View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting

TUESDAY, December 5, 2006

Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, Tuesday, December 5, 2006.

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

Don Saven, Building Department
John Hines, Building Department
Shannon Ozga, City Attorney
Alan Amolsch, Ordinance Enforcement
Robin Working, ZBA Recording Secretary

Machelle Billingslea-Moore, Certified Shorthand Reporter.

Novi, Michigan
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
7:30 p.m.


5 MEMBER SANGHVI: I'd like to

6 call to order the December 2006 meeting of the

7 City of Novi Zoning Board of Appeals.

8 Will you please all rise and

9 join me in the pledge of allegiance. Thank

10 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,

15 indivisible, with liberty and justice for

16 all.

17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

18 Ms. Working, will you please

19 call the roll.

20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?


24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


1 Member Bauer?

2 MEMBER BAUER: Present.

3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


5 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


7 ROBIN WORKING: Member Krieger.


9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, we do

10 have a quorum and the meeting is now in session.

11 I would like to go over the

12 rules of conduct. You can find them all in

13 the agenda that's already placed in front of

14 you. Just a reminder, please turn off all

15 your cell phones and pagers. Individual

16 applicant may take five minutes; groups may

17 take up to ten minutes to address the Board.

18 The Zoning Board of Appeals is

19 a Hearing Board empowered by the Novi City

20 Charter to hear appeals seeking variances

21 from the application of the Novi Zoning

22 Ordinances. It takes a vote of at least

23 four members to approve a variance request,

24 and a vote of the majority of the members


1 present to deny a variance.

2 And tonight, we have a full

3 Board, so all decisions made will be final.

4 Let's look at the agenda.

5 Are there any changes to the

6 agenda, Miss Working?

7 ROBIN WORKING: Mr. Chairman, we

8 will not be approving November minutes. Luzod is

9 still preparing them for your approval.

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, thank

11 you.

12 The Chair would entertain a

13 Motion to accept Minutes and -- the agenda,

14 as amended.

15 MEMBER BAUER: So moved.



18 agenda has been moved and seconded.

19 All right. We get that part

20 of the agenda and get on with it.

21 All those in favor of

22 approving the agenda, please signify by

23 saying aye.



1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Those opposed,

2 same sign. We have an agenda.

3 Now we'll we move on.

4 Now at this point, the meeting

5 is open for the public remarks section. If

6 anybody wants to address the Board regarding

7 any issue other than what the cases are on

8 the agenda tonight, then they may do so now.

9 I don't see anybody here and

10 we'll keep moving.

11 This brings us to the first

12 case on the agenda.


14 The Case Number, 06-092, filed

15 by Mr. Pham of Taubman Company for Twelve

16 Oaks Mall, located at 27500 Novi road.

17 Are you here?

18 MR. PHAM: Here.

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. Come on

20 in, Mr. Pham.

21 Identify yourself, state your

22 name and address, and be sworn in by our

23 secretary.

24 MR. PHAM: Khanh Pham for the


1 Taubman company, 200 East Long Lake,

2 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, 48103.

3 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or

4 affirm to tell the truth regarding, Case:

5 06-092?

6 MR. PHAM: I do.

7 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please proceed.

9 MR. PHAM: We were asked by

10 Staff to quickly do a Powerpoint

11 presentation, just talking about the

12 uniqueness of the site. We will try to make

13 this brief and not go over stuff that's

14 already submitted to you. Tonight, as well,

15 we have our design team here, in case you

16 have questions. Mike Falco,

17 (unintelligible) and Dan Jones, who's also

18 from Twelve Oaks Mall.

19 As you can see, the screen --

20 it's not very bright but -- here's the site

21 plan of our project. This site plan is what

22 you all have in your packet. What we want

23 to show is that Twelve Oaks Mall is a unique

24 use within the City. It's a regional Mall,


1 the only regional mall in the City of Novi.

2 Where we're located, at certain points on

3 Novi road at Twelve Mile, we are about ten

4 or twelve feet below grade at the road, so

5 we're in like a basin by those two roads.

6 The first set up, I want to

7 point out that first star is where we took

8 the picture showing people what you would

9 see, because of how low we are

10 (unintelligible) see up from the road into

11 the mall. And here, it was on a cloudy day.

12 We didn't do that on purposes. You can

13 barely see the mall. And what you do see,

14 more closer, the roof line and any units on

15 top of the roof. And it's kind of blocked

16 by the landscaping.

17 But again, we knew that when

18 we built this mall that way again

19 (unintelligible) unique properties of the

20 small; and this is from Novi Road. In this

21 view, we want to demonstrate again how low

22 we are from Twelve Mile. We took a picture

23 right by that star over by Twelve Mile Road

24 there. And over there, we're about six feet


1 lower that's Twelve Mile Road, and about

2 1100 hundred feet away from the nearest

3 point of the mall.

4 And here with the distance --

5 and maybe this picture is not as clear --

6 you really don't see much; especially when

7 you're traveling at 45 miles per hour on

8 Twelve Mile Road, (unintelligible) what you

9 see of the mall.

10 We are here tonight, because

11 as you know Twelve Oaks Mall -- even though

12 we you have that zoning district in your

13 sign Ordinance, everything we do -- from our

14 entrance signs to our department store signs

15 requires ZBA variance. Your Ordinance does

16 not really reflect our use. I mean, you do

17 have it, but for the unique use of Twelve

18 Oaks Mall, everything that we do from the --

19 what we first opened to our improvements to

20 now, we will always require a ZBA variance.

21 So it's not that we can't live within the

22 Ordinance; it's like the Ordinance was

23 written at the direction of our forefathers

24 in 1977, never really addressed this


1 particular use of a mall. So we accept

2 that, and we always do come before you we

3 have an expansion or a department store

4 expansion.

5 This here is the expansion

6 entrance that was approved last year. As

7 you know, we are going through an expansion.

8 And it's very exciting for us. When we

9 looked at our expansion, we realized we

10 can't have one part of the mall new and the

11 rest old. So we immediately went ahead and

12 went into a renovation of the existing four

13 entrances. So that when we open September

14 2007, this expansion entrance will look that

15 way with all the other entrances, and will

16 look as fresh as this expansion entrance.

17 This is our existing entrance

18 now. We want to kind of remind you what it

19 looks likes. The sign's a little low. And

20 before you in the corner is just a front

21 elevation of what that elevation looks like,

22 the sign right above the door.

23 In one of our variance

24 requests -- and Staff has asked us to do


1 this -- is what would the sign look like,

2 the existing sign, on our expanded entrance

3 with the higher facade and wider elevation,

4 comparable to our expansion. That sign

5 right there is two feet high by 16 feet

6 long. It worked when we originally put in

7 the other entrances. But on this elevation,

8 it just seems out of place in that

9 proportion to the expanded entrance.

10 If you contrast that to what

11 it will look like now with our new sign --

12 which is only eight inches higher than the

13 old entrance sign -- we're asking for two

14 feet eight, (unintelligible) two feet

15 because of the font we use, and the we use

16 capital letters, it's stretched out to

17 kind -- in proportion to our entrance. It

18 is eight feet longer; and therefore, that's

19 why our variance is 32 square feet greater

20 than what was granted before. And once it's

21 done, our -- all four entrances -- all three

22 entrances will have the same look as the

23 expanded entrance.

24 In addition to what we are


1 trying to do with our elevation, the one

2 thing that's unique about Twelve Oaks Mall,

3 we do have ring proceed concept. And when

4 you are driving from the ring road, you're

5 going at a posted 25 miles per hour. People

6 drive faster than that, and that's why we

7 think that the correct size signage, whether

8 it's a department store or an entry way or

9 any way find signs, needs to be the

10 appropriate size and height for the safety

11 of our customers, and proper way finding for

12 today's customers and tomorrow's customers,

13 as well.

14 And the rest of the

15 information you already have, so I'm not

16 going to repeat.

17 Any questions, I'm available.

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Are you done?

19 Thank you.

20 51 notices were mailed; and

21 one approval, zero objections.

22 Okay. Building Department,

23 any comment?

24 MR. SAVEN: Well, I guess I got


1 several comments I'd like to make.

2 Number one, certain facts when

3 the addition of the mall took place --

4 sorry. When the addition of the mall took

5 place, they recognized the fact that they

6 needed to do something with their entrance

7 ways, (unintelligible) one of the things

8 which was very much a promising issue for

9 the City of Novi. Just from the fact

10 they're going to be changing the facade from

11 the Building Code standpoint of view, we

12 will take care of -- that's basically

13 another issue, but couple things was

14 mentioned (unintelligible) number one. The

15 project is located in a dish or a bowl,

16 first of all.

17 The second thing is, this ring

18 road issue -- because we even enhanced the

19 ring road, the ring road is not the same

20 ring road. I mean it's (unintelligible)

21 ring road. You got to keep your eyes on

22 when you're going basically (unintelligible)

23 of your vision. And, those things have very

24 important (unintelligible) of public safety,


1 as well as the senior complex which is

2 located very close in that particular area.

3 Of course, public safety,

4 everybody knows from Taubman is very

5 paramount in my eyes to ensure that people

6 are going to get where there are going, to

7 their destination without a problem. That

8 particular issue in itself, and the fact

9 (unintelligible) in a dish, the fact

10 (unintelligible) going through an enhanced

11 facade -- in other words, that facade or

12 entrance will be much taller and wider than

13 what the initial (unintelligible) look at

14 the present time. So that's one of the

15 things we looked at (unintelligible) to try

16 to make it proportional.

