11 I would echo the comments of 12 the two previous speakers. I was there, as 13 well. And sometimes I question when there's 14 two signs like they're proposed -- 15 That's the pylon sign? 16 MR. CASTANOS: Yes, it is. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. So just 18 for some clarification. 19 Sometimes I question when 20 there's two signs on a building, but in this 21 case it's a very uniquely shaped building, 22 so if you're coming in, you need to see 23 Quick Lane's there, (unintelligible) have to 24 go around the corner. You don't necessarily 18
1 know where to go thereafter. So I can 2 understand this business requesting this. 3 Mr. Saven, you made a comment 4 about this sign in Wixom. That would not be 5 in our jurisdiction; is that correct? 6 MR. SAVEN: That is correct. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 8 So given what the previous 9 speakers said; the fact that there is -- 10 it's a unique building, it's a unique 11 property. There's two separate business 12 entities in there, I think that this does 13 substantial justice to everyone. 14 I'd be willing to support a 15 Motion to support, as well. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 17 Go ahead. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: And with that, 19 I would make a Motion to approve the variances 20 requested in Case Number: 06-076, filed by Rick 21 Castanos of Varsity Lincoln Mercury, due to the 22 fact that the Petitioner's shown a practical 23 difficulty because of the unique situation of the 24 building, unique property, two separate 19
1 businesses, and that substantial justice is done 2 to the owner and surrounding properties. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been 5 made and seconded -- 6 Yes, Mr. Shroyer? 7 MEMBER SHROYER: I'd just like 8 to make a comment. 9 If there was not a separate 10 franchise, I would not be in favor of this 11 just because of the multitude of signs. I 12 want to make sure the rest of the community 13 understands that we are not in business to 14 continue advertisement -- 15 MR. CASTANOS: I understand. 16 MEMBER SHROYER: (Interposing) 17 (unintelligible) sign after sign after sign. But 18 since this is a special circumstance; it's a 19 totally separate franchise coming in, I will be 20 in support of the Motion. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 22 Mr. Shroyer. 23 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair, 24 just briefly in that regard. 20
1 In light of the reasons that 2 Mr. Fischer's Motion, it might be 3 appropriate for the Board to consider 4 limiting the variance to so long as there 5 is, in fact, a separate use, separate 6 franchise (unintelligible) the building. 7 And then if that ceases and it reverts to 8 the Varsity use, the use that it is now, 9 then it would have to come down or remove 10 the sign. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: I would amend 12 the Motion to state that there is for this 13 franchise within this building only. And 14 should the franchise move out and operations 15 go back to Varsity Lincoln services, that 16 sign comes down. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: You seconded 19 it? 20 All right. The Motion has 21 been amended and (unintelligible.) 22 Any further discussion? 23 Seeing none, Ms. Working, will 24 you please call the roll. 21
1 2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 4 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 5 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 6 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Aye. 8 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 9 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 10 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 12 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 14 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 15 six-zero. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. 17 (Unintelligible) get your building permit and get 18 on with your business. 19 MR. CASTANOS: Thank you, sir; 20 thank you Members. I appreciate it. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 22 23 24 All right. We'll do the next 22
1 one, Case Number: 06-079 filed by Allied 2 Signs for David's Bridal located at 43831 3 West Oaks Drive. 4 Is the applicant here? 5 Will you please come forward 6 and state your name and address and be sworn 7 in by our secretary, and make your 8 presentation. 9 Thank you. 10 MR. SEAVER: Good evening, 11 Members. My name is Brian Seaver. I'm 12 representing Allied Signs, 3365 Tipcost, 13 Clinton Township, Michigan. And we're -- 14 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or 15 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 16 06-079? 17 MR. SEAVER: Yes, I do. 18 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please proceed. 20 We are requesting a variance 21 for an additional wall sign. Our hardship 22 is lack of identification on the north 23 elevation, facing traffic flow south on 24 Donaldson Drive and west on West Oaks Drive. 23
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 2 That's all? 3 MR. SEAVER: Uh-huh. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 5 Is there anyone in the 6 audience who would like to make a comment 7 regarding this case? 8 Seeing none, Building 9 Department? 10 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment. 11 MR. SAVEN: Just to point out to 12 the Board that this is an end unit located on 13 West Oaks Drive, so it does basically 14 (unintelligible) has almost the appearance of a 15 corner lot. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, thank you. 17 Okay. I'd like to inform the 18 Board that 34 notices were mailed on 19 10-18-06; one approval, zero objections, 20 (unintelligible) were returned. 21 I'll open it up for discussion 22 for Members of the Board. 23 Yes, Mr. Shroyer? 24 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, 24
1 Mr. Chair. 2 I have some difficulty with 3 this, and I'll go down through the various 4 steps here; and of course, I'd appreciate 5 additional comments from the rest of the 6 Board. 7 The concerns I have is in your 8 application you stated that the practical 9 difficulty basically was visibility from 10 Novi Road and 12 Mile Road. Well, Novi Road 11 visibility, we basically addressed that last 12 April by granting a variance 13 (unintelligible) City maximum by over eight 14 square feet. So, I don't consider that at 15 all in this request. 16 Secondly, 12 Mile Road, you 17 can't see the building at all from 12 Mile 18 Road, because of the strip small that's in 19 between. And Donaldson and the other side 20 street you're talking about, yes. I agree 21 there's no identification on the north side 22 of the building. 23 The -- one of the other 24 concerns I have -- and I need to bounce this 25
1 off the City -- I don't know if it's 2 Mr. Schmitt or who -- if I read this section 3 right -- and I'm talking about Section 28-5, 4 there's a maximum allotment of signage on a 5 building of 65 square feet. 6 The sign that we have 7 previously approved is 47.89 square feet, 8 which only leaves us a maximum of 17.11 9 square feet. And they're requesting a sign 10 of 34 and a half feet. If I've done my math 11 right, and if I read the section right, we 12 are greatly exceeding the maximum, and 13 that's not the variance that they're 14 requesting. 15 Is there going to have to be a 16 second variance request? 17 MR. AMOLSCH: (Unintelligible) 18 because under the old (unintelligible) it 19 exceeded (unintelligible) a larger sign. This is 20 strictly an issue of two signs on a business, and 21 that is not allowed by Code. 22 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay, thank 23 you. 24 I am in favor of some type of 26
1 additional identification on the north side. 2 I'm not sure that what you're requesting is 3 the best, but I'm not in a position to 4 determine the best for your business. I 5 would think that there would be something 6 more appropriate, perhaps an entrance 7 (unintelligible) driveway, coming in that 8 would be readily seen and easily 9 identifiable. 10 Basically that's all the 11 questions and comments I have. I will be 12 listening to the rest of the Boards comments 13 before I make my final decision. 14 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 16 Mr. Shroyer. 17 Yes, Ms. Krieger? 18 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you. 19 Regarding the David's Bridal, 20 I drove by there from 12 Mile, you would not 21 be able to see it; but from that side road, 22 Donaldson Drive, that it would be 23 appropriate. And the size of the sign 24 driving along the side, I also would not be 27
1 able to say which would be the appropriate 2 size, but I would be if favor of a sign 3 being put there. 4 Thank you. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 6 Thank you, Ms. Krieger. 7 Yes, Mr. Bauer. 8 MEMBER BAUER: I think the 9 sign should be down on the side of the 10 building (unintelligible) and it is too big 11 for that location. And since they do have 12 one sign in the front, they should cut this 13 one down to 25, 30 feet at the most. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 15 Mr. Fischer? 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 17 Mr. Chair. 18 Mr. Amolsch, I have a 19 question. 20 I'm guessing this has to do 21 with the sign Ordinance. When we approved 22 it last time, they were ahead 40 and we 23 allowed up to 48. Now they're allowed 48, 24 if there was just one sign, they'd be -- 28
1 MR. AMOLSCH: That would be 2 allowed (unintelligible) frontage 3 (unintelligible.) 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 5 MR. AMOLSCH: (unintelligible) 6 second sign, so we -- it's just solely the 7 second sign. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Right. 9 MR. AMOLSCH: (Unintelligible) 10 lineal frontage (unintelligible.) 11 MEMBER FISCHER: If they didn't 12 have the first sign, how large a sign could they 13 have? 14 MR. AMOLSCH: A maximum of 65 15 square feet, based on what lineal frontage 16 (unintelligible.) 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. My 18 math (unintelligible) even though I'm a 19 financial guy, apparently. 20 MEMBER SHROYER: I don't want 21 you doing my taxes. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: I would tend to 23 agree with the previous speakers on the size of 24 the sign. We address the concern from -- in the 29
1 whole parking lot and from Novi Road earlier by 2 granting a variance of 48 square feet. And 3 people who would be driving by on Donaldson Road 4 would be closer and they would be going slower. 5 So I don't feel -- while I 6 feel it is a corner store, I feel that a 7 second sign is warranted. I'm not sure that 8 the size of the sign is correct. 9 I would be (unintelligible) 10 anywhere between 30 and 40 feet, actually 11 so. 12 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you very 14 much, indeed. 15 Thank you. 16 Well, you heard the Board, 17 what the feeling is. And if you are willing 18 to downsize it, we can go ahead and continue 19 our discussion on the size, or you know 20 which way the wind is blowing. 21 MR. SEAVER: Okay. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: So what's your 23 pleasure? 24 MR. SEAVER: We can downsize 30
1 it to whatever size you guys agree on. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 3 Mr. Fischer, what is your math 4 now? 5 MEMBER FISCHER: I get paid 6 during day I don't get paid enough here to 7 do math. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: I'm just 9 kidding. 10 Actually, he's quite willing 11 to have a smaller sign, then I don't see 12 that there's any technical problem about 13 (unintelligible) smaller sign, right? 14 MR. SCHULTZ: No, sir, that's 15 correct. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: So we can go 17 ahead and -- 18 Well, Mr. Shroyer, 19 (unintelligible) up to you. 20 MEMBER SHROYER: Would the Board 21 be open to downsizing it two and a half feet in 22 length (unintelligible) maximum of 15 feet in 23 width, which would (unintelligible) as well. I 24 don't know what the percentage would be take it 31
1 down, but -- 2 MEMBER FISCHER: 1-7. 3 MEMBER SHROYER: I would be very 4 supportive of a 15 foot length. I think that 5 would (unintelligible) well (unintelligible) 6 building size, and not be too obtrusive. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: If I may 8 clarify. Reduced proportionately to bring 9 it in line with a 14 or 15 foot length. I'd 10 be willing to support, as well. 11 MR. SAVEN: And the height of 12 the letters? 13 MEMBER SHROYER: 14 (unintelligible.) 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 16 e) downsize is (unintelligible) because not only 17 different size of letters (unintelligible) we are 18 talking about. 19 You are the expert on 20 lettering. (unintelligible) to downsize 21 this? 22 MR. SEAVER: From 33 inches to 23 maybe like 24. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 32
