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, October 9, 2007.

Timothy Shroyer, Chairman
Justin Fischer, Vice-Chairman
Gerald Bauer
Brent Canup
Linda Krieger
Mav Sanghvi
Wayne Wrobel

Christian Fox, Community Development Liaison
Thomas Schultz, City Attorney
Alan Amolsch, Ordinance Enforcement
Robin Working, ZBA Recording Secretary

Mona L. Talton, Certified Shorthand Reporter.

1 Novi, Michigan

2 Tuesday, October 9, 2007

3 7:30 p.m.

4 - - - - - -

5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Good evening

6 everyone. It's 7:30, I'm going to call the

7 meeting to order and request a roll call of

8 our ZBA members.

9 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?

10 MEMBER BAUER: Present.

11 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


13 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer?


15 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


17 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


19 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


21 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?

22 MEMBER WROBEL: Present.

23 MS. WORKING: All present, Mr.

24 Chairperson.



1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. We do

2 have a quorum. This meeting is official.

3 It's now in session. This meeting is for

4 Tuesday, October 9th, 2007 the regular

5 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for

6 October.

7 At this time I would like Member

8 Sanghvi to lead us in the Pledge of

9 Allegiance.

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: I will be honored,

11 sir. Will you please join me.

12 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

13 United States of America and to the Republic

14 for which it stands, one nation under God

15 indivisible with liberty and justice for

16 all.

17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. And I

18 would like our Vice-Chair to read our rules

19 of conduct for the meeting.


21 Chairman. A copy of all the rules for the

22 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting can be found

23 in the front of the agenda found in the back

24 of the room.



1 Please turn off all cell phones and

2 pagers during the meeting. An applicant or

3 representative will be asked to come forth,

4 state their name and address and be sworn in

5 by the Secretary. Applicants'

6 representatives will be allowed five minutes

7 to address the Board to present their case.

8 An extension may be granted at the

9 discretion of the Chairperson.

10 Anyone in the audience who wishes to

11 address the Board regarding the current case

12 will be asked by the Chairperson to raise

13 their hands and be recognized. Once

14 recognized, audience members addressing the

15 Board will be sworn in and given three

16 minutes of speaking on behalf of an

17 individual or ten minutes if representing a

18 group.

19 Members of the audience will be

20 allowed to address the Board once unless

21 directly questioned by the Board or the

22 Chairperson. The Secretary will read the

23 number of public hearing notices mailed

24 pertaining to the current case. Objection



1 and approval responses will be entered into

2 the record at that time. The Chairperson

3 will ask for input from the Community

4 Development Department, the Ordinance

5 Enforcement Office and the Planning

6 Department as well as the City attorney.

7 The Chair will turn the case over to

8 the Board for discussion, clarification and

9 a Motion if appropriate.

10 Impromptu statements from the audience

11 during discussion of the Board will not be

12 tolerated and be considered out of order. A

13 roll call vote will be taken to approve or

14 deny a Motion on the table and the next case

15 will then be called.

16 Thank you, Mr. Chair.


18 Vice-Chair Fischer.

19 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a

20 Hearing Board empowered by the Novi City

21 Charter to hear appeals seeking variances

22 from the application of the Novi City Zoning

23 Ordinance.

24 It takes a vote of at least four



1 members to approve a variance request. And

2 a vote of the majority present to deny a

3 request. The Board consist of seven regular

4 members and one alternate member. The

5 alternate member has a right to participate

6 in all Board discussions and hearings, but

7 may not vote except in the absence or

8 abstention of a regular Board Member.

9 At this time looking at the agenda is

10 there any additions or corrections to the

11 agenda?

12 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chairman, I would

13 like to draw your attention to Case Number

14 6, 07-059. They have requested to be tabled

15 to the November meeting.

16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: What was the number

17 on that, please?

18 MS. WORKING: Number 6 case on the

19 agenda. It would be case number: 07-059,

20 filed by Scott Smith of Clark Hill for the

21 Adell Brothers Trust.

22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay. Any other

23 additions or corrections to be made to the

24 agenda?



1 MS. WORKING: Yes, sir. Case number

2 13 on your agenda. Case number: 07-075,

3 filed Jim Clear of Novi Town Center

4 Investors, LLC, for the Novi Town Center

5 located at 43390 Grand River Avenue. In our

6 write up you will see that the decorative

7 brick wall and columns will require site

8 plan review and approval. Upon second review

9 by our Planning Department it was decided

10 that the decorative brick wall and columns

11 were approved as part of the site plan

12 approval, so that will no longer be

13 something you need to take into

14 consideration as a condition when

15 entertaining the sign request this evening

16 before you.

17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. So we

18 can remove that case from agenda totally.

19 MS. WORKING: Number 6.

20 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: And number 6 will

21 be postponed until --

22 MS. WORKING: No, number 6 is being

23 postponed until November. Number 13 remains

24 on the agenda, you just do not need to be



1 concerned with the decorative brick wall and

2 columns.

3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That portion of it.

4 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chairman, just to

5 comment on case number 6, if I may.


7 MR. SCHULTZ: At this point it's

8 assumed it will be the November meeting.

9 It's a possibility they may ask for a

10 special meeting. I just wanted to make sure

11 that the Board is aware of that. We'll have

12 some correspondence with the Chair on that

13 issue in next several days.

14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: In a revised agenda

15 we will state postponed until a later date.

16 Any other changes, additions or

17 corrections?


19 approve as amended.

20 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have a motion on

22 the floor from the Vice-Chairperson and

23 seconded by Member Bauer.

24 Please call the roll.



1 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


3 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer?


5 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?


7 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


9 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


11 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


13 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


15 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.


17 Moving forward we have two sets of

18 Minutes to review and approve or review and

19 correct. The first one is August 7th. Any

20 changes to those Minutes or corrections?

21 MS. WORKING: Yes, Mr. Chair. I would

22 like to draw your attention to page 26 lines

23 15 through 22. Where Ms. Working is

24 identified it should be Ms. Kudla. And



1 where Ms. Kudla is identified it should be

2 Ms. Working.


4 additional changes?

5 Motion to an approve as amended?

6 MEMBER BAUER: So moved.


8 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: It's been moved by

9 Member Bauer and seconded by Member Sanghvi.

10 All in favor approve it by saying aye.


12 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Opposed same sign.

13 Okay, the next set of Minutes is from

14 the September 11th meeting. Any corrections

15 to that one? I have a correction on page

16 226. I have to find it. On 226 it states

17 16 shows each year and it should be six

18 shows each year.

19 That was the only correction that I

20 saw that was worthy of changing. Any other

21 corrections?

22 Entertain a motion for approval as

23 amended?

24 MEMBER BAUER: So moved.




2 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have an approval

3 -- a motion by Member Bauer and I believe

4 seconded by Member Wrobel.

5 All in favor say aye?


7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Opposed same sign.

8 Those sets of the Minutes are approved as

9 amended.

10 All right. We are ready at this

11 time to open up the meeting for public

12 remarks. And by public remarks what we are

13 looking for is anyone who cares to speak on

14 any of our cases with the exception of the

15 public hearings that are scheduled on the

16 agenda.

17 Does anyone want to speak on anything,

18 I should say, other than the cases on the

19 agenda?

20 Seeing none, we will move forward to

21 our first case.


23 Our first case is Number: 07-048

24 filed by Mark Guidobono of Novi Investment



1 Company, LLC, for Tuscany Reserve located

2 north of Eight Mile Road and west of Beck

3 Road.

4 This case was tabled from the August

5 7th meeting so I won't re-read it. But

6 basically the Applicant is requesting three

7 additional real estate -- it says three

8 additional real estate signs for Tuscany

9 Reserve, but it's really only one at this

10 time, isn't it?

11 MR. GUIDOBONO: Well, we're asking for

12 two.

13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Oh, it's two?

14 MR. GUIDOBONO: Actually we're asking

15 for two. So, it's a typo there.

16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: If you're not an

17 attorney please be sworn in by our

18 Secretary.

19 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm

20 to tell the truth regarding case: 07-048?


22 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: State your name and

24 address and present your case.



1 MR. GUIDOBONO: Mark Guidobono with

2 Cambridge Homes, 47765 Bellagio Drive. I'm

3 here regarding Tuscany Reserve. I brought a

4 subdivision map to show everyone here. Our

5 entrance is located right here. We're

6 asking for a sign at this corner and this

7 corner.

8 The reason we're asking for it, we

9 believe we have a safety issue here on Eight

10 Mile Road. Currently in working with the

11 woodlands people when we designed this

12 community we protected a woodland area right

13 up here along Eight Mile Road. It's pretty

14 heavily wooded in the Summer.

15 If you want me to use that easel. Our

16 concern is traffic going along Eight Mile

17 Road. They kind of get right on our

18 entrance real quick, so we wanted to give

19 them a head start. We think it's a safety

20 hazard. Someone is going to be slamming on

21 the brakes and rear ending somebody else.

22 People are traveling 60 miles an hour on

23 Eight Mile Road, so we wanted to give them a

24 little heads up before they get right on top



1 of this entrance because you really can't

2 see it until you are about right here and

3 going 60 miles an hour and the same thing

4 about here.

5 So, at this point people are flying

6 down that road. It's our wish to get two

7 signs put up, one at each corner of the

8 development just kind of giving the heads

9 up. And I believe you have a copy of the

10 sign in your package and I hope you have a

11 picture of what the woodlands looks like.

12 But as you can see it's pretty heavily

13 wooded there. And it's actually a benefit

14 to us because it kind of screens the

15 development and it's a benefit to the city

16 protecting those trees. Initially it was

17 something that we were going to cut down,

18 but the City and Cambridge agreed that it

19 would be better to save these trees and make

20 for a more desirable development. So that

21 is our...

22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Mr. Guidobono, do

23 you have a picture of the sign or one of the

24 signs? Can you put it on the overhead so



1 our audience can see what we are referring

2 to, please. And the back room will dim the

3 lights so it's easier to read. It's like

4 magic, the lights.

5 Okay. This is a public hearing from a

6 tabled case so we continue with the public

7 hearing; is that correct?

8 MR. SCHULTZ: Before they actually

9 held the hearing? Absolutely.

10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: So, at this time is

11 there anyone in the audience who cares to

12 speak on this case?

13 Seeing none, we will move forward and

14 ask the City and our attorney if there are

15 any comments on this case?

16 MR. AMOLSCH: NO comments.

17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: No comments. All

18 right, I'll turn it over to the Board for

19 their comments and discussions.

20 Member Fischer?


22 the notices last time? I'm not sure if we

23 did. But just for the Board's notification,

24 there were 60 notices mailed. Zero



1 approvals and zero objections.

2 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We did read them

3 last time but it never hurts to double check

4 (Unintelligible) if the notices came in.

5 Any further comments?


7 time.

8 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I can start. I

9 don't remember reading that the main sign,

10 the main entrance as being requested. The

11 only one that I can remember reading and I'm

12 looking through it again, I still don't see

13 any picture of the main sign for information

14 on it. I only see one sign, which is the

15 one as you're heading west on that road.

16 MR. GUIDOBONO: Right. We have not

17 installed the easterly sign.

18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Is the easterly

19 sign the same direction?

20 MR. GUIDOBONO: Yes, it would be the

21 exact same sign.

22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That's why I didn't

23 understand it. I heading west had no

24 problem reading the sign not really knowing



1 what I was looking for. It was the arrow

2 reading to Tuscany. But as I approached and

3 I was driving the speed limit I didn't see

4 any major issue with being able to see the

5 sign and see the entrance.

6 I went ahead and drove past it because

7 I wanted to see how wide your entire

8 property was. Turned around and came back.

9 I thought I saw the sign fairly easy. And

10 once you know that the location is there,

11 even if you do pass it you can turn around

12 and come back in.

13 So I don't see the hardship. Somebody

14 else on the Board perhaps might be able to

15 convince me, but that's my initial comments.

16 And I will reserve further comments for

17 after everybody else speaks.

18 Member Wrobel?

19 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

20 The dimensions from the main entrance

21 going east, how far is that to your property

22 line?

23 MR. GUIDOBONO: I am going to guess

24 and say it's somewhere between 300 and 400



1 feet. I want to say about 300 and 350.

2 MEMBER WROBEL: How about from the

3 main entrance going west to the property

4 line?

5 MR. GUIDOBONO: Going west there you

6 probably have like 650, I would guess.

7 MEMBER WROBEL: After driving by this

8 area several times and also looking at the

9 pictures, I concur with the Chairman on

10 this. The distances aren't great enough

11 where I think they are really required and I

12 don't really think it's a hardship

13 personally. But I will reserve my right to

14 change my vote after listening to my

15 colleagues, but my first thought of opinion

16 is I don't really think these are required.

17 Thank you.

18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you, Member

19 Wrobel.

20 Member Sanghvi, please?

21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, I'm going to

22 beg to differ with both of you gentleman. I

23 drove there and kept looking for it. Until

24 I came to the main entrance I had no way of



1 knowing where I was going. And the same

2 applies coming back. It's very easy to look

3 at something when you know it is there. But

4 if you don't know it is there, then you need

5 some kind of identification. And I think

6 these two signs which they are requesting

7 are primarily for identifying the property

8 that this is where entrance is coming very

9 soon if you are going at that speed.

10 So I personally don't find the request

11 of the Applicant very unreasonable. Thank

12 you.


14 Member Bauer?

15 MEMBER BAUER: I can go along with the

16 one sign near the entrance, but that would

17 be the only thing I could go for.

18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: You already have

19 the sign at the entrance?

20 MR. GUIDOBONO: Yeah --

21 MEMBER BAUER: It's the same right

22 here at the entrance that he is talking

23 about.

24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Oh, you want a



1 little one at the entrance?

2 MR. GUIDOBONO: The entrance is here.

3 We have one on property right there and we

4 would like to put another one on the

5 property right there in the corner.

6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: The one side at the

7 main entrance, Member Bauer, is what you are

8 referring to?


10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Anything from this

11 side of the table? Member Canup?

12 MEMBER CANUP: I guess I would concur

13 with your comments and I would be reluctant

14 to want to support any kind of a sign there.

15 The sign presented at least my

16 interpretation was one if you wanted to

17 locate Tuscany Reserve. It's more of a real

18 estate sign with the blare of new homes

19 verbiage on the sign. I guess I would be

20 reluctant. I just wouldn't vote on any more

21 signage than what is allowed by Ordinance.


23 Anyone else? Member Wrobel?

24 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you. I was just



1 thinking sitting here. I am trying to make

2 the best of a situation. To me, and I know

3 that we are not dealing with what's on

4 signs, we're dealing with the signs per se,

5 what you put on them is your business as far

6 as we're just telling you yes or no you

7 can't place the sign. But I'm looking at

8 the sign. I mean, I'm looking, I'm seeing

9 new homes. I would be more apt to go along

10 with something that was just a smaller sign

11 that just said Tuscany Reserve with the

12 arrow pointing ahead and it's just an

13 identifier because that is more of a finder

14 sign to me rather than an advertising sign

15 which this is.

16 So that's just a thought that I had

17 running through my mind as we were talking

18 back and forth. Thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: You said there is

20 regulated wetlands on the east side of the

21 property, correct?

22 MR. GUIDOBONO: There are some

23 regulated wetlands over in this area right

24 here.



1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: The woodlands then

2 out by the road, that's regulated as well?



5 directions?

6 MR. GUIDOBONO: Most of the woods are

7 here. The thicker side is this side right

8 here. And then of course you have your

9 woodlands back here in the back that we

10 preserved as well.

11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Have you 58

12 properties there, and how many are still

13 available?


15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: All 58. I guess I

16 saw the paved road and the curbs. I might

17 be willing to go with something similar to

18 what Member Wrobel is referring to. But

19 only on a temporary nature until you are 75

20 percent sold or something along that line.

21 I don't want to see a permanent

22 advertising sign there.

23 MR. GUIDOBONO: We could agree to

24 something like that. We can cut this sign



1 maybe in half and just go Tuscany Homes.

2 Seventy-five percent sold would work for us.

3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: What does the Board

4 think of that recommendation? We're allowed

5 to go less, we just can't more.

6 Mr. Schultz, do you have a comment?

7 MR. SCHULTZ: Which sign?

8 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: You are talking

9 about the westbound sign, correct?

10 MR. GUIDOBONO: I was thinking both.

11 It's up to the Board. I was thinking both.

12 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: You are talking

13 about both signs in addition to the main

14 entry sign that has already been approved,

15 correct?

16 MR. GUIODOBONO: Yes, that's true.

17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I stated my

18 opinion.

19 Member Krieger?

20 MEMBER KRIEGER: I could see shrinking

21 the signs for directions and letting them

22 have it since they have such a 75 percent

23 vacancy for a period of time.

24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: So we have heard a



1 couple comments, shrinkage of the sign,

2 removal of the words, new homes. You had

3 basically agreed I believe to cutting the

4 sign in half and still requesting that both

5 signs be up and you have agreed to the

6 possibility of a temporary or a limitation

7 on it based on the number of homes or the

8 percentage of the homes available. Looking

9 for further comment or disagreement from the

10 Board?

11 Well, I can try to make a motion off

12 the top of my head (unintelligible). In

13 Case number: 07-048 filed by Mark Guidobono

14 of Novi Investment Company for Tuscany

15 Reserve for a real estate sign located on

16 Eight Mile east of Barola Drive, move to

17 approve the sign -- two signs. One

18 eastbound and one westbound where indicated

19 on the proposed map that's provided. Fifty

20 percent site -- 50 percent of the indicated

21 size of the signs with the removal of the

22 words new homes and a limitation of there

23 being installed or maintaining installed up

24 to 75 percent capacity selling of the lots,



1 not building of the homes, but selling of

2 the lots for homes to be built. Due to the

3 practical difficulties as mentioned by the

4 Applicant and the activities that we do have

5 or the fact that we do have regulated

6 woodlands along the entire frontage of the

7 property.


9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: It's been moved by

10 Member Shroyer. Seconded by Member Wrobel.

11 Further discussion? Member Fischer?

12 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Do you care to

13 put a time limit and/or as far as lot sold

14 and/or time limit, whichever is sooner?

15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I think that's a

16 good plan. Seventy-five percent or a maximum

17 of two years at which time you can come back

18 and see us again if you are not at that

19 capacity. So, I will amend the motion to

20 that.


22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: It's been agreed by

23 the Seconder. Any other comments?