17 At the previous meeting, I

18 informed the Board that in the mockup

19 (unintelligible) whether everybody has had a

20 opportunity to take a look at the mockup

21 sign (unintelligible) all over the place in

22 that particular area as indicated where they

23 were going to be (unintelligible) very good

24 proportion to what they are (unintelligible)


1 at the time.

2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

3 Before I go any further, I

4 want to check something. And I need to ask

5 the audience if anybody has to make any

6 comments about this particular case. If you

7 have -- is there anybody in the audience

8 that would like to make any comments about

9 this particular case? About this case,

10 please do it right now.

11 I don't know see anybody, so

12 we'll move on. I'm sorry. I had my thing

13 off. I don't know (unintelligible)

14 microphone. And indicate, (unintelligible.)

15 All right. Moving on to the

16 Building Department.

17 And I'll open it to the Board.

18 Yes, Mr. Canup?

19 MEMBER CANUP: I have a great

20 deal of difficulty trying to understanding what

21 people would get that close to the mall and don't

22 know it's a mall; don't know that it's Twelve

23 Oaks Mall. If there's a need for

24 (unintelligible) possibly over those doors.


1 (Unintelligible) mall entrance, but to advertise

2 that it's a mall, everybody (unintelligible)

3 enough to get that far would probably recognize

4 that.

5 So, information there is some

6 kind of hardship here, demonstrated

7 hardship, I'd have difficulty wanting to

8 approve these signs in the present state.

9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

10 Mr. Fischer?

11 MEMBER FISCHER: I'll go next.

12 I drove by there several times

13 today, almost (unintelligible) around that

14 ring road constantly. But anyway, couple of

15 comments regarding the directional signs.

16 If you (unintelligible) again

17 for me. On the sign that we are looking at

18 in the packet that we received, it looks --

19 that you're asking for additional square

20 footage, but you have (unintelligible.)

21 MR. PHAM: Yes.

22 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl

23 e) looking at?

24 MR. PHAM: Yeah, we have. You


1 know, we are adding Nordstrom on the

2 (unintelligible) sign, but we also have two

3 additional uses (unintelligible) restaurant

4 in the back, in the back entry. That

5 (unintelligible) restaurant are

6 destinations, and we'd like to

7 (unintelligible) for dining possibly after

8 hours. The reason (unintelligible) to get

9 to those restaurants much right now. We are

10 not at liberty to say who they are, that's

11 why we have to be -- that's why we have

12 asked for the additional area for those

13 tenants.


15 MR. PHAM: And those would be

16 restaurants that are not within the mall.

17 They would be separate entities or

18 (unintelligible.)

19 MEMBER FISCHER: That would be

20 (unintelligible.)

21 MR. PHAM: Yes.

22 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you.

23 I take a little bit of issue

24 with that. We're looking at directional


1 signs. We are looking at signs in general.

2 We always have to look for less. I think

3 that asking for additional square footage

4 (unintelligible) looking to put two

5 (unintelligible) on signs is a little much.

6 I think that you have valet. We have food

7 court. (Unintelligible) that would be

8 enough, and therefore we could then bring

9 (unintelligible) square footage down.

10 That's an issue I take with the directional

11 signs.

12 Looking at the entrance signs,

13 I have never been a proponent of telling

14 people what to put on their signs within a

15 certain amount of (unintelligible.)

16 I'd like to direct this up to

17 the Petitioner, and what better way to

18 signify entrances than to show the name of

19 the mall. So I have no issue with what they

20 want to put on top of (unintelligible)

21 transactions.

22 The square footage, I was very

23 critical at first, to be quite honest. I

24 thought that the current size they have now


1 are fine, but given -- I didn't no the

2 facade was going to change the nature of all

3 of them. Given public safety

4 (unintelligible) given new rules that we are

5 to go by, by the new Ordinance passed by

6 City Counsel, that hardship isn't

7 necessarily the strict burden of proof that

8 the Petitioner must show anymore. I can say

9 that given the (unintelligible) at what

10 (unintelligible) ring road, the public

11 safety factor and (unintelligible) factors

12 to the facade, I can be in support of those

13 other signs.

14 But like I said on

15 directionals, I'd like to (unintelligible)

16 other extra two stores be eliminated.

17 One quick question for you,

18 Allen, (unintelligible) signs

19 (unintelligible) Twelve Oaks sign; is that

20 correct? That's going from 32 to 64?

21 MR. AMOLSCH: The wall sign?


23 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes, sir.

24 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. Those


1 are my comments.

2 Thank you, Mr. Chair.

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thanks you,

4 Mr. Fischer.

5 Yes, Mr. Gatt.

6 MEMBER GATT: I am in favor of

7 all of the variances that you've requested.

8 I think that a lot of times we forget that

9 because we are residents of this City

10 (unintelligible) not be very familiar with

11 Twelve Oaks, would (unintelligible) might be

12 very familiar with the area and the ring

13 road itself. But a person from a different

14 area might not feel the same way.

15 I like the update that you

16 guys are going to be doing with the

17 entrances. I like that style that you

18 showed us. The (unintelligible) of the sign

19 that you guys are requesting makes it seem

20 like it make sense to double size the sign

21 with the new facade or going to be put up.

22 I also agree with the variance

23 of the directional signs, if you're going to

24 be putting in an after hours type restaurant


1 where that would be the sole purpose for a

2 person's visit to Twelve Oaks Mall; and in

3 going from one entrance near Novi road or

4 Twelve Mile Road entrance, they are going to

5 the other sides of the mall, that might be

6 confusing to a certain person.

7 So I am in favor of all of the

8 variances requested.

9 Thank you.

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,

11 Mr. Gatt.

12 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you,

13 Mr. Chair.

14 Couple quick (unintelligible.)

15 The -- walk me through again the valet

16 signs.

17 I know we have separate ones,

18 and it is going to be located where?

19 MR. PHAM: Okay. I would

20 (unintelligible) do that. Maybe it will be

21 helpful if we can get on the projector.

22 What we are proposing right

23 here -- this is the new expansion area, this

24 is the Nordstrom right here, just to give


1 you bearing; and J.C. Penny and Lord and

2 Taylor is right here. And over here would

3 be the lake, just so people can get their

4 bearing.

5 What we're proposing is that in

6 order to keep it, you know safe, so people can

7 see where valet is, there's a valet sign located

8 here. So that if you're traveling, you could see

9 the valet -- you could take this around and get

10 over to here. There's a small -- in our

11 opinion -- sign just to give additional way

12 finding reasons for people to get to valet. As

13 noted in our letter, it's an important issue for

14 us for people with disabilities to use valet;

15 elderly who use valet; or during bad weather to

16 use valet. And it's an important function of the

17 mall to have proper signage to get to a very

18 important part of our mall use.

19 And that's where that valet sign

20 is being requested.

21 MEMBER SHROYER: And it's also

22 going to be included on all the ring roads.

23 MR. PHAM: Some of the ring

24 roads already have valet directional signs


1 on already. We have valet use before, but

2 now with the expansion of our mall, we want

3 to catch people as they get (unintelligible)

4 ring road to come back, if that's what

5 they're looking for, before they get beyond

6 it. Because once you go beyond that point,

7 you keep going.

8 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay, thank

9 you.

10 And I have a question for the

11 City.

12 The new entry way, the large

13 entry way they are putting together now --

14 who do I address it to, probably Mr. Amolsch

15 -- the large entry way that Mr. Pham showed

16 us with the extended overhang. On the end

17 of that overhang is the word valet.

18 Do we have to look at that as

19 an additional variance? I believe we had

20 approved the valet sign once before for the

21 area, but I notice the application does not

22 included that.

23 MR. AMOLSCH: Actually, number

24 five, I think it does.



2 have missed that on back.


4 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. It does

5 say valet there, good.

6 Okay, thank you.

7 I basically agree with the two

8 previous speakers. The -- I did have a

9 little bit of a concern about increasing

10 road signs, but I don't think it's being

11 increased too much; and I do agree with Mr.

12 Gatt or Member Gatt here talking after

13 hours, it may make it a lot easier to find

14 those locations. Also, I was very concerned

15 about the doubling of signs at Twelve Oaks.

16 (Unintelligible) questions I

17 had for you, Mr. Pham, are they standard

18 sized signs? In other words, do he go

19 from -- the one that's eight foot longer all

20 the way down to the one that's the current

21 size; or is there something in between?

22 MR. PHAM: The size that we're

23 proposing -- I mean if you look at it as the

24 Twelve Oaks sign, the font that's facing


1 makes it longer; so that it's proportional

2 to the width of the entry way.

3 MEMBER SHROYER: It's only eight

4 inches higher.

5 MR. PHAM: It's only eight

6 inches higher.

7 MEMBER SHROYER: I understand

8 that.

9 MR. PHAM: And -- but we felt

10 it was important to be proportional and not

11 have it skruntched(sic) (ph) together for

12 readability purposes. We have found through

13 past practice, that as you put more letters

14 together and during bad weather, it's harder

15 to read. Unless you're Lord and Taylor

16 (unintelligible) script, and they know what

17 it is anyway, because it's Lord and Taylor.

18 But to actually read it, you

19 have to have the letters a little farther

20 apart for readability purposes.