1 MEMBER BAUER: 15. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: 15 feet by 24 3 inches lettering? 4 MR. SEAVER: That would give 5 you 30 square -- 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah. 7 Is that acceptable? 8 Okay. 9 Go ahead make a Motion then. 10 MEMBER SHROYER: I can try. 11 (Unintelligible) Case Number: 12 06-079 filed by Allied Signs for David's 13 Bridal located at 43831 West Oaks Drive, 14 move to approve the variance request to 15 erect an additional wall sign for David's 16 Bridal, not to exceed 30 square feet in 17 whole and 15 feet in length; due to the fact 18 that of minimal visibility from the north 19 side and actually from the west side, as 20 well. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Second. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been 23 made and seconded. 24 MEMBER BAUER: What's the 33
1 height of the letters? 2 MEMBER SHROYER: 15 feet long, 3 not to exceed 30 square feet in total, so 4 whatever the (interposing) (unintelligible.) 5 MEMBER BAUER: 6 (Unintelligible) 24 (unintelligible.) 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been 8 made and seconded. 9 Any further discussion? 10 Yes, Mr. Saven? 11 MR. SAVEN: I'm sorry to do 12 this. But one of the things to take a look at is 13 the lettering and how he's going to design the 14 letters maybe a little bit difficult. I do like 15 the parameters of 30 square foot requirement, but 16 I would probably look at not to exceed 15 foot in 17 length, so to allow him that flexibility to move 18 these things back and forth (unintelligible) that 19 may not (unintelligible) his design. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 21 e) 22 MEMBER SHROYER: That's how the 23 Motion read, 30 square, not to exceed 15. 24 MR. SAVEN: He didn't hear the 34
1 not to exceed 15. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 3 e.) 4 MR. SCHULTZ: That's 5 (unintelligible.) 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: 7 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chairman, 8 who seconded the Motion, please? 9 Justin, thank you. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Fischer. 11 All right. I don't see any 12 further discussion. 13 Will you please call the roll? 14 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 15 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 16 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 18 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 19 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 23 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 35
1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Aye. 2 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 3 six-zero. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Go ahead 5 and get your permit. 6 MR. SEAVER: Thank you your 7 time. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Good luck. 9 MR. SEAVER: Thank you. 10 11 12 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Moving 14 on to the next case, Case Number: 06-080, filed 15 by Chris Cagle for Glenda's Incorporated, located 16 at 40575 Grand River. The applicant is 17 requesting a variance renewal to continue to 18 store landscape material on the vacant piece of 19 property; OS-1 zoning district. 20 Will you please identify 21 yourself and state your name and address, 22 and be sworn in by our secretary. 23 MR. CAGLE: Thank you. 24 I'm Chris Cagle, on behalf of 36
1 Glenda's Garden Center (unintelligible) 2 variance. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear to 4 tell the truth regarding Case, 06-080? 5 MR. CAGLE: I do. 6 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 7 MR. CAGLE: Thank you. 8 Again, I'm just here on behalf 9 of Glenda's Garden Center for renewal of the 10 variance for storage of landscape material 11 on a vacant piece of property that we've 12 used for years. I believe we had some 13 stipulations to this variance last year. 14 I believe we've done a nice 15 job, as far as complying to those, as far as 16 keeping in touch with the homeowners behind 17 us; keeping the berm and all the plant 18 material on their behalf, and for our 19 behalf, in good shape. 20 Fence, which is a white panel 21 fence across the front was finished; 22 although, there was some damage done to it. 23 There was someone who ran off the road and 24 took a chunk of it out, but that has been 37
1 redone, also. So I'm just here on behalf of 2 Glenda's, asking for renewal of a variance 3 that was granted last year. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's it? 5 MR. CAGLE: Yes, sir. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 7 At this point, is there 8 anybody in the audience that would like to 9 make a comment about this case? 10 Seeing none, Building 11 Department? 12 MR. SAVEN: I believe in the 13 information, you have an approval from the 14 adjacent homeowner's association, number one; 15 number two, Mr. Cagle's going to work diligently 16 in repairing that fence in the front yard; is 17 that correct? 18 MR. CAGLE: Yes. 19 MR. SAVEN: Thank you. 20 And based on those particular 21 issues, I have no problem. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 23 All right. We had 46 notices; 24 and two approvals, zero objections. 38
1 Members of the Board? 2 Yes, Mr. Fischer? 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Amolsch, 4 did you have any complaints or any 5 violations or anything you'd like to bring 6 up? 7 MR. AMOLSCH: No 8 (unintelligible) problem was the fence issue. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: I noticed 10 that, as well, and I understand that, you 11 know, there's times when things happen. But 12 the fence was extended just as we had 13 requested last year -- and let me first say 14 that I'm very excited that you were able to 15 work with the neighborhood, and I think that 16 this is great. 17 I'm really excited about it, 18 so I still see no issue with this. I'd be 19 willing to put some of the same factors into 20 place, the same conditions; such as, 21 continued maintenance program that's 22 (unintelligible) and communicated with the 23 surrounding neighborhood. I'd also like to 24 make sure if a violation does take place, 39
1 they are brought back to the Zoning Board 2 immediately. 3 But other than that, I would 4 be willing to approve this, and I would be 5 willing to approve it for probably two 6 years. I definitely think the hard work 7 that this Petitioner has put into 8 maintaining their area and working with the 9 community, definitely warrants more time 10 than one year. 11 So those are my comments, and 12 thank you again. I think it's a great job. 13 MR. CAGLE: Thank you. I 14 appreciate it. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 16 Mr. Bauer? 17 MEMBER BAUER: You did the job. 18 MR. CAGLE: Thank you. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Continue doing 20 it. 21 MR. CAGLE: We plan on it. 22 Thank you. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, 24 Mr. Shroyer? 40
1 MEMBER SHROYER: Since I 2 wasn't -- wasn't on the Board last year, I don't 3 have anything to compare it to. But obviously, 4 the 2004 site plan that was submitted has been 5 completed. 6 MR. CAGLE: That's correct. 7 MEMBER SHROYER: And how is the 8 continued to be reduced number of trees tracked? 9 MR. CAGLE: Well, since we put 10 the white panel fence, we're not intruding 11 or encroaching out into the street; we also 12 have -- I have purchased property elsewhere, 13 so that -- we did this (unintelligible) 14 we've gone from 2500 (unintelligible) trees 15 this year for this community, and haven't 16 had one violation with unloading on the road 17 or overuse or over storage. And I think 18 Steve Kerns can verify it. He inspected 19 every tree that was, you know, 20 (unintelligible.) 21 So we've gone through 2500 22 trees, and haven't exceeded that over usage 23 and still run a business, any, you know, 24 we're trying real hard. 41
1 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Maybe 2 I don't quite understand. In 2004, there 3 was -- I'll just throw out numbers -- there 4 was 3,000 trees on the site. 2005 there was 5 2000 trees on the site. 2006, there's one 6 thousand trees. (Unintelligible) continued 7 reduction that was approved by the Board and 8 everyone, so I was trying to figure out how 9 that's being tracked. 10 And what was the intent of the 11 Board when this was passed, was the intent 12 to get to zero by the year 2020 or -- 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Could I 14 address that? 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: You were here. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: To be quite 17 honest, Member Shroyer, I'm not sure that I 18 even really agree with that condition 19 anymore. I think the intent was to look at 20 getting those -- and Mr. Saven might be able 21 to provide some insight, too -- what the 22 intent was to help the Petitioner to move 23 the outdoor storage off of that site. 24 But, given, you know, the 42
1 positive feedback we've gotten -- the trees 2 aren't hurting anything. I'd rather see 3 trees than (unintelligible) power equipment. 4 So, it's a very nice buffer, 5 and if they're going to store anything 6 outside, I'd like to have the trees. 7 So I'm willing to wipe that 8 condition out of here. I'm not sure that 9 the intent that was in place a year ago -- I 10 don't have the same intent as I did then, to 11 be quite honest. 12 MEMBER SHROYER: That was the 13 concern I had. So I'm in favor of two years, as 14 well, but only with the removal of that continue 15 (unintelligible) continue to be reduced. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: I think at no 17 point there was ever a suggestion made that all 18 trees should be removed in the first place; 19 number two, the idea was to get rid of the 20 clutter. That was the key and that has been 21 done. So I think we are all very well satisfied 22 with what's going on. 23 I don't see any objection in 24 continuing in the same direction that they 43
1 are following. 2 Thank you. 3 Yes, Member Gatt? 4 MEMBER GATT: I just want to say 5 I agree with Member Fischer. Actually, I would 6 be opposed to them removing trees, any amount of 7 trees. I like the way that it looks now. It 8 does cover up some unsightly things that we might 9 see without the trees. 10 So, I would hope that that 11 would be removed from the Motion. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Bauer. 13 MEMBER BAUER: One thing we were 14 talking about trees was trees for sale 15 (interposing) (unintelligible). 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Any 17 further discussion? 18 So a Motion has been made by 19 Mr. Fischer. 20 Okay. Go ahead. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: If the Board is 22 ready. 23 I would move to approve the 24 variance requested in Case Number: 06-080, 44
1 due to the fact that the Petitioner has 2 established that this is an exceptional and 3 unique circumstance and property. It would 4 unreasonably prevent or limit the property 5 more so than a mere inconvenience; the 6 relief does not result in incompatible use; 7 substantial justice to the property owner 8 and surrounding area has been done; and it's 9 consistent with the spirit and intent of the 10 Ordinance. 11 And with that, I would put the 12 following conditions upon the Motion that 13 the fence continue to be maintained and 14 fixed. A maintenance program be developed 15 for the following two years and posted; as 16 well as communicated to the Willowbrook 17 Association, with contact information, as 18 you did in the past. And that the 19 Petitioner will report back to the ZBA in 20 two years, unless any violations are posted 21 or filed against this Petitioner. 22 If so, the Petitioner is to 23 come back in front of the Zoning Board of 24 Appeals to the City of Novi immediately. 45
1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Did I miss one? 3 The Petitioner must maintain 4 an agreement with the homeowner's 5 association. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. That's 7 the Motion now. (Unintelligible.) 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 9 MEMBER SHROYER: Question for 10 Mr. Schultz. 11 Do we need to say anything at 12 that time of the Motion concerning the 13 lease? Do we have a letter on file 14 (unintelligible) has been leased; or this be 15 (unintelligible) least is void 16 (unintelligible.) 17 MR. SCHULTZ: I think if the 18 Board wants to impose that condition with regard 19 to the lease, it can. I think as a practical 20 matter (unintelligible) doesn't need to mention 21 it. 22 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 23 Thank you. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 46
1 Any further discussion? 2 Seeing none, Ms. Working, will 3 you please call the roll. 4 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 6 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 7 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 8 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 10 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 11 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 12 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 14 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 15 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 16 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 17 six-zero. 18 MR. CAGLE: Thank you. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 20 e) (interposing.) 21 MR. CAGLE: Appreciate your 22 comments. Have a nice night. 23 24 47
