| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting REGULAR MEETING - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, Tuesday, December 4, 2007. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY:
1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, December 4, 2007 3 7:30 p.m. 4 - - - - - - 5 6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Call the meeting 7 to order. This is the Tuesday, December 8 4th, 2007 regular meeting of the City of 9 Novi Zoning Board of Appeals. 10 The next item here is the roll call 11 for attendance. Please call the roll. 12 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 14 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. 16 MS. MARCHIONI: Chairman Shroyer? 17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Here. 18 MS. MARCHIONI: Vice-Chair Fischer? 19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Present. 20 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Canup? 21 MEMBER CANUP: Here. 22 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Krieger? 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Here. 24 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Wrobel?
4 1 MEMBER WROBEL: Present. 2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. We 3 do have a quorum, thus this meeting is 4 official and is now in session. 5 At this time I would like to ask 6 Member Sanghvi to lead us in the pledge of 7 allegiance. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Sure. 9 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the 10 United States of America and to the Republic 11 for which it stands, one nation under God 12 indivisible with liberty and justice for 13 all. 14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Next 15 is the Vice-Chair would please read our 16 rules of conduct for the meeting. 17 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 18 Mr. Chair. Let me first point out that the 19 rules and the format can be found on the 20 front page of the agenda. 21 Please turn off all cell phones and pagers 22 during the meeting. First an Applicant or a 23 representative will be asked to come forth 24 and state their name and address and be
5 1 sworn in by our Secretary. 2 Applicants or 3 representatives will be allowed five minutes 4 to address the Board and present their case. 5 An extension of time may be granted at the 6 discretion of the Chairperson. 7 Anyone in the audience who wish to 8 address the Board regarding the current case 9 will be asked by the Chairperson to raise 10 their hands and be recognized. Once 11 recognized the audience members addressing 12 the Board will be sworn in and given three 13 minutes to speak as an individual or ten 14 minutes if speaking on behalf of a group. 15 Members of the audience will be 16 allowed to address the Board only once 17 unless directly questioned by a Board member 18 or the Chairperson. The Secretary will read 19 the number of public hearing notices mailed 20 pertaining to the current case. Objection 21 and approval responses will be entered into 22 the record at that time. The 23 Chairperson will ask for any input from the 24 Community Development Department, the
6 1 Ordinance Enforcement or Planning Department 2 as well as the city attorney. 3 The Chairperson will turn the case 4 over for Board discussion and entertain a 5 motion if appropriate. Impromptu comments 6 from the audience will not be tolerated and 7 will be considered out of order. A roll 8 call vote will be taken to approve or deny a 9 motion on the table and the next case will 10 then be called. 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. The 12 Zoning Board of Appeals is a Hearing Board 13 empowered by the Novi City Charter to hear 14 appeals seeking variances from the 15 application of Novi Zoning Ordinances. It 16 takes a vote of at least four members to 17 approve a request for a variance and a vote 18 of the majority present to deny a request. 19 The Board consist of seven regular 20 members and one alternate member. The 21 alternate member has the right to 22 participate in all Board discussions and 23 hearings, but may not vote except in the 24 absence or abstention of a regular member.
7 1 As I mentioned we have quorum this evening. 2 All members are full members. The alternate 3 is not present. 4 We have an agenda in front of us. Is 5 there any changes or additions to the 6 agenda? 7 MS. MARCHIONI: Yes, have I few 8 changes. Number six, the variance request 9 for the building setback should be nine feet 10 and not nine feet six inches. And also the 11 November 5th ZBA minutes have been added for 12 approval of the minutes. 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any other 14 additions or corrections in the agenda? 15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Motion to 16 approve as amended. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Second -- 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: So moved. 19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion 20 by Member Fischer and a second by Member 21 Bauer. 22 I have read in our revised rules that 23 we are looking at that we do look for a roll 24 count vote even on this. Is that still
8 1 correct? 2 MS. KUDLA: On the revised rules? I 3 have to look. 4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We'll go ahead 5 with the roll call to approve the agenda. 6 MS. MARCHIONI: Who moved and 7 seconded? 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Fisher 9 and Member Bauer. 10 MS. MARCHIONI: Vice-Chair Fischer? 11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 12 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 14 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Canup? 15 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 16 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Krieger? 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 18 MS. MARCHIONI: Chairman Shroyer? 19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 20 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 22 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Wrobel? 23 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
9 1 The next item on the agenda 2 is approval of the minutes and I'd like to 3 kind of poll the Board here. I received the 4 November 5th minutes yesterday. I did have 5 a chance to review those. We received the 6 November 6th minutes this evening. 7 Obviously I don't think we're in a position 8 to review and approve the November 6th 9 meeting. How does the Board feel about the 10 5th? Did everyone have a chance to review 11 it or do we need to move that back to the 12 next meeting? 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: I would like to be 14 able to read the minutes before. 15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: As would I. 16 MS. KUDLA: The City Attorney's Office 17 also request to table the November 5th 18 minutes. 19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Very good. The 20 minutes will not be reviewed this evening. 21 We will review them at the January meeting 22 for both November 5th and November 6th. 23 At this time I'll move on to public 24 remarks. Is there anyone in the audience
10 1 who cares to speak to the Board on any 2 matter other than on the agenda items this 3 evening? Seeing no one we'll move on to our 4 first case. 5 6 Which is Case number: 07-081 7 filed by Josh Malik and Jack B. Anglin of 8 the Jack B. Anglin Company for 46700 Grand 9 River Avenue. 10 Applicant is requesting a temporary 11 relief from the zoning ordinance which 12 prohibits expanding nonconforming uses of 13 land. 14 The Appliance is requesting an 18 15 month use variance to terminate the expanded 16 illegal nonconforming use of vehicle storage 17 on the property located at said address. 18 The property is zoned OST and located north 19 of Grand River and east of Beck Road. 20 Our Ordinances Article 25 General 21 Provisions Section 2502(1)(3)A. 22 Nonconforming lots. Nonconforming Uses of 23 Land, Nonconforming uses of Structure and 24 Nonconforming Uses of Structures and Land