24 Please call the roll.



1 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


3 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?


5 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


7 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer?


9 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger.


11 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


13 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


15 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 5-2.

16 MR. GUIDOBONO: Thank you.

17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you, Mr.

18 Guidobono.


20 Moving on to our second case.

21 Case number: 07-050 filed by Patty Loose of

22 Sign Fabricators for Andiamo Second City

23 located at 42705 West Grand River Avenue.

24 It's a reconsidered case from August 7th.



1 Again, this being a reconsideration, we have

2 gone over all the details previously, so I

3 won't go into that.

4 The Applicant is requesting a 51.2

5 square foot ground sign and an eight foot

6 tall sign for that. The Applicant has

7 submitted additional changes to the sign

8 which has permitted him to come back to

9 re-present his case.

10 So, please be sworn in by our

11 Secretary. He is already sworn in?


13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I thought we had to

14 redo it each time.

15 Mr. Schultz, should we re-swear in

16 people after a tabled case?

17 MR. SCHULTZ: If he has been sweared

18 -- sworn already, he is still sworn.

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay. You maintain

20 being sworn. Thank you.

21 Please present your case.

22 MR. BROOK: As before they wanted to

23 include the two businesses on a monument

24 sign on the location. I believe last time



1 there was a difficulty with the aesthetics

2 of the sign and various Board Members wanted

3 it to be kind of in conjunction with the

4 sign that is there now. And they didn't

5 send me anything. I got this late in the

6 day.

7 I am actually here for Case Number 5,

8 but since this is also their company, they

9 wanted me to be up here to answer questions

10 on it. That's what I got on it so far.

11 Again, they are shooting for some

12 additional square footage and a couple of

13 feet in height. And mainly that's due to

14 the two businesses there, the Andiamo and

15 the Second City.


17 Mr. Schultz, with this being a

18 reconsideration, we have already had the

19 public hearing, do we need to reopen the

20 public hearing?

21 MR. SCHULTZ: You do not. You are

22 back to deliberation on the motion.

23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. There

24 are no new notices, correct?



1 MS. WORKING: Correct.


3 correspondence.

4 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: You want to mention

5 the objections to approval?


7 7th hearing I did mention there were 22

8 notices mailed. Zero approvals with one

9 objection. I already entered it into the

10 record.

11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Any comments from

12 City or Counsel?


14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay, we'll turn it

15 back over to the Board. Comments from

16 Member Wrobel?

17 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

18 I am still not in favor of this. I

19 believe that these establishments have

20 enough visibility from the building signs.

21 Right now they are very visible from Grand

22 River Avenue. The existing Main Street East

23 sign gives sufficient space to put their

24 names on it. I am not in favor of this. I



1 don't see a need. Thank you.

2 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Fischer?


4 businesses that are requesting this sign,

5 Andiamo Second City Dirty Martini, which

6 ones have we already granted variances for

7 on the building? I'm pretty sure Second

8 City was one of them.

9 MR. AMOLSCH: Dirty Martini does not

10 have a sign. Andiamo, both their signs were

11 approved administratively.


13 City?

14 MR. AMOLSCH: Yeah, administratively.


16 haven't come before us before?



19 Wrobel's comments. I like the new design.

20 I still think the sign is still too large.

21 The graphic that we received in our packet

22 that shows it's towering over a six foot

23 human being kind of scares me on Grand

24 River. Every business on that street would



1 then deserve a sign of this magnitude.

2 There is no conditions for this property

3 alone. There has been no evidence of this

4 property needing it as opposed to a general

5 condition in the area. So, I cannot support

6 this sign with its height.

7 So, thank you, Mr. Chair.


9 Member Canup?

10 MEMBER CANUP: Looking at the

11 rendering that we have, that area is quite

12 bold. The whole project is there. It's

13 easy to see. Quite truthfully, I find the

14 sign, the verbiage, just the presentation of

15 the sign is obnoxious. It's large, it's not

16 real subtle. The existing sign there as

17 shown in one of the presentations to me is a

18 fairly subtle looking sign and I wouldn't be

19 in favor of supporting anything

20 (unintelligible).

21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you, Member

22 Canup.

23 Well, I have a different opinion. The

24 two criteria that I found that I didn't care



1 for in the original submittal have both been

2 satisfied. That of maintaining the

3 architectural angles that match the Market

4 Street East building and maintaining the

5 current look of the sign by adding the brick

6 that matches the building.

7 And the way that I read everything, it

8 was no higher than it was before. In fact,

9 it's exactly the same sign as the existing

10 signs. So I actually would be in favor of

11 the approval, although when we're looking at

12 the changes and when you look at the

13 Ordinances and what have you, the grounds

14 may be difficult to substantiate the change.

15 But I like the looks of the sign. I like

16 the old sign better, but I am not opposed to

17 the new sign since it has been changed to

18 more meet the architectural features of the

19 site.

20 Further comments? Member Bauer?

21 MEMBER BAUER: I think the

22 reconsideration rendering is much better. I

23 would vote for that.

24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Sanghvi?



1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

2 I just want to be clear. Am I right in

3 understanding that the size is the same as

4 before?

5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That's right.

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: And that size has

7 been approved previously?


9 MEMBER SANGHVI: So now we are talking

10 about the verbiage and the presentation of

11 the sign itself rather than the size of the

12 sign?


14 MEMBER SANGHVI: If that's what we are

15 talking about, I have no problem with the

16 current presentation that they have

17 suggested. They know how to sell their

18 business best themselves rather than I do

19 and if that (unintelligible) work for them

20 and everything else is the same I have no

21 problem. Thank you.

22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you, Member

23 Sanghvi.

24 Member Fischer?




2 they probably do know how to sell it. I

3 could sell Ford vehicles if I had a sign big

4 enough. Sorry, a little poke at Ford there.

5 I do like them.

6 By my comment to the size of the sign,

7 while it is the same exact size that

8 previously was granted, it was granted at a

9 different time in the City's development.

10 This is a newer area and now this is a more

11 established area. I don't think that the

12 size is warranted any longer.

13 When a sign comes up for re-evaluation

14 that's a time for the City to look at

15 conformity towards this and I think that's

16 exactly what we need to do in this

17 situation. It's now an established business

18 in an established area and the sign would be

19 permanent now going forward. That's why I

20 still would disagree with any approval as it

21 stands.

22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: One other comment I

23 would like to make that I omitted in my

24 previous comments was, another one of the



1 concerns that I had was in the original

2 rendering, there was no verbiage that stated

3 Market Street East. And there are other

4 businesses in that business besides Andiamos

5 and Dirty Martini and Second City. And I

6 thought it was an injustice. But it wasn't

7 in the first rendering. And they brought

8 back the words Market Street East.

9 So I would continue to support same.

10 Member Canup, did you have additional

11 comment?

12 MEMBER CANUP: Due to the fact that

13 there is considerable visibility to the

14 building that was there and the building

15 that was none. I guess my comments are, in

16 order for us to grant a variance there needs

17 to be a hardship. And I don't see any

18 hardship. There is none. Whether I like

19 this sign or I don't like it, it doesn't

20 matter. Is there a hardship and can there

21 be a proven hardship? I don't think there

22 can be a proven hardship. There are other

23 people in that center besides these. And I

24 think what was done here originally was to



1 identify Main Street East. That was the

2 reason for that sign, not to identify a

3 particular tenant in that area.

4 If we start that we are going to have

5 a whole row of signs down through there. If

6 I was a tenant in there I would probably do

7 the same thing and get my name out front if

8 I could and be in front of everybody else.

9 If you put up a big enough sign, the next

10 guy next to you will put one up bigger.

11 So, any way, those are my comments.

12 And if you want to see a good representation

13 of what I just talked about, drive down Ford

14 Road in Garden City.


16 Sir, you have heard Member Canup's

17 statement and my statement about that it

18 would be hard to make justification. Do you

19 have any further comments about the hardship

20 indication as to why we should grant this

21 variance?

22 MR. BROOKS: Other than the customers

23 themselves requiring additional visibility

24 there for their businesses. I can see the



1 point of other businesses would want the

2 same thing later, but they are not here

3 right now. We're here for these three

4 particular businesses and that's where we

5 stand.


7 Mr. Schultz, on a reconsideration do

8 we go through a motion and a vote the same

9 or if there is no motion do we fall by the

10 wayside?

11 MR. SCHULTZ: You will need to treat

12 this like any other case. There should be a

13 substantive motion.


15 Member Canup?

16 MEMBER CANUP: I would like to make a

17 motion that in case number: 07-050 in

18 regards to Andiamo Second City, that we deny

19 the request as stated due to a lack of

20 demonstrated and practical hardship.


22 MEMBER CANUP: And for reasons as

23 stated by the Board.




1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: All right. It's

2 been moved by Member Canup and seconded by

3 Member Wrobel. Additional discussion?

4 Member Fischer?


6 to just offer a little bit of clean up on

7 that just to state that the practical

8 difficulty that the Board uses as a standard

9 and that we also found no special

10 circumstances that this property requires

11 the size of this sign. The Petitioner did

12 not meet the burden, nor did they meet the

13 burden that not allowing this sign of this

14 size would result in a substantial injustice

15 done to them as well as surrounding areas.

16 Would you accept those comments in

17 your motion?

18 MEMBER CANUP: I have no problem with

19 that.

20 MEMBER WROBEL: Accepted.

21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: The friendly

22 amendment has been approved by the Motioner

23 and Seconder. Any further

24 comments? Please call the roll.



1 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


3 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?


5 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


7 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


9 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer?


11 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


13 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


15 MS. WORKING: Motion to deny passes

16 6-1.



19 Our next case is Case Number:

20 07-058 filed by John D. Douglas of 23820

21 Lynwood in Echo Valley Subdivision. This

22 also is a tabled case from September. The

23 applicant is present.

24 He has been sworn in so we don't have



1 to go through that again. We have had the

2 audience participation and I noted that we

3 have received an additional correspondence.

4 Would you review the correspondence, please.

5 I am going to go ahead and have him do

6 that before you present your case.


8 Chair. In this case there were seven

9 additional approvals since September 11th,

10 2007. And I will go ahead and read those at

11 this time.

12 An approval from Patricia Particka

13 (ph) at 23819 Forest Park. States that she

14 lived at the said address 29 years. The

15 bushes that surround the house have never

16 been a problem. There are stop signs at the

17 corner to make sure everyone proceeds with

18 caution prior to entering the intersection.

19 The bushes in question sit back, so they are

20 not an obstruction. They feel that the

21 bushes should remain intact.

22 Approval from Melissa Augusta and John

23 Augusta of 48025 Rushwood. Our house

24 directly faces the shrubs in question. We



1 love them. They have been there forever. We

2 hope they stay.

3 Approval from John and Nancy, I can't

4 read the last name at 23701 Hartwood.

5 Approval from John Oelze, O-E-L-Z-E,

6 it appears, 48225 Rushwood. I see no

7 problems with the shrubs staying as they

8 are. They provide a nice privacy to the

9 neighborhood.

10 Approval from Mr. and Mrs. Stanley

11 Rykwalder, R-Y-K-W-A-L-D-E-R. I live at the

12 northwest corner of Lynwood and Rushwood

13 directly across the street from the hedges.

14 My wife and I love the hedges are there and

15 the way the owners decorate it with the

16 lights at Christmas time. They add beauty

17 to the subdivision and do not believe it

18 causes a safety problem. This three-way

19 intersection is a very low traffic area. We

20 are retired and are home most every day and

21 so we are familiar with the traffic more

22 than anyone else. There has never been an

23 accident or other problem in the 35 plus

24 years we have lived here.



1 An approval from Sarah,

2 S-H-E-W-A-R-L-K or S, 23939 Forest Park

3 Drive. In the history of that corner no

4 accident has ever occurred. Also there are

5 now three stops signs on that same corner.

6 I have driven that corner a multitude of

7 times and never even noticed the hedges.

8 They do not in my opinion pose a problem.

9 Roland and Anita Storm, 48114

10 Rushwood. It's an approval. We approve of

11 the variance. We see no need to cut down

12 the hedge as there are stop signs in place.

13 Perhaps the corner could be trimmed back to

14 increase the (unintelligible) at Rushwood

15 Lynwood corner.

16 An approval from Denise Edwards at

17 23880 Forest Park Drive. It is something

18 that they like, so I don't know why it is an

19 issue if there has never been an accident or

20 hazards.

21 All prior or other correspondence has

22 already been introduced into the record.

23 Thank you, Mr. Chair.




1 At this time, Mr. Douglas, please

2 present your case.

3 MR. DOUGLAS: Sir, as you know, I

4 discussed this last time with you regarding

5 the hedge. It's been there for probably 45

6 plus years. The stop signs are relatively

7 new. They have been there probably three

8 years. Prior to that with no stop signs and

9 no yield signs there was never an incident

10 of any kind there.

11 It's not like the hedges are not able

12 to be seen, they can be seen off in the

13 distance by any driver that comes down

14 either way down the road, so they know the

15 hedge is there. They can be aware of that

16 and proceed with caution if they feel they

17 need to do that. The estimate

18 that I have given you and you have in your

19 package there indicates somewhere around

20 $5,000 to have the hedge removed and the

21 ground re-landscaped and for us that's a

22 considerable amount of money. We have a

23 child in college right now. We have two

24 that have completed college and we have one



1 that's getting ready to go next year. So

2 our resources are pretty limited with regard

3 to spending.

4 I guess that's it. We maintain the

5 hedge every year. We keep it trimmed. We

6 haven't done so yet this year yet, we

7 usually do it in the fall. It looks like it

8 does need a trimming on the top and around

9 the sides. And as soon as we find out what

10 the decision here is we will go ahead and

11 operate accordingly as far as trimming goes.

12 Are there any questions?

13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We'll get to them.

14 Please be patient.

15 MR. DOUGLAS: Okay.

16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Any comments from

17 the City or Attorney? Member Schultz -- Mr.

18 Schultz. I always want to call you Member

19 Schultz.

20 MR. SCHULTZ: An elevation.

21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have an opening

22 on the ZBA --

23 MR. SCHULTZ: This is a tough kind of

24 case because those have been there for quite



1 some time. There are two elements that I

2 think that the Board is going to want to

3 take into consideration. I think when this

4 was tabled last month, one of the questions

5 that came up was when did the Ordinance come

6 into place that limited these corner

7 clearance areas to two feet. Mr. Amolsch

8 has researched that and we find the earliest

9 version to be back in 1975.

10 We have found some areal photographs

11 which show a hedge row of some height there

12 as far back as 1963. And again another

13 areal from 1974, but there is no height

14 shown from above so you can't really tell

15 how tall they were in 1974 or 1975 when the

16 Ordinance was passed. But in a way that

17 becomes a little bit irrelevant because

18 these are clearly from the photographs that

19 you have in your packet today in the City's

20 right-of-way, almost entirely within the

21 City's right-of-way.

22 So from an ordinance enforcement

23 perspective, theoretically one can't

24 adversely possess or occupy public property



1 like that. The City could go out there and

2 remove the bushes. We prefer to work with

3 the property owner and that is why he is

4 here seeking some kind of direction from

5 this Board. But as far as the City is

6 concerned this remains a health, safety and

7 welfare issue in our public right-of-way and

8 I guess from the City's perspective that's

9 what we can add after it being tabled from

10 last month.

11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Before

12 I turn it over to the Board I do want to

13 ask, one of the reasons that you asked to

14 table this and to bring it back in front of

15 the group tonight was to give you an

16 opportunity to work with the City to see

17 what resolutions may be able to be made

18 whether it be a compromise or some type of

19 an adjustment made possibly discussing it

20 with the forester or landscape architect.

21 What correspondence took place? What

22 communications took place?

23 MR. DOUGLAS: I didn't get a chance to

24 talk to the forester or arbores because I am



1 just coming back from the flu. I just back

2 to work yesterday. I was off for a couple

3 of weeks. I had planned on doing that two

4 weeks ago but I haven't been well enough to

5 do it. So I haven't done anything.

6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay, thank you.

7 I'll turn it over to the Board.

8 Member Wrobel?

9 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

10 Mr. Schultz, as you said, we see

11 evidence of this being here prior to the

12 Ordinance, so grandfather kind of situation.

13 But on the other hand, you are saying it's

14 in the right-of-way, the City's

15 right-of-way. How long does the City -- if

16 something is in the right-of-way and we let

17 it exist despite that fact, is there a

18 period of time that we give up the authority

19 and say it's in the right-of-way and you

20 have to move it? Is there a time frame? Or

21 is it perpetual?

22 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair.

23 Second question first. It is perpetual. It

24 remains in our right-of-way. You can't



1 adversely possess public property. It is

2 always going to be public property and there

3 is no statute of limitations under which the

4 City loses the right to come in and say you

5 need to remove your obstruction. That's our

6 legal position in any kind of case.

7 I just want to make sure on the first

8 point, I don't know that the City is

9 conceding the non-conforming issue. If

10 there was a hedge there we don't know what

11 the height was. That would be from out

12 perspective something that would be really

13 in defense to the idea that this is a

14 violation. The property owner would have to

15 establish what it was in 1975 that might be

16 prohibited. We don't have any information

17 on that.

18 MEMBER WROBEL: I guess from my

19 perspective I am looking at it day one it

20 was in the right-of-way. Today it is in the

21 right-of-way which creates the issue whether

22 the shrubs were there before and they were

23 just left alone before the Ordinance came

24 into effect. The bottom line is it's still



1 in the right-of-way.

2 After going by this area, I

3 personally, if the right-of-way wasn't an

4 issue, I personally would have no issue with

5 it because there are stop signs there. I

6 have driven by it, we should be stopping. I

7 don't think it creates a safety hazard.

8 To me this is no different than if a

9 building is sitting at that corner with a

10 same, similar setback that you are going to

11 see that in other cities. So I equate that

12 to a building there where you are not going

13 to be able to see around the corner. The

14 issue I have is with the right-of-way, that

15 it is in the right-of-way. The City has the

16 right not to have anything in the

17 right-of-way since it's theirs.

18 So I'm still up on the fence on this.

19 Thank you.

20 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: You're on the hedge

21 row.


23 MR. DOUGLAS: I guess if I may add, I

24 guess we have to look at what is the issue



1 here. If the issue is a safety issue and

2 it's determined that, well, it's not that

3 big of a safety problem, then I guess that

4 to me would seem to be the more important

5 deciding factor. However, there is a legal

6 issue here and who is going to make that

7 decision? I don't know if the Board of

8 Zoning Appeals can make a decision on

9 property the City owns.