1 2 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Moving along to 4 the next, Case Number: 06-083, filed by Steven 5 Johnson of Novi Retail, LLC, for Shoppes at the 6 Trail, located at 31172 Beck Road. 7 MR. JOHNSON: Good evening. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please identify 9 yourself, state your name and address, and be 10 sworn in by our secretary; and make your 11 presentation. 12 Thank you. 13 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. 14 Good evening. My name is 15 Steve Johnson with Novi Retail, LLC, 30078 16 Schoenherr, in Warren, Michigan. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Will you raise 18 your right hand. 19 Do you swear to tell the truth 20 regarding, Case O6-083? 21 MR. JOHNSON: I do. 22 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 23 MR. JOHNSON: We are 24 requesting a variance to have an additional 48
1 ground mounted sign, due to the nature of 2 our site being on a corner in the large -- 3 it's about a 15 acre site of a retail 4 shopping center. And with two major streets 5 that we abut, it's -- we needed the two 6 signs to adequately identify the property. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, thank 8 you. 9 Is there anybody in the 10 audience that would like to make any 11 comments about this case? 12 Seeing none, Building 13 Department? 14 MR. AMOLSCH: Just for the sake 15 of clarification, (unintelligible) to explain it 16 very well. The issue is that the business center 17 sign was on a vacant parcel of land that had no 18 business on it. That's why he's here for a 19 variance. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 21 We have sent -- 80 notices 22 were mailed; zero approvals, one objection. 23 MEMBER BAUER: 24 Member Bauer, would you like 49
1 to (unintelligible.) 2 MEMBER BAUER: The objection 3 (unintelligible) Novi Family Practice at 4 3888 (unintelligible) Beck Road are granted 5 the same sign variance (unintelligible.) 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. I think 7 I can open up this discussion to the Members of 8 the Board now. 9 Yes, Ms. Krieger? 10 MEMBER KRIEGER: I have a 11 question. 12 The sign that you're proposing 13 to put up is not on our property, even know 14 it's a vacant piece of property you own 15 that. 16 MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. 17 What it is is each end of the 18 shopping center has two out lots. And in 19 this case, the site that the sign is on is 20 on that vacant piece. It's been purchased 21 by Comerica Bank, and they have plans to 22 build a bank on that property. But 23 currently, there's no timetable for that to 24 occur. 50
1 And it has to be on one side 2 of the driveway or the other. 3 And that's the way it's always 4 been planned on that site. 5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. 6 (Unintelligible) I would not have an objection 7 (unintelligible) one would be on Beck Road. 8 Thank you. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, thank 10 you. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Do you have a 12 letter from the owner to have your sign 13 there? 14 MR. JOHNSON: No, I do not. 15 MEMBER BAUER: That we must 16 have. 17 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. I have 19 another question for you. 20 The sign which is there now, 21 you have already erected the sign? 22 MR. JOHNSON: We put up the 23 temporary sign on Pontiac Trail. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: I'm talking 51
1 about the sign in question that we are talking 2 about tonight. That ground sign is already up. 3 MR. JOHNSON: There was a 4 foundation placed for it, and then we 5 erected the sign that sets inside of it 6 temporarily. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: I see. 8 MR. AMOLSCH: (Unintelligible) 9 mock-up. And that's another issue is that 10 they -- for the Board's information, they have 11 been approved for a business center sign on the 12 property that the business center's actually on, 13 on Beck Road. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, thank 15 you. 16 All right. Yes, Mr. Schmidt? 17 MR. SCHMIDT: In sitting here 18 and the applicant's just mentioned this property 19 is actually owned by Comerica bank. In going 20 through the discussion in my head here, should 21 the Zoning Board of Appeals be inclined to grant 22 this, we would encourage to consider 23 (unintelligible) does not effect the approved 24 site plan or landscaping plan for 52
1 (unintelligible) Comerica bank. 2 To be perfectly frank, that 3 has been looked at (unintelligible) store 4 property owner that would modify their site 5 plan requiring them to (unintelligible) site 6 plan, requiring them to come back. 7 So we would encourage that 8 condition be added, should a positive Motion 9 be made. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: I have a 11 questions for Mr. Schultz. 12 Without the owner's permission 13 and what might happen to that parcel of land 14 in the future, it is appropriate to even 15 discuss this sign tonight. 16 MR. SCHULTZ: With all due 17 respect to the Petitioner, Mr. Chair, I think it 18 is probably not (unintelligible) Novi Retail, if 19 it's separately owned, I think you ought to maybe 20 table it until you get some (unintelligible) 21 (interposing.) 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's what I 23 thought. 24 MR. JOHNSON: If I may, I'm 53
1 not a hundred percent sure that where the 2 sign sits is owned, because there is a piece 3 along the front that's still maintained by 4 the retail center. I would have -- I mean, 5 I'd have to get out a full-sized drawing to 6 verify that, but I don't believe it's 7 actually on that vacant parcel; even though 8 it's -- the road fronts on the road. 9 The way the parcel has been 10 split, I think 60 feet off of the road, and 11 it's own entity. 12 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair. 13 (Unintelligible) we probably 14 ought to table it and find out. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 16 The Chair will entertain a 17 Motion to table this case. 18 MEMBER BAUER: So moved. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Second. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been 21 made and seconded. 22 If there's no further 23 discussion, Ms. Working, would you please 24 call the roll. 54
1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 2 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 6 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 10 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 13 ROBIN WORKING: Motion to table 14 passes six-zero. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: 16 As you heard, we are going to 17 table this for at least one more month and 18 hopefully you will have the proper letter of 19 authorization from the owners by that time; 20 and hopefully the Planning Department will 21 have more information available about the 22 incoming plans for that piece of land. 23 So see you -- 24 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chair, 55
1 excuse me, sir. (Unintelligible) any 2 recommendation on whether or not the mock 3 sign will remain for the December Hearing 4 (unintelligible) (interposing.) 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah. It may 6 stay up so we don't need to take it down and 7 bring it back up. I don't want to 8 (unintelligible) inconvenience to you than we 9 already have done, because of the technicality of 10 the situation. 11 MR. JOHNSON: Okay, thank you. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 13 14 Next case, Case Number: 15 06-084, filed by Morton Daniel Pikstein for 16 40535 Kingsley Lane. 17 MS. PIKSTEIN: Good evening. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Good evening. 19 Will you please identify 20 yourself and state your name and address, 21 and be sworn in by our secretary, before you 22 make a presentation. 23 Thank you. 24 MS. PIKSTEIN: I'm Ronnie 56
1 Pikstein. I reside at 40535 Kingsley Lane, 2 and I'm appearing on behalf of myself and my 3 husband, Morton Pikstein. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly 5 swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case: 6 06-084? 7 MS. PIKSTEIN: I do. 8 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, ma'am. 9 MS. PIKSTEIN: What we're 10 requesting is a variance for a setback of 11 13.5 feet to repour the footings on our 12 existing deck and enclose our deck, so that 13 it would be an enclosed porch. Now, the 14 reason we're requesting this, is we are not 15 the only -- we would not be the only 16 enclosure and enclosed deck in our sub. 17 There are four others. We feel this would 18 add value to our property. 19 And another large request and 20 the hardship is my health. I have a heart 21 condition, and I've had three open heart 22 surgeries. It requires me to spend a great 23 deal of time at home. I can't sit out on 24 our deck for fear of getting stinged by a 57
1 bee or some other type of flying insect. 2 And I'd like to have some other space to sit 3 in. 4 I believe that my homeowner's 5 association has approved this. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 7 Is there anybody in the 8 audience that would like to make comment 9 about this case? 10 Seeing none -- yes 11 Mr. Schmidt? 12 MR. SCHMIDT: Just to point out 13 to the Board Haverhill Farms was originally 14 approved (unintelligible) a long, long time ago 15 under a non-conformance (unintelligible) option. 16 It may be zoned R-2. A lot of the parcels are 17 smaller than that, that's part of the issue that 18 we see, especially along some of the common 19 areas. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you for 21 your input. 22 Thank you. 23 Building Department? 24 MR. SAVEN: Thank you, sir. 58
1 Just to point out, this is, 2 once again an expansion of an existing deck, 3 and there's an enclosure or screened room to 4 go on top of the deck at that point. Also, 5 you will notice on the (unintelligible) 6 plan, this is not located within the 7 easement that's located in the backyard. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 9 Mr. Saven. 10 Thank you. 11 We had sent 35 notices; and 12 zero approvals and one objection. 13 You got it there, Mr. Bauer. 14 MEMBER BAUER: The objection is 15 too large of a variance from the other residence 16 in (unintelligible) by Ralph and Roxanne 17 K-o-u-r-f-j-i-a-e. 18 Okay. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, thank 20 you. 21 It's time to open it up for 22 discussion of the Board. 23 Thank you. 24 Go ahead, Mr. Shroyer? 59
1 MEMBER SHROYER: Ms. Pikstein, 2 I had one question. 3 MS. PIKSTEIN: Sure. 4 MEMBER SHROYER: When I came out 5 and looked at the property the other day, I had 6 difficulty visualizing how much larger the new 7 deck is than the old deck. In other words, how 8 much further does it extend to the year yard? 9 MS. PIKSTEIN: To the best of 10 my knowledge -- and I'm not an architect. 11 I'm also bad at numbers -- we're talking 12 about extending a mere two feet, and that is 13 to make it easier for them to pour the 14 footings. So we're not extending really 15 into anyone else's space. 16 MEMBER SHROYER: I had 17 envisioned it being (unintelligible) to four 18 feet. I (unintelligible) cutting your grass, 19 because it was parallel to the deck. 20 MS. PIKSTEIN: I don't cut the 21 grass. 22 MEMBER SHROYER: Two feet 23 more. So -- 24 MS. PIKSTEIN: Right. We're 60
1 talking two feet. 2 MEMBER SHROYER: I have no 3 problem with this at all. I think it will 4 improve the (unintelligible) increase the 5 property value in the neighborhood. 6 So I think the most of 7 (unintelligible) would be in favor of it, as 8 well. 9 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 11 Yes, Mr. Gatt? 12 MEMBER GATT: I also have no 13 problem with this. I actually would have 14 had no problem, even if it was another foot 15 or so. But two feet only makes it even 16 better. I also agree that it would 17 definitely, you know, improve your property 18 value, and I encourage the Board Members to 19 approve this. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, good. 21 Thank you. 22 Yes, Ms. Krieger? 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: I'd like to 24 make a Motion. 61
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please, go 2 ahead. 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: In Case Number: 4 06-084, filed by Morton Daniel Pikstein, for 5 40535 Kingsley Lane, that we approve the request 6 for the variance in that the applicants are 7 requesting a rear yard setback variance for the 8 construction of a deck extension enclosed porch, 9 as stated; and also due to her hardship that she 10 also stated. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 12 Motion has been made. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Seconded by 15 Mr. Bauer. 16 Any further discussion? 17 Is there a question, 18 Mr. Fischer? 19 If there's no further 20 discussion, Ms. Working, will you please 21 call the roll. 22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 62