11 1 states: "Intent. It is the intent of this 2 Ordinance to permit legal nonconforming 3 lots, structures or uses to continue until 4 they are removed but not to encourage their 5 survival. No such nonconforming uses shall 6 be enlarged or increased, nor extended to 7 occupy a greater area of land than was 8 occupied at the effective date of adoption 9 or amendment of this Ordinance. 10 The Applicant, I believe is standing 11 up. If you care to come forward. 12 MEMBER CANUP: Excuse me, Mr. 13 Chairman. 14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Yes. 15 MEMBER CANUP: In our folder there is 16 a letter from the City. I just happened to 17 catch it. Asking us to table this matter. 18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 19 MEMBER CANUP: Do you want to listen 20 to a presentation that may not be 21 applicable? 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We'll turn to 23 the attorney. Do we do that first? 24 Typically I believe we do listen to the
12 1 presentation and then -- 2 MS. KUDLA: Correct. And then we 3 would make the recommendation to table based 4 on what we wrote in our letter. If he wants 5 to make a request to adjourn at this point 6 he could do that. 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: If the Applicant 8 is requesting it to be tabled we can at this 9 point. 10 MS. KUDLA: Right. 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Is the Applicant 12 requesting this to be tabled? 13 MR. ANGLIN: I guess I didn't follow 14 it. Try it one more time for me. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Are you 16 requesting that this case be tabled to the 17 next month? 18 MR. ANGLIN: Well, I thought we were 19 on the docket for last month and that's what 20 this month was. 21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr. Chair, 22 I think the most appropriate question is to 23 the City Attorney. Do you want to hear the 24 presentation? The City Attorney is
13 1 requesting time to review and have the City 2 review what you say so we can have their 3 interpretation as well as the City's 4 interpretation. So they are the ones 5 actually requesting. So I would ask the 6 City Attorney, do you want to hear the 7 presentation or? 8 MS. KUDLA: I don't think the 9 presentation is going to change anything as 10 far as our recommendation. 11 MEMBER CANUP: Well, I guess I would 12 look at that if it's a small area that we're 13 talking about or is it the whole area that 14 we're talking about is what I understand 15 there is a discrepancy in the interpretation 16 of what is being asked for? 17 MS. KUDLA: Correct. And for the 18 additional review of administrative staff. 19 There is two separate. 20 MEMBER CANUP: It's not going to hurt 21 anything to listen to the presentation. 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I would like to 23 hear more information to feel better 24 prepared for when the attorney or the City
14 1 does come forth and discuss this. Even 2 though we may table it after the 3 presentation, I do feel that we owe it to 4 the Applicant who showed up this evening to 5 present his case and I for one would like to 6 hear it. Is that the consensus of the 7 group? I see yeses and nos. 8 MEMBER CANUP: It's not going to hurt 9 anything to listen to it. My concern was is 10 it the correct procedure that we need to be 11 doing. 12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I think we're 13 okay in going forth with this. 14 Okay, sir, I'm sorry for the delay. 15 If you are not an attorney please raise your 16 right hand and be sworn in by our Secretary. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm 18 to tell the truth on Case: 07-081? 19 MR. ANGLIN: I do. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 21 MR. ANGLIN: I am Doug Anglin on 22 behalf of Jack B. Anglin Company. Address 23 46700 Grand River. 24 It's fairly simple what we've got
15 1 going on here. Unbeknownst to me we were 2 violating a nonconforming use by expanding 3 our existing storage lot by 31,000 square 4 feet. I didn't know we were executing a 5 nonconforming area because of my father that 6 passed roughly 14 months ago. It was 7 changed back then as I kind of got into this 8 position. I am now aware that I am 9 violating something. 10 All I am looking for is an extension 11 to remove those leases and return the 12 property back to the conforming use that it 13 originally once was. I am not trying to 14 expand the property or anything else. 15 I haven't accepted any new leases from 16 renters since I received the violation. The 17 longest one I had at the time was 18 months 18 which was the reason for the 18 month 19 extension even though it will be a couple 20 months shorter now. I will take the 21 remainder of the time to remove everybody 22 that hasn't moved out if need be and turn 23 the area back into the conforming use that 24 it was when they purchased the property.
16 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 2 Since this was advertised as a public 3 hearing don't we owe it to the audience to 4 list it as a public hearing as well? 5 MS. KUDLA: Sure. 6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay. This is a 7 public hearing. Is there anyone in the 8 audience who cares to come forth and speak 9 on the case at this time? Seeing none, 10 we'll close the public hearing and turn it 11 over -- well, is there any notices that we 12 need to review? 13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr. Chair, 14 in this case there were 22 notices mailed
15 with zero approvals and zero objections. 16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Would the City 17 or Counsel care to comment at this time 18 other than requesting the tabling? 19 MS. KUDLA: Other than that, no. 20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And the reason 21 for it is to have adequate time to review 22 the background. 23 MS. KUDLA: Correct, there is two 24 reasons. Since it's a use variance it's a
17 1 more significant variance and we feel that 2 City administration should have a greater 3 opportunity to review it. 4 And the second reason is that there 5 appears to be a discrepancy between what 6 they're indicating the expansion is and what 7 this City believes the expansion to be. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I wanted to make 9 sure our Applicant understood the reasons 10 why. 11 Is there anyone from the ZBA who cares 12 to discuss this at this time or do you want 13 to move on to the recommended motion? 14 Member Fischer? 15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I have one 16 question to the City Attorney and maybe they 17 want to address it in their letter. Why 18 can't this be handled as a temporary use? 19 And I'm not looking for an answer tonight, 20 or if you don't have one I am willing to 21 wait for an answer, but -- 22 MS. KUDLA: I did look back at the 23 additional correspondence. I had gone back 24 and forth between Kristen Cole (ph) of our
18 1 office and the Applicant. And it appears 2 that that opportunity was given as one of 3 the options. I don't know what the reason 4 was that it wasn't chosen. 5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If I can 6 direct City Staff or City Attorney to look 7 into that and report to the Board why that 8 might not have been pursued or if we need to 9 contact the Applicant to see why that wasn't 10 pursued. I would be interested in that. 11 Also from a Board perspective as far 12 as temporary use, they are asking for an 13 18-month extension, if the City Attorney 14 could provide some information regarding if 15 the temporary piece of that has any changes 16 to the legalities that we need to look at as 17 a Board when it comes to the use permit. 18 So, if you guys could talk to that a little 19 bit in your opinion as well I would greatly 20 appreciate that. 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The comments are 22 duly noted. Any further comments? 23 Would someone care to make a motion? 24 MEMBER BAUER: I make a motion that we
19 1 table this to January when we get the 2 attorney's understanding and it is given to 3 us. 4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: For the reasons 5 that the attorney stated earlier. 6 MEMBER BAUER: Correct. 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: There is a 8 motion. Is there a second? 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Second 10 that. 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion 12 by Member Bauer. A second by Member 13 Fischer. 14 Any further discussion? Please call 15 the roll. 16 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 17 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 18 MS. MARCHIONI: Vice-Chair Fischer? 19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 20 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Canup? 21 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 22 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Krieger? 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 24 MS. MARCHIONI: Chairman Shroyer?