10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Go ahead, Mr.

11 Schultz.

12 Mr. SCHULTZ: And I sort of threw that

13 out there to cause the discussion. The City

14 does have administrative processes that

15 allow intrusions into the right-of-way. And

16 that may be the more appropriate venue for

17 this discussion with the gentleman to take

18 place about what can be permitted there and

19 what conditions it can be permitted under,

20 rather than the Board treating this as a --

21 it is obviously a Zoning Ordinance standard,

22 the two feet, but the condition of the

23 right-of-way being involved makes it a

24 little bit of a different question than



1 would normally be before this Board.


3 Sir, I just want to mention, we do

4 need to maintain our Roberts Rules of Order

5 and at this point we will ask you questions.

6 So bear with us.

7 MR. DOUGLAS: Sorry.


9 MEMBER CANUP: I guess my question is,

10 were these trees, shrubs planted in the

11 right-of-way? My question to the

12 Petitioner. Were they planted in the

13 right-of-way or did they grow into the

14 right-of-way? In other words, are the roots

15 where they come out of the ground is that on

16 your property or is it on the right-of-way?

17 MR. DOUGLAS: Well, it's pretty wide,

18 so --

19 MEMBER CANUP: I know these things

20 grow out like so. I guess I didn't pay

21 attention to it when I looked at it where

22 the roots were really at. I wouldn't have a

23 problem of granting a variance here based on

24 the fact that anything that extends on the



1 right-of-way be removed. And if the shrubs

2 are grown out, which I kind of think they

3 do, because I had the same kind at my house

4 and they just got out of control and we

5 pulled them out. But in your case that's

6 your -- anyway, I would be willing to make a

7 motion to that effect that we grant the

8 variance as requested with the stipulation

9 that anything that is into the right-of-way

10 be removed, be trimmed, et cetera, that it

11 cannot extend into or grow into the

12 right-of-way.

13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: For the reasons of?

14 MEMBER CANUP: For the reasons of this

15 gentleman would like to maintain his bushes

16 that he has had for 30 years.

17 That is a motion, by the way, that I

18 made.

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: There is a motion

20 on the table. Is there a second? No

21 second. We'll have further discussion.

22 Mr. Schultz, did you have another

23 comment?

24 MR. SCHULTZ: I was just going to point



1 out that from the photographs that we have

2 seen, the areal photographs, it looks like

3 this is a planted subdivision and nearly all

4 the bushes would be in that right-of-way.

5 MEMBER CANUP: It looks like it was

6 planted in the right-of-way.

7 MR. SCHULTZ: It appears.

8 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: So, at this point

9 we don't know exactly how many feet of

10 right-of-way it encroaches upon. Is that a

11 correct statement?

12 MR. SCHULTZ: That's true.

13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: So actually Member

14 Canup's motion would satisfy both

15 requirements. It would satisfy the City

16 being able to have the right-of-way portion

17 free of the shrubbery, and if it ends up

18 being all the roots and everything, it has

19 to be all the roots and everything. If it's

20 only the foliage, meaning that the main part

21 of the shrubbery is on the Applicant's

22 property, it would still be able to be

23 maintained if I am saying that correctly.

24 MR. SCHULTZ: That's how I understood



1 the motion. And the variance would only

2 again be with regard to that corner

3 clearance area that's affected by that.

4 MEMBER CANUP: That was the intent of

5 the motion. That would give the Applicant

6 an opportunity or if it is on his property,

7 in saying if it would have to be trimmed or

8 moved.

9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I have a question

10 for the City. In reading through the

11 information I noted that in 1997 DPW cut the

12 bushes 23820 (unintelligible). Do we have

13 any idea why the ones at 23820 and the

14 Applicant's property weren't cut at the same

15 time?


17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay. In February

18 of 2001 it's states, there is a statement in

19 here that we remove bushes if they prove to

20 be in the right-of-way. But here we are six

21 years later and they still haven't been

22 removed.

23 MR. SCHULTZ: Just sort of an overall

24 statement, I think the City recognizes that



1 this is a difficult situation for the

2 homeowner. He has been trying to find a way

3 to work this out and it's come to the point

4 where they're just in the right-of-way and

5 there are concerns.

6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: So you have been

7 trying to deal with it for years and giving

8 leniency to the Applicant trying to get to

9 the point where it could be resolved without

10 forcing some kind of a high cost removal or

11 the destroying of an attractive piece of

12 landscape.

13 MR. SCHULTZ: Finally as you look at

14 the last entry in that list it got to the

15 point where it is what it is. So it has to

16 be dealt with somehow.

17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Krieger?

18 MEMBER KRIEGER: In the papers here,

19 November 2000, it says bus drivers always

20 complained. How many incidents were that?

21 Is there any current incidents?

22 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair. I

23 think this is kind of a running tab that the

24 code enforcement folks have kept. I don't



1 know that we are able to really expand on

2 the comments that go back a couple of years.

3 MEMBER KRIEGER: I guess the corner

4 would be the major concern if it's coming

5 from the schools. And I know if you trim

6 those bushes on the sides that the

7 appearance, if the growth doesn't come back

8 you are just going to see branches and see

9 through them. So, if it's just the corner

10 to remove the corner and then trim the rest,

11 I would be okay with that if the homeowner

12 would.

13 MR. SCHULTZ: A final comment. That

14 kind of give and take analysis is kind of a

15 natural thing, but that's more what the

16 engineer and DPW folks would do as part of

17 the administrative process on incursions

18 into the right-of-way. And maybe that's the

19 venue that this gentleman belongs at rather

20 than this one.

21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I see two options

22 and I will open it up to Member Fischer.

23 One is that we try to resolve it all this

24 evening and we have to look at the



1 Ordinances. We have to look at the safety

2 aspects and those type things.

3 The second one is to once again give

4 the Applicant an opportunity to come back at

5 later date where he could work with the

6 landscaping or architect to see if some type

7 of resolve could be made of it.

8 And I want to make one other comment

9 before I move on. And that is, I wanted to

10 ask the attorney -- you are a busy man this

11 evening. My major concern is obviously the

12 safety and I know there has been no

13 accidents and no injuries and knock on wood

14 that hasn't happened. But we have talked in

15 the past about the City being liable. Is

16 there any type of hold harmless paperwork

17 that this gentleman could sign that would

18 free the City from any potential liability

19 if the hedges remain?

20 MR. SCHULTZ: As part of the

21 administrative review that would take place

22 with the City engineer, the City Council I

23 would say in the last six months has

24 actually approved the form document. That's



1 a licensed agreement that has terms,

2 obligations and things like that that

3 engineer if he finds that it's appropriate

4 can do. So from our perspective, from the

5 staff's perspective, that's really where

6 this issue belongs.

7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Fischer?


9 told us that a long time ago and saved us

10 some time. My time isn't cheap either, Mr.

11 Schultz.

12 (Interposing)(Unintelligible).


14 believe that's where this belongs and I

15 commend Member Krieger for bringing up this

16 possibility of some type of compromise

17 because that's exactly where I was going.

18 My biggest concern here is the safety

19 and welfare and I think Member Sanghvi said

20 it best last month. When he said, I don't

21 care how many dollars we pay out basically,

22 if one child gets hurt because of these

23 bushes it's just too much, dollars aside.

24 So, my biggest concern is the corner and I



1 think it's a good compromise to look at

2 seeing how we can bring that back in line,

3 but I would also like the overall bushes to

4 be trimmed more so than just the normal

5 yearly trimming. I think they need to be

6 trimmed down quite substantially with the

7 input from the City forester. I am not sure

8 if it's part of their review, or if we can

9 mandate that as part of their review, but I

10 would like to do that and send it to the

11 administrative review that the attorney is

12 recommending.

13 So, thank Member Sanghvi. Thank you,

14 Member Krieger. Thank you, Mr. Schultz.

15 Those are my comments. Thank you, Mr.

16 Chair.

17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Wrobel?

18 MEMBER WROBEL: Mr. Schultz, if we

19 proceed based on it being in the

20 right-of-way, making a decision on the

21 variance and let's say deny it, could the

22 Applicant go back to the City and work with

23 the issue with the right-of-way and come

24 back to us? Or once a decision is made here



1 that's final and he has no recourse?

2 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair. He

3 could do that. He could take the denial and

4 then still it's a different kind of relief.

5 Different Ordinance, different standard and

6 a whole different process. But I don't

7 really think you need to do the denial. I

8 mean, he is permitted to be here, that's why

9 he is on the agenda and we're not saying

10 don't make the decision. But it may be

11 something that can go away if an appropriate

12 arrangement can be reached in the

13 administrative process.

14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: If it's denied it

15 would have to be re-advertised?

16 MEMBER WROBEL: It might be wise for

17 the Applicant to go to the City and work

18 with the right-of-way first and then see

19 what happens at that point.

20 MR. SCHULTZ: Correct.

21 MEMBER WROBEL: And if no relief or he

22 doesn't feel he gets relief, come back to us

23 at that point. Is that what I am

24 understanding?



1 MR. SCHULTZ: I believe so. Come

2 right out and say it.

3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Canup, do

4 you have any other comment?

5 MEMBER CANUP: Just my comments.

6 Looking back at this thing, this has been

7 going on for some 10 years. It needs to be

8 settled once and for all.

9 If you look at the comments on here

10 and what's been done over the years, we

11 could have relandscaped this guy's whole

12 piece of property for what this has cost the

13 taxpayers and the City of Novi. So this

14 thing needs to be settled once and for all

15 and gotten out of the way. Either leave it

16 alone or make him get rid of it, one or the

17 other. And we'll be back here 10 years from

18 now doing the same thing if we leave it

19 alone.


21 Member Fischer?

22 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Would we table

23 this or postponement this case allow for

24 administrative review?



1 MR. SCHULTZ: Table it and send it to

2 the administrative ordinance review.


4 Mr. Canup's comments can we put some type of

5 time limit that if it's not worked out we

6 want it back here to deny or to review?



9 suggest that and I would make a motion that

10 in case number: 07-058 filed by John

11 Douglas of 23820 Lynwood in Echo Valley that

12 we table this case and send it for

13 administrative review by the City engineers

14 and we will re-review this case in six

15 months to see the status and -- within six

16 months. By the April 2008 meeting we will

17 re-review this case to make sure that either

18 the administrative review came up with an

19 answer or we will make a determination at

20 that time.

21 Is that appropriate, Mr. Schultz?


23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have an approval

24 -- I mean a motion by Member Fischer and a



1 second by Member Krieger.

2 Open for discussion. Member Bauer?

3 MEMBER BAUER: You are talking only

4 two months until we get snow

5 (unintelligible) you're talking about April,

6 we have had snow in April. So, I suggest

7 that it be made quicker than six months.

8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Trees, the green

9 shrubs keep growing, they just are slower.

10 So the pruning time is the best in

11 wintertime and we won't really get a heavy

12 snow until January, so April is when the

13 spring buds will start coming out, so it

14 would be an adequate time.

15 MR. SCHULTZ: In terms of the timing,

16 I don't think it's going to be a long

17 process. We could have it back next month

18 would be my guess. Two months I think would

19 be good.


21 have it back by, I'll change my motion, by

22 the December meeting.

23 MR. SCHULTZ: Sure.




1 it.


3 MEMBER SANGHVI: I would kindly

4 comment to the Motioner, not just

5 (Unintelligible), but also any other

6 necessary agency of the City so that

7 everything is covered.


9 Administrative review as whomever the City

10 attorney and the City deem appropriate that

11 they need to review it.

12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have an amended

14 motion on the table and it's been approved

15 by the Seconder.

16 Any further discussion? Robin, please

17 call the roll.

18 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer?


20 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


22 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?


24 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?




2 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


4 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


6 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


8 MS. WORKING: Motion to table the

9 December 4th, 2007 meeting passes 7-0.

10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Mr. Douglas, I hope

11 you heed our comments this evening and fully

12 understand our intent. We are trying to

13 work with you to come up with a resolution

14 that's fair to both you and the City. So

15 please work diligently with the City people

16 and try to come to a resolution.

17 MR. DOUGLAS: Do I contact them or

18 what was just decided?

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Yes. Contact Robin

20 Working, Ms. Working, and she will direct

21 you in the right direction or to contact the

22 right people.

23 MR. DOUGLAS: Everything was kind of

24 convoluted here so I'm not really sure if we



1 are talking about some type of compromise?

2 I'm not sure what constraints as far as

3 distance and dimensions that I'm working

4 with.

5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We don't know

6 either. That's part of what's going to be

7 discussed with the City.

8 MR. DOUGLAS: So I talk with them and

9 they say do this and that and it should be

10 okay and I bring that back to you?

11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We are hoping that

12 there is some type of compromise that can be

13 worked out, yes, sir.

14 MR. DOUGLAS: Thank you.

15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We're going to skip

16 this next case.

17 MR. LUTZ: Mr. Shroyer, please.


19 that in front of that one case we have next

20 month?


22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Our next case is

23 Case number: 07-061 filed by Keith Murray of

24 Sign Graphix for 47601 Grand River Avenue



1 Providence Park Campus. This also was a

2 tabled case so I'm not going to go over the

3 details. We have resolved all the issues

4 with the exception of one main sign, which

5 is the biggest sign and he is requesting

6 sign variances.

7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Mr. Chair, in this

8 case I would like to recuse myself or put

9 myself before the Board in consideration of

10 recusing myself because I'm an employee of

11 Providence Hospital.

12 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Member

13 Fischer?

14 MR. SCHULTZ: I think we did it

15 already last time so you are still recused.

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Doesn't make any

17 difference being an RN. There is no

18 conflict of interest here.

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Sir, please move

20 forward. You already have been sworn in.

21 MR. LUTZ: Good evening. Bill Lutz.

22 We listened to what you all had to say in

23 terms of input last month about this sign.

24 And we looked at Mr. Canup who said that the



1 sign was too tall and had too much blue.


3 We certainly listened to Mr.

4 Sanghvi who thought that emergency should be

5 larger. And we considered all that and went

6 back to the drawing board, if you will, went

7 back to our research with the University of

8 Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Department

9 of Transportation and rethought our sizes to

10 make sure that we were correct about the

11 size of our text. Because the biggest issue

12 we see was this campus. And we all admit

13 that this is a very large building. That

14 this is a very large property and need some

15 kind of key identification at this major

16 intersection.

17 We also looked at transportation

18 studies by Semcog back in '04 and '05. At

19 that time and that's really before this area

20 really developed with the shopping center,

21 so these counts are very low. We think

22 today they would be substantially higher

23 than that based on the surrounding area.

24 There is 21,000 cars a day on Beck Road and



1 20,000 cars on Grand River. So, there is a

2 major amount of traffic.

3 This whole property is being developed

4 as you know with medical office building,

5 with other consumer and support services to

6 the hospital. So this becomes a key

7 intersection.

8 Now what we have done, we have lowered

9 the sign, decreased the size, taken out some

10 of the blue, if you will. If you remember

11 originally we had two signs, two structures

12 that were one right in front of the other.

13 We made them more like the other entry signs

14 in terms of being one structure with an

15 identification panel at the top and

16 informational panel which has some just

17 basic information. The key which is the

18 emergency information. So, as

19 we look at the first photo. I guess we have

20 dimmed the lights, it doesn't seem very

21 bright. Can you all see it up there pretty

22 well? This is southbound on Beck Road.

23 This as you come over the peak and this

24 whole area starts to become visible, yes,



1 you can probably see a building in the

2 background, but there is no identification

3 on this building. There is no way to tell

4 what this building is other than a large

5 maybe an office building.

6 As hospitals move forward into this

7 century, they have become more hospitality

8 oriented. So this could easily be a big

9 hotel without some kind of identification.

10 Foot print is key here because of all

11 the traffic, because we have got lots of

12 directions because of decel lanes and the

13 busyness on that corner, the foot print

14 becomes a major focal point as a long term

15 and long range way finding tool. So that

16 blue panel has to be big enough to at least

17 catch the eye. There is a lot of busyness

18 on this corner. As we have talked about, we

19 have got a whole bunch of happenings here in

20 terms of just infrastructure, things that we

21 can't control.

22 In addition to that, behind this sign

23 is going to be a whole lot of river birch

24 that has just been planted that will



1 continue to grow. River Birch it's my

2 understanding are 20 to 25 foot trees and

3 grow reasonably fast. So, we are going to

4 block a lot of the vision of that great big

5 building in the back over the course of time

6 anyway.

7 As you proceed down we're still a few

8 hundred feet from this corner, but the sign

9 starts to become visible. Now we can

10 actually start to read messages, primarily

11 the emergency and the fact that this is

12 Providence Park. And that's what we tried

13 to do. We decreased this sign to 20 feet in

14 height. It was 25. So we have met you

15 halfway there and gotten it down to the

16 point where we think we just can't get it

17 much lower. Otherwise the text messages are

18 going to get so low that a car or any kind

19 of vehicle in front of us is going to hide

20 those messages. And those messages have got

21 to be at least a certain size. They are

22 seven and a half inches high to be visible

23 from any kind of distance because we want to

24 get people straight ahead into the



1 emergency.

2 If we get them to the wrong side of

3 campus it is a real circuitous direction or

4 circuit, if you will, around the ring road

5 and get into emergency, so it's really key

6 that we get those folks down onto the Beck

7 Road entrance.

8 If we look at it from the other

9 direction, if we were now westbound on Grand

10 River, again, this is from a bit of a

11 distance where we can start to see the

12 footprint of the sign.

13 You will notice in this photograph

14 too, especially as we get closer, that we

15 have set this sign considerably back from

16 the corner. This sits considerably behind

17 where the current sign is. So, it's more

18 out of your range of vision. More out of

19 sight and farther away from your viewing

20 distance.

21 So, we have done that for a number of

22 reasons. Primarily to increase the

23 visibility southbound on Beck, but also to

24 give it some space and to kind of frame it



1 with those trees in back. The current sign

2 which is 10 feet tall I might add is

3 completely hidden. If you have been to this

4 site, anybody can see that little sign

5 that's existing there might have worked

6 before they started to put all the control,

7 electronics in front of it for all these

8 traffic lights, but it's really impossible

9 to read now and doesn't function as an

10 identification sign at all.