21 MEMBER SHROYER: The question

22 I'm asking, quite often in purchasing signs,

23 purchasing letters, there is only stock sign

24 letters available --


1 MR. PHAM: No, sir. These are

2 designed for two feet, eight inches.

3 MEMBER SHROYER: So we could, if

4 the Board preferred, we could limit it to a four

5 inch higher sign, that wouldn't make it quite as

6 large.

7 MR. PHAM: To be frank with

8 you, the increase is more to the width, not

9 the height. I mean, you know, if you go to

10 four inches, I don't think -- in my

11 opinion -- if we drove around

12 (unintelligible) inches or eight inches,

13 (unintelligible) that noticeably different.

14 It's different (unintelligible) the width of

15 the sign, because we want to meet the front

16 facade of our entry. So, if you say four

17 inches, we're not going to be happy with it.

18 That's not what we want to be proportional

19 to this.

20 I mean, if you do the math,

21 four inches is not going to make that much

22 difference to the overall area.

23 MEMBER SHROYER: I understand.

24 I was just asking about standard stock sign


1 letters.

2 The other question I have is

3 on lighting. Everything is backlit; is that

4 correct?

5 MR. PHAM: That's correct.

6 MEMBER SHROYER: And how long

7 are those lights on, is it 24/7?

8 MR. PHAM: Yes, they are.

9 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl

10 e) Twelve Oaks and for the ring road

11 (interposing) (unintelligible.)

12 MR. PHAM: (Interposing)

13 (unintelligible) ring road (unintelligible)

14 on 24/7. This is a hundred acre site.

15 (Unintelligible) in that basin that

16 Mr. Saven mentioned, and we have residents

17 also in senior housing that use that ring

18 road. We are obligated to keep our lights

19 on 24/7, so that we don't have issues in the

20 road or in our parking lots.

21 MEMBER SHROYER: All right.

22 Okay. That's all the

23 questions I have.

24 Thank you Mr. Chair.


1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes Mr. Bauer?

2 MEMBER BAUER: I don't think

3 there is anybody in the State of Michigan

4 that does not know that that's Twelve Oaks.

5 The bigger the sign is not always the best.

6 I don't think you need the size that you're

7 asking for. People know where it is. It is

8 a destination, I might add. This is a

9 (unintelligible.) I don't think you need

10 the extra square footage.

11 Thank you.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

13 I'd like to put on record my


15 And number one, I am glad you

16 are modernizing all the signs and not only

17 the new part of the mall. Number two, I

18 also like the idea of placing well lit

19 (unintelligible) isn't easily negotiable for

20 everybody who goes local like me, who has

21 known Twelve Oaks Mall ever since it was

22 started 16, 18 years ago; or more than that?

23 My God, I'm losing track of time.

24 And so we know where it is.


1 That's okay for us. But for people coming

2 from outside -- and if you believe it, we

3 must believe this is a regional shopping

4 center, and not just a local shopping center

5 for people of Novi and surrounding areas.

6 The place has to be adequately sign posted

7 and visible.

8 That brings us to the question

9 of what is adequate. And I know we have had

10 old signs, and I know a lot of people who

11 really recognize Novi by virtue of the fact

12 that the Twelve Oaks Mall is in Novi. And I

13 remember the days before the mall was here,

14 and you say where do you live, in Novi,

15 where's that. I don't have to do that

16 anymore. Well everybody knows where Novi

17 is, thanks to Twelve Oaks Mall -- but that's

18 another story.

19 The point I want to make is

20 yes, you need adequate signs, modern signs

21 at a modern mall, and I don't have a mere

22 problem with the size of the letters,

23 because the older I get, the better letters

24 I like to read. And I think that's a


1 fundamental fact of vision, what happens to

2 people. And so I have no problem with that

3 also.

4 So all and all, I can support

5 a Motion to grant your variances, if anybody

6 is willing to make a Motion at this point in

7 time.

8 MEMBER BAUER: The reason why

9 I think the signs are just great the way

10 they are is because we have them on Novi

11 Road. We have them on Twelve Mile to get

12 in. They can't miss it. I shouldn't say a

13 blind man would find it, but they would.

14 Thank you.

15 MR. PHAM: Not to be

16 argumentative, Member Bauer, can I make one

17 clarification, please?


19 MR. PHAM: You are a hundred

20 percent correct, that people coming to

21 Twelve Oaks know that are at Twelve Oaks.

22 Our signage is not for people knowing about

23 the location. Our signage is about as

24 you're traveling around the ring road, going


1 to and from, whether you want to park at a

2 department store; you want to park in an

3 entrance, that's the purpose, it's not to

4 signify that you're at the Twelve Oaks Mall.

5 You're absolutely right.

6 Our water tower, our signs on

7 the road does that, and our reputation. We

8 are very happy about that. But again, the

9 signage that we are proposing is to reflect

10 the changes that we're making, and also for

11 the safety of what we think -- as we raise

12 the elevation to be proportional for the

13 people traversing to and from within the

14 mall to go to what entrance; whether they're

15 at a department store entrance or at a mall

16 entrance.

17 MEMBER BAUER: I understand.

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,

19 Mr. Bauer.

20 Yes, Mr. Fischer?

21 MEMBER FISCHER: Personally, I'm

22 half tempted to just take one of these signs off

23 so only I know it's an entrance and I can get in

24 and out quickly; but I don't think


1 (unintelligible) would let me. And I want to one

2 more time reiterate, it's not always

3 identification to I really like, and what's

4 shocking to me is the esthetics of it, the facade

5 that's going in. That's why (unintelligible)

6 some minor questions I have and some minor

7 reservations, I'll go ahead and make a Motion, if

8 it's appropriate, Mr. Chair.

9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Uh-huh, please.

10 MEMBER FISCHER: I would move

11 that in Case Number: 06-092, filed by Khanh Pham

12 of Taubman Company for Twelve Oaks Mall located

13 at 27500 Novi Road, that we grant the variances

14 as requested due to the fact that the Board has

15 found that the Petitioner has established

16 practical difficulty in the fact of the

17 uniqueness of the whole site; the line of vision

18 from the road surrounding the site, the ring road

19 that people travel on, and the speed of the

20 people traveling on that said ring road, this is

21 for public safety issues regarding the size, as

22 well as to keep it in proportion with the

23 building, the site, and substantial justice to

24 this Petitioner, as well as others in the


1 surrounding area.

2 MEMBER GATT: Second.

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: A Motion has

4 been made and seconded.

5 Any further comments?

6 Seeing none -- yes, Ms. Ozga?

7 MS. OZGA: I just had a

8 question.

9 Was that for all five of the

10 separate variances, or are you going one at

11 a time?

12 MEMBER FISCHER: I move to

13 approve everything on it.


15 MEMBER FISCHER: Unless you'd

16 like (unintelligible)

17 MS. OZGA: No, I guess that's

18 fine.

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

20 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you

21 very much.

22 MEMBER SANGHVI: So, will you

23 please call the roll.

24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?



2 ROBIN WORKING: I had a question

3 for you, before I call the roll.

4 You made the Motion for

5 approval for all signs as requested?


7 ROBIN WORKING: That is correct.

8 MEMBER FISCHER: To approve this

9 case as requested.

10 ROBIN WORKING: One through

11 five.

12 MEMBER FISCHER: Variances one

13 through five, the entire sheet, as requested,

14 whole thing.

15 ROBIN WORKING: Thank you.

16 Member Fischer?

17 MEMBER FISCHER: Both times,

18 aye.

19 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


21 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


23 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi.



1 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


3 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


5 ROBIN WORKING: Need four to

6 pass.

7 Motion passes four to two.


9 MR. PHAM: Thank you so much.

10 MEMBER FISCHER: Good luck.


12 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right.

13 Moving on to the next case. Case number 06-091,

14 filed by Brad Wilson of Callison Architecture for

15 27640 Novi Road, Nordstrom located at Twelve Oaks

16 Mall.

17 Will you please identify

18 yourself and state your name and address,

19 and be -- are you an attorney?

20 MR. WILSON: Excuse me?

21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Are you an

22 attorney?

23 MR. WILSON: Attorney, no.



1 please be sworn in by other secretary here.

2 MR. WILSON: Brad Wilson with

3 Callison Architecture at 1420 Fifth Avenue,

4 Suite 2400, Seattle, Washington, here to

5 speak on behalf of Nordstrom and the sign

6 variance.

7 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or

8 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case:

9 06-091?

10 MR. WILSON: Yes.

11 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please go ahead

13 and make your presentation.

14 MR. WILSON: As you're aware,

15 we're here to request a variance for three

16 exterior illuminated pin mounted exterior

17 signs; and the square footage requested is

18 217 and a half square feet total. And our

19 appeal is based upon the following

20 appeals -- or excuse me, practical

21 difficulties and uniqueness of Twelve Oaks

22 Mall.

23 Again, as you're aware,

24 Nordstrom will be an anchor store at the


1 Twelve Oaks Mall, and we'll be -- and it's

2 part of the regional center district -- and

3 pardon me for a moment -- proposed allowable

4 building area (unintelligible) asked us to

5 provide (unintelligible) building.

6 We're here mostly to say that

7 it's a way finding sign. It is imperative

8 that we make sure our customers, the

9 citizens of Novi, and those travelling from

10 outside of the region be able to find their

11 way to entrances, both pedestrian and

12 vehicular (unintelligible) primary concern.