1 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 4 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 5 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 6 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 8 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 9 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 10 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 11 six-zero. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Congratulation 13 s. Get your permit and maybe you can put it up 14 before the winter arrives. 15 MS. PIKSTEIN: Thank you. 16 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Next case is 18 Case Number: 06-085, filed by Adorno Piccinini 19 of Brooktown Village Ventures, LLC, located west 20 of Meadowbrook and south of Grand River Avenue, 21 at 41711 Grand River Avenue. 22 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I 23 may interject for a time period. On this 24 particular case, an error has been made based on 63
1 the fact that this was part of an SDO agreement, 2 and in the SDO agreement in fine print, 3 (unintelligible) but in the print it basically 4 says the ZBA shall not have jurisdiction over 5 this matter, and I do apologize to the Board. 6 I do apologize to the 7 applicant for the inconvenience that 8 (unintelligible) here tonight; and his 9 remedy would be with the City Council at 10 this particular time. 11 Unfortunately, we normally in 12 our process and procedure, we allow signs to 13 be erected ahead of time so the board can 14 take a look at the mockup sign in this case, 15 what this gentleman has. And I 16 (unintelligible) precarious position. I'm 17 not sure how to handle this issue, so I'll 18 refer to our City Attorney. 19 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair 20 (unintelligible) mock sign up. We 21 (unintelligible) to get it on Council's agenda 22 (unintelligible) right to ask Council to amend 23 that, and I share in Mr. Saven's comments. I saw 24 it on the agenda, but until reading through it 64
1 today, didn't recall the provision limiting ZBA 2 jurisdiction. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. 4 Thank you very much, 5 Mr. Schultz. 6 Yes, Mr. Fischer. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: If we have no 8 jurisdiction over the case, how did we get 9 jurisdiction over the mockup. 10 MR. SCHULTZ: The Board does not 11 have jurisdiction over the mock up. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: In all honesty 13 can you maybe enlighten the Board to the 14 reasoning why and SDO they would limit 15 jurisdiction? I mean, this seems like a 16 relatively normal case, relatively simple case. 17 I'm just hopping for some information regarding 18 why and where they would do that. 19 MR. SCHULTZ: (Unintelligible) 20 through the Chair. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead. 22 MR. SCHULTZ: In the Gateway 23 District, there are uses that are permitted 24 (unintelligible) just like any other district. 65
1 But there are also special uses or additional 2 things that are permitted through special 3 approval by City Council; through a special 4 development option, which actually involves 5 contract and review of plans for recommendation 6 by the Planning Commission; but ultimately 7 approval by the City Council. 8 The Council has the ability to 9 grant, you know, height variances for 10 several kinds of site requirements. In the 11 concept in the agreement that the Council 12 and Brooktown (unintelligible) is, once the 13 Council has said okay, this is what we want 14 this place to look like; the idea is not to 15 then have a separate body -- the ZBA or the 16 Planning Commission -- be able to come in 17 and vary setbacks and things like that, that 18 the Council has already looked at. 19 We do have other agreements 20 probably since Brooktown where we have been 21 a little more specific in what we said can 22 go to the ZBA and what can't go to the ZBA. 23 One of the agreements we did 24 after (unintelligible) come here some day, 66
1 ZBA has no jurisdiction with regard to the 2 initial development approval, but had 3 subsequent jurisdiction for certain listed 4 things. 5 So, I guess as a general 6 prohibition, Brooktown (unintelligible) 7 carefully designed planned project, and 8 Council knows what it wanted it to look 9 like; and if it's going to change, Council 10 wants to be the one to be able to be say so. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 12 In view of the information we 13 received, the Chair would entertain a Motion 14 delete this case from the agenda. 15 MEMBER BAUER: So moved. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Second. 17 MEMBER SHROYER: I'm sorry. 18 Before we do that, may I ask, since it was 19 advertised to the public here, if we have 20 people in the audience that came to speak 21 (unintelligible) be allowed to state their 22 case. 23 MR. SCHULTZ: Probably wouldn't 24 be appropriate. 67
1 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 3 Motion has been made and 4 seconded. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chairman, 6 who made the (unintelligible) (interposing.) 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Bauer. 8 Mr. Fischer seconded. 9 Mr. Bauer made the Motion. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Second. 11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 12 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 13 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 15 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 16 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 17 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 18 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 19 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 20 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 21 ROBIN WORKING: And Member 22 Sanghvi? 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 24 Thank you. 68
1 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 2 six-zero. 3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I've 4 never been turned down so politely. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 6 e) (interposing.) 7 Thank you. 8 9 Okay. Let's move on to the 10 next one. Case Number: 06-086, filed by 11 Providence Hospital and Medical Centers, 12 Incorporated, LLC, and Novi Orthopaedic 13 Center Properties, LLC, located at 47601 14 Grand River Avenue, 48201. 15 Thank you. 16 Is the applicant here? 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Mr. Chair, I'm 18 sorry. I work for Providence Hospital, but I do 19 not work out here (unintelligible) and I don't 20 believe I would have a reason, just as Justin, 21 (unintelligible) and put it regarding 22 (unintelligible) recuse myself. 23 MEMBER BAUER: No, stay. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: No problem why 69
1 you should be (unintelligible) here. 2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay, thank 3 you. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please stay. 5 Thank you. 6 Please identify yourself. 7 MR. ADAMS: Mike Adams 8 appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, the 9 applicant, Providence Hospital and Medical 10 Centers, Inc., and we also have some 11 representatives from some other interested 12 parties in the complex here this morning; 13 namely, one of the doctors' groups that are 14 going to occupy one of the office buildings. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Are you an 16 attorney? 17 MR. ADAMS: Yes, I am, sir. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. You -- I 19 don't know why, but you don't need to be sworn 20 in. 21 MR. ADAMS: Can I ask a little 22 assistance in being able to use this fancy 23 technology here to get the whole picture on 24 the screen. 70
1 I have a very large picture of 2 the site plan, but I don't have like -- or 3 see an easel (unintelligible.) 4 Good evening. I'm on behalf 5 of Providence Novi here, and the ground 6 tenants that will be occupying this 7 development. Providence has filed three 8 applicants for zoning variances, which are 9 essentially all identical. And I believe 10 Council person Shroyer mercifully agreed to 11 consolidate the three; is that appropriate 12 if we proceed as if we're talking about one; 13 because they are all identical for all 14 parcels. 15 The issue here tonight is Novi 16 Ordinance 2517, requires each lot to be 17 fronted on a public road. And what we have 18 here on this development is a private ring 19 road that basically handles all the ingress 20 and egress for all people coming in and out 21 of this development. There is no public 22 road here. 23 And all three lots have 24 received final site plan approve; subject to 71
1 this variance and a few other minor issues 2 to be worked out with the Planning 3 Department. 4 Coincidently or currently 5 Providence has filed an application for land 6 division with Ron Lemon, the City Assessor. 7 And Mr. Lemon's office confirmed today that 8 he has approved our land division, to move 9 them over to Oakland County for final 10 process. 11 So the lot splits are 12 finalized. The Ordinance is the last issue 13 that came up that we need to overcome to 14 continue our development of the parcel. I 15 had like to give just a few more details 16 regarding this development. 17 May I hand out a couple of 18 items that probably didn't get in your packs 19 -- I know didn't get in your packs. 20 What's the easiest way to do 21 it, just walk around hand them to you? 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Just give them 23 to me, and I'll pass them along. 24 MR. ADAMS: Okay, thanks. 72
1 The first one is an article 2 from the Novi News that just talks a little 3 bit about what this project's going to do 4 for the community. 5 MEMBER SHROYER: Take the hand 6 mic if you're going to continue talking. 7 MR. ADAMS: Can you hear me 8 now, again? 9 Okay. The first document is 10 an article from the Novi News that talks a 11 little bit about what this project is going 12 to do, including an estimate of over a 13 million people per year are going to 14 ultimately visit this development for health 15 care purposes once it's completed. 16 Also, I gave you a copy -- a 17 complex declaration, which is kind of an 18 equivalent to the condominium bylaws for 19 this project. It's a simple -- it's a 20 document that governs the rights and 21 responsibilities of the parties; and there 22 are some other -- there's some easements in 23 that document that you may find interesting 24 that actually increase the ability of all 73
1 the parties in this project to use each 2 others' lots to gain access to the ring 3 road. You didn't get that, because it was 4 reported the day we filed our application. 5 I thought you might find it of 6 interest. 7 St. John Providence Hospital 8 here is going to take up the majority of 9 this development. There's also going to be 10 a hotel parcel, which we're going to -- 11 we've applied for a variance for; a medical 12 office building, and then also the Novi 13 Orthopedic Center, is the third parcel 14 that's effected by these -- these easement 15 requests. 16 The development of these three 17 parcels is critical to the development of 18 this whole complex; while the hospital is 19 dependent on these two medical office 20 buildings to help free up space in the 21 hospital. There's going to be people that 22 are going to be moving into these offices, 23 and it's going to allow the hospital to 24 expand. 74
1 It's very important. 2 And the doctors that are going 3 to be owning and occupying these two medical 4 office buildings are going refer and admit 5 patients to the hospital. So it's going to 6 benefit everybody. 7 I'd like to move into the 8 details of the application, if I may. The 9 application's detailed, I think, quite well. 10 The legal reasons why we're -- these 11 variances are justified -- and I'd like to 12 just kind of hit key points on them, if I 13 might again. 14 As I mentioned before, the 15 assessor's approved our land division. He's 16 satisfied that we have fulfilled all the 17 requirements of the land division Ordinance, 18 which are very similar to the Zoning 19 Ordinance when it comes to this access 20 issue. The only difference is that the land 21 division Ordinance says we can have indirect 22 access to a public road; but the Ordinance 23 -- the Zoning Ordinance says we just have -- 24 we have to have direct access to a public 75
1 road. 2 Now, it's important to note 3 that Providence Parkway will meet all Novi's 4 engineering and design standards, as well as 5 standards that were established by the 6 American Association of Highway and 7 Transportation Officials, known as ASTRO. 8 So in other words, this 9 private road is going to have all the 10 attributes and design features the public 11 road would have. 12 Now Providence and the ground 13 lessees that are going to occupy these sites 14 have demonstrated unnecessary hardship under 15 Novi's ZBA Rules of Procedure. Number one, 16 the land can't be reasonably used without 17 these variances being granted. This ring 18 road is such an integral part of the 19 development that unless we can make an 20 exception here, we're going to have to 21 rework this whole site plan. It's going to 22 cause tremendous hardship. 23 The parcel's plight is due to 24 unique circumstances. This 198 acre 76