20 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 2 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 4 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Wrobel? 5 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 6 MS. MARCHIONI: Motion passes. 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Sir, did you 8 understand what just took place here? 9 MR. ANGLIN: No. 10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The City 11 Attorney their office that represents the 12 City, obviously, felt that they needed more 13 time to review the information, background 14 and the history as to what actually 15 transpired and be able to provide the City 16 and the Board with information that may be 17 pertinent to the program. They weren't able 18 to prepare all that for this evening's 19 meeting. Consequently it has now been 20 tabled and will be up again for our January 21 meeting. I don't have an exact date in 22 January. 23 Is it the 8th? Is that correct? It's 24 not the 8th, okay. It's our meeting in
21 1 January which will be on-line. 2 MS. MARCHIONI: January 8th. 3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I think the 2nd 4 was a holiday. It's January 8th. Thank 5 you. 6 7 Moving on to our second case which is 8 Case number: 07-084 filed by Keith Murray 9 of Sign Graphix, Incorporated and Mercantile 10 Bank located at 28350 Cabot Drive. The 11 Applicant is requesting one wall sign 12 variance for a 30-square foot illuminated 13 wall sign to be located at said address. 14 The business has an approved ground sign 15 already. 16 The property is zone OST and is 17 located north of Thirteen Mile Road and east 18 of M-5. Under the City Ordinance Section 19 28-5(3). Number of on-premises advertising 20 signs permitted states: No building or 21 parcel of land shall be allowed more than 22 one sign. 23 I see the Applicant has come forward. 24 I was going to say I believe he is an
22 1 attorney. So at this point please state 2 your case. 3 MR. LUTZ: I'm not an attorney. 4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Oh, you are not 5 an attorney. I thought you were. 6 MR. LUTZ: No. 7 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm 8 to tell the truth regarding Case: 07-084? 9 MR. LUTZ: I do. 10 MEMBER BAUER: Please. 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You wore a tie 12 and suit last time so we thought you were an 13 attorney. 14 MR. LUTZ: You're easily fooled. No, 15 my name is Bill Lutz with Sign Graphix. 16 39255 Country Club Drive, Farmington Hills, 17 Michigan. 18 This is the old Siemens' building for 19 those of you who might remember when this 20 building went up. It's a building that's 21 kind of a little different in some respects. 22 It actually sits below the level and grade 23 of the road so it's kind of recessed and 24 it's under behind a berm and it's a little
23 1 difficult to find. 2 Mercantile Bank has a lease on this 3 building with an option to buy. They expect 4 to locate here. Mercantile Bank is not new 5 to the State of Michigan yet they are very 6 new to this area. They are primarily a 7 business bank with business connections. 8 They are not a bank that's branch driven, so 9 this will be the only branch in this area. 10 The next closest branch is Ann Arbor and 11 then Lansing and then the west side of the 12 state. 13 So, it is going to be a destination 14 for business folks. It's necessary to 15 identify that. As you can see, I don't seem 16 to have a connection here. The IT in the 17 back is not -- normally we have to push a 18 button in the back. If we can dim some 19 lights that would be great. 20 This is the view south on Cabot Drive. 21 We don't have a wall to work with here, so 22 the ground sign that is in place currently, 23 and if you all have been to the site you 24 will notice that there is a hedge that
24 1 actually blocks that ground sign. The hedge 2 will disappear. There is just no way the 3 hedge works there any longer with the need 4 to identify this with the ground sign. 5 This will have to be the only form of 6 identification now. I am probably 75 feet 7 from that entrance so I am not all that 8 fair, yet you can see that sign is visible 9 but it's not really readable from that 10 distance. And that's a function of the fact 11 that this is an allowable 30-square foot 12 sign. The 30-square foot sign just doesn't 13 have copy large enough unfortunately given 14 those dimensions to really be very visible 15 even though the structure is visible. This 16 will have to be our only sign from this 17 direction. 18 From the opposite direction you are 19 going uphill and that's the other challenge 20 here. We got a long open area to view this 21 building and that sign. And, again, I have 22 taken off the hedges visually here. So 23 that's the way it will look here hopefully 24 in another few days or so.
25
1 You can see the sign but you really 2 can't read the sign. So, we feel like we 3 need some identification. Because this is 4 located on a curve, an additional 30-square 5 foot sign on the side of the building would 6 really improve visibility on this particular 7 site. It's kind of an odd location. It 8 does sit back. The front of the building is 9 not really visible at all for passersby. 10 So, this is a real help to find this 11 destination. 12 All the parking is on this side of the 13 building so we really would like to get 14 folks into that first curb cut, otherwise 15 you have to wind your way in the back of the 16 building and the back of the building 17 doesn't look like it's very accessible. So 18 if we come in that entrance we are probably 19 going to have to turn around. That will 20 appear to be what will happen. 21 So, we really want to get folks into 22 that front parking lot here. So that's the 23 reason for this secondary sign. 24 We downsized it to 30-square feet so
26 1 it's not a very large sign. As you can see 2 it's not especially dominant on the side of 3 that building. Again, as we approach this 4 first entrance into the bank you can see the 5 Mercantile Bank in black in individual 6 letters. 7 It's still hard to read the ground 8 sign and that's where we really need to get 9 folks into. This is a blowup of the 10 individual. I think you all have been by 11 it, so this is with the hedges so that's 12 really not very pertinent. So, I really 13 don't have a long story to tell you this 14 evening. It's a little different building. 15 A little different situation. We need to 16 get folks here and we feel like we need a 17 secondary sign from what will be the primary 18 way of approaching this property from the 19 south. 20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. This 21 is a public hearing. Is there anyone else 22 in the audience who cares to come forth and 23 speak on this case? Seeing none, we'll 24 close the public hearing and ask the
27 1 Secretary if there are any notices -- I'm 2 sorry, ask the Vice-Chair if there are any 3 notices? 4 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 5 Mr. Chair. In this case there were 15 6 notices mailed with zero approvals and zero 7 objections. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any comments 9 from the City or Counsel? 10 MS. KUDLA: No. 11 MR. AMOLSCH: No comments, sir. 12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay, we'll turn 13 it over to the ZBA for comments and 14 questions. 15 Member Sanghvi? 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 17 This looks like a pretty straight forward 18 affair. They need business identification. 19 They need the wall sign because of the low 20 configuration and I have no difficulty in 21 supporting their application. Thank you. 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 23 Member Fischer? 24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Alan, if
28 1 they didn't have the ground sign how large 2 of a wall sign could they have? 3 MR. AMOLSCH: It's based on the 4 setback from center line of the road. I 5 believe it's one square foot of sign with 6 two feet of setback from center line on 7 Cabot. They did not furnish that 8 information today, but I believe the sign is 9 within those standards. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Within the parameters 11 that would be allowed if they did not have 12 the ground sign? 13 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes. 14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I was out 15 to the building but I didn't notice where 16 the entrance was. Can you point on this 17 picture where the entrance is? 18 MR. LUTZ: The entrance is -- do you 19 see the first curb cut there, right where 20 the snow pile is? 21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes. 22 MR. LUTZ: That is the entrance into 23 the bank parking lot. 24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I mean into
29 1 the building. 2 MR. LUTZ: Well, the building, there 3 is a sidewalk that runs perpendicular across 4 the front of the building, so the sidewalk 5 makes the front of the building accessible 6 from that parking lot. 7 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. I 8 would tend to agree, Mr. Chair, given the 9 configuration, I would be willing to support 10 that as well. Thank you. 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 12 Further comments? Well, I will speak. 13 The first comment that I will make is it is 14 not north of Thirteen Mile Road as the 15 printed literature states. I went north of 16 Thirteen Mile Road and it's not there. So I 17 went south. 18 MR. LUTZ: No, it's definitely not 19 north of Thirteen. 20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: It's north of 21 Twelve Mile Road. I don't know if we need 22 to change that in the information or not. I 23 wanted to mention that. 24 The shrubbery as you
30 1 mentioned, absolutely destroys the sign out 2 front. You cannot see it at all. The 3 removal altogether was that part of the plan 4 that was approved by the City? 5 MR. LUTZ: Well, I am sure the shrubs 6 were part of the original plan and I think 7 there is some discussion about replanting 8 something that may be a little ground cover 9 there. You have got the berm so anything, 10 any height items that we put there by way of 11 shrubbery is going to block this building. 12 In fact, that shrub has gotten to the point 13 where it almost blocks the building itself 14 as you go by because the building sits down 15 low. So the shrubs have been a bit 16 problematic I think for a lot of reasons. 17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The leaves have 18 fallen off. I don't know what kind of shrubs 19 they are. They look like they might have 20 been Burning Bushes. 21 MR. LUTZ: (Unintelligible.) 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: What is the 23 speed limit on that road? 24 MR. LUTZ: Twenty-five.