13 And then our secondary concern would be in

14 relationship to the size of those signs that

15 have been granted to the other four majors;

16 and that Nordstrom is a direct competitor

17 with those majors. And with the size signs

18 that have been granted for those majors, we

19 feel it would be unfair that anything less

20 be granted for the fifth major, and -- or

21 nothing more. We are asking for nothing

22 more than what has already been granted.

23 And if I may, I'd like to

24 share what I understand to be the sized


1 signs of the other four majors. Correct me

2 if I'm wrong. But the Macy's sign is

3 roughly around 192 square feet; the Sears

4 sign is roughly around 162 square feet; the

5 J.C. Penny sign is about 142 square feet;

6 the Lord and Taylor sign at 403 square feet,

7 and we feel that our sign is right in the

8 middle of all that.

9 Each one those signs being

10 five foot in height; and our sign, as well,

11 is five feet in height; and with the simple

12 fact that we're a longer sign just surely

13 based on the number of letters in our sign.

14 The other quality about the Nordstrom sign,

15 that if you're comparing to the other four

16 signs that are out there, is the very

17 simplistic nature of the sign and very

18 subtleness to the sign. It has a very

19 narrow font stroke. It is -- pardon me --

20 it is -- while it is illuminated, it is has

21 brown plexiglass face to it, so there's no

22 white background.

23 It is to be a Nordstrom

24 bronze, as we call it; brownish in nature.


1 So you don't see a white plexiface, as you

2 might see. It doesn't stand out during the

3 day. It's only illuminated at night. I

4 guess I'd like to share a few other images

5 with you to reiterate this point.

6 This bottom right is -- little

7 here to the left bottom part of the sheet,

8 this is an existing store. It is the exact

9 same size that we are proposing here at

10 Twelve Oaks Mall. Five feet in height; 43

11 feet this length. Again, during the day

12 it's just brown, very subtle. And then at

13 night, you can see the very narrow stroke.

14 The last point I guess I'd

15 like to make, while you see this has 217

16 square feet, it is -- if you just took the

17 sheer value and face of letter, that -- the

18 217 feet is the outer rectangle; and if you

19 just took face value of the area of the

20 letters, this sign is less than 60 square

21 feet in nature. And so what you're also

22 seeing within that 217 square feet, a lot of

23 void and white space. These are all

24 individually pin mounted signs.


1 And I guess with that said, I

2 thank you for your time, and here to answer

3 any question you may have.

4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

5 Does anybody in the audience

6 wish to make any objections about this

7 particular case, this is the time to do so.

8 I don't see anyone coming in.

9 I would inform the Board that

10 196 notices were mailed, four approvals --

11 four approvals and six objections.

12 Mr. Secretary, would you

13 kindly highlight the objections, please.

14 MEMBER BAUER: I have to

15 highlight them. It is unfair that Nordstom

16 has three signs that are larger than most

17 other business have, and they've been

18 complying with the existing rules. Why make

19 such a noticeable exception for Nordstroms.

20 Secondly, the fact of the signs are lit is

21 also a problem; especially if they remain on

22 24 hours a day.

23 We live across from the mall

24 and the light would be shining into our


1 windows continuously. We have already put

2 up with the year of noisy construction Jimmy

3 and Geraldine (unintelligible) Crescent

4 Oaks. I have no objections to the signage

5 factor, because we (unintelligible) you must

6 make your locations known, but I object to

7 the (unintelligible) size of the sign. I

8 object to the visual size and overall

9 dimensions of 217 point five feet. If you

10 reduce the sign considerably, I would have

11 no objection, thank you. I also have no

12 objections to having three signs, but please

13 reduce the signs, also, Joan and Sheldon

14 Applefield, Crescent Oaks. That's the

15 general of all six.

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

17 (Unintelligible) objections

18 regarding size and also, I guess hours of

19 lighted signs on the premises.

20 Have you any idea how long

21 you're going to have these sign lit?

22 MR. WILSON: Presently, we are

23 proposing they're lit 24 hours.

24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Your proposal


1 is 24 hours.

2 All right.

3 Building Department?

4 MR. SAVEN: Just a couple of

5 comments. I want to just (unintelligible.)

6 Number one, it was normally our requirement that

7 we have banners put up to show what a sign looks

8 like. And one of the things that's very

9 outstanding, I think this gentleman indicated the

10 fact that the white background isn't out there in

11 your face. I just want to emphasize the fact

12 there is no white on the signs. It's strictly a

13 single letter -- single letter signs they are

14 proposing.

15 And that's backlit; is that

16 correct.

17 MR. WILSON: That is correct.

18 With the fact -- I guess what I mean by

19 backlit, they are each individually lit.

20 MR. SAVEN: I'm sorry

21 (unintelligible.) The second issue is that every

22 anchor store in that mall has three signs. If

23 you went around, you would see every single

24 (unintelligible) so he's not proposing anything


1 different in number (unintelligible.)

2 I just wanted to bring that to

3 your attention.

4 Thank you.



7 ROBIN WORKING: (Unintelligible)

8 digress for one moment. Is it necessary for the

9 Board to recognize that the Enclave Condominium

10 Association also submitted an objection to the

11 variance request? It was in your packet. It is

12 in the file. I would feel as if they weren't

13 being represented if their objection -- if it

14 wasn't mentioned.

15 MEMBER BAUER: It wasn't

16 mention because I didn't have it.


18 (unintelligible) that situation.

19 MEMBER BAUER: (Unintelligible)

20 Zoning Board of Appeals, management agent for

21 Enclave Condominium Association. On behalf of

22 the association, I'm writing in response to

23 public hearing relative to the applicant

24 requesting a variance (unintelligible)


1 illuminated wall signs, also requested a variance

2 to install three 217.5 square feet illuminated

3 wall signs.

4 First associates provides

5 (unintelligible) management services is

6 authorized to act as a management agent for

7 the condominium association (unintelligible)

8 condominium committee within the City of

9 Novi, and represents (unintelligible) who

10 live near the proposed store on Twelve Mile,

11 Twelve Oaks Mall.

12 (Unintelligible) association

13 is pleased to see commercial development and

14 (unintelligible) and residents have raised

15 some concerns, comments, and they are as

16 follows: One (unintelligible) support the

17 variances to allow three signs, and find it

18 satisfactory (unintelligible) granted by

19 ZBA. Presumably, one shall be placed over

20 each entrance, so customers can locate the

21 entrances, Nordstrom, easily.

22 They could be considered a

23 directional sign. They actually go involve

24 either practical difficulty or extenuating


1 circumstances, which what we believe ZBA is

2 to consider when considering variance

3 requests. Two, citizens we represent do not

4 support the requested size of 217.5 square

5 feet.

6 As you know, Ordinance Section

7 278-52B1A allows up to 65 square feet. It

8 is only reasonable that Nordstrom's store

9 signs be the same size as other tenants

10 located at the Twelve Oaks Mall. Therefore,

11 we do not see any hardship, practical

12 difficulty or extenuating circumstances to

13 allow Nordstrom a larger sign; not knowing

14 what other similar requests have either been

15 approved or denied, we cannot provide

16 specifics on what hardships, practical

17 difficulties, and/or extenuating

18 circumstances (unintelligible) may have

19 allowed similar requests to be granted.

20 Therefore, we find it is only

21 prudent that ZBA deny the request --

22 requested square feet (unintelligible)

23 reduce it to what typical signs are at

24 Twelve Oaks Mall, Lord and Taylor. Three,


1 the citizens we represent also are concerned

2 about illumination of these three signs. We

3 ask that the three signs not be illuminated

4 after -- between midnight and dawn each day.

5 This way, we shall not cause excess lights

6 from Twelve Oaks Mall that would

7 (unintelligible) condominium association.

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,

9 Mr. Bauer.

10 Thank you very much for

11 pointing out that omission.

12 Going back. I'll open up to

13 the Board now.

14 Yes, Mr. Canup.

15 MEMBER CANUP: I don't think

16 it's question that they need to have additional

17 signage other than what's allowed by our

18 Ordinance. I think there is some concern. It

19 seems to be most of the letters that we received,

20 the comments were the size of the signs. They

21 are quite large. 217 square feet is a pretty

22 good sized sign.

23 And my personal opinion is, if

24 we get back to -- I think one of the letters


1 mention hundred square feet. Did I read

2 that somewhere in one of the letters? And I

3 think we probably need to stand back and

4 look at it from an objective standpoint.

5 Again, there is no doubt they need more

6 signage than what we allow. I think we need

7 to look at the size of that sign. I think

8 the lighting of the signs --

9 realistically -- I don't think are going to

10 have an impact on the condos that are off to

11 the southeast.

12 My in-laws (unintelligible)

13 look directly at that sign. I don't think

14 I'm (unintelligible) on them from being in

15 there. So, I guess I would -- the lights in

16 the parking lot actually would be more of a

17 problem than what those lights are. I don't

18 think those are the kind of lights that are

19 beaming type lights.

20 So I guess I would not have a

21 problem with that. So I guess the only

22 thing I have is the size of the signs. And

23 my opinion would be to ask the Petitioner to

24 rethink the size of those signs and come up


1 with something better.

2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,

3 Mr. Canup.

4 Yes, Mr. Shroyer.

5 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you,

6 Mr. Chair.

7 Mr. Wilson, one of the

8 renderings that was provided to us in the

9 packet showed a Nordstrom sign that was 200

10 feet tall. What would be the square footage

11 of that sign, total square footage of that

12 sign?