1 self-contained parcel is very unusual, 2 particularly because it's going to be a 3 healthcare complex. And it's design is 4 unique. There's nothing quite like it in 5 the City of Novi. 6 The use that we're asking here 7 for will not alter the essential character 8 of the area. The Planning Department and 9 the owners and the occupants have been 10 working for almost two years on this, and 11 this slight variance is not going to halter 12 much that's going on in this complex. 13 The problem is not self-created. 14 The parties went through almost two years of 15 planning working as partners, before this issue 16 up at the very last minute; and this is the most 17 efficient, least intrusive way to resolve it. It 18 simply makes good sense to do this. This campus 19 is designed for healthcare, serving the public 20 good. And allowing these variances are going to 21 allow us to do just that. 22 In addition to meeting all the 23 Novi rules, we've met all the applicable State 24 laws, rules, as women. There's peculiar or 77
1 exceptional practical difficulties here. We're 2 trying to develope 198 acre self-contained health 3 care parcel, with a fully usable private road. 4 This is the type of issue that you can expect. 5 Once again, to try to change 6 this plan and strictly enforce your Ordinance is 7 going to require a complete redesign of the site 8 plan; which, it might scrap the whole project. 9 It's just going to be an enormous task to try to 10 overcome that. There is no substantial detriment 11 to the public good here. In fact, the public is 12 going to benefit by having a thriving health care 13 center. 14 No substantial impairment of 15 intent and purpose of the Novi Ordinance. 16 Really, the only issue here is that we have a 17 private road that's going to function exactly 18 like a public road. It's going to meet the same 19 specifications. It's going to going to have the 20 same material. It's going to have the same 21 safety features. It's going to be maintained and 22 operated in the same way. 23 In fact, the City's going to 24 save a lot of money because my client's going to 78
1 maintain the road and save the taxpayers all that 2 money. So there really is no substantial 3 detriment to the public. No foreseeable impact 4 on other property owners. There really are no 5 other property owners within this complex. 6 There's some tenants, some long-term rental 7 tenants, but no one in this whole facility is 8 going to notice any difference because of these 9 variances. 10 This is the least intrusive 11 means to resolve this project, to resolve this 12 problem. In fact, it may be the only way to 13 resolve it, and it's a -- it's very simple. It's 14 going to -- if you just treat this ring road as 15 a -- the same way you would treat a public road 16 for purpose of this access issue. 17 One again, this wasn't a 18 self-created problem. It was just oversight that 19 nobody anticipated when they were looking at -- 20 the parties looked at the best way to create a 21 functioning health care campus, and didn't 22 foresee that this issue would be a problem until 23 the very end. 24 The way this is structured 79
1 through that declaration and private agreements 2 of the parties, it's a very simplified method of 3 allocating rights and responsibilities outside 4 the Condominium act. 5 And in fact, if we had of gone 6 under the site condo Ordinance in the Michigan 7 Condominium Act, we probably wouldn't have 8 required this application. So, it doesn't seem 9 fair to -- it isn't fair to punish the owner for 10 trying to develope a streamline efficient way to 11 manage this complex, which would be -- it would 12 look exactly the same under a site condominium 13 scheme. 14 And so, to summarize we 15 respectfully ask that you grant this Ordinance on 16 all three parcels; allow us to treat Providence 17 Parkway -- which is going to be a wonderful 18 private road -- just like you would if it was a 19 public road; and allow the access to it to count, 20 you know, for purposes of the Ordinance. 21 I wanted to clear up one issue. 22 In some of the Planning Department documents, 23 there was a discussion about -- if you can see 24 this little -- this is not the best -- this 80
1 little neck up here, there was always some 2 concern that this access for this particular 3 neuro medical office building was a little bit 4 narrower than the Planning Department would like. 5 I believe it's 45 feet at its narrowest point. 6 And there was some concern that 7 might create a big of a logjam in getting access 8 to the ring road. Well, declaration which was 9 filed, I believe, October 16th -- right about the 10 same date we filed our application here -- 11 provides that there's another easement down here 12 at the bottom, so that the neuro MOB -- I mean, 13 ASC medical office building will have access down 14 here for the ring road. So this area down here 15 -- which is a limited common area -- is open. 16 The declaration, as I said 17 before, frees up and makes more access for people 18 using this complex. There's going to be plenty 19 of access. 20 That's not an issue at all. 21 So, thank you very much. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 23 Well, Mr. Schmidt? 24 MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, 81
1 Mr. Chair. 2 This is a fairly rare 3 circumstance in the City of Novi 4 (unintelligible) project in front of you. 5 Building and Planning Department Staff 6 frankly on a weekly basis tell people that 7 you can't split your lot front to back and 8 provide a driveway to the rear property. 9 The only circumstances in which we can 10 support this type of situation is that the 11 road is built to public standards, and 12 usually it involves condominiums, because 13 it's a residential project. 14 Frankly, we would refer that 15 Providence did a condominium in this case, 16 but it was well within their right with some 17 180 acre parcel, they have more than enough 18 splits to accommodate the needs of the 19 property. But, I do need to point out the 20 they will be back in the future for at least 21 two more of these variances. Because as you 22 can see there is property between the hotel 23 site and the MOB site that's not yet split. 24 And there's a potential site 82
1 between the hotel and the ring road to the 2 north that's not split yet. We fully expect 3 this property will develop and have a 4 similar problem in the future. However, I 5 can state with some certainty that Staff has 6 been told in no uncertain terms 7 (unintelligible) private roads are obviously 8 (unintelligible) because it does 9 (unintelligible) the City of future 10 maintenance and snow removal burden. 11 And obviously on a site such 12 as this, that (unintelligible) user public 13 mile roadway, there would be some concern of 14 the City taking over public road 15 (unintelligible.) 16 This is essentially the same 17 circumstance (unintelligible) Twelve Oaks 18 Mall in 1978. Twelve Oaks Mall does, in 19 fact, have seven different parcels crossing 20 onto the ring road, (unintelligible) 21 frontage. This is a little bit different 22 circumstance in that, you know, the 23 hospital's a much larger user, but it is a 24 very similar circumstance. 83
1 Staff, they only support this 2 because it is a public road on the grounds, 3 built to public standards (unintelligible.) 4 If necessary, the road could be dedicated, 5 and we would not have this concern. But 6 we'd prefer that it not be dedicated to the 7 public. 8 If this road was not built and 9 someone was coming in with this split 10 request, we would not support it. If the 11 road was not built to public standards, we 12 would not support it. 13 It's a singular circumstance, 14 and frankly in my research I was unable to 15 come up with another circumstances, because 16 to be perfectly honest, Twelve Oaks 17 (unintelligible) public standards, so if 18 that came in today, we'd have some concerns 19 with it. But, Staff can support this at 20 this point. The plans are sitting right 21 next to my desk. 22 Should the Zoning Board of 23 Appeals choose to grant this this evening, 24 we will issue final sign off, and I belive 84
1 the (unintelligible) actually planning on 2 pouring the foundation sometime in the next 3 couple weeks here. 4 That's all I have. I'll be 5 happy to answer any questions on the site 6 plan, in general, as I reviewed all three of 7 them or the process of how we got here. 8 Thank you. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you very 10 much. 11 I haven't opened it to the 12 Board yet. 13 Anything coming from the 14 Building Department? 15 MR. SAVEN: I have a question, 16 but I might have to direct them to 17 (unintelligible.) Certainly in the planning 18 process, there were issues regarding easements 19 and splits; is that correct? 20 MR. ADAMS: Yes. 21 MR. SAVEN: Okay. 22 MR. ADAMS: We believe we 23 resolved them all. 24 MR. SAVEN: Very well. 85
1 Number one. 2 Number two, is that -- is 3 there a need to have some type of user 4 agreement for the road to insure that there 5 is always access there for these particular 6 projects that are going on. 7 MR. SCHMIDT: My understanding 8 is that the Planning Department required a cross 9 access (unintelligible) entire ring road at the 10 time of approval of the ring road. The ring road 11 actually came in as its own site plan at the 12 first part of the project. 13 The second part was 14 (unintelligible) construction; third part 15 was the hospital itself. So there is 16 easement covering the entire roadway for 17 cross-access (unintelligible) various 18 parcels and for public access. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 20 MR. ADAMS: That's correct. 21 That's part of the 22 declaration, too. There's a broad blanket 23 easement (unintelligible) for the ring road. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: One moment. 86
1 Is there anybody in the 2 audience that would like to make any 3 comments about this cases, all three. Now 4 is the time to do it. 5 Seeing none, yes, Mr. Schultz? 6 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair 7 to respond to Mr. Saven's question, I appreciate 8 the copy of the declaration today. I'm not sure 9 that our office has seen and reviewed that. I 10 suspect not. I'm not sure where -- with regard 11 to Mr. Schmidt's comments that that easements 12 were submitted when the ring road came in as its 13 own site plan, which is certainly permitted under 14 the Ordinance. 15 And if easements were 16 submitted for (unintelligible) agreements -- 17 hopefully our office has reviewed it. If 18 the Board determines to grant the variance 19 here -- which, you know, Mr. Schmidt has 20 said is not -- would not be unexpected -- we 21 would still like the condition attached to 22 any approval that says confirmation through 23 the City Attorney's office that all of the 24 necessary and appropriate cross-access 87
1 easements are in place. 2 I suspect they are, but we 3 would just like to confirm it. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 5 Now, (unintelligible) sent 48 6 notices; and zero approvals and zero 7 objections, and that's true for all three 8 cases. 9 (Unintelligible) for us, I 10 just have a couple of comments, and one of 11 them was, is the hospital going into the 12 hotel business? 13 MR. ADAMS: No, not 14 necessarily, but there's going to be some 15 people that are going to have to need to 16 stay in that hotel for this complex to work 17 properly; places to stay when they're 18 visiting their relatives -- 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: I understand 20 that. I just wanted to know if they're going to 21 run the hotel, as well. 22 MR. ADAMS: No. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Number 24 two question I had was, do you (unintelligible) 88
1 any point in time handing over these roads to the 2 City for maintenance or doing other things? 3 MR. ADAMS: Well, I'd have to 4 defer to Rich Abbott, the director of 5 facility planning on that issue, if I might? 6 MR. ABBOTT: Hi. I'm Rich 7 Abbott for Providence Hospital. 8 No, it's not our intent to -- 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: You need to be 10 sworn in. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear to 12 tell the truth regarding Case: 06-086, 87, and 13 88? 14 MR. ABBOTT: I do. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. Now 16 the formalities are over. 17 Please go ahead. 18 MR. ABBOTT: No, it's not -- 19 no, it's not our intent. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 21 I think that was my main 22 concern (unintelligible) end up having to 23 looking after them later on down the road. 24 And so, now I open it up to 89
1 the Board for discussion. 2 Yes, Mr. Fischer? 3 MEMBER FISCHER: It's been 4 advised should the Board look into approval 5 that we would put a condition on that it's 6 subject to the completion of the land 7 division. Given his comments, would it be 8 appropriate to still make that a part of the 9 Motion? 10 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair. 11 I do believe so. I think 12 Mr. Lemon's action is the first one we need 13 to confirm (unintelligible) County, in fact, 14 completes the process. I don't expect an 15 issue with that, but it would be 16 appropriate. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 18 And with the uniqueness of 19 this case -- and I'm not sure who wants to 20 try this information -- but can I have a 21 little bit more background on the public 22 road side of it. Obviously, from the City's 23 standpoint, we would see a large economic 24 benefit, many benefits. 90