11 So, we think that this property had

12 some hardships. We think it's a very large

13 parcel. We have got a very visually busy

14 corner. These are not self-imposed

15 hardships. These are the facts of traffic

16 in this century and especially on this

17 corner with all the things that are going

18 on. I don't think that we see any harm in

19 this property. This is a unique property.

20 This is the only hospital campus in the city

21 of Novi. It's a public service. We need to

22 get folks there. We need to get informed

23 people there, geriatric people, people who

24 that have vision problems, people who are



1 highly stressed trying to get folks to

2 emergency or what have you.

3 In addition to that I think there has

4 already been a precedent set. If we

5 consider this a commercial enterprise and

6 many people would consider hospitals a

7 commercial enterprise, this is not the

8 largest sign in the City of Novi in a

9 commercial business. This is probably a

10 third of the size of the largest sign.

11 I don't think we have to name names or

12 anything, but this is considerably smaller.

13 This is a 200 square foot sign. There

14 largest sign that I know commercially in the

15 City of Novi is over 700 square and is about

16 twice the size in terms of height. So, I

17 think there is precedent set, and I don't

18 mean to use that as a comparison, but I

19 don't think this body would be working

20 outside of their normal venue by approving

21 something on a unique piece of property with

22 very definite hardships that provides a

23 community service with lots of folks that

24 need to get there in a big hurry in many



1 cases and I think we have tried to reach a

2 reasonable compromise in terms of size and

3 look here.

4 So, I appreciate your consideration.

5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you, Mr.

6 Lutz.

7 With this being a continuation, a

8 tabled case we don't have any audience

9 participation.

10 Any comments from the City or Counsel?

11 I'll turn it over to the Board for

12 comments. Okay, Member Fischer?


14 question. Mr. Amolsch, what is the largest

15 sign in the City of Novi?

16 MR. AMOLSCH: I believe it's the Rock

17 Financial sign on the freeway. It's about

18 732 square feet.


20 include the Pepsi?

21 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes.


23 didn't want to put Pepsi on your sign?

24 MR. LUTZ: Well, I think hospitals are



1 always looking for donors.


3 I commend you for your efforts in reducing

4 the sign. I think this is much more

5 reasonable in height. I think that it will

6 still serve your purpose as well as serve

7 our purpose and I think they did a great

8 job.

9 As far as the width of the sign, was

10 there any reduction in that?

11 MR. LUTZ: Yes, there was because

12 remember when we had two signs, that rear

13 sign which is I think probably part of the

14 offensive blue area which was eliminated and

15 so we maintained the width of the primary

16 sign up front that had the directional

17 information on it. It's now considerably

18 narrower at least visually.


20 what that was by chance, the size?

21 MR. LUTZ: Well, it was kind of an odd

22 shape. It had a good four feet of overhang

23 off to one side.

24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: It was reduced by



1 69 square feet.


3 square feet reduction. I think that you

4 have proved your case given the size of the

5 property; the number of buildings that you

6 were having on the property; the square

7 footage of the buildings on the property;

8 the speed of the roads that are intersecting

9 in that area. The number of different

10 businesses and the types of people that the

11 situations that they will be in when they're

12 visiting whether it be in emergency or a

13 regular visit, I think you have definitely

14 proven your case for a practical difficulty.

15 And I think that the size now fits that

16 practical difficulty and I appreciate your

17 efforts and I look forward to the hospital

18 being here.

19 So, thank you very much.


21 Member Wrobel?

22 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

23 I was one of the people who had no problem

24 with the other size. This works for me



1 also.

2 The one aspect that I see where a sign

3 is needed to be big is when you're coming

4 southbound on Beck Road. As you said, all

5 the traffic arms and things really hide the

6 sign. When you look at the approaches from

7 heading west on Grand River, the sign sticks

8 out like a sore thumb. It may bother some

9 people as being big, but you can't get by it

10 because you need it for the southbound Beck

11 and that's where I foresee a lot of the

12 traffic coming from the freeway to the

13 hospital and you want to be able to see it

14 before you get right on the intersection, so

15 I can easily support the size.

16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you, Member

17 Wrobel.

18 Further comments? I too would like to

19 thank you. I think your compromise is well

20 taken. Although meeting halfway on a 25

21 foot sign the distance of five feet, that

22 math doesn't match up for me.

23 MEMBER SANGHVI: It's a difficult math

24 (unintelligible).



1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Of course I didn't

2 do well in math in high school and college.

3 But, no, I think it's a very nice

4 sign. Reducing it from two to one and

5 lowering it five feet, 69 square feet. I

6 also believe that the emergency portion is

7 higher than the highest part of a semi-truck

8 so you can see over the top of the truck

9 coming south on Beck and I think that's

10 important. So I am totally in favor of this

11 amended proposal.

12 Member Sanghvi, do you have a comment?

13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. I am just going

14 to make a motion so we can get on with this.

15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Absolutely.

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: That in Case number:

17 07-061 filed by Keith Murray of Sign

18 Graphix, Inc., for 47601 Grand River Avenue

19 Providence Park Campus, the motion is to

20 grant the variance as requested by the

21 Applicant. They have sufficiently

22 demonstrated hardship and the current sign

23 is aesthetically and in every other respect

24 quite acceptable. Thank you.




2 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have a motion by

3 Member Sanghvi and a second by Member

4 Fischer. Any further discussion?

5 Please call the roll.

6 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


8 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer?


10 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


12 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?


14 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


16 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


18 MS. WORKING: Motion to grant the

19 variance passes 6-0.

20 MR. LUTZ: Thank you very much. I

21 appreciate it.


23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Moving on to

24 the next case. Case number: 07-068 filed



1 by Patty Loose of Sign Fabricators for 43350

2 Grand River Avenue Potbelly Restaurant.

3 This case was likewise tabled, so I won't go

4 into the details about that. But the

5 Applicant is requesting multiple wall signs

6 and he is back.

7 So you have been sworn in, you know

8 that, so please state your name and address

9 again for our record and we'll move forward.

10 MR. BROOK: Robert Brook, 21542

11 Audette, Dearborn.



14 MR. BROOK: As you can see in your

15 packet and what I've got here is they killed

16 all the sandwich and the ice cream verbiage

17 that was all around the upper portion of

18 this building. They took out the west

19 elevation I.D. and we're now just looking

20 for the north and south at the 82.5 square

21 feet per sign.

22 That's basically where we're sitting.

23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Since

24 this was a tabled case, there is no public



1 hearing on it. Any comments from the City

2 or Attorney?

3 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment.


5 We'll turn it over to the Board.

6 Oh, Member Krieger is back. Welcome

7 back.

8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you.

9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Sanghvi?

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. I think

11 the current sign as they have put the

12 mock-up up there looks really elegant and

13 really quite acceptable to me. I have no

14 problem with either of the two signs they

15 have requested. Thank you.


17 Further comments? I note that both

18 signs requested are 82 and a half square

19 feet and our city requirement is a maximum

20 of 65 square feet.

21 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's why they are

22 here.

23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That's why they are

24 here. They are also asking for additional



1 signs.

2 A question I have and for some reason

3 back when the building was first being built

4 I was under the impression that they were

5 going to have multiple tenants. Am I

6 correct now that Potbelly will have the

7 entire building?

8 MR. BROOK: As far as I know they are.

9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: These are the only

10 questions I have.

11 Mr. Fox, did you have a comment?

12 MR. FOX: I can give some

13 clarification. There are three tenants in

14 that building.

15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: There are three

16 tenants?

17 MR. FOX: Yes.

18 MR. BROOK: I didn't receive that.

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Do we know where

20 the entrances are for the other tenants?

21 Where the main entrances are for the other

22 businesses?

23 MR. FOX: All the main entrances are

24 along the ring road. It goes around the



1 inside of the property. The main entrance

2 faces all towards the center of the

3 property. So the north side of the

4 building.

5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: The north side?

6 MR. FOX: Yes. In this particular

7 case.

8 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: So we're looking at

9 putting a Potbelly sign on the north

10 elevation above two other properties that

11 are going to be tenants that are going to be

12 in there.

13 MR. FOX: The tenants will be adjacent

14 to that. There are three in a row in the

15 same building. So you are looking at one

16 corner of the building on the north

17 elevation. There is a center section and

18 another section. If you are looking at the

19 north elevation to the left is the remainder

20 of the building. So that's one end of the

21 building. So, west elevation is just the

22 side and that is all Potbelly on that

23 particular side on the west side.

24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: But what we will be



1 looking at is two additional signs probably

2 going on that building as well, the same

3 elevation?

4 MEMBER CANUP: Four signs.

5 MR. FOX: They are allowed to have a

6 single sign on whichever side of the

7 building they wish. I think it's the

8 addition of one sign per business is what

9 they're asking for if I'm not mistaken

10 besides the square footage.

11 MR. AMOLSCH: Correct.

12 MR. FOX: They are asking for an

13 additional sign on the south side or north

14 side, whichever one you choose.

15 MR. AMOLSCH: The permitted sign is

16 required to be on the side where the front

17 door is where the main entrance is.

18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: But they are also

19 asking --

20 MR. AMOLSCH: For a variance of 65

21 square foot maximum.


23 Member Canup?

24 MEMBER CANUP: In driving by and



1 looking at this sign from the Grand River

2 side, the sign that's on the south elevation

3 is quite large and it's a lot larger than

4 what's needed. Especially with the fact

5 that we are going to have two other tenants

6 in that small linear footage that's going to

7 be there. And you know good and well that

8 those people are going to come in and want a

9 sign on the back and on the front. And I

10 think that's unreasonable.

11 I think that fact that they are going

12 end up with three signs and everybody will

13 want a bigger sign than what the next guy

14 have or the first guy.

15 My opinion is that we should ask them,

16 give them a variance for a second sign

17 within the size wise to be within the

18 Ordinance.


20 MEMBER BAUER: Is that a motion?

21 MEMBER CANUP: I would make it a

22 motion if there is no further discussion.

23 Mr. Fischer, would you like to make a

24 motion?



1 MEMBER KRIEGER: (Unintelligible).

2 MEMBER CANUP: You want to make a

3 motion? In that case I'll make a motion.


5 the floor, Mr. Canup. Did you want to go all

6 the way around the table?

7 Please, move right along.

8 MEMBER CANUP: I'm trying to be nice.

9 In case --

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Case number: 07 --

11 MEMBER CANUP: I'm making sure I got

12 the right number on it. Potbelly Restaurant

13 case: 07-068, that we grant the request as

14 stated for a second sign to be located,

15 either sign to be located on the north

16 elevation and the south elevation only. And

17 that the square footage of those signs is

18 not permitted exceed the square footage as

19 defined by the Ordinance of 65 square feet.

20 Is that correct, Al?

21 MR. AMOLSCH: That's correct.

22 MEMBER CANUP: That is correct, right?

23 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes.

24 MEMBER CANUP: The sign is not to



1 exceed 65 square feet in past measured by

2 the Ordinance.


4 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have a motion

5 and second.

6 Mr. Schultz, do you have a comment?

7 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a couple if I may

8 through the Chair and some suggestions for

9 the motion maker since it is a denial. As I

10 understood the rationale of the discussion

11 leading up to that is they haven't

12 established that the smaller sign that meets

13 the Ordinance requirement wouldn't be

14 sufficient and would prevent them from

15 somehow being identified. Did I understand

16 that is the basis for your motion?

17 MEMBER CANUP: That's correct.

18 MR. SCHULTZ: And the granting would

19 be just for identification and visibility

20 from both directions --

21 MEMBER CANUP: Both sides, north

22 elevation and the south elevation.

23 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you.

24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: So, Mr. Schultz,



1 you're saying there is a denial and a

2 granting in one motion?

3 MR. SCHULTZ: That's correct. You

4 granted the second sign, but as to the

5 increase in the size, the 85 square feet

6 that's been denied.

7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: For both signs?

8 MEMBER CANUP: That's correct. That

9 was the intent of the motion, sir.

10 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you.

11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. We have

12 a motion by Member Canup and a second by

13 Member Krieger.

14 Any further discussion?

15 Please call the roll.

16 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


18 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


20 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer?


22 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


24 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?




2 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


4 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?


6 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.

7 MR. BROOK: Thank you.

8 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I see it is 9:00

9 and as a standard practice we about every

10 one and a half hours of working take a

11 ten-minute break. We are going to take ten

12 minutes and we'll reconvene at 9:10.

13 (A recess was held.)

14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay, it's 9:10. I

15 have called the meeting back to order.


17 The next case, make sure I'm on

18 the right one. In case anybody came in that

19 wasn't here at the beginning of the meeting,

20 Case number: 07-059 for the Adell Trust

21 tabled case has been postponed, so that will

22 not be covered this evening, to a later

23 date.

24 So we are moving on to Case number:



1 07-069 filed by Jeff Prynas.

2 MR. PRYNAS: It's Prynas, P-R-Y-N-A-S.

3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay, Prynas of

4 Gardner Signs, Incorporated, Huntington Bank

5 located at 43200 Ten Mile Road. The

6 Applicant is requesting three sign variances

7 for the new Huntington Bank. The Applicant

8 is requesting one 36 square foot wall sign

9 variance for the placement of an additional

10 illuminated wall sign for the south

11 elevation of the building.

12 The Applicant has already been

13 approved for an illuminated wall sign on the

14 west elevation.

15 The Applicant is also requesting a 2.5

16 square foot area variance and 2 foot height

17 variance for an 8 foot by 5 foot ground sign

18 with a three-foot high base. The Property

19 is zoned B-3 and located north of Ten and

20 east of Novi Road.

21 So at this time, sir, if you are

22 not an attorney, please be sworn in by our

23 Secretary.

24 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand.



1 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth

2 regarding Case: 07-069?

3 MR. PRYNAS: I do.

4 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Would you state

6 your name and your address.

7 MR. PRYNAS: My name is Jeff Prynas of

8 Gardener Signs. My address is 3800 Airport

9 Highway.

10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please present your

11 case.

12 MR. PRYNAS: We seek a variance for an

13 additional wall sign located on the south

14 side of the building. That would be right

15 over in this area. Currently we have a

16 sign, a wall sign installed to set up

17 channel letters above the main entrance door

18 that faces the west.

19 We also seek a variance for a ground

20 sign located at the entrance of Novi Road

21 which currently you can get back to the bank

22 by driving in this way, but there is no

23 identification out there. No way of knowing

24 with the gas station they are blocking it,



1 that that bank is back there from Novi Road.

2 Also, with the way the building is

3 built, you really can't see the channel

4 letters coming from east to west on Ten Mile

5 Road. They are very tough to see until

6 you're right on top of them.

7 And we're asking for a variance for

8 that wall sign there so the bank can be

9 properly identified. Thank you.


11 This is a public hearing, is there

12 anyone in the audience who cares to speak on

13 this case?

14 Seeing none, is there any comments

15 from the City?

16 MR. AMOLSCH: I have a question for

17 the Petitioner if it pleases the Board.


19 MR. AMOLSCH: Does this shopping

20 center anticipate having a business center

21 sign in the future?

22 MR. PRYNAS: That I do not know.

23 MR. AMOLSCH: For the Board, once the

24 center has four businesses on the property



1 they are entitled to a business center sign.

2 So that might be something the Board might

3 want to think about in relation to having

4 them allotted a ground sign.


6 there any correspondence?


8 Mr. Chair, there were 21 notices mailed with

9 zero approvals and zero objections.

10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. I do

11 need to close the public hearing. We'll do

12 that.

13 At this time I will turn it over to

14 the Board for comments. Member Canup?

15 MEMBER CANUP: I think in light of the

16 fact that there is going to be other tenants

17 inside this center, so called, that a sign

18 on Novi Road in my opinion is out of the

19 question. It needs to be, if there is going

20 to be a sign there, it needs to be an

21 identification sign for all of the tenants

22 of that area and not just one with a major

23 sign.

24 And I think in my opinion what we



1 should do is direct the Applicant to go back

2 to the owners of the center and come up with

3 a sign that is a center sign rather than a

4 single individual sign.

5 The other signs I think are the things

6 that we need to look at and I think the sign

7 that's on the front of the building is an

8 acceptable sign. Along Ten Mile probably it

9 needs to be something there. In my opinion

10 that would be the most.


12 Any further comments? Okay, I'll make

13 a few. First of all, the Novi Road

14 entrance, do we know who owns the center?

15 That was one of the things that I had

16 listed. In other words, have you received

17 written approval to be able to put a sign

18 there?

19 MR. PRYNAS: Just by the bank. The

20 bank has told me that they had approval.

21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We would need to

22 have written copy of that.

23 MR. PRYNAS: Okay.

24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That's one part of



1 the question here. Another one is, if I

2 read everything correctly, you already have

3 15 signs somewhere on that property and at

4 the Ten Mile entrance there are already two

5 other signs there. Now it may not say

6 Huntington Bank, but they are bank signs.

7 MR. PRYNAS: They are tucked away on

8 the property. They are off of Ten Mile. I'm

9 sorry, did you say Ten Mile or Novi?


11 MR. PRYNAS: Oh, okay. Yeah, they are

12 directionals but with no identifier of a

13 name on there.

14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: But they're

15 obviously bank -- it's says ATM this way and

16 things along that line.

17 MR. PRYNAS: But the copy is very

18 small.

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I understand that,

20 sir. But that is a concern I have is the

21 number of signs that are already up.

22 The other concern I had was the number

23 of occupants. You indicated there are how

24 many additional tenants that are going to be



1 in that area?

2 MR. AMOLSCH: There are three tenants

3 with spaces in the other building.

4 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Three tenants in

5 the north building and Huntington has the

6 entire --

7 MR. AMOLSCH: Right. Like I said,

8 once there are four tenants the Ordinance

9 allows a business center sign, but not until

10 they have four tenants.

11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay. In other

12 cases that we've looked at, at least one of

13 the things I had stated, last month we had

14 another bank come in front of us and

15 requested a 50-square foot sign and it was

16 denied. I really don't compare cases with

17 one another, but I would be looking to

18 something no larger than 40 square feet for

19 any type of monument sign myself. So, those

20 are just some comments that I wanted to

21 make.

22 I'll turn it back over to the

23 Board. Member Canup?

24 MEMBER CANUP: I think somebody



1 commented they counted signs and there were

2 15 of them that qualify as signs? Al?

3 MR. AMOLSCH: Those interior signs are

4 reviewed by our traffic consultant our site

5 plan review and we don't review those.

6 MEMBER CANUP: All the signs that are

7 there are legal at this time?