13 MR. WILSON: I believe that is

14 what would be required, you know, the 65

15 square feet sign.

16 MEMBER SHROYER: So that would

17 take it all the way down to 65.

18 MR. WILSON: Uh-huh.

19 MEMBER SHROYER: I'll ask you

20 the same question that I asked the previous

21 applicant.

22 Are your signs standard in

23 size or are they all custom made?

24 MR. WILSON: Our standard


1 sized sign is usually a six foot sign, as

2 you may be familiar with. The one Nordstrom

3 store in the State of Michigan that's at

4 Somerset. The standard sign is six feet.

5 And five feet is based upon, if

6 (unintelligible) be able to get the neon

7 (unintelligible) tube (unintelligible) five

8 is like (unintelligible) building with the

9 proportion -- especially with this sized

10 building. And it's present (unintelligible)

11 put in the small sign would be

12 (unintelligible) difficult signage in there.

13 MEMBER SHROYER: That's based on

14 the florescent sized tubing, florescent lights.

15 It would be within --

16 MR. WILSON: (Unintelligible)

17 (interposing.)

18 MEMBER SHROYER: Typical two

19 feet, four feet, (unintelligible) as opposed

20 to six feet?

21 MR. WILSON: Correct.


23 Also I wanted to ask -- well,

24 let's say it differently. I'm going to kind


1 of rule out Lord and Taylor's square

2 footage. Their signs are boxed, as opposed

3 to lineal signs. That's a big square.

4 And you mentioned the 403

5 square foot. They also have a 230 square

6 foot sign, maybe two of them. If you take

7 the other three (unintelligible) them

8 together, divide by three, looks like an

9 average of 167 square feet. So 217 is

10 substantially larger than 167 or the

11 (unintelligible) I do think that it would be

12 (unintelligible) ask you to come in

13 substantially lower than anybody else that

14 (unintelligible) out there. I am a little

15 concerned about 217.

16 One of the reasons I didn't

17 mention this is I believe some of the

18 citizens may be under the impression that

19 the Penny's and Sears and Macy's and Lord

20 and Taylor are 65 square feet,

21 (unintelligible) (interposing) maxed out the

22 City's maximum.

23 Another thing I'd look at

24 (unintelligible) 65 square footage max, and


1 basically (unintelligible) three times

2 bigger than anything we got in Novi anyway,

3 that's 109 square feet.

4 (Unintelligible) towards that

5 being basically the max we should be looking

6 at for any big box (unintelligible) store.

7 I have no objection at all, three signs. I

8 think it's good that we have three signs. I

9 don't know the people that you have with

10 you, but perhaps they could put their heads

11 together, as Mr. Canup mentioned, is there

12 (unintelligible) that would take your sign

13 (unintelligible) 217 feet perhaps down to

14 195 or closer to that area.

15 MR. WILSON: (Unintelligible)

16 as earlier I stated, I mean again, our

17 letters -- just (unintelligible) name is

18 nine letters (unintelligible) Nordstrom's

19 name versus that of Sears. And then so our

20 font, (unintelligible) why it being subtle

21 and very narrow and the script is little

22 more subtle than maybe what you see at Sears

23 or the (unintelligible) of Sears versus the

24 J.C. Penny's.


1 And so when you spread that

2 out over what their corporate brand name and

3 identity I mean, and the spacing of that, I

4 mean, you're starting to impact our

5 (unintelligible) as well. So Nordstrom

6 have very carefully looked at their font and

7 how they are presented and want their

8 branding to be imaged.

9 Why -- yeah, you could

10 probably take their same sized sign, squish

11 it down and get in into 195 square feet.

12 Again, you're kind of playing with their

13 branding and their identity. So I guess I

14 would reinvite the fact to go back and look

15 at the fact that it's a very narrow script

16 (unintelligible) upward stroke of somewhere

17 at maximum six to seven inches. And so you

18 see a lot of void and white space within

19 that 217 square feet; where again, only less

20 than 60 square feet of is that actual

21 signage.

22 MEMBER SHROYER: I understand.

23 What I'm trying to avoid is

24 (unintelligible) coming back in front of the


1 ZBA (unintelligible) you granted a 217

2 square foot sign to Nordstroms. We want

3 another 60/70 square foot sign on our

4 building. And so trying to be fair is

5 always difficult.

6 MR. WILSON: Uh-huh.

7 Member Shroyer: Just trying

8 no (unintelligible) all the angles.

9 That's all the questions I

10 have for now, sir.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

12 Yes, Mr. Canup and then

13 Mr. Fischer.

14 Thank you.

15 MEMBER CANUP: Looking at the

16 two renderings that you have. One is large --

17 this particular rendering here -- is quite large,

18 and I would suspect those large ones represent

19 217 square feet.

20 MR. WILSON: Correct. And the

21 sign (interposing) (unintelligible.)

22 MEMBER CANUP: What's the small

23 one represent?

24 What size does the small one


1 represent?

2 MR. WILSON: I believe that's

3 65 square feet.

4 MEMBER CANUP: How many?

5 MR. WILSON: 65 square feet.

6 MEMBER CANUP: 65 square feet.

7 That's what's allowed by Ordinance.

8 MR. WILSON: Which only shows

9 the one image, correct.

10 MEMBER CANUP: That's just one

11 clarification.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

13 Yes, Mr. Fischer?


15 First I'd like to thank

16 Ms. Working and Mr. Amolsch for their work

17 in going back to the 1970's, and finding old

18 variances to find out the square footage of

19 the old cases and the other stores around

20 there. I heard you had to go in microfiche;

21 something I'm not familiar with.

22 Question, Mr. Amolsch, the way

23 that we took the square footage of this

24 sign, we basically boxed it out, correct?


1 That's how we handle every sign that we look

2 at in the City.

3 MR. AMOLSCH: That's correct.

4 Box (unintelligible.)


6 right. That's what I thought, but I just wanted

7 to make sure.

8 You know, background is

9 included. We're not treating this any

10 different than any other case we've had

11 before.

12 MR. AMOLSCH: That's correct.

13 MEMBER FISCHER: All right.

14 I definitely appreciated the

15 letter from the condominium associates.

16 Thanks again for bring that up, and I think

17 they hit a couple nails on the head. In

18 fact, the next time we look at ZBA members,

19 maybe we should give some of them a call.

20 Three signs is satisfactory to

21 me, as well. I think it's fair. It's

22 consistent to what's in the area; consistent

23 to what's going on with that entire site.

24 So I'm fine with the three signs, as well.


1 I echo the sentiments of Mr. Canup and

2 Mr. Shroyer regarding the size. I

3 definitely -- you took the words right out

4 of my mouth when you talked about Lord and

5 Taylor, it's script and everything. I think

6 it's unfair to look at that, because we need

7 to compare J.C. Penny, Sears and Macy's

8 because they're all in that box. They're

9 (interposing) (unintelligible) putting this

10 sign under scrutiny.

11 So, I definitely like your

12 (unintelligible) technique there. I think

13 that's fair. I understand the branding and

14 the image -- you know, working for a

15 relatively large company that likes to keep

16 all their signs similar, as well, I can

17 appreciate that. But I think it's unfair to

18 use that as a reason to be unfair to the

19 other customers that we have in that area

20 being, Macy's, J.C. Penny and Sears.

21 I definitely think we need to

22 find something square footage wise in the

23 realm of what we need (interposing)

24 (unintelligible) other applicants. And


1 lastly, I'd like to ask Mr. Saven or

2 Mr. Amolsch about their opinion on the

3 illumination. You know, I remember we had a

4 case regarding the lights in the parking

5 lot, and I kind of thought then that might

6 be an issue with the residents. And now it

7 seems to be coming up when the sign's in

8 front of us; which is farther away, and from

9 the pictures I've seen, appears to be less

10 light than those in the parking lot.

11 I'm not a lighting expert.

12 Can you provide any -- are you familiar with

13 the kind of lights that they're planning on

14 using? Does it gleen outwards? Is it a

15 bright light?

16 MR. SAVEN: I think I have to

17 agree with Mr. Canup. I don't think the

18 illumination is going to be that critical for

19 that type of a sign. You mentioned the parking

20 lot. (Unintelligible) parking lot lighting

21 Ordinance just says parking lot lights are going

22 to (unintelligible) down (unintelligible)

23 Any way. Long story short.

24 Basically the Ordinance states parking lot


1 lights should be directed down in a downward

2 fashion, not out and not towards

3 (unintelligible) whatever. So I don't see

4 that as a problem.

5 MR. AMOLSCH: The only possible

6 Ordinance was not dealing with shutting off

7 signs. We have no regulation on that in our

8 current Ordinance. The board could

9 (unintelligible) put that as part of the Motion.

10 Problem is enforcement, keeping an eye on it.

11 (unintelligible.) to the concern, but that

12 (unintelligible) that in the sign Ordinance.


14 And I'll open it up if you

15 have any comments on illumination, as far as

16 brightness, whatnot. (Unintelligible) time

17 limits an issue. You're the expert on the

18 lighting. What type of lighting are you

19 using?

20 MR. WILSON: I'm not a

21 lighting expert either. But from what I

22 understand, the image (unintelligible)

23 projection that you will get from that is

24 very minimal. And it would be definitely


1 less than the parking lot lighting that's

2 out there.