1 My question is why would the 2 Petitioner want to hold onto it, as well? I 3 mean, I'm hoping it's a win-win situation, 4 but -- your comments or the Petitioner or 5 you first, then the Petitioner. 6 MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly, if I'm 7 the Petitioner, I'd want to hold onto it so, if 8 necessary, control access to it, to be perfectly 9 frank. (Unintelligible) end the road is all 10 about access. If you control it, something 11 happens on the site, you cab control who can get 12 in and out of the site. Ultimately, it probably 13 works better to the hospital in terms of, you 14 know, being able to -- if there is an emergency 15 onsite, to be able shut down the site. 16 It'll be a little easier than 17 having to go through the police department 18 to shut down a road or something of that 19 nature. 20 They also intend to end up 21 controlling the development that actually 22 has access to the road, so if there was a 23 frontage parcel on Beck Road or something of 24 that nature -- at this time there is not -- 91
1 there could be in the future -- they 2 wouldn't necessarily be able to access 3 directly onto the road, without permission 4 of the hospital. 5 So there's some positives and 6 negatives. I certainly think it's a win-win 7 for all the parties, in terms of we don't 8 have to maintain the road. They're able to 9 control some access (unintelligible) 10 hospital. Like I said, we do have some -- 11 we did have some concerns, but ultimately, I 12 think this is the singular scenario 13 (unintelligible) we approve this type of 14 situation. 15 In terms of public road, what 16 we would normally see is a minimum of 60 17 foot right of way. It's going to widen out 18 (unintelligible) collector road in this 19 scenario. When we reviewed the plans, we 20 reviewed it based on the full right-of-way 21 necessary, all their setbacks for building, 22 parking are based on the full right-of-way 23 (unintelligible) business on a normal right 24 of way. 92
1 We did treat it as such on the 2 chance that should Mr. Sanghvi's concerns 3 come true, it would be not -- it would be a 4 conforming use with our current Ordinance. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Any comments 6 you'd like to -- regarding that? 7 MR. ADAMS: One question. 8 Can we confirm that if we 9 grant the easement with the conditions that 10 (unintelligible) variance with easement with 11 the conditions that were stated, will that 12 not detail the stamping of the site plans? 13 Mr. Schmidt, can you answer? 14 MR. SCHMIDT: The only thing 15 that's going to delay the stamping of the site 16 plans is how late you guys are here this evening. 17 MR. ADAMS: Okay. 18 MR. SCHMIDT: (Unintelligible) 19 stamp those first thing in the morning. 20 MR. ADAMS: Thank you. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Maybe -- I'm 22 just kidding? 23 MR. ADAMS: Did I not answer 24 your question? 93
1 MEMBER FISCHER: You did. I can 2 see where he's coming from, and as long 3 (unintelligible) win-win situation for all, that 4 takes care of my concern (unintelligible) kind of 5 watching this development flourish, sometimes I 6 wonder with the situation you guys had with the 7 State and some of the things you had to go 8 through, I wonder why you're still pursuing it. 9 But overall, I think given the 10 comments by staff and the Petitioner, this 11 makes the most sense. We're talking about 12 there is no public road in the vicinity; and 13 not approving this would jeopardize the 14 entire development; which is obviously not 15 in the best interest of the City's 16 residents, or the surrounding areas 17 residents, to be quite frank. 18 I mean, I can go on and on, 19 and I'm sure if a Motion is appropriate I 20 would do that. But I'll turn it over at 21 this time. Obviously, I'm in support. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 23 Anybody else? 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: I have 94
1 question. 2 (Unintelligible) medical 3 facility and it's a ring road, would 4 residents of Novi or people that are staying 5 at the motel be able to walk along the 6 sidewalk around it, since like the Heart 7 Association (unintelligible) walking around 8 it? 9 MR. ADAMS: There's no 10 restriction on that. 11 Rich? 12 MR. ABBOTT: (Unintelligible) 13 your question said, (unintelligible) health 14 campus, because we're not just building a 15 hospital facility (unintelligible) building 16 something even more unique than a health 17 campus. And so we want to encourage people 18 to walk. (Unintelligible) them to walk. We 19 have sidewalks along Beck at Grand River. 20 And along the ring road, we 21 have developed an adjacent nature trail. 22 (Unintelligible) different walking 23 environment than just walking on the 24 sidewalk, (unintelligible) area be nice 95
1 (unintelligible.) 2 And then as we finish the 3 development of the (unintelligible) area, 4 (unintelligible) so (unintelligible) we want 5 to walking by people there (unintelligible) 6 healthy work life. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 8 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair? 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, 10 Mr. Schultz? 11 MR. SCHULTZ: (Unintelligible) 12 maybe have the gentlemen follow-up on. It's 13 actually a very good one, and I think asked for 14 more than that. (Unintelligible) I think the 15 question was, you know, is there a road that 16 people, the public, generally, is going to be 17 permitted to enter upon (unintelligible) vehicle. 18 So in other words, is it open to the public, even 19 though it's owned by the hospital. 20 I think that's really the 21 question (unintelligible) looking for an 22 answer to. 23 MR. ABBOTT: There's no 24 (unintelligible) from entering the site and 96
1 using the road. I just -- we don't want 2 them walking in the road. That's not 3 (unintelligible) issue. We have walking 4 paths, and they have (unintelligible.) 5 MR. SCHULTZ: There's no 6 intention to have restricted access or gates 7 there or anything like that. It's going to look 8 and function and feel like a public road. 9 MR. ABBOTT: That's correct 10 yep. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 12 MEMBER KRIEGER: I will be 13 approving it, also. 14 Thank you. 15 Thank you. 16 Yes, Mr. Fischer. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Does that 18 mean I can avoid the light over there by 19 going through? Just saying. 20 If there is no further 21 discussion, I would like to make a Motion, 22 but I have a question. 23 Is it more appropriate to do 24 them separately (interposing) 97
1 (unintelligible) do them all at once? 2 MR. SCHULTZ: I think it's 3 appropriate to do three separate Motions, but the 4 Motion for the second two could refer to the 5 conditions and reasons for the first. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 7 In that case, without further 8 adieu -- as soon as I find the case 9 number -- I would move that we grant the 10 variance requested in Case Number: 06-086, 11 filed by Providence Hospital and Medical 12 Centers, Incorporated, LLC, due to the fact 13 that the Petitioner has met the burden of 14 proof of practical difficulty in this case; 15 in the sense that we approve that no public 16 road is located in the vicinity of the 17 subject property; not granting the variance 18 would jeopardize the entire development, 19 which is not in the best interest of the 20 City or it's residents or surrounding 21 residents; enforcement of the Ordinance will 22 delay, eliminate job opportunities, which is 23 not in the best interest of the 24 City of Novi; assuming all cost associated 98
1 with the road. 2 Providence is actually 3 providing significant economic benefit to 4 the residents and Government agencies 5 involved; and granting the requested 6 variance will not substantially impair the 7 intent or purpose of the Ordinance or the 8 master plan. 9 And I would also state that 10 this Ordinance is subject to the following 11 conditions: The completion of the land 12 division through the City's Assessor's 13 office, as well as confirmation by the City 14 Attorney's office of the necessary cross 15 access easements for purposes of the ring 16 road. 17 Lastly, I would request that 18 this case, as well as this Motion and this 19 decision be sent to the Members of the 20 Ordinance Review Committee to see if ZBA's 21 review in this case could be something 22 looked at for possible Ordinance change. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been 99
1 made and seconded. 2 MR. SCHULTZ: Just one thing. 3 (Unintelligible) very 4 comprehensive Motion. Just to confirm that 5 the access agreements include road 6 maintenance obligations, stop signs, things 7 like they do, but just so that's clear, 8 we'll be looking at that, too, to make sure. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: City Attorney's 10 Office will be? 11 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, sure. 12 And with regard to cross 13 access easement. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: I would amend 15 my Motion regarding the City Attorney's Office, 16 to reflect Mr. Schultz' comments, as well. 17 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: I thought I had 19 it. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 21 e) also to (unintelligible) statement that we've 22 been assured that the private road will remain 23 private. 24 MR. ADAMS: If that's the 100
1 pleasure of the Board, you can say that. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm not sure 3 I would feel comfortable doing that. I 4 mean, that's -- I'd feel comfortable -- 5 that's more of a City Council issue, that's 6 for them to decide. That's what they get 7 paid the big bucks to do. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 9 e) stating the fact, because Tom (unintelligible) 10 That's all I'm talking about. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Also with the 12 assumption and the fact that currently there's no 13 intention to turn this into a public road, as a 14 matter of fact of our findings, as well. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 16 All right. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: As Motion has 19 been made and seconded. 20 Any further discussion? 21 Will you please call the roll. 22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 101
1 MEMBER GATT: Aye. 2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: Aye. 4 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 5 MEMBER SHROYER: Just a second. 6 I'm making sure everything I had marked down here 7 is in the notice Motion, please. 8 Yes. 9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 12 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 13 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 14 six-zero for approval of 06-086, 06-087, and 15 06-088. 16 No? 17 MEMBER FISCHER: No. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's just one 19 Motion. We make a second Motion for the second 20 case and a third one for the third case. 21 ROBIN WORKING: So I will call 22 roll for 06-087. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: If I may, I'll 24 make another Motion for the second, and then 102
1 we'll do the roll call. 2 ROBIN WORKING: Okay. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: I would move 4 that in Case Number: 06-087, filed by Providence 5 Hospital and Medical Centers, Incorporated, and 6 J.W Hotels be granted, given the Petitioner has 7 established practical difficulty with the 8 comments and findings of facts and conditions 9 related to Case Number: 06-086. 10 MEMBER SHROYER: Support. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been 12 made and seconded. 13 No further discussion, will 14 you please call the roll for this Motion. 15 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 17 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 18 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 19 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 20 MEMBER KRIEGER: Aye. 21 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 22 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 23 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 103
1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 2 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 3 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 4 six-zero. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 6 Third one. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 8 Mr. Chair. 9 I would move that in Case 10 Number: 06-088, filed by Providence 11 Hospital and Medical Centers, Incorporated, 12 that we grant the Petitioner's request due 13 to the Petitioner has established practical 14 difficulty with the findings of fact and 15 conditions put in place in Case: 06-086 16 being a part of this Motion. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been 19 made and seconded. 20 Will you please call the roll. 21 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer 22 seconded? 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 24 ROBIN WORKING: Thank you. 104