8 MR. AMOLSCH: That's correct.

9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: They just don't say

10 Huntington Bank.

11 MEMBER CANUP: If they are legal, it's

12 all right. I don't have a problem with

13 that. That's not the question before us. I

14 think your comments about the 40-square foot

15 and two places if I understand that

16 correctly, one facing the westerly elevation

17 and one on the southerly elevation. I would

18 be willing to make a motion on that. I see

19 a lot of head shaking going on, so if that's

20 acceptable I will do that at this time.

21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I believe it is.


23 MR. CANUP: Actually there is two-fold

24 here. There is one that I would make a



1 motion that we deny the sign on Novi Road.

2 And we approve the two signs or one

3 additional wall sign, pick which one you

4 want whether it's the westerly one or

5 southerly one.

6 MR. AMOLSCH: Mr. Chairman, these have

7 already been approved and they have

8 installed the sign on the west elevation.

9 MEMBER CANUP: On the west elevation?

10 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes.

11 MEMBER CANUP: So the southerly

12 elevation only?

13 MR. AMOLSCH: Southerly elevation

14 only.

15 MEMBER CANUP: In that case I would

16 make a motion that in --

17 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may --

18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Hold on a second.

19 MR. SCHULTZ: Just based on what it

20 sounds like the motion is going to be, that

21 may be better to do in two motions.

22 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a motion

23 that in case number: 07-069 Huntington

24 Bank, that we deny the request for a sign to



1 be located on Novi Road due to the fact that

2 there is going to be considerable people in

3 that center in the future and that we need

4 to deal it with as an entire center and not

5 as one tenant so that we don't end up with a

6 problem down the road.


8 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: There is a motion

9 and a second. Further discussion?

10 MEMBER KRIEGER: If we can have an

11 amendment that for the paperwork to be

12 included and for who owns the property that

13 they are given permission to put up the

14 sign.

15 MEMBER CANUP: We're denying the sign.


17 that on approval.

18 MEMBER CANUP: We're denying the sign

19 --

20 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Just for the

21 Applicant's information, that doesn't mean

22 that Huntington couldn't be on a business

23 center sign.

24 MR. PRYNAS: I understand.



1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We're just saying

2 we're not approving a Huntington sign on

3 Novi Road.

4 MR. PRYNAS: Correct. I understand.

5 MR. AMOLSCH: Mr. Chair, the business

6 center sign can only have the name of the

7 center on it.

8 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Oh, okay. There is

9 a motion and a second on the floor.

10 Any further comments? The only

11 other comment I would make is there is a

12 sign on the western elevation so people

13 would be able to see it. Now, they wouldn't

14 be able to see it 300 yards up the street.

15 And once somewhere knows where the bank is,

16 they'll know where it is.

17 Okay, a motion on the floor. Call the

18 roll, please.

19 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


21 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


23 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?




1 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


3 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


5 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


7 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer?


9 MS. WORKING: Motion to deny the

10 ground sign passes 7-0.

11 MEMBER CANUP: Okay, the wall sign. I

12 would make a motion that again in case

13 number: 07-069 that we grant the Applicant

14 a wall sign on the southerly facade of the

15 building not to exceed the square footage as

16 allowed by the Ordinance.

17 The reason being that the uniqueness

18 of the side of the building being not

19 visible or at least the sign not being

20 visible from Ten Mile Road or at least

21 recognition of the building on Ten Mile.

22 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: A motion by Member

24 Canup. A second by Member Bauer.



1 Further discussion? Member Fischer?


3 with the language by square foot as allowed

4 by Ordinance? My concern being, what is

5 allowed by Ordinance because if it's more

6 than 36 then it would have to be re-noticed.

7 I prefer to just stick with 36.

8 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair, I

9 think that's a good suggestion.


11 kind of estimated I think.

12 MEMBER CANUP: What's allowed by

13 Ordinance?

14 MR. AMOLSCH: 4.25 square feet of sign

15 area per linear foot.

16 MEMBER CANUP: 36 foot would be fine.

17 I accept that.

18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: So you're motioning

19 to accept the sign as submitted?

20 MEMBER CANUP: That's correct. Not to

21 exceed 36 square foot in area.

22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Is that okay with

23 the Seconder?




1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have a motion

2 and a second. We discussed it so please

3 call the roll.

4 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


6 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


8 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer?


10 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


12 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


14 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


16 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?


18 MS. WORKING: Motion to grant the wall

19 sign passes 7-0.

20 MR. PRYNAS: Thank you.

21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you, sir.


23 Our next case is case number:

24 07-070 filed Patti Franz of Metro Detroit



1 Signs for Staybridge Suites located at 48101

2 Grand River Avenue.

3 The Applicant is requesting one sign

4 variance for the new Staybridge Suites

5 Extended Stay Hotel as part of the

6 Providence Park Campus. The Applicant is

7 requesting one 52.85 square foot wall sign

8 variance for the placement of an illuminated

9 wall sign for the east elevation of the

10 building.

11 Applicant has already been approved

12 for a ground sign for this business. The

13 property is zoned OSC and located west of

14 Beck Road and south of Grand River.

15 And our city Ordinances Section

16 28-5(3) states the number of on-premises

17 advertising signs permitted states: No

18 building or parcel of land will be allowed

19 more than one sign.

20 Our Applicants have come forward. Are

21 either of you attorneys?

22 MR. DETERS: No.

23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Both of you please

24 raise your hand and be sworn in.



1 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm

2 to tell the truth regarding case: 07-070?

3 MR. DETERS: We do.

4 MR. BARTEN: We do.

5 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: State your name and

7 address and please go forward.

8 MR. DETERS: Good evening, I am John

9 Deters, 23544 Hoover Road in Warren. The

10 owner of Metro Detroit Sign installers for

11 Extended Stay. With me is Mr. Brian Barten,

12 chief operating officer of Hotel Investment

13 Services and part of the management group of

14 the development.

15 He will be, Mr. Barten will be

16 explaining the site plan. I would like to

17 just say that -- excuse me, he also has a

18 letter from the hospital. It was addressed

19 to the Zoning Board of the Appeals. It was

20 not a part of the packet that Metro Detroit

21 Signs submitted. So, I don't know if you

22 have the letter or not. If do you not, then

23 we have it here.

24 Q. The reason for the --



1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Yes, we have it.

2 MR. DETERS: Okay. The reason for the

3 request is strictly a lack of identification

4 or visibility given the layout or the

5 location of Extended Stay on the property

6 and where most of the traffic will be coming

7 from as the gentleman referred to earlier

8 about the large identification sign. Most

9 of the traffic will be coming from the

10 Detroit area either up Grand River or more

11 likely off the expressway on Beck Road.

12 I think it's going to be a test for

13 people who will be staying at Extended Stay,

14 most of whom are expected to be associated

15 with hospital patients and would be staying

16 for a while to find this hotel because it

17 looks like a residence area for one thing.

18 For that reason we are asking for this

19 wall sign which will be illuminated to offer

20 some contrast. It's hard to see what it is.

21 It would be in the -- which will be

22 illuminated to over a little bit more

23 contrast. As people come off Beck Road

24 looking for this and the idea will be to try



1 to get them to head west on Grand River to

2 the second exist which is where the ground

3 sign would be located. That will be a push

4 too, I think, to get people to go that far

5 west as opposed to entering on the main

6 entrance to the hospital.

7 Brian, if you would like explain where

8 we are here.

9 MR. BARTEN: Actually it would be the

10 furthest west entrance we're trying to get

11 them to, that's where we have been approved.

12 Like you said it would be a stretch. I

13 think as I stated before, Providence Park

14 there is a lot of stressed out people trying

15 to get there in a hurry. If they enter into

16 either one of those first two entrances

17 knowing that we're on that property they

18 aren't going to find the hotel because there

19 is just one monument sign.

20 As you come westbound from Beck Road

21 on Grand River you've got these two

22 entrances here. Our monument sign is on

23 this side here. If you come in here if you

24 were a patient and you're in the complex



1 from any angle, you aren't going to find

2 that hotel. We are hoping from the majority

3 and how we direct them from the hotel when

4 they call in for reservation or coming in

5 off of here, we hope that they will see the

6 sign, have something to aim for, realize the

7 entrance, see this which is going to be a

8 stretch. At least get them in here. Just

9 try to keep the congestion out of this site.

10 Right now as you know this is the

11 emergency entrance for an ambulance. We are

12 trying to get them away from there. We

13 would like them to see the hotel. There is

14 no marker. There is nothing on the hotel to

15 identify it. It can easily pass as an

16 out-patient building, an office building.

17 It's going to blend in real well and that's

18 just going to get messier once the site in

19 front of it to the north is developed. It's

20 going to get very difficult. Thank you.

21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. This is

22 a public hearing. Is there anyone in the

23 audience that cares to speak?

24 Seeing none, we'll close the public



1 hearing. Is there any correspondence?


3 Chair. In this case there was eight notices

4 mailed, one approval and zero objections.

5 The one approval is from Richard

6 Abbott, Director of real estate design and

7 construction of Providence Park Hospital

8 dated September 10th, 2007: This is to

9 inform you that Providence is support of the

10 signs appealed filed for Staybridge which is

11 currently under construction. The hotel

12 will accommodate family members that will be

13 accompanying patients to the hospital. And

14 it's important that they are identifiable.

15 A highly visible wall sign is needed to

16 provide ease of recognition for the hotel

17 and is in furtherance for Providence's

18 provision for an integrated user friendly

19 campus.



22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Comments

23 from the City or the Attorney?

24 MR. FOX: I have no comment.



1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Comments from the

2 Board? Member Canup?

3 MEMBER CANUP: All of it looks like it

4 balances fairly well. The size of the

5 building, the facade it looks like it blends

6 well. If you drive down Grand River you are

7 going to have a hard time not recognizing

8 what that is without some kind of

9 identification to be read from Grand River.

10 So, anyway, I would be in favor of

11 granting a variance in this case.

12 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Member

13 Wrobel?

14 MEMBER WROBEL: I totally agree the

15 sign is necessary for the traffic that is

16 headed westbound on Beck Road and Grand

17 River to find the hotel because it does sit

18 back quite a bit from the hospital facility.

19 And I can support this also.

20 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Fischer?


22 refreshing to see someone other than Mr.

23 Lutz up here for something related to

24 Providence. Just kidding. Just kidding.



1 I totally agree. And, therefore, in

2 Case number: 07-070 filed by Patti Franz of

3 Metro Detroit Signs for Staybridge Suites, I

4 would move that the Zoning Board approve the

5 variance as requested given that the

6 Petitioner has established a practical

7 difficulty. That the request is based on

8 circumstances which is exceptional and

9 unique to this property given the size of

10 the campus and the construction of the said

11 building. And that this will not interfere

12 with the compatibility of this area to

13 surrounding areas and it does substantial

14 justice to this Petitioner and others in the

15 surrounding area.

16 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: It has been moved

18 by Member Fischer and seconded by Member

19 Bauer.

20 Any further discussion? I just want

21 to ask one quick question. The mock-up sign

22 that's on the building is the size of the

23 sign that it would be?

24 MR. DETERS: Yes, it is.



1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I am in agreement

2 with it as well.

3 Robin, please call the roll.

4 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer?


6 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


8 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?


10 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


12 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


14 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


16 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


18 MS. WORKING: Motion to grant the

19 variance passes 7-0.

20 MR. DETERS: Thank you.


22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: All right. Our

23 next case is Case number: 07-071 filed by

24 Heileman Signs for Suburban Chrysler, Jeep,



1 Dodge located at 24315 Haggerty. The

2 Applicant is requesting one wall sign

3 variance from previously approved variances

4 for Suburban Chrysler Jeep. They are

5 requesting the addition of a 48.28 square

6 foot wall sign reading "Dodge" on the front

7 elevation of the building. The current

8 signage includes copy that reads Chrysler,

9 Jeep and Suburban.

10 The property is zone B-3 and located

11 north of Ten and west of Haggerty. Under

12 the Code of Ordinances Section 28-5(3)

13 Number of on-premises advertising signs

14 permitted states: No building or parcel of

15 land shall be allowed more than one sign.

16 So our Applicants have moved forward.

17 Are either one of you attorneys?



20 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please raise your

21 right hand and be sworn in by our Secretary.

22 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm

23 to tell the truth regarding case: 07-071?

24 MR. HEILEMAN: I do.




2 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please state your

4 name and address and your case.

5 MR. HEILEMAN: My name is Dan

6 Heileman, 4797 Gratiot, St. Clair, Michigan.

7 Suburban Chrysler Jeep has purchased

8 the right to sell the Dodge line of cars

9 from this facility and, therefore, we are

10 here in front of you asking to install Dodge

11 letters to let the public know that.

12 The hardship we feel that is placed on

13 this dealership is, one, is the distance

14 that the building actually sits off of the

15 street.

16 Two, that the property slopes down so

17 it's actually -- I don't know what the

18 dimension would be, but it's actually a lot

19 lower than the grade at street level.

20 Three, if you have driven by recently, the

21 height of the foliage of the trees that

22 block actually the front of that building.

23 So, therefore, we feel that its hardships

24 that are not self induced, and are here for



1 your consideration in this matter.

2 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Would

3 you care to speak too, sir? Or are you here

4 to answer questions?


6 here to answer questions.

7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: All right. This is

8 a public hearing so is there anyone in the

9 audience who cares to speak on this case?

10 Seeing none, anyone from the City or

11 our Attorney care to speak?

12 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment.

13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I will turn it over

14 to the Board for discussion.

15 Member Fischer?


17 to make the Board aware that in this case

18 there were 23 notices mailed with zero

19 approvals and zero objections.

20 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: (Unintelligible).

21 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Not a problem.

22 That's what they pay me the big bucks for.

23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Now we'll open it

24 up to the Board. Member Bauer?



1 MEMBER BAUER: The Dodge square

2 footage is 48.28. Chrysler with more

3 letters is 38.8. I think we should bring

4 that 48 down.


6 Further comments? Member Canup?

7 MEMBER CANUP: I have the same

8 concerns that Mr. Bauer had. That 48-square

9 feet and Chrysler with much more letters in

10 it is 38-square feet and Jeep is 23. And

11 there is one more letter in Dodge than there

12 is in Jeep. I think the square footage of

13 that is somewhat overdone and I think if you

14 take the ram off or shrink the whole sign.

15 We should be looking at something in between

16 the 38 and 23 square feet maybe. I would

17 have to think about that for a minute and do

18 some math on it. Somewhere in the 30-square

19 foot area.

20 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Let's go

21 to Member Fischer first.


23 (Unintelligible).

24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay, he is



1 yielding the floor to Member Bauer.

2 MEMBER BAUER: They probably have

3 packages for the size of these signs so the

4 Applicant might be able to tell us. What

5 are the package signs?

6 MR. HEILEMAN: That is correct.

7 Basically the Chrysler sign itself that's

8 three foot tall from the top of the C down

9 to bottom of that emblem. It's three foot

10 tall, but it's only 12.4 in length.

11 Therefore, that's where you come up with

12 that 38 square feet.

13 The Dodge logo itself the ram part of

14 it is three feet. The Dodge letters

15 themselves are two foot in height but

16 because of the length of that that spreads

17 out to 16.1 that's where the square footage

18 calculates out to. The Jeep letters

19 themselves are also three foot tall letter.

20 So, basically what Chrysler likes to

21 do is keep their line of cars the same size

22 signs. Obviously the square footage on each

23 is different because it's different

24 verbiage. It's more letters, less letters.



1 But the actual size of them physically, the

2 height of them, I guess, is in line with

3 each other.

4 MEMBER BAUER: The Dodge Ram sign is

5 on that and that probably makes the

6 difference. The signs, they do have package

7 sizes for the Dodge.

8 MR. HEILEMAN: Oh, definitely, most

9 definitely. They make a smaller package

10 Dodge. But what Chrysler does is typically

11 on a dealership that's a multi branded

12 dealer, all three signs or four signs or two

13 signs would be the same height let's say.

14 MEMBER BAUER: I'm just talking about

15 the Dodge sign.

16 MR. HEILEMAN: Correct, they do make

17 different sizes, that is correct.

18 MEMBER BAUER: What do they have?

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: What's the next

20 size down?

21 MR. HEILEMAN: I would have to guess.

22 I'm not exactly positive. I know it's a

23 three foot and there's probably a two foot

24 logo can which then would take your letters



1 down to either 18 inches or 12 inches and

2 then they would go down from there also.

3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Anything else?

4 Member Bauer? Any comments?

5 My initial thought was and what I

6 jotted down here, okay not to exceed size of

7 the largest product sign currently Chrysler

8 which is 38 square feet for Chrysler. So it

9 would be a reduction of approximately 10

10 square feet. I would be open to listening

11 to Mr. Canup's calculations. But here

12 again, I am not looking to increase the size

13 of any signs. That would be my comment.

14 Member Canup?

15 MEMBER CANUP: My calculations told me

16 it's just a little bit less than six square

17 feet per letter.


19 MEMBER BAUER: Say that again, please.

20 MEMBER CANUP: Six square feet per

21 letter. Divide it twenty-three by four it

22 comes out about six. Somewhere in the area

23 of six. So if you look 30 square feet for

24 Dodge, that would equal the same as Jeep



1 with the additional lettering.

2 MEMBER BAUER: I'll buy it.

3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Fischer, do

4 you have any additional comment?


6 tend to agree that, I think that your

7 comment about it not being larger than the

8 largest current product sign, I think that's

9 completely in line. So I think whatever

10 they would need to do to bring it in line

11 with 38, 39 square feet I would be in

12 support of. Whether they keep the ram or

13 whether they don't keep the ram, whether

14 they increase the size of the letters,

15 that's not any of my business as far as I'm

16 concerned.

17 I just want to see it under 39 square

18 feet. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


20 Further comments? Member Canup?

21 MEMBER CANUP: If there is no other

22 discussion I would be willing to make a

23 motion if that's acceptable with everybody

24 at this time. That in case number: 07-071



1 filed by Suburban Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge

2 located at 24315 Haggerty Road we grant the

3 variance as stated with the exception that

4 it does not exceed 38 square feet in overall

5 square footage as the City Ordinance

6 measures.


8 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: For the reasons

9 that the Applicant stated as their hardship?

10 MEMBER CANUP: That's correct.


12 difficulty.


14 difficulty. Mr. Schultz?