4 With those comments, with

5 Mr. Canup speaking on behalf of his in-laws,

6 I guess I'm fine with the lighting, as well.

7 But once again I'll reiterate that I would

8 like to see this is sign shrunk down

9 proportionally in the range of what the

10 other stores have.

11 Thank you, Mr. Chair.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Gatt?

13 MEMBER GATT: First, I just

14 wanted to mirror what I said from the last

15 variance that we had in front of us. I'm

16 really excited about what's happening at

17 Twelve Oaks Mall. I'm really excited about

18 this store coming in. I am in favor of the

19 variances that you are requesting for

20 reasons that are -- I see everybody's point

21 on the Board, but I have to explain my

22 opinion. When you look at the sign, when

23 you look at the Nordstrom sign, I think the

24 point that was brought up where if you can


1 shrunk all the letters together and you made

2 it one big black of block, it would be 65

3 square feet.

4 If, you know, if Sears comes

5 back and says we want to change our name to

6 Sears and Roebuck, I think that would be a

7 different issue. Nordstrom is going to be

8 the longest name in Twelve Oaks Mall.

9 (Unintelligible) one of the five major

10 stores. And to just disregard the size of

11 the Lord and Taylor sign that's 400 some

12 square feet, I don't think that gives it

13 justice either. I mean, they needed to have

14 a specific sized sign to fit their lettering

15 in, and that was the -- the Ordinance that

16 was (unintelligible) when that variance --

17 that Ordinance was given to them -- this is

18 a sign that needs to be this particular size

19 to keep with the branding of Nordstrom.

20 And their -- the fact that

21 their name has more letters in their title

22 than Sears and J.C. Penny is not the fault

23 of anyone. It's just that that's the case.

24 I like the way the sign looks. It's very


1 minimalistic. It's very (unintelligible.)

2 The lines are small. It's not too bright.

3 I don't think that the brightness of the

4 sign would be a problem at all. I think

5 that the 217 and a half square feet is on

6 the average. (Unintelligible) the same type

7 of sizing that we would give to any big

8 company that comes into Twelve Oaks; but the

9 amount that it's greater than the Sears and

10 J.C. Penny's is the fact that there's more

11 letters in the name of this particular

12 company.

13 So I am in favor of the 217

14 and a half square feet. I am in favor of

15 the illumination 24/7, and I am in favor of

16 the three signs.

17 Thank you.

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, thank

19 you, Mr. Gatt.

20 Yes, Ms. Krieger?


22 Regarding the Nordstroms, the

23 I was (unintelligible) the lighting, turning

24 the lights off at night, but it


1 (unintelligible) it would increase the risk

2 of theft, and safety would become an issue.

3 So how do you figure that out?

4 (unintelligible.) I don't have any ideas.

5 But regarding the Nordstrom sign, itself,

6 the size -- it would be nice if it was

7 proportional with the others ones that were

8 similar. (Unintelligible) Lord and Taylor

9 has its own initial design, compared to the

10 straight letters of other three.

11 And then (unintelligible) I

12 thought also was interesting you

13 (unintelligible) and helpful, but on the

14 sign that you had up regarding the Nordstrom

15 illumination at night, the one that was on

16 the bottom, the left side, that was during

17 the day (unintelligible) would that be

18 accurate?

19 MR. WILSON: That is correct.

20 They're not of the same facade, but they're

21 on the same building and they are of the

22 same size.

23 MEMBER KRIEGER: (Unintelligibl

24 e) at night would not be an issue.



2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Canup.

3 MEMBER CANUP: Mr. Shroyer, you

4 did some math here and came up with a number, an

5 average, of the other people that are -- got

6 signs. Was it 165 square feet, somewhere in that

7 neighborhood?


9 (unintelligible.)

10 MEMBER CANUP: I personally

11 think that's a good number to come up with, if

12 the Board saw fit to grant the variances as

13 requested. There's three signs -- request for

14 three signs that are requested for sizing.


16 Well, Mr. Wilson, I think you

17 heard the direction with the Board is

18 thinking. Can you live with a little

19 smaller sign. They are recommending a sign

20 which is in keeping with the rest of the

21 stores. And if you can, we can proceed

22 further right now.

23 MR. WILSON: I guess with the

24 comment of reduction of size sign to 160, we


1 don't know what that means; it's impact to

2 the actual sign, what the lights maybe or

3 how it looks in relationship to the faced.

4 So, I guess we would ask, if the Motion is

5 to reduce the size of the sign to a certain

6 square footage, we'd ask that it be tabled,

7 and that more consideration and discussion

8 be given.


10 Well, the applicant obviously

11 would have us table this now, and decide --

12 MEMBER CANUP: May I comment?

13 We haven't decided anything

14 yet.

15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah, I know.

16 MEMBER CANUP: But (interposing)

17 (unintelligible) but if were all in -- if we all

18 feel the same way 165 is the number, I guess

19 (unintelligible) (interposing) the applicant. If

20 they voted on it and came back and said, well 200

21 is going to pass, you know, that's a different

22 animal.

23 I guess we need to give him

24 direction, that would be my point.


1 MEMBER BAUER: I agree with you.

2 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl

3 e.)

4 MEMBER CANUP: Well, if we all

5 agree on that --

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: I think the

7 first (unintelligible) request is too large.

8 There is no difficulty (unintelligible.)

9 Secondly, that we want to go over the average

10 size for the whole Twelve Oaks Mall, which come

11 to around 167, 170 square feet. And that

12 probably -- I think if you made that kind of

13 recommendation, it might fly. And that is why I

14 was trying to (unintelligible) applicant about

15 his request, whether they can live with something

16 of that size; and you heard the response.

17 And it's, of course, to decide

18 (unintelligible) request for a Motion to

19 table for him to figure out what it would

20 look like and how to go from there on, or

21 make a Motion regardless of what we think he

22 wants to do (unintelligible.) So

23 (unintelligible) choice at this point in

24 time. And just would like to know


1 (unintelligible.)

2 Yes, sir?

3 MEMBER FISCHER: I would agree

4 with tabling it, with the Petitioner not

5 being here to make that decision.

6 (Unintelligible) have conversation last

7 time, I would agree to table it. And also

8 just to point out that, you know, in my

9 philosophy, I'd like to see a proportionate

10 shrinking. I've done a couple numbers, too,

11 basically 85 percent of what they're asking

12 for is about 180 square feet. I might be

13 willing to support something around that

14 area, just to keep them proportionate with

15 the facade once again.

16 So that would be some

17 direction I would give, too,

18 (unintelligible) proportional bringing down

19 of the sign.


21 Mr. Shroyer?

22 MEMBER SHROYER: (Unintelligibl

23 e) thought as well, proportional signage. The

24 167, although ideal to be right in the middle, I


1 would hate to say that would be the maximum. The

2 way I look at it is (unintelligible) 192 is kind

3 of the maximum that I see. I don't think it

4 would be fair to request somebody to come in

5 smaller than the largest lineal sign out there

6 currently; but something like a 85 percent

7 reduction 180 or so would be great.

8 So I'm in favor of tabling, as

9 well, if that would help the applicant.


11 Mr. Fischer?

12 MEMBER FISCHER: Maybe we could

13 give them a few minutes to come back after the

14 next case?

15 MEMBER CANUP: If we were all in

16 agreement that 180 square feet is the maximum

17 number we're going to allow, what else is there

18 to talk about?

19 MEMBER BAUER: Nothing.

20 MEMBER CANUP: We could very

21 simply make a Motion, say it's 180 square feet.

22 Live with it.

23 MEMBER GATT: I feel that the

24 largest Macy's sign, which is 192 -- 192 would be


1 a more appropriate number for them to work their

2 way into.

3 MEMBER CANUP: How many signs

4 does Macy's have?


6 MEMBER BAUER: They have

7 three.

8 MEMBER FISCHER: What's the

9 applicant's pleasure?


11 Mr. Wilson?

12 MR. WILSON: I'm sorry. I

13 didn't --

14 MEMBER FISCHER: What would be

15 your pleasure, what were you thinking? Do you

16 have time to do it now, would you like to come

17 back --

18 MR. WILSON: Well --

19 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl

20 e) construction of the sign. That's another

21 thing we have in take into consideration, that's

22 why I don't want to just throw out an arbitrary

23 number.

24 MEMBER CANUP: Sign people will


1 make anything you want. So, you know, the

2 constraints (unintelligible) can't do a four

3 foot, can only do a five foot, I don't believe

4 that. I bought a sign before, and they can make

5 anything you want.

6 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintelligibl

7 e) very happy residents, if they can't fit the

8 correct lighting in to bring less lighting. So I

9 would like to see what he would say.

10 MR. WILSON: I guess our view

11 is if serious consideration would be given

12 to 195 square foot sign, no less than what

13 Macy's has been granted, I think we could

14 have further discussion; if we can make that

15 reduction work in proportion to the

16 building. But I guess we'd want to have

17 serious consideration be given to that.

18 MEMBER FISCHER: Table it.

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, Mr. Canup.

20 MEMBER CANUP: 217 square feet

21 versus 195 square feet, there is not a person in

22 this room that could stand back 200 yards looking

23 at that sign and tell if it's 217 or 195. If

24 we're going to go to 195, I think it's ridiculous


1 to not go to 217. Either give it to them all, or

2 make it a reasonably sized sign. That's my

3 opinion.


5 Anybody else?

6 All right. Well, then I would

7 entertain a Motion on what we propose, and

8 then we go from there.