1 Member Fischer? 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 4 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 6 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 10 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 13 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 14 six-zero. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 16 congratulations and godspeed. 17 18 Moving on to the last case on 19 the agenda, Case Number: 06-090, filed by 20 Ryan Dembs for Novi Corporate Campus, LLC, 21 southwest corner of Dylan Road and West Park 22 Drive; Sidwell number: 5022-09-451-0161. 23 Anybody to make a 24 presentation? 105
1 Please identify yourself and 2 make -- state your name and address and be 3 sworn in by our secretary. 4 Thank you. 5 MR. TOBY: My name is Larry 6 Toby. I'm with Floyd and Ryan Dembs in 7 Demsey Dembs Development, and I'm here on 8 their behalf this evening. 9 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or 10 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case: 06-090? 11 MR. TOBY: I do. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 13 Please go ahead. 14 MR. TOBY: I guess this is 15 sort of an inverse relationship. Normally I 16 think people come here to present a case 17 that's based on a hardship. And basically 18 what we're trying to do is add an 19 enhancement to a development that we have 20 just started over there on West Park, north 21 of 12. It would be an entrance way into 22 Dylan Drive off of -- east off West Park. 23 What we're looking to do is 24 add a couple of brick facade monuments, low 106
1 profile, at each of the two corners to sort 2 of provide a more higher profile to the area 3 in hopes that it might cause more 4 developments to maybe follow through in the 5 future, and bring up the profile of the 6 whole community. 7 So therefore, I guess the 8 hardship would be on the community if you 9 don't accept this based on the fact that 10 we're trying to provide beauty and 11 enhancement, versus asking you to let us get 12 away with something less than what would 13 normally be required. 14 I also understand there's 15 nothing in the Ordinance that actually 16 allows us to do this right now. I'm sort of 17 in a pickle. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 19 I don't see anyone in the 20 audience who would like to make any 21 comments. 22 So, Building Department? 23 MR. SCHMIDT: The City of Novi 24 has a fairly extensive Zoning Ordinance and its 107
1 rare (unintelligible) doesn't fit in our 2 Ordinance. There is a section in our Ordinance 3 that specifically deals with these structures; 4 however, it is very explicit, and that is for 5 residential entrance ways only. 6 When we got this proposal, we 7 started looking at it, realizing we have a 8 fairly large problem on our hands. There is 9 really no good way to classify this. 10 Because this specific section -- I believe 11 it's 2513 -- I don't think that's right, but 12 it's right around there -- residential 13 entrance ways, you really couldn't put it 14 under that category, but it could almost be 15 a use variance at that point 16 (unintelligible.) 17 We're not huge fans of calling 18 it an accessory structure, because it will 19 be in the front yard, and you can have an 20 accessory structure up to 15 feet in height. 21 It's not really a sign, because it's pretty 22 big for a sign. 23 So we were left with coming up 24 with something (unintelligible) combination 108
1 of provisions to bring this in front of the 2 Board for their review. 3 First and foremost, you will 4 see that part of the approval that you're 5 being asked to grant this in evening is to 6 allow in the front yard (unintelligible) 7 accessory structure provisions. 8 To be perfectly frank, that 9 would be the only way we could figure to 10 allow this -- these two ring walls on the 11 lots that (unintelligible) are being 12 proposed on. 13 One of the lots doesn't have a 14 site plan yet. The other one has an 15 approval where the applicant got a waiver 16 (unintelligible.) Surprisingly enough, 17 (unintelligible) put them in. Secondly then 18 and then rightly so, Mr. Saven's added 19 provisions (unintelligible) request for the 20 height under the sign provision. 21 In the end, these really are 22 signs, introducing the passerby to the 23 development. 24 So, the applicant is 109
1 requesting six feet of height, which we are 2 comfortable with. That is the height that a 3 residential entrance way would be permitted 4 under (unintelligible) Ordinance. I can 5 assure you that Staff's already looking at 6 (unintelligible) that section to allow for 7 any subdivision entrance way, although it is 8 somewhat odd here. (Unintelligible) truly a 9 subdivision (unintelligible) as they go 10 along to create these lots, which causes 11 another little bit of heartburn for us. 12 So this is frankly one of the 13 weirdest situations we've run across in my 14 time here, that's saying something. 15 I'd be happy to answer any 16 questions about how it's going to fit into 17 the overall park development. We have seen 18 conceptual plans for the park. He have an 19 idea how it's going to fit in. We don't 20 think it's going to be out of place. We do 21 like the feature; it's a very interesting 22 feature, it's just (unintelligible.) 23 I'd be happy to answer any 24 questions, if the Board deems necessary. 110
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 2 Okay. Building Department? 3 Mr. Saven? 4 MR. SAVEN: What he said and 5 other thing. 6 In your packet you will see 7 that there are some towers that are 8 associated with this. Towers are not part 9 of (unintelligible.) The towers have been 10 deleted. 11 MR. TOBY: That is correct. 12 MR. SAVEN: Thank you. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. We had 14 six notices; and zero approvals, zero objections. 15 I'll open it up to the Board 16 for discussion. 17 Yes, sir, Mr. Shroyer? 18 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, 19 Mr. Chair. 20 This was Toby? 21 MR. TOBY: Toby. 22 MEMBER SHROYER: I've always 23 been a proponent of entry way identification, so 24 in regards -- whether it be residential or 111
1 commercial, doesn't matter -- industrial. So 2 regarding the first variance (unintelligible) in 3 front, I'm going to say I have no problem with it 4 being in the front yard of this property 5 (unintelligible.) 6 The second one does raise 7 concerns. I'm glad to hear the towers were 8 eliminated. That was going to be my first 9 recommendation. 10 Secondly, however, I don't see 11 any reason why you can't fall within the 12 five feet maximum height on signage. 13 MR. TOBY: If I could address 14 that? 15 MEMBER SHROYER: If you have a 16 comment. 17 MR. TOBY: If you had a look 18 at the site plan, it had noted some grade 19 changes on there. Basically, we do have a 20 variation grade based on the placement of 21 the walkway and berming and integrated 22 landscape plan, which also is some part of 23 this placement of the ring walls as they're 24 referred to. 112
1 So what we did was at these -- 2 I'm going -- if you don't mind, if I could 3 refer to these little notches at the corners 4 as -- like an outlot -- treating it has its 5 own. There's actually separate landscaping 6 outside of what was required for at least 7 the development of parcel nine, which has, I 8 think that was the one that was approved 9 previously for site plan. 10 So, what we did was we tried 11 to figure out a way where we could still 12 have all the enhanced landscaping, have the 13 grade variations, make the engineering 14 details work; keep the walkway in place and 15 everything into perspective. And so that 16 would be basically the reason for the extra 17 one foot. 18 MEMBER SHROYER: 19 (Unintelligible) maintain a low line of 20 shrubs in front of the signage. 21 MR. TOBY: Right. 22 MEMBER SHROYER: So in other 23 words to see the sign, you want it above the 24 shrubs. 113
1 MR. TOBY: Right. 2 And one other note is, I 3 believe that it's referred to as a sign, but 4 basically I think it's going to be 5 individual free-standing letters is what the 6 intent would be on that brick facing. 7 So it's not a large sign 8 plaquered type thing (unintelligible) 9 appearance to it. It's more of a high scale 10 lettering to be placed on those brick walls. 11 MEMBER SHROYER: Yeah, I believe 12 that's all I have, Mr. Chair. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 14 Anybody else? 15 No other comments coming from 16 anybody else. 17 I have no personally no 18 problem with this. I think it's a great 19 idea, even though it's hard to categorize 20 under one or the other. (Unintelligible) 21 here. I think it looks beautiful, so I have 22 personally no hesitation in supporting your 23 application. 24 So the Chair will entertain a 114
1 Motion regarding this case. 2 Yes, Mr. Bauer? 3 MEMBER BAUER: In Case Number: 4 06-090, (unintelligible) variance requested 5 be approved for identification and for 6 (unintelligible) as to the sign. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Second. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been 9 made and seconded. 10 Yes, Mr. Shroyer? 11 MEMBER SHROYER: Can I ask for a 12 friendly amendment, even though it's been 13 established that the towers have been deleted, 14 they're shown on the site plan. I'd like to see 15 that as part of the Motion. 16 MEMBER BAUER: Sure. Delete the 17 towers. 18 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. 20 Motion has been seconded? 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Agreed. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Any further 23 discussion? 24 Seeing none, will you please 115
1 call the roll. 2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 3 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 4 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 6 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 7 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 8 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 10 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 11 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 13 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 14 six-zero. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, your 16 variance has been granted. 17 Congratulations and good luck. 18 MR. TOBY: Thanks for your 19 consideration and approval. 20 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 22 e) want to continue or have a five minute break? 23 24 MR. SAVEN: I can go through 116
1 this real quick with everyone, at least the first 2 one. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 4 e.) 5 MEMBER FISCHER: We've never 6 seen that before. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl 8 e.) 9 MR. SAVEN: The first three 10 items, ZBA Case Number: 05-082, the gentleman 11 would be required come back to the Board to have 12 the case reviewed within six months 13 (unintelligible.) There is no violation. 14 (Unintelligible) can tell you that there is none. 15 (Unintelligible) I think this should be a 16 continuing variance at this particular point. 17 So I'm bringing that to the 18 Board's attention right now. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: The question 20 is, does he have come back (unintelligible) grant 21 it for -- 22 MR. SAVEN: I see no reason for 23 this gentleman to come back to the Board. He's 24 complied with everything (unintelligible.) And I 117
1 think this is a chance for us to clean up our -- 2 clean up our cases. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 4 That sounds good to me. I 5 don't have any problem with that. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Are we 7 looking for a permanent? 8 MR. SAVEN: (Unintelligible.) 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. I'm okay 10 with that. 11 MR. SAVEN: Okay. Item number 12 one. 13 Item number two -- 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Wait, we want 15 to do a Motion. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: No, he's coming 17 back to the Board. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: No. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. 20 ROBIN WORKING: Actually, he's 21 getting a permanent certificate of occupancy 22 shortly. 23 MR. SCHULTZ: (Unintelligible) 24 Motion, through the Chair, would just be to find 118
1 conditions have been met, so there's no need to 2 come back. 3 Member Shroyer: So moved. 4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: So moved, so 6 seconded. 7 No further discussion, please 8 call the roll. 9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer? 10 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. 11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer? 12 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 13 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer? 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 15 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt? 16 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 17 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger? 18 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 19 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 21 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes 22 six-zero. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 24 119