31 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Good thing there 2 wasn't a policeman there when I went to 3 visit it. I am sure I wasn't doing 25. 4 MR. LUTZ: Well, you're not the only 5 one, Mr. Shroyer. I have noticed that on 6 that road too. They fly. 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I was going 20 8 is the reason I said that. And that is the 9 only business at that location, correct? 10 MR. LUTZ: That's correct. 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I respectfully 12 disagree with the previous speakers. To me 13 the ground sign can be seen easily, can be 14 seen with the shrubbery missing. In a 25 15 mile-an-hour zone, people shouldn't be going 16 too fast with two entrances. And entrance 17 and exit type things doesn't make it easy to 18 turn around and go back. A bank typically 19 if somebody is a member or a, if they are 20 going to that bank they visited multiple 21 times. Once you have gone the first time 22 you know where the entrance is typically. 23 I don't see the hardship. 24 MR. LUTZ: May I, Mr. Chair?
32 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes, sir. 2 MR. LUTZ: If this was an ordinary 3 bank I would understand where you are coming 4 from, but it is a business bank. It will be 5 the bank that will draw people from all OVER 6 Oakland County from a business standpoint, 7 So they won't be frequent visitors. We may 8 be one of the only frequent visitors. This 9 just happens to be a bank that we previously 10 had a relationship with. We're across the 11 street almost. But we would be the 12 exception. 13 Most of these folks are going to come 14 from out of town or out of the area to do 15 business transactions here not a deposit 16 type of transaction. So it's a relationship 17 kind of a thing where people will come on a 18 very occasional basis. So that's why it's 19 not like a normal bank like a branch driven 20 bank where there are a lot of branches you 21 use this one or you can go a mile down the 22 road kind of thing. This will be the only 23 branch in the Metropolitan Detroit area. 24 So it's a little different scenario.
33 1 So we really need to get people there 2 without having to make U turns at Cabot 3 Drive or U turns around that building. 4 Frankly if you go to the other side of the 5 building it's difficult to turn around. 6 It's not a very wide drive. 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: So this sign 8 would substantially help northbound traffic 9 on Cabot? 10 MR. LUTZ: Yes, sir. 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: It doesn't help 12 at all on southbound? 13 MR. LUTZ: No, it doesn't help at all. 14 Most of the traffic is going to be coming 15 off of M-5 and it's going to be coming 16 through down Twelve Mile and across that 17 corridor there. People that know it's there 18 would use Thirteen Mile or come in that way. 19 But frankly most of the traffic mostly 20 exiting at night is coming in from Twelve 21 Mile and is northbound. 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Any 23 further comments? 24 Member Krieger?
34 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Question. The 2 illuminated sign, the sign what needed to be 3 illuminated, what are their hours of 4 operation? 5 MR. LUTZ: They will not have long 6 hours of operation. But in the wintertime 7 it gets dark early. 8 It's going to be a black sign during the 9 day. At night those letters will light 10 white against the black background. It's a 11 pretty minimal impact from that standpoint. 12 And with the ground sign, only the 13 text lights. So it's an internally 14 illuminated sign. So the whole square 15 footage does not light. It's a real minimum 16 illumination there during the evening hours. 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: I would agree that 18 because of the configuration of the road and 19 the decreased amount of re-currency of 20 business people coming there, that this 21 would probably be a more helpful sign for 22 merchants and businesses to come and look 23 for this bank. So I would allow for them to 24 have this sign.
35 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 2 Member Canup. 3 MEMBER CANUP: There needs to be a 4 demonstrated hardship for us to grant. At 5 least that's what the intent of our Board is 6 to see a demonstrated hardship or a 7 practical hardship, and I don't see either 8 in this. It's a matter that I want a sign. 9 If you drive by and look at it, the ground 10 sign in the front is very adequate for what 11 the intent of that is. And that is to show 12 people this is the building. It's a number 13 on the building. I think there are very few 14 people that publish any paper in a business 15 that doesn't have a street address on it. 16 And the street address by Ordinance is a 17 certain size which is viewable from the 18 street and I think with the help of that, if 19 people can't find this building with that 20 sign in front, they don't need to be going 21 to a bank. 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 23 Member Bauer? 24 MEMBER BAUER: Yes, I agree with the
36 1 past Member of the Board that I don't see a 2 hardship. I drove by it three or four 3 times. 4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Couldn't find 5 it? Or no? 6 MEMBER BAUER: No. No problem finding 7 it. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 9 Member Wrobel? 10 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you. I drove by 11 it. I had no problem and I had never been 12 up that road before. I really see no 13 hardship either at this point. 14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Canup? 15 MEMBER CANUP: It sounds like 16 everybody has had an opportunity to say 17 something. I would be willing to make a 18 motion in this case if that's acceptable to 19 the Chair. 20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Feel free to do 21 so. 22 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a Motion 23 that in Case number: 07-084 for Mercantile 24 Bank that we deny the request for a variance
37 1 as stated due to a lack of a demonstrated 2 hardship or a practical hardship. 3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Difficulty. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion 6 and a second. 7 Is there any additional information 8 that's needed in the motion? I am looking 9 for the City to see if we need it. 10 MS. KUDLA: Maybe just add that 11 Members had no problem identifying the 12 building. 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: When we did 14 drive-bys or the site visits? 15 MS. KUDLA: Correct. 16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Would you be 17 open to adding that to the motion? 18 MEMBER CANUP: I would be willing to 19 add that to the motion, yes. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have motion 22 on the floor and seconded by Member Bauer. 23 Any further discussion? Please call 24 the roll.