9 MEMBER FISCHER: I move that

10 at the applicant's request we table this

11 case to the January 2007 meeting.


13 Motion has been made.

14 Anybody seconding the Motion?

15 MEMBER GATT: Second.

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been

17 made and seconded.

18 Any further discussion on

19 tabling the Motion?

20 Seeing none, will you please

21 call the roll.

22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?


24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?



2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


4 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


6 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


8 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


10 ROBIN WORKING: Motion to table

11 the case to January 9th ZBA date passes, five,

12 one.

13 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I

14 may -- I know you requested these people to table

15 to the next meeting, but are we going to give

16 them any type of direction, other than the fact

17 that you're not going to be able to see 217.5

18 (unintelligible) direction you're giving them.

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: I think they've

20 heard what the discussion has been, and we have

21 (unintelligible) reasonable number of square

22 footage and our discussion, and I think they have

23 the direction.

24 MR. SAVEN: Okay. You got your


1 direction.

2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.


4 Moving on to the next case,

5 Case Number: 06-093 filed by Jeffrey Sly of

6 BWI Contracting, Inc. for 225 Eubank Street.

7 Mr. Jeffrey Sly of BWI is

8 requesting six variances; is that correct,

9 Mr. Sly?

10 MR. SLY: That's correct.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Would you

12 please state your full name and address and be

13 sworn in by our secretary?

14 MR. SLY: Yes. My name is

15 Jeff Sly. I'm the owner of BWI Contracting,

16 at 327 (unintelligible) Park Drive,

17 Belleville, Michigan, 48111.

18 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right

19 hand, please.

20 Do you solemnly swear or

21 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case:

22 06-093?

23 MR. SLY: I will.

24 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.


1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Please state

2 your case.

3 MR. SLY: The -- I'm

4 representing Mr. and Mrs. Keith Clark, who

5 are the current occupants and owners of the

6 property at 225 Eubank. They have

7 contracted us to provide them with a new

8 home on the existing site. And our plan, if

9 the variances are successfully approved,

10 would be to raze their existing home, to

11 destroy it, put in a new foundation and a

12 new home on the same lot.

13 As you're probably well aware

14 of, with the properties in that lake

15 vicinity -- when applying your current

16 zoning requirements to it, it pretty much

17 automatically requires several impact on the

18 variance -- on the City requirements. So as

19 it's listed there, we have requested six

20 areas of variance pertaining to the side

21 yard setback, the aggregate setback, and

22 also to the distance of a accessory

23 building; which would be Mr. Clark's garage

24 on adjacent property behind.


1 I've had Stantech prepare a

2 site plan, which you have in your packets

3 there, and you'll see that the property

4 currently owned by the Clarks is somewhat T

5 shaped, and it's existing residential

6 property on the 225 Eubank side, and also a

7 cross property behind it, which is also off

8 Eubank, which contains Mr. Clark's current

9 garage and driveway.

10 You'll notice in your packet,

11 the home that's being constructed is planned

12 to be a Cape Cod style (unintelligible)

13 style modular home, which will be installed

14 on a new foundation and have utilities and

15 everything will be replenished

16 (unintelligible) quite nice improvement for

17 both the neighborhood and the neighbors

18 there, as well as for the Clarks' home.

19 I could entertain any

20 questions you have on the (unintelligible.)

21 MEMBER SHROYER: Could you take

22 one of the site plans and put it up on the

23 overhead, so our audience at home can

24 (unintelligible)


1 MR. SLY: In the --

2 (unintelligible) this is the existing

3 residential property currently occupied by

4 the Clarks' home, which will sit in

5 approximately the same location -- the

6 proposed home is approximately in the same

7 location as the existing home. Other than

8 the slight change in size and the impact to

9 the northeast area. This other parcel

10 behind here is also owned by Clarks. It's

11 used as their driveway; houses their garage

12 back here, (unintelligible) existing at this

13 time. There's no (unintelligible) change

14 for anything to do with the garage or entry.

15 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay, thank

16 you.

17 Is there anything from the

18 City.

19 MR. SAVEN: Just a couple of

20 things.

21 The uniqueness of the property

22 certainly is there. I think if you squared

23 up the property, try to keep it even on both

24 sides from the existing home, which I think


1 is (unintelligible.) A couple other things

2 (unintelligible) meet the front yard setback

3 requirement, which is good. The three

4 variances that are listed right from the

5 very beginning, deal with side yard setback,

6 which also deals (unintelligible) aggregate

7 total of both sides.

8 These are one of those

9 non-conforming lots down on the lake side

10 area. (unintelligible) we always have a

11 problem trying to put anything in.


13 Is there anybody in the

14 audience who would like to make a comment

15 about this case, now is the time to do it.

16 Seeing none, open it up to the

17 Board.

18 Mr. Canup?

19 MEMBER CANUP: Looks to me like

20 it's a pretty simple case. The house's existing.

21 They --

22 Don, (unintelligible)

23 understand in this letter that's in their

24 packet that there's two lots that have been


1 combined?

2 MR. SAVEN: That's correct.

3 MEMBER CANUP: (Unintelligible)

4 never be anything done with that. It's two

5 piece.

6 MR. SAVEN: That's correct.

7 MEMBER CANUP: All right.

8 Unless there's any further

9 discussion -- again, it's a very simple

10 case, and I would make a Motion, and we

11 could have discussion on the Motion, if

12 that's acceptable.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl

14 e.)

15 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm sorry.

16 How many notices?


18 MEMBER FISCHER: 142 sent; six

19 approvals, one objection.

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Six approvals,

21 one objection.

22 MEMBER BAUER: The objections

23 from (unintelligible) Meyers. I'm against this

24 variance (unintelligible) I don't believe the


1 standard should be set aside -- homes standard

2 should be set aside. (Unintelligible) and deck

3 that are too large for the property cannot be

4 built on that practical parcel of land.


6 open it up to Mr. Canup.

7 MEMBER CANUP: In response to

8 her comments there, there would be no houses

9 built on the lake area if they were all within

10 Ordinance. You'd have houses that were five feet

11 wide that being the case. It's just the nature

12 of the beast on the northend, (unintelligible)

13 those lots were platted back in the '40's, '50's,

14 (unintelligible) and my understanding was at one

15 time, Royal Oak Amusement Park would give away a

16 lot on Saturday nights. That was a door prize.

17 MR. SAVEN: Boy, you're showing

18 your age.

19 MEMBER CANUP: This is all

20 hearsay, Don.


22 what? What is that?

23 MEMBER CANUP: (Interposing)

24 (unintelligible.)


1 With no further discussion,

2 I'd make a Motion that in Case: 06-093,

3 that we grant the variances as requested,

4 due to previous statement of facts.


6 MEMBER SANGHVI: A Motion has

7 been made and seconded.

8 Any further discussion?

9 Yes, Ms. Ozga?

10 MS. OZGA: Just to clarify,

11 you're saying that your previous statements

12 established the Petitioner established a

13 practical difficulty. I believe you said due

14 (unintelligible) circumstances of the property.

15 MEMBER CANUP: Yes, that's

16 exactly what I said.

17 MS. OZGA: Thank you.

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right.

19 I don't see any further

20 discussion, so please call the roll, Ms.

21 Working.

22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?



2 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?


4 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


6 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


8 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


10 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes

11 six, zero.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Get your

13 permit. Good luck.

14 MR. SLY: Thank you very much.


16 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl

17 e) Case Number: 06-094, filed by Ron

18 Nuechterlein of Superior Diversified Services

19 Corporation for City Center Plaza, phase four,

20 located south of Grand River Avenue and west of

21 Novi Road.

22 Please identify yourself,

23 state your name and address and be sworn in

24 by our secretary.


1 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: My name is

2 Ron Nuechterlein of Superior Diversified

3 Services. We're construction managers, and

4 we are representing City Center Plaza,

5 (unintelligible) partnership here, who is

6 the entity that is proposing to develop City

7 Center Plaza phase four.

8 Want me to swear in?

9 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly

10 swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding,

11 Case: 06-094?

12 A.


14 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

15 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: As you can

16 see in your packets there -- rather than put this

17 on the overhead -- I'll just have this site plan

18 here. Given the design of the our site for City

19 Center Plaza phase four -- and I might want to

20 mention here that City Center Plaza phase four is

21 ultimately going to become an integral part of

22 City Center Plaza, City Center Plaza

23 (unintelligible) and City Center Plaza phase

24 three (unintelligible) old Antique Pine and


1 Design Store that is slated for demolition in the

2 next month or so. This particular location has

3 the Hank's Fly Fishing shop on it, the existing

4 building there.

5 In our design for this site,

6 we obviously have a very tight site. We

7 have less than a half an acre of ground to

8 work with. We're also bordered by being

9 right on the (unintelligible) way here.

10 That's why we couldn't utilize the small

11 portion of site here.

12 And what we're requesting is

13 -- we've achieved about 81 percent of the

14 required loading area for this site

15 development. This is about a 3600 square

16 foot building. It's intended use would

17 probably be one user. We don't anticipate

18 that we're going to have semi traffic in

19 here for loading and unloading; although,

20 the area that we have allocated here is

21 about 95 feet by 65 feet. Even if you did

22 have a semi, it still would be adequate to

23 park that truck there.

24 We -- as you can see on that


1 site, our designated loading area is --

2 there's a portion that we didn't extend,

3 only because we had to attain a truck

4 turning radius at that point that we could

5 not carrying loading farther to the west.

