View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting


Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, Tuesday, November 14, 2006.


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


Don Saven, Building Department
John Hines, Deputy Building Official
Thomas Schultz, City Attorney
Timothy Schmidt, Planner
Alan Amolsch, Ordinance Enforcement
Robin Working, ZBA Recording Secretary


Machelle Billingslea-Moore, Certified Shorthand Reporter.

1 Novi, Michigan

2 Tuesday, January 10, 2006

3 7:30 p.m.

4 - - - - - -

5 MEMBER 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?


23 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?





1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?

2 MEMBER BAUER: Present.

3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer.


7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger.


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




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




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




1 approved.


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?


13 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


15 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


17 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


19 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


21 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


23 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes.

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Very good.




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.


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?


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.




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




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




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




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




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




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.


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.




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




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,




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.


18 Mr. Fischer?


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?




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




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




1 businesses, and that substantial justice is done

2 to the owner and surrounding properties.


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.




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.





2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?


4 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


6 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


8 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


10 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


12 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


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.



24 All right. We'll do the next




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.





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,




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




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




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




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.


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 --




1 MR. AMOLSCH: That would be

2 allowed (unintelligible) frontage

3 (unintelligible.)


5 MR. AMOLSCH: (unintelligible)

6 second sign, so we -- it's just solely the

7 second sign.


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.)


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




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




1 it to whatever size you guys agree on.


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.


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




1 down, but --


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.


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?


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.






2 MEMBER SANGHVI: 15 feet by 24

3 inches lettering?

4 MR. SEAVER: That would give

5 you 30 square --


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.


22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been

23 made and seconded.

24 MEMBER BAUER: What's the




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.)


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




1 not to exceed 15.

2 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl

3 e.)

4 MR. SCHULTZ: That's

5 (unintelligible.)


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?


16 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


18 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?


22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?





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.




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




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




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.




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?


8 (unintelligible) problem was the fence issue.


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,




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.


24 Mr. Shroyer?





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.





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 --


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




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




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).


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,




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.





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.)


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.


23 Thank you.





1 Any further discussion?

2 Seeing none, Ms. Working, will

3 you please call the roll.

4 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?


6 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


8 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


10 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


12 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


14 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


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.








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




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.


21 We have sent -- 80 notices

22 were mailed; zero approvals, one objection.


24 Member Bauer, would you like




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?


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.




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.


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




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.


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




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.


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




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.


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.




1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?


5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


13 ROBIN WORKING: Motion to table

14 passes six-zero.


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,




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.


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




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?


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




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.




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?




1 MEMBER SHROYER: Ms. Pikstein,

2 I had one question.


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.


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.


23 more. So --

24 MS. PIKSTEIN: Right. We're




1 talking two feet.


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.




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?


24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?





2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


4 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


6 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?


8 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


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.


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




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




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.




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,




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.


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.





2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

3 Motion has been made and

4 seconded.

5 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chairman,

6 who made the (unintelligible) (interposing.)


8 Mr. Fischer seconded.

9 Mr. Bauer made the Motion.


11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


13 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?


15 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


17 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


19 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


21 ROBIN WORKING: And Member

22 Sanghvi?


24 Thank you.




1 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes

2 six-zero.


4 never been turned down so politely.

5 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl

6 e) (interposing.)

7 Thank you.


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




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.




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




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.




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




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.




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




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




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




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




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




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




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,




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




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.




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




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.




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.




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




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)




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




1 the Board for discussion.

2 Yes, Mr. Fischer?


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.


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.




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 --




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.




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?




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?





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




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?


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




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)




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.


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




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




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




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?


24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?





2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


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?


11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


13 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes

14 six-zero for approval of 06-086, 06-087, and

15 06-088.

16 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




1 we'll do the roll call.


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.


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?


17 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


19 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


21 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


23 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?





1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


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?


24 ROBIN WORKING: Thank you.




1 Member Fischer?


3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


13 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes

14 six-zero.

15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,

16 congratulations and godspeed.


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?




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




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


22 So, Building Department?

23 MR. SCHMIDT: The City of Novi

24 has a fairly extensive Zoning Ordinance and its




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




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




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.




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




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.




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.


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.




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




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.


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?


22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Any further

23 discussion?

24 Seeing none, will you please




1 call the roll.

2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


4 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?


6 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


8 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


10 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?



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.


21 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl

22 e) want to continue or have a five minute break?


24 MR. SAVEN: I can go through




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




1 think this is a chance for us to clean up our --

2 clean up our cases.


4 That sounds good to me. I

5 don't have any problem with that.


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.



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




1 conditions have been met, so there's no need to

2 come back.

3 Member Shroyer: So moved.


5 MEMBER SANGHVI: So moved, so

6 seconded.

7 No further discussion, please

8 call the roll.

9 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


11 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


13 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?


15 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


17 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger?


19 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


21 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes

22 six-zero.

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.





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.


22 MR. SAVEN: Item Number three,

23 12 Oaks, will be before you next -- I think it's

24 next month; is that correct?




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.)




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




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




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




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.)




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




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.




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




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.)


23 question or comment regarding the

24 (unintelligible) that Mr. Saven actually brought




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




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.



15 Mr. Shroyer.


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




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?


23 MEMBER SANGHVI: All those

24 opposed same sign.




1 We are adjourned.

2 (The meeting was adjourned at

3 9:30 p.m.)

4 - - - - -
























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


3 I, Machelle Billingslea-Moore,

4 do hereby certify that I have recorded

5 stenographically the proceedings had and testimony

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

7 place hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify

8 that the foregoing transcript, consisting of (128)

9 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript

10 of my said stenograph notes.



13 ___________________________

Machelle Billingslea-Moore,

14 Certified Shorthand Reporter


16 December 11, 2006.