38 1 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Canup? 2 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 3 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 4 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 5 MS. MARCHIONI: Vice-Chair Fischer? 6 MEMBER FISCHER: No. 7 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Krieger? 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: No. 9 MS. MARCHIONI: Chairman Shroyer? 10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 11 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: No. 13 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Wrobel? 14 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 15 MS. MARCHIONI: Motion passes 4-3. 16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Sir, it's been 17 denied. 18 MR. LUTZ: Thanks a lot. 19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 20 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Our next case, 22 our third case is Case number: 07-086 filed 23 by Randy Gregory of Mixx Lounge located at 24 43155 Main Street, Suite 502. The Applicant
39 1 is requesting four sign variances for a 2 projecting sign and an illuminated rear 3 elevation sign for the Mixx Lounge located 4 at said address. 5 The Applicant is requesting one 6 33-square foot variance or projecting sign 7 to be located on the front elevation of the 8 building. Requesting a 33-square foot 9 projecting wall sign measuring 11 by 3 feet 10 to be located above the main entrance to the 11 business which faces Main Street. 12 In addition the Applicant is 13 requesting one 40-square foot illuminated 14 wall sign variance to relocate the 15 previously approved front elevation wall 16 sign and rear elevation of the business 17 facing the parking lot of Building 200/300 18 Main Street. The property is zone TC-1 and 19 located east of Novi Road and south of Grand 20 River Avenue. 21 We have a myriad of City ordinances 22 here. I won't go into all of them because 23 they are available on the agendas that were 24 provided.
40 1 The Applicant has come forward. If 2 you are not an attorney please be sworn in 3 by our Secretary. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm 5 to tell the truth on Case: 07-086? 6 MR. GREGORY: Yes, sir. 7 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please state 9 your name and address and state your case. 10 MR. GREGORY: My name is Randy 11 Gregory. I am one of the owners of Mixx 12 Lounge. I live at 45297 Dunbar in Novi. 13 I appreciate the consideration of our 14 request. Does this overhead work? 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes, sir. 16 MR. GREGORY: I am going to first 17 address the one variance for the rear sign 18 for our business. We have been open in Mixx 19 Lounge for a year and a half now. When we 20 opened up I think we probably didn't 21 understand where our customers would be 22 coming to to get into our building. Our 23 building is located on, the main entrance is 24 located on Main Street and the majority of
41 1 our customers that we found now come from 2 Grand River from the opposite side and/or 3 park on the opposite side. 4 It's been a while since I operated one 5 of these. Basically 95 plus percent of our 6 parking is in the back of the facility 7 and/or underground. Our bar is located on 8 the very front side which is Main Street 9 where you are looking at here which is the 10 back of the facility of the Main Street 11 atrium. This area is visible from Grand 12 River. 13 What I started to say at the 14 beginning, the majority of our customers 15 when we opened up we put up a nice 16 illuminated sign up front. We did not 17 anticipate, and we probably should have, 18 that the majority of our customers will be 19 coming to us from the opposite side from 20 Grand River and parking here. If you will 21 see just to the left there are the doors 22 going to the atrium. We have a side 23 entrance door there. The majority of our 24 customers come from there and/or park
42 1 underneath the facility and come up through 2 the elevator through the atrium. 3 We do advertise, we do pull 4 regionally. We feel that we're an added 5 asset to the City of Novi in that we 6 advertise on the radio and Metro Times, Real 7 Detroit and other newspapers, etcetera, and 8 we pull from a regional group. That being 9 said, a lot of our regular customers are 10 neighborhood customers, if you will, know 11 how to find us and they do find us. And 12 knock on wood, we are doing very well with 13 that. 14 We are also trying to expand our 15 customer base by advertising too outside of 16 Novi, outside of our regular customers. 17 What we have been told and what we find is 18 they are trying to call and identify where 19 we are located and where we are at. 20 We do feel that if we were able to put 21 a sign on the back of the building which 22 faces Novi Road and faces our parking that 23 people would be able to identify it. Also 24 with the expanded development of the rest of
43 1 18 acres, I am sure you guys are very 2 familiar with the Triangle Development, we 3 feel that that construction which we totally 4 support the more the merrier. We want a 5 more thriving downtown. We are here for the 6 long haul. 7 With that said, we anticipate two to 8 three years, however there is going to be 9 some construction, limiting even more so the 10 access on Novi Road and possibly additional 11 parking spots which is very few as it sits 12 currently. We feel our customers would be 13 pushed further to the back of the facility 14 where we are looking in that area and that's 15 where all of us identify (unintelligible). 16 I did not mean to have the longest 17 agenda here and the longest ordinances. We 18 tried to do a simple request. Our request 19 when we first started was to put the same 20 sign on the front that we have on the back. 21 Put the same sign on the back as we have on 22 the front. We like it. It illuminates nicely 23 in the evening. You get a nice red glow 24 behind that. I couldn't get an evening
44