6 So in view of our situation here, wee feel

7 we have a adequate loading area for this

8 sized building and this is the purpose for

9 requesting our variance here.

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

11 Is there anybody in the

12 audience that would like to make any

13 comments about this case?

14 Seeing none, Building

15 Department?

16 MR. SAVEN: Just a couple of


18 First of all, I personally

19 want to thank Ron (unintelligible) weeding

20 out through the plans. This has been one of

21 the City's major concerns that we've had.

22 We've been before (unintelligible) right

23 now, and (unintelligible) this building and

24 getting it raised above the flood plan


1 elevation (unintelligible) construction.

2 Very difficult location. We were dealing

3 (unintelligible) some very tight situations.

4 Also in the plans, you will

5 notice that there's a detention basin which

6 is prohibiting him from really expanding any

7 type of loading area in that particular

8 area. As he's indicated, it's a tight site,

9 and there's (unintelligible) construction of

10 this building. And I think he's doing a

11 pretty good job taking care of the issues at

12 hand.

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you,

14 Mr. Saven.

15 23 notices were mailed; and

16 zero approvals, zero objections.

17 Open it up to the Board.

18 Yes, Mr. Fischer?

19 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes, quick

20 question.

21 You said you anticipate a

22 single tenant in there. What would be your

23 ideal tenant, what type of business would be

24 your ideal tenant?


1 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: It's going to

2 have to be retail or office. Something of that

3 nature. That's -- you know, we're restricted by

4 the TC-1 district there as to what our specific

5 use is. What falls within the guidelines of

6 that.


8 I didn't know if you had

9 (unintelligible) ideal tenants. Okay. That

10 makes sense.

11 And you mentioned some other

12 building was being demolished?


14 Adjacent to the Mobil Gas Station, there used to

15 be (unintelligible) Heating and Cooling,

16 (unintelligible) Lighting, and then it was

17 Antique Pine and Design. City Center Plaza

18 Limited Partnership owns that parcel, as well.

19 We are proceeding with construction drawings for

20 a new building at that location; and our

21 intentions are to demolish that building there;

22 along with the (unintelligible) Hank's Fly

23 Fishing Shop.

24 And there's a third parcel


1 involved which -- see, this building, City

2 Center Plaza here, this is phase three, this

3 is our subject phase four; and over here is

4 10,000 square foot of office on a parcel

5 west of Flint Street, immediately west of

6 the Sunoco Station. In fact, there's --

7 this is right next to (unintelligible) right

8 adjacent to that.

9 So -- and even in our

10 consideration for all these buildings, we

11 had to oversize this detention facility here

12 to compensate here for fill within the flood

13 plane; which is called compensating cut for

14 the fill. So this all works in together as

15 far as one development here.

16 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. I just

17 wasn't aware of the demolition. I was just

18 wondering, actually.

19 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Oh, it's an

20 eyesore.

21 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. I don't

22 disagree with that.

23 Given the constraints that

24 have been mentioned by the Petitioner and


1 the Building Department; given the fact that

2 the Petitioner established that this loading

3 zone will be adequate and in line with the

4 spirit of the Ordinance, I would be willing

5 to support.


7 MEMBER FISCHER: And if there's

8 no further discussion, I would move to approve

9 Case Number: 06-094, filed by Ron Nuechterlein

10 for the parcel in question due to the fact he has

11 established a practical difficulty; given the

12 constraints of the property; and that he's proved

13 that adequate -- the loading zone would be

14 adequate for the planned business use.

15 MEMBER GATT: Second.

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

17 Yes, Ms. Krieger?


19 question for Mr. Amolsch.

20 (Unintelligible) fire truck

21 will be able to go through there?

22 MR. AMOLSCH: Really don't know

23 the answer to that.

24 Don?


1 MR. SAVEN: I think the Planning

2 Commission took that into consideration

3 (interposing) (unintelligible.)

4 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: The routing

5 there has been approved by Fire Marshal Evans.


7 Thank you.

8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Motion

9 has been made and seconded.

10 Any further discussion?

11 Seeing none, Ms. Working, will

12 you please call the roll.

13 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer?

14 MEMBER FISCHER: I have to say

15 yes, only? Aye.

16 ROBIN WORKING: Member Gatt?


18 ROBIN WORKING: Member Bauer?


20 ROBIN WORKING: Member Canup?


22 ROBIN WORKING: Member Shroyer?


24 ROBIN WORKING: Member Sanghvi?



2 ROBIN WORKING: Motion passes

3 six, zero.


5 MR. NUECHTERLEIN: Thank you for

6 your consideration.

7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Good luck.


9 (Unintelligible) of our list

10 of cases. And other matters

11 (unintelligible) ZBA training sessions.

12 MEMBER FISCHER: Sure. This is

13 something that I brought up last month, that I

14 feel that given the new law that went into effect

15 in July and given the fact that we haven't had

16 training in a little over a year, refresher

17 courses -- always a good thing after about a year

18 (unintelligible) being on this Board. So I had

19 asked City Staff and/or the attorney

20 (unintelligible) in agreement to maybe come up

21 with some dates (unintelligible.) Update on

22 that?

23 MR. SAVEN: We'll get that

24 update to you.


1 MEMBER SANGHVI: It will be

2 forthcoming.

3 MR. SAVEN: We had made mention

4 of what dates are available. You know, one of

5 the things that would probably be good, tell us

6 what dates are available for you guys,

7 (unintelligible) go back to what dates are

8 better, Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays,

9 Fridays?

10 MEMBER FISCHER: I think last

11 year what we did is (unintelligible) threw out

12 three dates, and we all said, this is what we

13 think, this is (unintelligible) day I can go

14 (unintelligible) (interposing.)

15 MR. SAVEN: We'll leave it up to

16 our attorney.

17 MEMBER FISCHER: Pick three or

18 four dates and we can just report back to

19 Ms. Working, one, two, three, or al those are

20 good for me.

21 MEMBER GATT: I would just ask

22 that they be given some time between the dates

23 suggested and -- (unintelligible) (interposing)

24 and even have time to (unintelligible)


1 MEMBER FISCHER: Maybe a month

2 or so --


4 ROBIN WORKING: Member Fischer,

5 was that training, required training

6 (unintelligible) alternate day of the week?

7 MEMBER FISCHER: It was the

8 Wednesday after election last year, I remember

9 that.

10 ROBIN WORKING: So it was not on

11 a ZBA night.



14 item number two.

15 Mr. Saven, ITC?

16 MR. SAVEN: Item two.

17 (Unintelligible) Basically, item three. Two

18 major projects that are going to be coming before

19 you is the ITC project (unintelligible) to ITC.

20 Their world headquarters (unintelligible) going

21 to be put here (unintelligible) location is just

22 north of -- just north of (unintelligible) Mobile

23 Home Park (unintelligible) Twelve Mile Road I

24 believe, yeah. And in that particular area, the


1 property is basically zoned for

2 woodlands/wetlands, things of that nature. And

3 there's some issue that maybe before you in

4 regard to this issue for setback requirements.

5 It's a relatively unique

6 project. It is a very, very hot project

7 because they have deadlines to make sure all

8 of their equipment and everything is online

9 within a certain amount of time. And what I

10 wanted to do is just -- as soon as I get

11 more information about this, I'll get this

12 before you. If we can do this prior to the

13 date, I'll get that information to you so

14 you have a general idea of what is going on.

15 Same thing with Main Street

16 phase one. They have loading reductions and

17 parking setbacks they're going to be dealing

18 with. The Main Street project is a very,

19 very unique project. I don't know whether

20 you had an opportunity to take a look at

21 what they're proposing. It is finally --

22 we're finally going to have our Main Street

23 downtown. It's going to be a challenge.

24 It's going to be a very unique project. But


1 like anything else, there's certain

2 Ordinance requirements that have to be met

3 (unintelligible) those particular issues.

4 Any other information I get, I'll get it to

5 you, too.


7 (unintelligible) made to be January 9th,

8 (unintelligible) for you to consider in January.

9 MR. SAVEN: We'll have all

10 Minutes of meetings from the Planning Commission

11 available for you to review at that time. But

12 like I said, these two projects are probably

13 hotter (unintelligible) ITC one will

14 (unintelligible) deadline (unintelligible) I

15 think, whatever.

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing)

17 (unintelligible)

18 MR. SAVEN: May be. It may be.

19 I do know they're looking at -- if they obtain --

20 if they obtain some property -- if they obtain

21 some property, they won't have a setback problem.

22 But it looks as though they may have a little

23 problem in that particular area. Some other

24 issues they have to take a look at


1 (unintelligible) starting the property and making

2 sure things move along the way they should.

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligibl

4 e.)

5 Okay. (Unintelligible)


7 adjourn.


9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Motion has been

10 made and seconded.

11 All in favor, signify by

12 saying aye?



15 adjourned.


17 (The meeting adjourned at 9:15

18 p.m.)

19 - - - - -




23 C E R T I F I C A T E



1 I, Machelle Billingslea-Moore,

2 do hereby certify that I have recorded

3 stenographically the proceedings had and testimony

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

5 place hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify

6 that the foregoing transcript, consisting of (90)

7 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript

8 of my said stenograph notes.



11 ___________________________

Machelle Billingslea-Moore,

12 Certified Shorthand Reporter


14 January 29, 2007.