15 MR. SCHULTZ: Just if I can add to

16 that. It sounds to me like the rationale is

17 that the product line is appropriate to have

18 the additional sign to indicate that as

19 unique to the property. So the additional

20 sign is fine, but the sign that appears to

21 be out of proportion to the other signs so

22 that the reduction, the condition of

23 reducing the sign is to make it into

24 portion. Is that fair?



1 MEMBER CANUP: That's exactly what I

2 said.

3 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you.

4 MEMBER BAUER: Second what he says.

5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Anything further?

6 We have a motion and a second. Any further

7 discussion? A motion by Member Canup.

8 Second by Member Bauer.

9 Please call the roll.

10 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


12 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


14 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


16 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


18 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer?


20 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?


22 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


24 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.



1 MR. HEILEMAN: Thank you.


3 This is the one we were going to

4 skip today?

5 MR. LUTZ: Yes.

6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I'm sorry for

7 giving you such a hard time this evening.

8 MR. LUTZ: Tough crowd this evening.

9 It's nice to see that your sense of humor

10 has returned.


12 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: All right. Our next

13 case is Case number: 07-072 filed by Bill

14 Lutz of Sign Graphix for ITC Holdings.

15 The Applicant is requesting two

16 illuminated wall sign variances for ITC

17 Transmission Headquarters located at 27175

18 Energy Way.

19 The Applicant is requesting one

20 forty-eight square foot variance for the

21 placement of a one 113 square foot wall sign

22 for the north elevation of the parking deck

23 as well as one 13 square foot variance for

24 the placement of 78 square wall sign for the



1 west elevation of the office building.

2 The property is zoned OST and located

3 south of Twelve Mile and west of Haggerty

4 Road.

5 Under our City Ordinances Section

6 28-5(2)b.1.(a)(ii)b. Area height and

7 placement regulations, two or more story

8 buildings. Single business states: A wall

9 sign displayed on a building occupied by one

10 business shall not exceed 65 square feet.

11 The Applicant is requesting two wall

12 sign variances.

13 He needs to be re-sworn in because we

14 have a different case.

15 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm

16 to tell the truth regarding 07-072?

17 MR. LUTZ: I do.

18 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please state your

20 name and address.

21 MR. LUTZ: Bill Lutz, 39255 Country

22 Club Drive, Farmington Hills.

23 I think the first thing I need to do

24 is explain to you a little bit about this



1 site and a little bit about this client.

2 They're not your typical client that exist

3 in an OTS area. ITC controls about 90 plus

4 percent of the electrical transmission

5 services in the State of Michigan.

6 So, this is a highly secured piece of

7 property. You can't walk onto this piece of

8 property unless they know you are coming

9 and unless you're escorted basically after

10 the gate. This property for all practical

11 purposes except for the expressway is really

12 not visible from Twelve Mile or from any of

13 the access roads.

14 If you are on M5 or you are entering

15 M5 from 275 going north, you can actually

16 see this building from a distance. So the

17 entry, if you will, the only way to access

18 this site unless you happen to be a large

19 freight truck and you happen to be there on

20 very special business, if which case you can

21 come through the back entrance here which is

22 a secured gate that is accessible only for

23 transmission and service trucks, the public

24 entrance, if you will, for the very limited



1 public that will access this property is off

2 of Twelve Mile Road.

3 If you were to view this piece of

4 property or view this building here from

5 Twelve Mile Road, you virtually can't see it

6 and you especially can't see the parking

7 deck which is on this end of the building

8 because if you can't see it through these

9 trees which is on the other side of this

10 large controlled wetlands.

11 So, if you have tried to drive by this

12 and one of the reasons you allowed us not to

13 do mock-ups is because you couldn't enter

14 this site so it would be very difficult to

15 do.

16 We really have two signs that we're

17 concerned with. Number one, we need a long

18 range visibility of the building and

19 identify the building in such a way even

20 though it's only limited in its ability to

21 be seen. And that's this photo right here.

22 This is taken southbound on M5. You can see

23 the building in a distance. At this

24 resolution you might not even be able to see



1 this sign which is right here. This is the

2 sign that we are asking for an additional 13

3 square feet variance for.

4 You might be able to see it a little

5 better here when it's straight on when

6 directly across from it. We're looking

7 across to the on ramp of north on 275.

8 Still on M5 here. It's a long way away.

9 The reason this is sized the way it is

10 is because it matches the architecture of

11 the building. We are kind of limited. We

12 would love to have this a little bigger, but

13 really we're limited by this facade height

14 here. This is all precast concrete, so we

15 made it as large as possible in hopes that

16 it at least establishes some kind of

17 identity for this building from a long range

18 standpoint. That's really the only sign

19 that's visible to the general public in any

20 way, shape or form.

21 The other sign that we're asking for

22 here and it's the second request on your

23 appeal tonight, is this sign within the

24 property. To the left you can see this line



1 of trees. This is on the back side of that

2 wetlands, that controlled wetland areas.

3 This prevents anybody from seeing this sign

4 here.

5 This sign because it's not visible

6 unless you have permission to be on site

7 really serves almost more as an

8 architectural detail to the property. It

9 announces that, yes, you are here because

10 you really can't see anything else. You

11 meander through this. And I'll go back here

12 a second if you will to the site plan. You

13 had to wonder through almost a quarter mile

14 from Twelve Mile Road back through. If you

15 gained admittance here through the gated

16 entrance here through the guard gate, now

17 you're back here.

18 That photo was taken from right about

19 in here where you can start to make the

20 curve and see this wall right here. So, you

21 have gone almost a quarter of a mile down

22 the path here through what is a very

23 attractive park like setting. A lot of

24 trees. A lot of landscaping. It's a very



1 nice campus, if you will.

2 And then you announce, this sign then

3 announces the presence. One of the reasons

4 why this parking deck was made the way it

5 was was so that we could have a sign here.

6 Otherwise this would be an open area just

7 like the rest of this parking deck. But it

8 presented an opportunity to say this is ITC,

9 this is who we are for people that are

10 guests into this property. It is a high

11 secure area. It's a very select group of

12 folks that are here. It's an architectural

13 detail.

14 I would argue it doesn't affect the

15 general public. It's a special

16 circumstance. It's a hardship that is kind

17 of not a hardship and doesn't affect any

18 other property because it's not visible to

19 the general public.

20 That's the core of my discussion here

21 with you about these two signs. One is a

22 mere 13 square feet in addition and it's the

23 only visible sign to the general public.

24 This is almost an in campus sign for guests



1 to this property and it's an architectural

2 detail not really a sign as we generally

3 classify signs in the City of Novi

4 Ordinances.

5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. This

6 being a public hearing, is there anyone here

7 in the audience that cares to speak on this

8 case? Seeing none, we'll close the public

9 hearing.

10 Is there any correspondence?


12 there are 18 notices with zero approvals and

13 zero objections.


15 Comments from the City or Counsel?

16 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir.

17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Then I'll open it

18 to the Board. Member Wrobel?

19 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

20 I have no problem with the sign on the

21 building. My question is, at the gated

22 entrance, is there signage there?

23 MR. LUTZ: The only signage at the

24 gated entrance will be to identify people



1 that have card access to cue them into the

2 right lane because there is one lane for

3 card access. There is one lane that will be

4 accessible for visitors to phone in and

5 announce themselves if they have an

6 appointment they may or may not be granted

7 entrance. So there is no signage or

8 identification.

9 MEMBER WROBEL: So, it doesn't say ITC

10 so that they know?

11 MR. LUTZ: No.

12 MEMBER WROBEL: Okay. Architecturally

13 I agree, it looks nice there. And as you

14 know the property and I am familiar with the

15 property. No one is going to see it except

16 for the workers there and those guests

17 invited. I am just concerned about setting

18 a precedent about allowing this kind of

19 signage. So I am kind of undecided on it.

20 It looks good. I like it, but I don't know

21 if it's the right thing to do it. And as

22 you said, there is no hardship created by

23 not having it. It's a plus. It's a fluffy

24 thing I guess I would call it per se.



1 So I would have a hard time justifying

2 to approve something for fluff, I guess.

3 Thank you.

4 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you, Member

5 Wrobel.

6 Any comments? Member Canup?

7 MEMBER CANUP: The number sounds big,

8 but when you look at it in respect to the

9 size of the building, the height of the

10 building, the size of the building they

11 seemed to fit very fairly well.

12 And the sign on the parking structure

13 is internal to the project and unless you

14 are invited in you are not going to see it.

15 So I guess with those facts, I don't have a

16 problem in supporting a variance as

17 requested.

18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Member

19 Fischer?


21 are taking these pictures from M5 and Beck

22 Road and Grand River, you are going to get

23 hit one of these days and I don't want to be

24 responsible.



1 MR. LUTZ: It's a challenge, that's

2 for sure.


4 there. I would echo the sentiments of

5 Member Canup. I see how it can be seen as

6 fluff, but at the same time that sign on the

7 parking garage, a second sign on this entire

8 project I don't think is unreasonable. So,

9 while it may be called an architectural

10 (intelligible) in some instances, I think

11 that not having a second sign on this entire

12 project would actually do it a disservice.

13 Given the fact that you have to be

14 invited in to see it anyway, I don't have an

15 issue. The 13 square feet, I think if the

16 architecture allowed more who knows, I

17 wouldn't say that I would allow more, but I

18 think that it's well, it looks very good up

19 there and does a substantial justice to this

20 Petitioner as well as others.

21 I appreciate your time. I will

22 support this as well.

23 In that case I will make a motion that

24 in Case: 07-072 filed by Bill Lutz of Sign



1 Graphics for ITC Holdings, Corporation, that

2 we grant the Petitioner's request as

3 submitted given the exceptionally unique

4 circumstances and the size of the lot and

5 the size of the building as well as security

6 regulations surrounding this project and

7 that granting these variances will result in

8 substantial justice for this Petitioner as

9 well as surrounding properties.


11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have a motion by

12 Member Fischer and a second by Member

13 Sanghvi.

14 Further discussion? I will make a

15 comment or two. I think the building sign

16 is great. The parking deck sign I'm not

17 sure needs to be that large, but, again, no

18 reason for it not to be.

19 My only disappointment is that as a

20 resident of Novi I'm so pride that ITC chose

21 our community to have their world

22 headquarters and nowhere does it say world

23 headquarters. It's just the ITC sign.

24 Yes, sir?



1 MR. LUTZ: If I may through the Chair.


3 MR. LUTZ: There will be a sign on

4 Twelve Mile Road, that is a sign that will

5 be within legally accepted limits. We

6 haven't decided whether that will or will

7 not say world headquarters. That's yet to

8 be decided, but that will be within the

9 Ordinance. So, we'll have to come before

10 you.

11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: It's a big world

12 and we're a small community, and we're proud

13 to have them here and I would support of

14 this as well.

15 Please call the roll.

16 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer?


18 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


20 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


22 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


24 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?




2 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?


4 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


6 MEMBER SANGHVI: You're not going to

7 get (unintelligible).

8 MS. WORKING: Motion to grant variance

9 as requested passes 7-0.

10 MR. LUTZ: Thank you very much.

11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: He has another

12 case.

13 MEMBER BAUER: Good scheduling.



16 Number:

17 07-073 --

18 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Her time isn't

19 cheap either. You'll get a bill from us.

20 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: The Applicant is

21 requesting one 15-square foot off premises

22 ground sign measuring four feet by four feet

23 for the Haggerty Corporate Office Center V

24 to be located in the easement of 40020



1 Twelve Mile Road.

2 The property is zoned OST and located

3 north of Twelve Mile Road west of Haggerty

4 Road.

5 The City Ordinance states Section

6 28-8(1). Off-premises advertising signs,

7 illuminated or unilluminated, shall be

8 permitted in an I-2 district only. The

9 Applicant is requesting an off-premises

10 advertising sign for said office space.

11 It's a different case once again.

12 Thank you.

13 Would you please swear him in.

14 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm

15 to tell the truth regarding 07-073?


17 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.


19 MR. LUTZ: Bill Lutz, 39255 Country

20 Club Drive.

21 Well, I have to tell you that we

22 always seem to get the unusual cases here,

23 but we have got another one here because

24 this is a sign that Northern Equities feels



1 it needs to have and it's going to be

2 located in an easement that they have on

3 what is typically the Citizens Bank

4 property.

5 The situation here is there is Twelve

6 Mile. This is north up here. This is Cabot

7 Drive. Cabot Drive is the main entrance or

8 provides the main entrance for Haggerty

9 Corporate Building Number IV and Number V.

10 Now, the City when they granted this

11 site plan required that Northern Equities

12 have a back entrance, a second entrance.

13 That second entrance is common with the

14 property at Citizens. And so, a way to get

15 an access to this property and this building

16 specifically in a more logical and easier

17 way for many drivers is through this

18 entrance. But there is no identity there.

19 There is no way to identify that entrance

20 from a safety standpoint or from a

21 convenience standpoint.

22 So, what we are proposing is a small

23 15 square foot non-illuminated sign in that

24 easement that Northern Equities controls to



1 advertise what is existing in those

2 buildings. There are two main tenants that

3 people need to frequent in that building.

4 So we'll say Haggerty Corporate V. In fact,

5 here is the easement, here is a blowup of

6 the easement area. It's a very small

7 easement area. It's obviously not in the

8 right-of-way, behind the sidewalk. Here is

9 the blowup of it. It's quite a small area.

10 The sign off to the side. The mock-up that

11 you saw is to that same side if you visited

12 the property.

13 If you look at it photographically

14 it's really very minimal down in this corner

15 here. Here is a little closer view of it.

16 It's the little brown guy right here. It

17 has a minimum of information. It does say

18 Haggerty Corporate V on it. It's going to

19 give us some relief. There is 38,000 cars a

20 day on Twelve Mile. That's the latest

21 Semcog traffic counts as of '05. So with all

22 the development that North Equities has had

23 on this corner, I am sure it's higher than

24 it was.



1 Any of this traffic that we can get

2 off onto this driveway, because frankly if

3 they miss the driveway which is actually up

4 here, which is Cabot Drive, they miss that

5 one, if they don't catch it here, they've

6 got to come over in this far lane, turn

7 around and go back through all that traffic

8 and turn around again and take another

9 Michigan left in order to get back over to

10 Cabot Drive. So it's kind of a difficult

11 area.

12 The driveway off of Cabot is common

13 for both pieces of property. So, this gives

14 some relief and some identification, if you

15 will, to this back entrance. Which I don't

16 think is an unreasonable request.


18 Again, this is a public hearing. Is

19 there anyone in the audience who cares to

20 speak on this case? Seeing none, we'll

21 close the public hearing.

22 Is there any correspondence?


24 Chair. In this case there were 14 notices



1 mailed with zero approvals and zero

2 objections.


4 Comments from City of Counsel?

5 MR. AMOLSCH: No comments, sir.

6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: No comments. I'll

7 turn it over to the Board for discussion.

8 I'll start. I when I visited the site

9 kind of got turned around. So obviously

10 there is some need for identification.

11 There is only the two buildings on that

12 connecter street from that road to Cabot.

13 MR. LUTZ: That's correct.

14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: And that's all it

15 will ever be on that road.

16 MR. LUTZ: That's correct.

17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Right now those two

18 tenants are the ones that are listed on the

19 sign.

20 MR. LUTZ: That is correct.

21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: (Unintelligible).

22 MR. LUTZ: They are the folks that

23 will have the majority of the traffic. So

24 that may change over time. We may see one



1 of those disappear five years down the line

2 and somebody else appear. But the intent of

3 the landlord is to not increase the size of

4 that sign. It's a 15-square foot sign. They

5 wanted to make it very minimal. But they

6 specifically got that easement just for this

7 identification. Remember, this is a City of

8 Novi required entrance. I think if it's

9 required by the City it needs to be

10 identified.

11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay. I don't have

12 any further comments. I am not opposed to

13 the variance request.

14 Any other comments? Is there a

15 motion?

16 MEMBER SANGHVI: No one has any

17 comments, I will make a motion that in case

18 number: 07-073 filed by Bill Lutz of Sign

19 Graphix, Inc., for Northern Equities located

20 at 28125 Cabot Drive, we grant the variance

21 request as presented for business

22 identification.

23 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Motion by Member



1 Sanghvi. Seconded by Member Bauer.

2 Further discussion? Seeing none. Are

3 you ready? Please call the roll.

4 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


6 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


8 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?


10 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


12 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer?


14 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


16 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


18 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.

19 MR. LUTZ: Thank you again. I will

20 take my leave.

21 (Interposing)(Unintelligible).

22 VICE-CHAIR FISCHER: Be careful on

23 those busy roads.

24 MR. LUTZ: Thank you, Mr. Fischer.





3 The next case is number 12, 12th case.

4 Case number: 07-074 filed by Rino Soave --

5 please correct me when you come forward.

6 Soave Corporation for Pinebrook Plaza

7 located south of Grand River Avenue and east

8 of Joseph Road. The Applicant is requesting

9 a variance to the required number of off

10 street parking spaces for a combined parking

11 lot of two new buildings to be located at

12 Pinebrook Professional Plaza.

13 The Applicant is requesting 35 parking

14 spaces for a professional office building

15 and a medical dental building parking lot

16 for the plaza. The property the zoned NCC

17 and located south of Grand River Avenue and

18 east of Joseph Drive.

19 City Ordinances that apply are Section

20 2505.14.d(2), talking about the minimum

21 number of spaces and Section 2505.14.d(3)

22 also talking about the spaces.

23 The Applicant has come forward. If

24 you are not an attorney please raise your



1 right hand and be sworn in by our Secretary.

2 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm

3 to tell the truth regarding case: 07-074?

4 MR. SOAVE: I do.

5 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.

6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please state your

7 name and address and present your case.

8 MR. SOAVE: Yes, thank you. My name

9 is Rino Soave. My company address is 37785

10 Penbrook Road, Livonia, 48152. Here with me

11 tonight representing the Oakland Oral

12 Surgery & Associates is Dr. Robert Chames

13 and Edward Royal.

14 Basically to just to make a quick

15 reference to the visual that is displayed in

16 front of you. The first visual depicts a

17 building, a full colored rendering of a

18 building. What's going to be here as you

19 can see on the site plan there will be two

20 twin buildings that will depicted as you see

21 on the (unintelligible) in front of me.

22 The second is basically a traffic

23 count showing the comparable of how the

24 projects building A will eventually be



1 between the patients and the employee stats.

2 So that would be referenced (unintelligible)

3 in the meeting.