1 picture. And when we made that discussion 2 as a group of owners, we said well maybe now 3 we can maybe move the one in the back, from 4 the front to the back and put a new sign up 5 front. 6 So, I know I have two requests. The 7 first request is going to be to try to put, 8 either move the sign from the front to the 9 back or put an identical sign on the back if 10 for some reason we weren't able to go 11 forward with the next request which is to 12 put a sign on the front of the building. 13 So, just so I'm not talking in 14 circles. This what we have right here is the 15 proposal one to go to the rear of the 16 facility. Here is the front of the facility 17 as it sits now. And that Mixx Lounge sign 18 in the evening lights up behind it. It has 19 a nice little red glow behind it. As you 20 can see there is a tree to the left of it 21 and the sign as much as it does illuminate 22 we thought we would be able to see it from 23 down the street either direction. 24 Unfortunately we cannot. Customers
45 1 cannot see it and identify where the bar is 2 at, where the lounge is at until they get 3 right in front of it. We feel it's somewhat 4 of a safety hazard because people are made 5 to look into the left and right depending on 6 which way they are coming done the street 7 and not be able to see it until they are 8 right up on top of it. 9 The sign that we would propose would 10 go in front if we were to move this one to 11 the back. Halfway through this process 12 unfortunately I fired our sign guy. We had 13 this rendering done. We had some 14 difficulties with the individual. This was 15 the sign we proposed to go on the front. On 16 top of the doors would identify Mixx Lounge 17 from both sides. It sticks out from the 18 building approximately three feet and we 19 feel that this would give us a little more 20 of a pull on Market Street. Pull onto Market 21 Street it's going south you can see the 22 Post, the big sign as it sits to your left 23 and BD Mongolian to your right signs both 24 identify the businesses. Once you see those
46 1 you are able to know where to park. 2 We feel that this can be somewhat the 3 same. It's not as big as those signs. We 4 feel having three feet coming off the 5 building will allow people coming either way 6 on Main Street to identify that is Mixx 7 Lounge and try to find a spot. 8 I'm just checking my notes. I believe 9 that is all I have. I am open to any 10 questions you may have. 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay. Thank 12 you. This is a public hearing. Is there 13 anyone from the audience who cares to speak 14 on this case? Seeing none, we will close 15 the public hearing and ask the Vice-Chair if 16 there are any correspondence? 17 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 18 Mr. Chair. In this case there were 22 19 notices mailed with zero approvals and zero 20 objections. Comments from the City or 21 Counsel? 22 I will turn it over to the ZBA. 23 Member Wrobel? 24 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
47 1 I fully understand wanting to have a sign 2 and the need for the sign on the Main Street 3 side especially once the other side is 4 developed. People would be looking back and 5 forth on the street, I think that would 6 create a safety hazard. The sign is coming 7 out and it would be easier to see. I can 8 understand that. 9 I am very leery about allowing a sign 10 on the rear. Is there any other rear signs 11 currently in that building? 12 MR. AMOLSCH: There's a Century 21. A 13 sign in the back of the building that says 14 Sadak (ph) Insurance, I think. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: (Unintelligible) 16 or something? 17 MR. AMOLSCH: (Unintelligible) is 18 there too. It's about four of them there. 19 MEMBER WROBEL: Is this proposed sign 20 in the same size range as the others? 21 MR. AMOLSCH: I don't have the 22 information in front of me. I am thinking 23 it's probably a little more than the other 24 ones. The Real Estate One sign is probably
48 1 about that size. 2 MR. GREGORY: Can I add something to 3 that point? I know Pot Belly Sandwiches in 4 the area has a couple of signs. I think 5 they have a similar situation possibly 6 because there are different areas. There is 7 a Japanese -- Basic I think is the store 8 that's between Red Hot and Blue, and Fifth 9 Avenue has a sign on the Novi Road and then 10 there is a sign on their back where I am 11 sure most of their parking is too. Just add 12 to that. 13 MEMBER WROBEL: I understand wanting a 14 sign for the rear for the people parking in 15 the back parking lot. I am concerned that 16 it being the size you are seeing it from 17 Grand River. Personally I didn't approve of 18 the Gus O'conner sign which is sitting on 19 top of their building which is humongous and 20 easily seen from Grand River. It's almost a 21 distraction. It takes away from the 22 development. 23 I can support a sign in the rear but 24 nothing that is big enough that you are
49 1 seeing it from Grand River. I understand 2 the need for a parking lot area in the rear 3 since a lot of people do park back there. 4 But it has to be within reason. 5 MR. GREGORY: And we are certainly a 6 flexible. I am sure how exactly this Board 7 works. The size that is mentioned here. I 8 do know it's must less in dimension that Gus 9 O'conner. We certainly want to do the right 10 thing. We are trying to do the right thing 11 in the City. We want to make sure that if 12 there is something that would accommodate. 13 If our sign as proposed is too large, if we 14 have to do a smaller one we certainly 15 consider that and appreciate your 16 consideration on that. 17 MEMBER WROBEL: And I do appreciate 18 you operating in Novi and I am glad you are 19 doing well there because it's good to see 20 local businesses succeed there. We have had 21 a lot of problems. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And just for 23 your information, first of all, we can 24 approve things at the size requested or
50 1 smaller, but we would not be able to approve 2 anything larger. It would have to be 3 advertised. Secondly, we will ask you to 4 speak when spoken to. 5 MR. GREGORY: Oh, I'm sorry, forgive 6 me. 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: It's kind of a 8 protocol we try to -- 9 MR. GREGORY: I apologize for that. 10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: That's fine. You 11 will have time to get your points across. 12 Thank you. 13 Other comments? Member Canup? 14 MEMBER CANUP: My understanding is 15 that both these signs are within the size 16 allowed by the ordinance; is that correct? 17 MR. AMOLSCH: The projecting sign is 18 not the size that's out there. It's only 19 about three square feet that was in the 20 letter here. And the front sign that was 21 approved did meet ordinance for the front of 22 the building. 23 MEMBER CANUP: The one that was on 24 here that's going to the rear?