1 MR. SAVEN: Item number two, in 2 our attempt to deal with situations that are 3 ongoing as far as temporary use permits are 4 concerned, and at the direction of City Council, 5 we've come up with some look-sees and some 6 changes to our Ordinance, so that we're not going 7 to be inundated with people that have to do 8 something and they're stuck after two years or 9 whatever. 10 We're going to be looking at 11 things -- changing things relative to tent 12 sales, trailers and things of that nature 13 that may be handled, you know, a little bit 14 more locally within my Department. Heavy 15 stuff (unintelligible) use coming back to 16 the Board. 17 I want you to be aware of 18 that. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, thank 20 you. 21 22 MR. SAVEN: Item Number three, 23 12 Oaks, will be before you next -- I think it's 24 next month; is that correct? 120
1 ROBIN WORKING: I'm currently 2 -- yeah, December agenda. 3 MR. SAVEN: Yeah. 4 We've been meeting with these 5 people periodically. Of course you're aware 6 (unintelligible) 12 Oaks (unintelligible) 7 about 30 stores additional stores; Nordstrom 8 and Macy's and this means there's going to 9 be changing their signs internally within 10 the area. 11 One of the things I'm very 12 much a stickler about is public safety, 13 especially during this time of year. What I 14 did request is that they only put up one 15 banner sign, because of wind and everything 16 else (unintelligible) anything ripped or 17 whatever. 18 (Unintelligible) banner sign 19 (unintelligible) know where it's going to be 20 located on their new expansion that they're 21 having at Lord and Taylor. I'm going to get 22 you the specifics of where these two mock-up 23 signs are going to be for all the requested 24 (unintelligible.) 121
1 (Unintelligible) entry way 2 signs at new 12 Oaks signature envelope; and 3 also the ring road signs for directions 4 (unintelligible) this way, this way or 5 whatever. 6 Those are major 7 (unintelligible) that are going to be out 8 there before you. I'm going to give you the 9 locations of where they're going to be. 10 And now without any further 11 adieu, we have the Tom Schultz sign show. 12 Just kidding. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Every meeting. 14 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair, thank 15 you very much, and I'll keep this very brief. 16 Don asked me put together a 17 one page handout, so I did a five page 18 handout that I gave you. 19 Just briefly. 20 I know I actually touched on 21 some of this last meeting, too. I said I'd 22 give you the whole sign Ordinance again. 23 What I did is took out the provisions -- 24 many provisions were changed, and I tried to 122
1 just highlight the ones that may effect what 2 kind of cases come to this Board or which 3 may be of interest to the Board. 4 But I'm just going to run 5 through this, page by page, just to try and 6 do it in less than a few minutes, only. 7 With regard to the definition 8 of signs, we added some Council added some 9 language that clarifies that. That's 10 obviously been kind of a hot issue lately. 11 The opinion that I gave here is still the 12 opinion that I give here. But that actually 13 that issue has been resolved by Council last 14 night. 15 Animated signs now are 16 (unintelligible) prohibited. They would be 17 those kinds of things that almost look like 18 videos that you sometimes see along freeways 19 or large users. 20 Changeable copy signs are 21 permitted specifically for particular kinds 22 of users, but only to the extent they change 23 four times or less per hour. 24 Motor vehicle signs, which are 123
1 an issue that may come before you more 2 regularly, are generally prohibited 3 (unintelligible) the sign is larger than two 4 square feet, they're prohibited in certain 5 circumstances that I'll get to in a minute. 6 With regard to placement of 7 ground signs in relation to the 8 right-of-way. Simplified that by allowing 9 them just within three feet of the planned 10 future right-of-way. 11 Size of the wall sign, I think 12 the Board's now been aware of a couple of 13 cases that that's been increased in size to 14 65 square feet. That was one of the issues 15 that (unintelligible.) 16 Business center signs in 17 certain districts can now have up to two 18 tenant names on them. Previously, it just 19 had the name of the center. But now for 20 certain kinds of districts, you actually get 21 to put (unintelligible) tenants on. 22 Buildings over 40,000 square 23 feet in the OS-1, (unintelligible) district 24 (unintelligible) get an additional wall 124
1 sign. Probably going to effect some of the 2 OS-2 type properties along the Haggerty 3 corridor there. I think they may not be 4 entirely happy with the relaxation, but it 5 is a relaxation. The use to be much more 6 (unintelligible.) 7 Multi-story, multi-tenant 8 office buildings get a business center 9 ground sign, as long as there's no other 10 ground signs. So now they can have the wall 11 sign or whatever wall signs are permitted 12 and a business center sign; which is just 13 the name of the center. 14 Entrance way signs, if both 15 sides of the boulevard (unintelligible) 16 subdivision or condominium development, in 17 light of the issue Mr. Schmidt had here. 18 (Unintelligible) future work on that 19 language to make sure we include what we 20 just did for (unintelligible.) 21 And then free-standing 22 restaurant uses get both a ground sign and a 23 wall sign. There is some language that deals 24 with existing (unintelligible.) 125
1 Changeable copy signs, I just, 2 in this, set forth the limitations. 3 Probably didn't need to repeat the whole 4 thing, but indicates that it's for places of 5 worship, schools, entertainment type 6 (unintelligible) gas stations. And then 7 there's some prohibition for how much of the 8 sign can be changeable copy and how much has 9 to be a permanent structure. 10 Also some changes to temporary 11 signs that hopefully will solve a couple of 12 issues for the Board. 13 Construction ID signs, added a 14 few people who can be listed or businesses 15 that can be listed; and duration, when it 16 starts and when it ends has been changed. 17 Subdivision signs, same thing, 18 changed the duration of how long those could 19 be up. Including, you can have a 20 subdivision under construction sign until 21 the last phase is almost complete. And 22 that's one of the kinds of things that 23 regularly comes to the Board. 24 And then, for sale, for lease 126
1 signs for developed commercial increased in 2 size, and they can (unintelligible) where 3 they can be placed changed and now a little 4 higher. 5 Unlawful motor vehicle signs, 6 that's one that may actually cause you more 7 work (unintelligible) on where -- whether or 8 not (unintelligible) enforcement here. But 9 what the Ordinance does it sets up a 10 presumption that a sign on a motor vehicle 11 that's bigger than the two square feet, 12 (unintelligible) definition, is intended to 13 advertise your business and not to be used 14 in your business, it's intended to be a sign 15 if these things are met. It's inoperable. 16 It's parked in a place where regularly you 17 wouldn't expect it to be parked 18 (unintelligible.) 19 But a property owner who needs 20 that business or that use, gets an 21 opportunity to rebut that (unintelligible) 22 essentially by coming to the 23 (unintelligible), you know, I need it. It's 24 there because of A, B, C, or D. 127
1 So, the reason why that was 2 clarified is because the Court struggled 3 (unintelligible) prohibition on motor 4 vehicle sign, because you need signs on a 5 vehicle. 6 It's intended (unintelligible) 7 as a matter of fact stuck on a car 8 (unintelligible) truck that's been parked in 9 the right-of-way you know, for purpose of 10 being a sign. 11 And then the last thing I put in 12 there is what I went over first, the changes 13 (unintelligible) authority for sign 14 (unintelligible.) You know, it's not intended to 15 make it that much easier. I mean we did discuss 16 at the Ordinance Review Committee level actually 17 not even calling them variances; calling them 18 special exceptions. 19 One of the neighboring 20 communities has actually, in light of the same 21 kind of commercial hard times, economic hard 22 times that are here, the Planning Commission has 23 forwarded to that City Council a real relaxation; 24 don't use the word variance; call it special 128
1 exception, make the test even less strict than 2 what Council adopted here, and that will be 3 interesting to see how that works. 4 This is not intended to be every 5 sign that comes in gets a variance. I mean, the 6 Ordinance Review Committee and Council were 7 clear. We want to make it easier for the 8 Board -- and part of the problem when you use 9 that land use standard for a variance, none could 10 ever meet it. 11 So this is intended to make it 12 more applicable to the signs, not making it, you 13 know, a candy store or anything like that. 14 Just to give you a little bit 15 more ability to take into consideration things 16 that technically wouldn't fit a variance. 17 So that's it. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you very 19 much, Mr. Schultz. 20 Thank you all and happy 21 Thanksgiving (unintelligible.) 22 MEMBER FISCHER: One last 23 question or comment regarding the 24 (unintelligible) that Mr. Saven actually brought 129
1 up. 2 I was wondering how the Board 3 would actually feel about looking at our own 4 rules regarding mock-ups, and maybe looking 5 at having computer images pictured has 6 another viable option to businesses, so 7 maybe if we want to discuss that next time 8 during other matters or if Mr. Saven knows 9 anything about that or what other cities 10 might do? 11 MR. SAVEN: I think from the 12 standpoint, their (unintelligible) sometimes 13 tells a lot, okay. Where actually going to the 14 site and take a look at the situation; but 15 sometimes even go back to Brightmoor Tabernacle, 16 do you remember that? 17 Brightmoor had to put this 18 sign up, and where it was located at -- and 19 unless you're -- unless you're a real 20 (unintelligible) I can't say I would have 21 thought that a rendering (unintelligible) 22 rendering would have been sufficient, based 23 upon what they're having there. But based 24 upon location, that distance, how much back 130
1 you (unintelligible) what it is. 2 But again, from going to the 3 site, (unintelligible) you can see the 4 (unintelligible.) But putting up 5 (unintelligible) yeah, it's (unintelligible) 6 too. I mean, it could go either way. I 7 would be more -- let's say, I would be more 8 (unintelligible) taking a look at 9 (unintelligible) printout and get some 10 perception of building size and that 11 particular -- if I had questions about it, 12 I'd probably go out to the site. 13 MEMBER FISCHER okay. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, 15 Mr. Shroyer. 16 MEMBER SHROYER: I am in 17 agreement with that when you 18 (unintelligible) undue hardships and things, 19 digital images are proper. What I do want 20 to (unintelligible) I think very 21 (unintelligible) that needs to be two scale. 22 All the pictures that were put 23 on by (unintelligible) that's not to scale 24 up to the corner. I really wasn't sure, you 131
1 know, whether it was the right size right 2 (unintelligible) stuff exactly how it would 3 look (unintelligible) top of the building. 4 I ended up driving out there to see it. 5 If it was two scale, I 6 wouldn't have had to make that trip. 7 MR. SAVEN: I think it would be 8 wise if this issue would be brought up before all 9 Board Members here. I think that would be a good 10 thing. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: If we could 12 add it for next time, thinking about it 13 (unintelligible) talk about it next time. 14 ROBIN WORKING: Other matters. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Motion to 16 adjourn. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been 19 made and seconded. 20 All those in favor signify by 21 saying Aye? 22 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: All those 24 opposed same sign. 132
1 We are adjourned. 2 (The meeting was adjourned at 3 9:30 p.m.) 4 - - - - - 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 133
1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 I, Machelle Billingslea-Moore, 4 do hereby certify that I have recorded 5 stenographically the proceedings had and testimony 6 taken in the above-entitled matter at the time and 7 place hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify 8 that the foregoing transcript, consisting of (128) 9 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript 10 of my said stenograph notes. 11 12 13 ___________________________ Machelle Billingslea-Moore, 14 Certified Shorthand Reporter 15 16 December 11, 2006. (Date)
|