4 Basically just to give you a brief

5 overview of the project. The project as it

6 stands right now consist of around 7,700

7 square feet combined between both buildings.

8 As of right now we are looking potentially

9 to have the users of three different

10 businesses eventually in this complex.

11 The first being the Oakland Group

12 which will represent the north building on

13 Building A which is the Grand River front of

14 the building. And to the south there will be

15 two users there. One will be left as

16 available for lease and that will be partial

17 space of that unit Building B. And the

18 second will be our company.

19 Our company primarily just to give you

20 a brief background. We are a residential

21 and commercial real estate development

22 company. We have been in business for about

23 nine years now. Currently we have three

24 employees and we are looking to add a fourth



1 one over the next several weeks.

2 So, as far as the traffic is concerned

3 with our business, I think Building B will

4 be restricted, (unintelligible) Building B

5 will be restricted, the office I think will

6 be the lesser entity as far as traffic. Our

7 business doesn't really have a whole lot of

8 influx and out flux of traffic. I think we

9 have a couple people in our office. And

10 myself I am usually in and out throughout

11 the day.

12 But for the part our business evolve

13 around contractual work. A lot of our

14 business is subcontracted. We have field

15 personnel who are pretty much out in the

16 field. Their day consist of mornings going

17 from home to site and site back to home.

18 And then periodically we'll stop in the

19 office to pick up things, drop things off,

20 payroll, things like that.

21 And hopefully as market conditions

22 improve in Southeastern Michigan over the

23 next couple of years we'll add a few more

24 people, but that shouldn't change anything



1 in respect to the parking as far as Building

2 B.

3 At this time I am going to pass this

4 over to Dr. Royal to briefly give an

5 explanation of the business and operations

6 at this time and I will be back to answer

7 any questions at that time. Thank you.


9 MR. ROYAL: Thank you all for taking

10 the time to hear our request. My name is Ed

11 Royal, I'm an oral and maxillofacial surgeon

12 at Oakland Oral Surgery Associates. Rob

13 Chames is one of my partners.

14 We're a group of five oral surgeons

15 with four offices spread over the city

16 metropolitan area. We have an office in

17 South Lyon. An office in Livonia. An

18 office in Sterling Heights. And our

19 flagship office, and our original office has

20 always been here in the City of Novi at Ten

21 Mile and Haggerty, 39595 Haggerty, Suite

22 107.

23 That office has been operating since

24 1979. My entire career as an oral surgeon



1 has been in that location. I don't know if

2 any of you or your family members have been

3 by, but we're not a high density clinic.

4 We're a mom and pop low density, low traffic

5 flow oral surgery office.

6 As I said, I spent my entire career in

7 the City of Novi and want to stay here until

8 I retire in 15 more years and my partners

9 will carry on the tradition after that.

10 Our problem is that the current space

11 that we're in with current dental trends and

12 office design it's cramped and crowded. We

13 need more room for storage. We need the

14 individual rooms to be larger. We need the

15 hallways to be larger. And we need more

16 bathrooms and we just can't do it in our

17 current location.

18 Our current location is almost 30

19 years old and it's in need of extensive

20 repair -- not repair, but cosmetic fix ups

21 to keep it up to date. We don't want to put

22 money into something that's going to still

23 be cramped and crowded. We can't overcome

24 the space restriction.



1 And we want to be owners and not

2 renters at this point. And we want to

3 contribute to the tax base of the city of

4 Novi that's been so good to us for all these

5 years. And being an owner I think will help

6 that way.

7 I do want to stress that we are a low

8 traffic flow occupant. It's not a typical

9 medical practice where there might be 20

10 patients in the waiting room and five people

11 in the back seeing the doctor and cars are

12 there for an hour or two hours. We see one

13 patient at a time and when they leave the

14 next patient comes in and then another one

15 comes into the waiting. So there is always

16 a shifting of patients in and out of the

17 office.

18 It's not the typical medical dental

19 traffic flow that you see and for that

20 reason we think at a maximum we would need

21 15 or 16 parking places when we have two

22 doctors in the office at one time.

23 Currently one and a half days a week

24 we have two doctors there and the other



1 three days a week we have only one doctor

2 there. On a one doctor day there is maybe

3 eight employees and one doctor, so nine

4 parking places and we never have more than

5 six, seven, eight patients with cars there.

6 So, our maximum usage is really in the 15 or

7 16 range which is far short of the 23 that

8 would be required by the City Ordinance.

9 So, I almost want to sub-categorize

10 this as not really medical usage density,

11 we're something between medical and office.

12 And for that reason I don't think there

13 would be a problem with overflow parking.

14 I know one of the local people

15 complained that people would start parking

16 on Joseph Street if we overflowed and I just

17 can't see that happening. We have never had

18 that many parking places required.

19 We did look all over the city for a

20 place to locate before we found this spot on

21 Joseph. And the reason we want to be there

22 is it's close to our office where you are

23 less than a half a mile away. It's in the

24 center of our demographic area. We have a



1 name in the City of Novi. Patients want to

2 know where we are and we don't want to be

3 far from where we are and we couldn't find a

4 location anywhere else. We didn't want to

5 go into a condominium. We didn't want to go

6 into a leasing situation. This is the

7 perfect location. It's a beautiful project.

8 Rino is a great developer and I think

9 we have a great team set up to make this is

10 a perfect opportunity for us and a good

11 opportunity for the City of Novi to keep us

12 in the City of Novi because otherwise I

13 don't think we have any other options. And

14 we want to stay in Novi.

15 So, I am happy to answer any questions

16 you might have about our corporation and our

17 intensions.

18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Does

19 other doctor care to speak?

20 MR. CHAMES: Well, I think there were

21 some concern by some of the neighborhood in

22 terms of parking and the fact that we're

23 going from a space that's 1,800 square to a

24 space that is 3,800 square feet. And they



1 say we're going to grow the office.

2 Obviously people would like to grow their

3 office, but that's not our intention. We

4 really need more square footage because we

5 have four offices. We have charts we have

6 to pay rent off site to store. And not just

7 that, they're not readily accessible when

8 patients call when they have problems.

9 We want to take a good portion of this

10 office and probably use it for storage. Plus

11 we need a (unintelligible) which we don't

12 have. We don't really ever anticipate going

13 beyond two doctors in the office at any

14 time. We have got five doctors with four

15 offices. I don't just don't see it

16 happening.

17 As a matter of fact, over in Novi in

18 the last few years with the way the economy

19 is going we have actually cut down our

20 doctor's hours a little bit. But we need an

21 office that's more friendly. We need an

22 office that is more -- I mean I'm sure

23 everybody have heard of dental implants.

24 Well, dental implants it takes a lot of room



1 to place them and our operatories are too

2 small.

3 So, we're not doing this move as

4 thinking we're going to expand, we're going

5 to have a huge patient traffic flow. It's

6 going to stay the same way it is. And right

7 now we're doing it on 1,800 square feet,

8 even though we're going to 3,800 square feet

9 we don't need the patient parking spots.

10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. This is

11 a public hearing. Is there anyone in the

12 audience who cares to speak on this case?

13 Seeing none? Public hearing. Is

14 there anyone in the audience who cares to

15 speak on this case? Seeing none.

16 There was correspondence?


18 Chair. In this case there were 23 notices

19 mailed with two approvals and one objection.

20 The objection is from John Waack,

21 W-A-A-C-K, 24841 Joseph. He states that a

22 concern that a lack of parking will cause

23 patients to park on Joseph Drive which is a

24 residential street with many small children.



1 These small children are picked up and

2 dropped off from school for school near this

3 intersection and parking on the street would

4 jeopardize their safety.

5 The Applicant has provided the City

6 with data that supports its needs for less

7 parking based on a lease to a specific

8 medical practice (unintelligible) it's based

9 on their situation today and could change in

10 the future. What recourse would we have

11 then?

12 Number three, I have worked with this

13 corporation on the project and we have

14 supported each other's requirements and

15 worked out a viable solutions thus far. This

16 concerns me that there is no guarantee what

17 the future holds.

18 If there isn't enough parking from

19 this facility, the only place to park would

20 be on Joseph Drive. This could also cause

21 issues with services such as trash

22 collection, mail distribution, etcetera. I

23 do not want the City to have to control the

24 situation with no parking signs on Joseph



1 Drive.

2 An approval from Kathleen McQuellan

3 (ph). The address is 21066 Cambridge Drive:

4 Please add my name in support of

5 experiencing the variance requirement

6 regarding parking spaces for the allowed

7 uses in this case.

8 This client, Oakland Oral Surgery

9 Associates, has been an outstanding member

10 of the Novi professional community for 28

11 years. They now wish to invest in Novi.

12 The retention and expansion of existing

13 businesses is the goal of the City of Novi

14 and they are an excellent caliber business

15 that the City should try to retain.

16 The surgeons and staff compared to

17 patients all identify strongly with the city

18 of Novi and they are (unintelligible)

19 reputation in the community of quality

20 medical services.

21 Lastly, is an e-mail with the same

22 exact e-mail or letter prior to that.

23 And then last, a letter from Gregory

24 Cooksey (ph), manager of Cavalier Southgrade



1 (ph), LLC. The owners of Peachtree Office

2 Center directly adjacent to the proposed

3 Pinebrook Professional Plaza: It has

4 recently been brought to my attention that

5 the developer of the proposed plaza has

6 entered into an agreement to lease or sell

7 one of its newly proposed buildings to a

8 medical group and this will cause a parking

9 deficiency. We fully support such variance

10 and have no objection thereto.

11 That's it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

12 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Does anybody

13 remember if I closed the public hearing?

14 BOARD MEMBER: Yes, you did.

15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I did, okay.

16 Dotting all of our I's. If I didn't, it's

17 officially closed.

18 Any comments from the City or

19 Attorney?

20 MR. FOX: Yes. I, through the Chair,

21 I would like to do some clarification on our

22 staff's review of this project. The

23 planning Division does support the request

24 for the variance. The five spaces with



1 conditions that it be particular to this

2 client or this tenant. They have provided,

3 these specific tenants have provided

4 documentation of their less traffic volumes

5 for us to look at. It's not a typical

6 medical use as they have said and they have

7 provided documentation to that effect.

8 And also that the rest of the site be

9 used for the business use which is no other

10 medical use be allowed on the site at the

11 same time.

12 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Do you know if the

13 City medical looked at the handicapped

14 spaces? I see there are only two on the

15 property.

16 MR. FOX: Yes, I did. What it affects

17 when you read into the Ordinance is the

18 square footage count per space. For a

19 business use it's 222 square foot per space

20 and for medical use it's 167 square foot per

21 space. So that's where the difference is.

22 The rest of it still had to meet all

23 the same requirements.




1 Comments from the Board? Member

2 Wrobel?

3 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

4 First off, I remember when this plan came

5 before us in the Planning Commission. This

6 is a very difficult piece of property. I

7 think they did a fine job in building what

8 they proposed to build here given all the

9 constraints that we had.

10 Unfortunately, being a frequent

11 patient of an oral surgeon, I can attest to

12 the fact that they do not overload with

13 patients. It's not not like going to a

14 normal medical doctor.

15 So I have no problem supporting the

16 variance request. And based upon the City's

17 recommendation also I see reason why you

18 cannot approve this. Thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Further

20 comments? Member Fischer?

21 MEMBER FISCHER: A question for the

22 City. As far as a condition pertaining to

23 its clients given the documentation, how

24 would we remedy the situation if they



1 changed clients?

2 MR. FOX: Typically when you do a

3 change of ownership, we require a special

4 inspection be held on that particular tenant

5 space. So, it comes through us as a new CFO

6 issue. So in that case this type of

7 information would be flagged. If they come

8 in with a business use that would be

9 acceptable for that particular tenant space.

10 If they wanted to come in with a new medical

11 office, then it would have to come back

12 through here for re-review.


14 look for similar documentation?

15 MR. FOX: Correct. And whether our

16 Planning Department would approve it or not,

17 we would have to go back to them for

18 approval as well.


20 thought we are going to create magic parking

21 spots at that point and I was a little

22 confused. So, I appreciate that

23 clarification.

24 Given that, I would tend to agree with



1 Mr. Wrobel and this is one of those things

2 where I'm glad they put a planning

3 commission member on this Board for a change

4 and I appreciate your comments and I agree

5 with you wholeheartedly.


7 MEMBER CANUP: I don't think it's

8 unreasonable or anything and think with the

9 fact they are supported by the Planning

10 Commission and with the stipulations that

11 were stated by them, it's not an

12 unreasonable use and I don't see any reason

13 why we shouldn't grant the variance.

14 And with that I would be willing to

15 make a motion that in case number: 07-074

16 that we grant the variance as requested due

17 to the testimony given by the Applicants and

18 the questions asked by the Board. And we

19 grant into that or work into that variance

20 sections of the page 2 of 2 dated October

21 4th, 2007 regarding Pinebrook Plaza signed

22 by Barbara McBeth.

23 The last two paragraphs in there the

24 variance applies to the site only while



1 Oakland Oral Surgery Associates tenant

2 occupies the site. The remainder vicinity

3 base that's on the site to be used for

4 general office use only.


6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: A motion by Member

7 Canup. A second Member Sanghvi.

8 Any further discussion? Member

9 Wrobel?

10 MEMBER WROBEL: I have one question.

11 I don't want to -- I would like to address

12 the issue what the resident had.

13 To the City, how would we go about

14 putting a no parking sign on Joseph Drive?

15 Was a study done? What's involved to do

16 something like that to remedy their

17 concerns? (Unintelligible).

18 MR. FOX: I'm not really sure how

19 that's taken care of. That's done through

20 our Engineering Department upstairs. So I

21 would have to check with them. I am not

22 sure how they would go about having a

23 parking sign put out there.

24 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair.



1 There would be a process for traffic control

2 order reviewed by the Engineering people,

3 Public Works Department. We would get a

4 whole discussion and review and analysis of

5 what the parking issue was.

6 MEMBER WROBEL: Is this something that

7 we would be appropriate that we would ask

8 the City to at this time before approving

9 this to at look at this issue?

10 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair,

11 again, I don't think that it would be needed

12 at this point. I think based upon the

13 Planning Department's recommendation. But

14 if it's becomes an issue it would find its

15 way onto that administrative agenda.

16 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you.


18 clarification, if I may, Mr. Chair. As I

19 was reading the letter it doesn't explicitly

20 say as the resident I'm requesting the sign.

21 It's more or less saying that I don't want

22 to see the City have to do this.

23 So if the resident was requesting it,

24 I would be up to looking into that, but I



1 would prefer to let the City handle it that

2 way.


4 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: And his concern was

5 with future tenants would cause the overflow

6 of parking. So I think we have addressed

7 that as well.

8 Member Sanghvi?

9 MEMBER SANGHVI: The other thing is,

10 if the City Ordinance doesn't appreciate the

11 two different types of medical practices,

12 they require (unintelligible). And the oral

13 surgery is only there for its patients who

14 come there. No one walks in there to get

15 anything fixed.

16 This is a superficial issue as far as

17 the parking spaces are required. So I have

18 no problem.

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Ms.

20 Working, would you please call the roll.

21 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


23 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?




1 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?


3 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


5 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


7 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer?


9 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


11 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0.

12 MR. SOAVE: Thank you very much.

13 MR. ROYAL: Thank you very much.

14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Well, we

15 once again exceeded the one and a half time

16 limit. So should we take another break?


18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: There is only one

19 case left and we are going to move forward.

20 MEMBER SANGHVI: I don't think we are

21 going to keep Mr. Quinn waiting any longer.


23 much of a troublemaker as Mr. Lutz.

24 (Interposing)(Unintelligible).




2 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: All right. Our

3 last case for this evening. Case number:

4 07-075 filed by Jim Clear of Novi Town

5 Center Investors, LLC, for Novi Town Center

6 located at 43390 Grand River Avenue.

7 The Applicant is requesting one ground

8 sign and four logo sign variances for a

9 business center sign to be located at the

10 said address. The Applicant is requesting a

11 one foot-eight and three quarter inch by

12 fifteen-foot inch -- fifteen-foot four-inch

13 sign as a part of a decorative brick wall

14 anchored by brick columns displaying two

15 twenty-four inch by twenty-four inch logo

16 signs.

17 The Applicant is further requesting

18 two additional sixteen-inch by sixteen-inch

19 logo signs to be displayed on the reverse

20 side of the brick columns. The decorative

21 brick wall and columns will require site

22 plan review and approval, etcetera,

23 etcetera.

24 I want to clarify, Ms. Working, which



1 part of this is not applicable this evening?

2 MS. WORKING: The decorative brick

3 wall and columns were re-reviewed by the

4 Planning Department and found to be approved

5 as a part of the site plan approval. So

6 often the Board when making a motion will

7 attach certain stipulations to a motion that

8 you will have this evening. That would not

9 be one that you have to consider now.

10 The logos are two different sizes

11 requested on two different sets of columns

12 and I stipulated there on the agenda for you

13 that it's 24 inch logos are placed on

14 columns located at the Plaza corner on Grand

15 River Avenue and Novi Road. The other

16 columns are located at South Drive and Grand

17 River Avenue.

18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: So, we're going to

19 look at the logo sign and the sign --

20 MS. WORKING: That says Novi Town

21 Center.

22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: And we don't have

23 to deal with the brick and the walls?

24 MS. WORKING: That is correct.



1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: This falls under

2 Section 28-5(3) number of on-premises

3 advertising signs states: No building or

4 parcel of land shall be allowed more than

5 one sign permitted.

6 The sixteen by sixteen-inch logos are

7 to be placed on the columns

8 (unintelligible).

9 So, we have an attorney and a

10 non-attorney who already has his hand up to

11 be sworn in.

12 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm

13 to tell the truth regarding case: 07-075?

14 MR. NUNEZ: I do.

15 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

16 MR. NUNEZ: My name is Ralph Nunez,

17 president of Design Team, Limited, 17255

18 West Ten Mile Road, in Southfield, Michigan.

19 MR. QUINN: And I am Matthew Quinn

20 appearing on behalf of Town Center

21 Investors. And also with us tonight is Jim

22 Clear who is the general manager of the Town

23 Center mall.

24 Originally Mr. Clear thought for this



1 intersection that we should have a 50-foot

2 high neon lit sign so this would look

3 somewhat like downtown Time Square in New

4 York. But when he came to myself and Ralph

5 we talked him out of that to get a very low

6 profile -- just kidding.

7 (Interposing)(Unintelligible).