51 1 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes. You have the square 2 foot (unintelligible). 3 MEMBER CANUP: I just want to make 4 sure that I totally understand. 5 MR. AMOLSCH: The projected sign is in 6 the front. 7 MEMBER CANUP: The projected sign in 8 the front by Ordinance is allowed how much? 9 MR. AMOLSCH: Three square feet. 10 MEMBER CANUP: I'm sorry? 11 MR. AMOLSCH: Three square feet. 12 MEMBER CANUP: Three square feet? 13 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes. 14 MEMBER CANUP: That sign now is how 15 many square feet? 16 MR. AMOLSCH: The one they proposed? 17 MEMBER CANUP: The one that is there 18 now. 19 MR. AMOLSCH: The wall sign is 40 20 square feet. Yeah, 40 square feet is what's 21 out there now on the front lawn. 22 MEMBER CANUP: Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Now 24 I am a little bit confused. They are
52 1 permitted three square feet, but the sign 2 they have is 40 square feet. So, obviously 3 they must have received a variance? 4 MR. AMOLSCH: No. The projecting sign 5 he is proposing to the front of the building 6 is allowed to be three square feet. He 7 doesn't need a variance for that. The sign 8 he has out there now is a wall sign and that 9 was approved square footage wise per linear 10 footage. And that's the sign he wants to 11 move to the back of building. The 12 projecting sign is a separate issue. That's 13 another sign that you guys gave him a 14 variance for. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 16 Other comments? I will ask a 17 question. I guess I am still not straight 18 with that because it doesn't match up. The 19 new request for double the size from 15 20 square foot to 33 square feet of the 21 original request is three times the size 22 permitted which is three square feet. You 23 are now asking for a sign over 30 times the 24 permitted size. So either I totally
53 1 miscalculated or I don't fully understand. 2 MR. AMOLSCH: No, they don't have a 3 projective sign there, no. That's one of 4 the variances they're asking for. 5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: When you say 6 projective sign are you talking about that 7 one that's two sided -- 8 MR. AMOLSCH: That sticks out of the 9 building -- 10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: 11 (Unintelligible). 12 MR. AMOLSCH: That's the projective 13 sign that's what they are requesting 14 tonight. The wall sign he has out there now 15 he wants to move to the rear of the 16 building. 17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I understand. So 18 the one on the front currently is 40 square 19 feet, he wants to move that on the rear. 20 MR. AMOLSCH: Right. 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The projected 22 wall sign is how many square feet? 3033 23 square feet. 24 MR. AMOLSCH: It's 15 by 3 on both
54 1 sides. It's 33 square feet. 2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: That one is 33 3 square feet. The permitted size is three? 4 MR. AMOLSCH: Correct. 5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: What I didn't 6 understand is if the permitted size is 7 three -- oh, it's three for the projective 8 sign as opposed to the wall sign? 9 MR. AMOLSCH: As opposed to the wall 10 sign, yes. 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: There we go. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligible). 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: It's semantics, 14 okay. 15 Similar to what Member Wrobel said 16 earlier you had mentioned, in fact, the 17 safety side of the business along Main 18 Street. That was the first thing I wrote 19 down when trying to view a sign from Grand 20 River is safety. Trying to drive along 21 Grand River looking between the buildings, 22 trying to find a sign. I don't want to try 23 to attract people going to Grand River. 24 Businesses may want to. But I want to get
55 1 to the businesses safely. I agree that an 2 identification is needed from the rear sign 3 in the parking area. I agree with that. 4 And I agree that a sign needs to go on 5 the front. I am not oppose to a projecting 6 sign. As you mentioned, we do have others. 7 My main comment is that I would like to see
8 signage on both the front and the back not 9 to exceed the maximum size of the existing 10 signs in the other businesses on the same 11 building. I don't know what the largest 12 sign is on the Main Street side. I don't 13 know what the largest sign is on the rear 14 entrance. I don't want a lot of businesses 15 coming back to us saying we want a bigger 16 sign. We want a bigger sign because we 17 started a process here to do that for that 18 building. So that's my comment. 19 Member Canup? 20 MEMBER CANUP: My thoughts are the 21 front sign stay as it is because once people 22 get on that street in front of it and if 23 they are looking for it, I don't think you 24 are going to have massive crowds of people
56 1 driving down that street looking for that 2 facility. I think in the back side -- let's 3 go back to the front. The front is okay as 4 it is. I am not in favor of giving a 5 variance there. 6 However on the back side I do think 7 there is a need for some identification, but 8 I don't think that it needs to be in the 9 size that is being proposed. And I think to 10 make a statement that we want to attract 11 people from Grand River is the wrong idea.
12 My thought is to give people direction into 13 there from the parking lot. 14 So, I would be willing to entertain or 15 support a motion that to the effect that the 16 front stay as is or stay within the 17 ordinance as permitted. And the fact that 18 we grant a variance for the sign of X amount 19 of square feet. And I don't know what that 20 number is whether it's 30-square feet or 21 20-square feet. I think by ordinance they 22 are allowed three; is that right Alan? 23 Square feet. 24 MR. AMOLSCH: Allowed three what?
57 1 MEMBER CANUP: A pedestrian sign? 2 MR. AMOLSCH: Three square feet for a 3 projecting pedestrian level projective sign. 4 MEMBER CANUP: On the back side. 5 MR. AMOLSCH: That's an additional 6 sign. That's all permitted in addition to 7 their wall sign. 8 MEMBER CANUP: A three square foot 9 sign in that parking lot would not be enough 10 sign. You might as well not have one. 11 Maybe 10 square feet. 12 MEMBER BAUER: 24. 13 MEMBER CANUP: Pardon? 14 MEMBER BAUER: 24. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Sorry to 16 interject. What about the size of the 17 larger sign on the back side? 18 MEMBER CANUP: A sign -- 19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Not to exceed 20 that size. 21 MEMBER CANUP: Not to exceed, say, 24 22 square feet. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I don't know how 24 big the largest sign is off of there.
58 1 MEMBER CANUP: Well, we got to be 2 careful there because we may have somebody 3 -- and I didn't pay attention to that 4 unfortunately. You may have somebody there 5 with a huge back sign that would be larger 6 than what would be needed on this particular 7 building. And, again, it's only to get 8 people into the building that are in the 9 parking lot so they know that that is the 10 entrance to where I want to go. That is my 11 opinion. 12 I think on the back side, 24 square 13 feet would be three by eight, three foot by 14 eight foot long. That's a lot of sign being 15 in that parking lot. Maybe that's too much. 16 Maybe it should by three by five, 15 square 17 feet. 18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Sir, are all the 19 signs custom made or are those standard 20 size? 21 MR. GREGORY: The one that appear on 22 the other building? 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 24 MR. GREGORY: I believe they are all
59 1 custom made. 2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Do you know if 3 there are standard size letters that are 4 available? 5 MR. GREGORY: I don't know that. I do 6 know that with the conversation that's going 7 on here, we would be receptive to something 8 smaller, if you will, to the size. There 9 are not that many signs -- no sign is like 10 Gus O'Conner in the back of building that I 11 can think of Real Estate One which is 12 probably pretty big. (Unintelligible). 13 There is a few signs just to clarify. 14 I certainly understand. My father is 15 in law enforcement. The last thing I want 16 to do is people be looking. When I stood 17 off of Grand River there are a lot of 18 (unintelligible) that come off of Grand 19 River that allow people to park. And I 20 misspoke, I should have said going down 21 Grand River looking at it when they get into 22 that area they at least know where on the 23 Main Street (unintelligible). 24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER:
60 1 (Unintelligible). I believe Member Fischer 2 -- 3 MEMBER CANUP: Mr. Fischer. I was 4 going to make a motion, but I don't think 5 you have spoken yet, so (unintelligible). 6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 7 Mr. Chair. I don't seem to object to the 8 projecting sign. 9 Al, can you tell me how did the Post, 10 you would think I know since I went there, 11 they have a projecting sign, don't they? 12 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes, they do. It was 13 approved by the Board. 14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We approved 15 those? 16 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes. 17 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Maybe I 18 visited there beforehand. 19 I don't object to the projecting sign. 20 I think it's necessary and as Main Street 21 continues to be built. I would be willing to 22 support this given the safety measures. 23 Something that is interesting about 24 this building as opposed -- or this business