8 MR. QUINN: I thought you needed

9 something to keep you awake at this hour.


11 MR. QUINN: What we have here is the

12 Novi Town Center as you are all aware. Novi

13 Town Center is 53 acres. That is a very

14 large development. Currently there is 49

15 separate businesses that are there.

16 They are in the process of going

17 through a multi-million dollar expansion

18 with the addition of the new buildings that

19 you see on the Grand River and Novi Road

20 corridor and then also along Grand River to

21 the east.

22 What we are talking about today is the

23 corner itself. This corner of Grand River

24 and Novi Road, the two roads combined carry



1 about 44,000 cars per day. The site plan as

2 approved included a wall that goes right

3 through this area which is just inside the

4 clear vision zone for this corner.

5 This wall as we approached the

6 Planning Commission we talked about having

7 an identification for the center. The

8 center is kind of like the City, it's

9 looking at re-branding itself or updating

10 its brand. And the updated brand is going

11 to be the TC logo, not meaning Town Center

12 Zoning, which also happens to be Town Center

13 Hall.

14 So, we're looking to put on this

15 building and Ralph is going to go through

16 the architectural details and some of the

17 individual portions with you. But the

18 practical difficulties that leads us to this

19 sign is, first of all you have this 53 acre

20 development. There is absolutely no

21 identification of this development on the

22 main four corners in the city.

23 As you are coming eastbound on Grand

24 River you do not know where the Town Center



1 is. As you are coming northbound on Novi

2 Road, you do not know where the Town Center

3 is. As we are getting in Novi more out of

4 town traffic, I don't mean people who live

5 in Novi, they know where it is. But think

6 of what's happening to Novi now. You have

7 the Expo Center, the Rock Financial

8 Showplace. Out Grand River you have the

9 hospital out Grand River. You have new

10 development and people will be coming

11 downtown. We want people downtown. You

12 want people downtown. So, for new people

13 coming into downtown to figure out where

14 they are, we need this type of

15 identification on the corner.

16 You are going to have a significant

17 development at Main Street. I also would

18 speak for them in the future in saying, how

19 are people at this intersection going to

20 know where Main Street is? There is no

21 signage at all on your main four corners

22 where people have to make decisions where to

23 go, right or left. If they are

24 looking for the Town Center, Ralph is going



1 to show you how they are going to identify

2 the Town Center by this very nice

3 architecturally done low profile sign.

4 So, I'll turn it over to Ralph and let

5 him show you the details.

6 MR. NUNEZ: Good evening. As Matt has

7 spoken, we have the site. One of the

8 hardships that we are looking at is

9 basically the oversize of the property,

10 approximately 53 acres. Currently right now

11 there are signs located here at Novi Road.

12 The other sign is located at Town Center

13 Drive. The distance between those two signs

14 is approximately a little over 2,000 feet

15 and there are some topography changes as far

16 as the high point through here.

17 As you are travelling north on Novi

18 Road as well as going eastbound to Grand

19 River, this is the corner that we're looking

20 at as far as placing identification. That

21 is located there on the graphics. But

22 basically on 45 through here and a Plaza

23 area behind that. That property was

24 originally owned by the City. It was



1 purchased from by Novi Town Center. And it

2 has been through the Planning Department to

3 develop that to make sure a destination or

4 corner plaza. This is the sign itself. I

5 will move this over a little bit. Can you

6 zoom that out? Thank you.

7 You can tell the scale of the person

8 over on the right hand side being six foot.

9 So we're not trying to do anything elevated.

10 This is four feet three to the top of the

11 cap. It's a wet cast stone. This is a

12 limestone insert as far as far panels and

13 pieces with this being seen as Novi Town

14 Center. The logos that we are looking at are

15 basically on both sides. These are the 24

16 by 24, two of those.

17 Those were originally designed when we

18 brought it in the Planning Commission to be

19 the City's logo and there was quite a bit of

20 discussion at that approval process. Well,

21 do we want logo? Do we want them? Back and

22 forth. We have left it open and the

23 invitation is still to the City to provide

24 us with a logo within the next three months



1 and we will place the City logo since there

2 are no under review as far as the new

3 concept other than the wheel that we have

4 right now.

5 So in the timeframe we have looked at

6 providing two with the TC which is the new

7 brand located through here. So we have

8 brick and the stone cap on through here.

9 It's a lower profile. The second ones that

10 we have are just the South Drive which is

11 coming off of Grand River. We have the end

12 of our walls with a 16 by 16 logo located

13 there.

14 Unfortunately Bill has left. But I

15 notice that I was following someone else

16 with a camera. The original signs that we

17 have right now, of course, it's very

18 difficult to see even at this scale. The

19 photo shows that right now our sign is

20 located here. There are nine inch letters

21 there.

22 It's very difficult to see as you're

23 coming southbound on Novi Town Road. If

24 you're going from the opposite direction



1 this is now going from Grand River heading

2 east. You have a sign face right now the

3 mock-up which is this white panel here. And

4 then the two 24 medallions. Below those

5 medallions are two water features that have

6 been incorporated in the design of that

7 plaza.

8 As we drove southbound and take a

9 sharp left looking over you can see that the

10 location of the sign that is located here.

11 So it's definitely below the grade. It's

12 more of a pedestrian sign to make sure that

13 people know that this is kind of a Town

14 Center as far as the main cross roads in

15 between it.

16 The last two is basically for when

17 we're at the intersection going through it

18 driving and taking a photograph. Again, you

19 see the one logo here. This is here. So

20 they way it will be a water feature here and

21 here.

22 So as you're stopped you can see it.

23 This is going northbound so you see the one

24 24 right here. Actually the sign is located



1 here and over there. So it's basically a

2 plaza designation. It's trying to get

3 people to the area itself. We also have 49

4 (unintelligible) which will be the proposed

5 sites as far as the businesses there. This

6 is part of kind of a retooling, a

7 re-branding of the center to be competitive

8 with all the neighbors.

9 As far as the justification, the

10 irregular shape of the site as far as the 53

11 acres that we have had, the 46 businesses

12 that are there are a few of the reasons that

13 we feel that it's a hardship and we would

14 like your consideration.

15 Any questions?

16 MR. QUINN: Yeah, just in closing,

17 remember this is just the beginning of the

18 upgrading of the brand for the entire

19 center. This particular area is going to set

20 the tone for the other entrances of the

21 center that will be adapted later.

22 Again, this center was one of the

23 first ones here. It started its update to

24 keep up to the times to keep competitive.



1 This is the new center design which is clean

2 to keep it competitive and there will be

3 more additional money spent to upgrade the

4 entire center. So this is kind of the lead

5 in. So we hope we have your support in

6 saying, yes, you are going in the right

7 direction and it is okay to update a center

8 that has become a little bit aged and needs

9 to be updated. This is how we update. This

10 is how we compete with the Taubmans. This is

11 how we compete with the other malls that lie

12 north of the expressway.

13 The Town Center also needs to be a

14 destination. And as a destination people

15 need to know over all the various directions

16 on how they are going to get there and where

17 they are going to go. We are here for your

18 questions.

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. This is

20 a public hearing. Is there -- the one

21 person in our audience wants to speak? No?

22 Okay, I'll close the public hearing and ask

23 if there is correspondence?




1 there was 24 notices mailed with one

2 approval and zero objections.

3 The approval comes from Harold and

4 Donald Tuck: No problem with the additional

5 signage. Our business in town need all the

6 help they can get especially with the

7 traffic situation. Small signs are hard to

8 pick out. Thank you. Novi Auto Parts, 43131

9 Grand River.


11 Vice-Chair Fischer.


13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Any comments from

14 the City of Counsel?

15 MR. AMOLSCH: No comments.

16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We'll open it up to

17 the Board for discussion. We'll start with

18 Member Sanghvi.

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

20 Thank you for coming and telling us

21 what you are doing with this. I think it's

22 high time we did something to update this

23 place. It looks elegant. It will look

24 classy when it's all done. And I like what



1 you are doing and I want to wish you luck.

2 Thank you.

3 MR. NUNEZ: Thank you.

4 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Wrobel?

5 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

6 We've all known when we have had this corner

7 piece, we all talked about we wanted

8 something distinctive there. You know, they

9 were talking at one time of band shell you

10 know how (unintelligible) for years and

11 years. Saying that, when it came before

12 Planning Commission, we thought about it and

13 we liked the water feature aspect that was

14 put in there in the plaza. Great focal

15 point.

16 My concern is looking at the

17 elevations. The elevation where the sign is

18 placed is that going to block the water

19 feature from the people seeing it in the

20 street?

21 MR. NUNEZ: No, actually it won't.

22 The location of this, right now what we have

23 is the sign itself is on this panel. There

24 is rod iron between it, between it and this



1 monument here and there one here are the

2 higher elevations where we have the 24 by 24

3 medallions or logos. And then the water

4 feature is part of that system. So the

5 water feature comes here and here.

6 When we were designing this we were

7 concerned as people driving on Grand River

8 or stopping at this and being able to look

9 over into that area and see that. So it

10 will be visible from the road. We don't want

11 it to be a major attraction that it would

12 cause a collision. But we want them to be

13 able to stop, see something going on and

14 (unintelligible).

15 MEMBER WROBEL: I was just concerned

16 that it would block the whole thing. And

17 what's the point in putting it in if only

18 people inside could enjoy it?

19 MR. NUNEZ: Right.

20 MR. QUINN: Exactly.

21 MEMBER WROBEL: Other than that, I

22 think it looks good. The sizing is right.

23 I guess I have one other question somewhat

24 related to this and I don't know if this is



1 the place to bring it up but I'm going to

2 because I have the parties here.

3 When Planning Commission we looked at

4 this, we notice we have along Grand River

5 there is the brick fence and everything.

6 The thing that caught us in the past few

7 months is by the last building, your

8 building number two that it's all stone up

9 there. And quite honestly, we were all very

10 surprised at that. We thought that that was

11 going to be brick through there. And it

12 just kind of looks out of place. It's just

13 a comment that several members of the

14 Planning Commission and I have talked about

15 and we are kind of surprised at because what

16 we approved is not what we thought is what

17 we got now.

18 MR. NUNEZ: Originally along that

19 elevation on Grand River that was actually

20 supposed to be lawn coming straight down to

21 the edge of the sidewalk. There wasn't a

22 proposed wall along there. Unfortunately

23 when the Road Commission came in and took

24 their right-of-way and took the space from



1 that, there is a grade change that was there

2 and as a result the engineer has came in

3 with a difference in elevation. They could

4 have transitioned that a little better.

5 Great Oaks Landscape Contractors,

6 unfortunately one boulder looks good and two

7 looks better. And that is kind of what we

8 have. We're working with them on this as

9 far as the image and the look of that.

10 I don't have a resolution yet, but

11 they are aware of it.

12 MEMBER WROBEL: Okay. It just takes

13 away because it looks so nice and then you

14 see that little spot. It looks like they

15 just threw it in there.

16 Okay, thank you. That's all.

17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you, Member

18 Wrobel.

19 Any further comments? I'll make one.

20 This is mainly from a comment that Mr. Quinn

21 made about this being a beginning with the

22 renovations and the upgrade and what have

23 you. I want to make sure that everybody

24 understands that if this is approved this



1 evening, that does not approve any future

2 signage or future --

3 MR. QUINN: Modifications.

4 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Correct. It could

5 mean coming back in front of us in the

6 future.

7 MR. QUINN: You caught me again.

8 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Well, if I didn't,

9 Mr. Schultz would.

10 MR. QUINN: He certainly will.

11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Any other comments?

12 Anybody want to make a motion? Member

13 Fischer?


15 that, though, I think it's a great

16 improvement. I agree we would have to

17 re-review everything, but you asked if this

18 is a step in the right direction and I would

19 say wholeheartedly, yes.

20 So, in case number: 07-075 filed by

21 Jim Clear of Novi Town Center Investors,

22 LLC, I move that we grant the Petitioner's s

23 request given the fact that the Petitioner

24 has established hardship based on the



1 following grounds.

2 The large site including it being over

3 53 acres. The irregular property lines.

4 The distance between the current

5 identification signs to assist in the

6 traffic and coordination of the other signs

7 as well as the confusion with Main Street

8 and the mall to the north of the freeway as

9 well as the multiple businesses in the TC

10 district.

11 MEMBER BAUER: Second.

12 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have a motion by

13 Member Fischer and a second by Member Bauer.

14 Any further discussion? Please call

15 the roll.

16 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer?


18 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


20 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


22 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


24 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?




2 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


4 MS. WORKING: And Mr. Wrobel?


6 MS. WORKING: Motion to pass -- or

7 motion to grant variance passes 7-0.

8 It's past my bedtime.

9 MR. QUINN: Thank you very much and I

10 appreciate it. Good running of the meeting

11 tonight. I like the way you do it.



14 All right. Moving on, we've got two

15 more items on our agenda under other

16 matters. The first one is the 2008 ZBA

17 calendar dates.

18 MS. WORKING: I am so sorry to have to

19 bring this to you this evening. I was just

20 informed this afternoon that this March 11th

21 proposed ZBA date conflicts with the March

22 10th, 11th and 12th scheduled Board of

23 Review dates. Unfortunately Mr. Lennon (ph)

24 is out of town and was unable to clarify for



1 me whether or not March 11th was a day for

2 this review meeting. Apparently they meet

3 two days and one evening and I was kind of

4 hoping I would have the answer for you and I

5 didn't get it today.

6 My recommendation to you would be to

7 meet that same week to assist our

8 department, particularly me, in meeting the

9 NZBA requirements for public hearing

10 notifications and not having to shift any of

11 the deadlines for the Applicants. If we

12 meet earlier in March, I would have to set

13 an end of January deadline for Petitioners

14 wanting to go before you in early March the

15 first week. And I really hesitate to

16 recommend that to you.

17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: The earliest we

18 would be able to meet that week would be a

19 Thursday?

20 MS. WORKING: It appears that the

21 Board of Review has 10, 11, 12 booked. And

22 the City Council dates I indicated and read,

23 they are usually the first and third Mondays

24 of the month.



1 Everything else has been spoken for

2 unfortunately. The 3rd and the 17th are

3 City Council dates and it appears that 10,

4 11, 12 are Board of Review dates. And we

5 don't want to go later in March I do not

6 believe, that's just my humble opinion, and

7 my recommendation to you to not choose those

8 dates that are later in March because that

9 would be then come close to the April

10 proposed date.

11 MEMBER KRIEGER: (Unintelligible) the

12 13th?

13 MS. WORKING: I am saying the 13th

14 would be the compromise for the Zoning Board

15 of Appeals. Unless you would like to meet

16 on a Friday?


18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: What we are looking

19 for this evening is a panel approval for the

20 2008 calendar as presented with the

21 amendment of moving the 11th to the 13th if

22 need be.

23 MS. WORKING: As well as the proposed

24 new start time at 7 p.m. as indicated by Mr.



1 Rumple in his memo to you.

2 MEMBER WROBEL: I am thinking,

3 November 12th, isn't that a Planning

4 Commission meeting date?

5 MS. WORKING: I sure hope not because I

6 did receive the Planning Commission dates.

7 I believe you're not meeting in November If

8 I recall correctly.

9 MEMBER WROBEL: I don't have my

10 calendar with me.

11 MS. WORKING: I want to say that it

12 was proposed to skip the November meeting

13 for Planning Commission.

14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We'll have a joint

15 meeting.

16 MEMBER WROBEL: That may not be a bad

17 idea. I'll check my calendar. For some

18 reason that sticks out.

19 MS. WORKING: If you want I can run

20 back, I have got the City's file calendar on

21 my desk.

22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Let's go ahead and

23 try and approve something this evening. If

24 we have to adjust it we can adjust it.



1 Can I have a motion to accept the

2 recommendations?

3 MEMBER BAUER: So moved.




7 clarification. We are including the 7:00

8 time, correct?

9 MS. WORKING: 7:00.

10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: With this can we do

11 it with an aye vote?

12 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes.

13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay, all in favor

14 say aye.


16 Opposed, same sign. Okay.

17 MS. WORKING: That would be the March

18 13th date and the 7:00 p.m. start time?



21 MS. WORKING: Thank you.

22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: And looking at the

23 November 12th to see if there is a conflict.




1 The last item on the agenda is the

2 Committee update on our Subcommittee Ad Hoc

3 Committee.


5 month or so I have been complying many

6 different pieces of data. It turned from a

7 couple small recommendations from the Chair

8 to about 17 different things that we need to

9 look at and some that includes five

10 different subsections. So, I have been

11 struggling with the best way to present this

12 to my committee. We will pick a date next

13 week and our goal is now by December to have

14 recommendations to be voted on in December

15 effective for January 1st.


17 recommendations from the Chair. I apologize

18 for that.


20 an issue.

21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: If anyone is not

22 aware, the Chairman of the Subcommittee,

23 Member Fischer, I have given him the

24 permission to substitute members in case



1 there is an absence of a member in one of

2 the Subcommittee meetings.

3 And I would also like Robin to notify

4 the members when you have a meeting that if

5 anybody else wants to sit in and provide

6 feedback they are more than welcome.


8 more than three, though?

9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Who is on that

10 committee?

11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That's true. We

12 can't.

13 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: It's apparently

14 us three. As things change or someone is

15 not available and we want to make some

16 decisions and makes some recommendations and

17 makes some votes, then we might have -- I

18 might call one of you to sit in for me or

19 Brent or Linda might do the same as well.

20 So be expecting a phone call as we expect

21 and hope for your recommendations.

22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I forgot we cannot

23 have four or more, it constitutes a meeting.

24 So, three.



1 MS. WORKING: Would you like me to

2 notice it as a meeting?

3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Absolutely not.

4 MS. WORKING: I would need about 25

5 days advance notice for that.


7 informal.

8 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I will entertain a

9 motion for adjournment.

10 MEMBER SANGHVI: So moved.



13 adjourned.

14 (The meeting was adjourned at

15 10:51 p.m.)












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


3 I, Mona L. Talton, do hereby

4 certify that I have recorded

5 stenographically the proceedings had and

6 testimony taken in the above-entitled matter

7 at the time and place hereinbefore set

8 forth, and I do further certify that the

9 foregoing transcript, consisting of (164)

10 typewritten pages, is a true and correct

11 transcript of my said stenographic notes.






17 _____________________________

18 Mona L. Talton,

19 Certified Shorthand Reporter


21 October 23, 2007