61 1 because we do look at every single case 2 separately, this business in particular, you 3 got to be remember is going to be frequented 4 at night. Is going to be frequented by 5 people who might not be knowing exactly what 6 they are looking for. And the last thing 7 you want is people looking for a sign at 8 that state. 9 The one thing I will note, I am not in 10 favor of the cocktails on the front of it. 11 I am not sure that that fits in with the 12 intent of the ordinance or the businesses 13 surrounding. But I do support the two signs 14 projecting. 15 As far as the sign on
16 the back. I see where you are going, Mr. 17 Chair, as far as comparing this to other 18 businesses and comparing and asking for the 19 smallest one in that area. However, my only 20 comment is that the ordinance in this area 21 as Alan has stated oftentimes refers to the 22 linear feet that a certain business owns. 23 So if we say that we want this to be smaller 24 than the other one, well, I am not sure if
62 1 that that's fair to this business if another 2 business might have a larger or smaller 3 linear square footage. 4 My question is, usually we see 5 mock-ups of the signs and I drove by today 6 and I didn't see any mock-ups. Any comment 7 on that? 8 MR. GREGORY: Yeah. Unfortunately I 9 should have addressed that first also. The 10 Friday after Thanksgiving we put the sign up 11 on the back and put the sign up on the 12 front. It blew down on Saturday. We put it 13 back up on Monday and it blew down again on 14 Monday. Both of them. The ones in the rear 15 we stopped putting the mock-up in the front 16 because we couldn't secure it. We had to 17 cover the existing sign to secure it and 18 that was causing the wind to get behind it. 19 We will certainly put them up again. 20 We had a heck of time my partner and I out 21 there on ladders. It came to a certain 22 point where I just couldn't do it. 23 Unfortunately I didn't have the sign company 24 to say please do this and that's
63 1 appropriate. And that's on me and that's on 2 us. 3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It was a 4 little windy that night and I do appreciate 5 the effort. That's better than not making 6 an effort. 7 Would you say this is to scale then, 8 this drawing? 9 MR. GREGORY: Yes. 10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The sign was up 11 on the rear Friday evening during the 12 parade. 13 MR. GREGORY: Okay, then it blew down 14 Saturday morning. Then we tried to put it 15 back up I think it was Monday and it blew 16 down again (unintelligible). I would say 17 what we did is we deemed this to be the same 18 size as the one on the front, so to scale as 19 the front one, yes. 20 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And then 21 interestingly enough, the last time I was at 22 Mixx, this is where I parked and I went in 23 through the atrium door as the Applicant 24 said, I am from here. So I know some of
64 1 those things. But I also know the rest of 2 the clientele that does frequent may not 3 know where to park, etcetera, so I am in 4 support of the sign in the back as well. 5 So, one last question for you, Alan. 6 Those other businesses that you referenced 7 that have signs on the back did we grant 8 these variances as well? 9 MR. AMOLSCH: No, those were granted 10 through the Sign Design Review Manual. There 11 are standards in there listing several 12 different things that allow signage in the 13 back of a building. And some of them were 14 approved by the -- then they used to have a 15 committee to approve signage in the area. 16 None were approved by me. 17 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Why were 18 those handled that way and this handled this 19 way? 20 MR. AMOLSCH: We don't have that 21 committee anymore. It was dismantled with 22 the adoption of the new ordinance. 23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: 24 Interesting. Those are my comments. I am in
65 1 support of the signs as requested with the 2 one comment that I am not in favor of 3 cocktails being on the very end of the one 4 sign. Thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 6 Further comments? 7 Anyone care to make a motion? Member 8 Canup? 9 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a motion. 10 Let me see if I can find the case number 11 here. 12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: 07-086. 13 MEMBER CANUP: 07-086 that we grant 14 the variance with the following stipulations 15 that the sign on the rear of the building or 16 the Grand River side of the building not 17 exceed 15-square feet which would be roughly 18 three by five and the configuration to be 19 determined by the Applicant. And I would in 20 that motion I would state that we deny the 21 request for the front sign as stated due to 22 a lack of a demonstrated hardship. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Is there a 24 second?
66 1 MEMBER BAUER: What about the little 2 triangle in the front? 3 MEMBER CANUP: The motion was to deny 4 that front sign. In other words, the front 5 sign would stay as is. And the back side 6 would be allowed a 15 square foot sign. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Sanghvi 9 seconded first. We have a motion by Member 10 Canup. Seconded by Member Sanghvi. 11 Further discussion? I would move 12 forward. I want to make a comment. I don't 13 care for the motion. I think it was made 14 well, but I don't agree with the outcome. 15 I'm not just sure what I do agree with. As I 16 mentioned I do believe a sign is needed on 17 the rear. I think 15 feet might be a little 18 small with the rendering they showed us was 19 40-square feet and obviously I feel that was 20 too big. So maybe something in the middle 21 of that might be a little more appropriate 22 in my view. 23 Although I like the looks of the front 24 sign, even with cocktails, it's just too big
67 1 and I think denying it which would allow 2 them to keep their current sign there would 3 be adequate. I actually did like the 4 vertical sign that was presented to us last 5 month as an option. Do you remember that? 6 MR. GREGORY: Yes, sir. 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I felt that was a 8 nice sign myself. It look like it fit 9 within the size requirements. 10 So, I am kind of all over the board 11 with this and I am not sure which way to go. 12 Member Canup, do you have a further 13 comment? 14 MEMBER CANUP: I made the motion and I 15 guess I used 15 feet as an arbitrary number. 16 I would be willing to amend that motion to 17 20 feet which would be half of what is in 18 the front. Again, the reason for this, it 19 is not made draw attention to the building. 20 It's made as a directional sign. The 21 drawing attention to the building is the 22 sign in the front. This is nothing more 23 than a directional sign to get people in the 24 door from the parking lot.
68 1 And I would be willing to amend that 2 motion to make it read 20 feet. 3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Is the Seconder 4 in favor of that? 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, I would support 6 that. 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any further 8 comments? All right. I believe we are 9 ready to read the roll. 10 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Canup? 11 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 12 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 14 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Wrobel? 15 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 16 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 17 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 18 MS. MARCHIONI: Vice-Chair Fischer? 19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: No. 20 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Krieger? 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: No. 22 MS. MARCHIONI: Chairman Shroyer? 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 24 MS. MARCHIONI: Motion passes 5-2.
69 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Did you 2 understand what we ended up with here? 3 MR. GREGORY: I think so. The way I 4 understood it is no sign on the front. You 5 allow a sign on the back not to exceed 6 20-square feet. 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The sign 8 existing on the front may stay. No new sign 9 on the front and you can have a sign on the 10 back not to extend 20-square feet. 11 MR. GREGORY: I appreciate that. I 12 appreciate your consideration and 13 discussion. And my only concern is that a 14 place like the Post, BD Mongolian can have 15 it where it exceeds, those signs must be 16 70-square feet and we're asking for 40. And 17 it just seems like it doesn't make sense why 18 one business in the area and one business 19 across in the same area is allowed to have 20 that and we're not. It just doesn't seem 21 fair, but I do appreciate your 22 consideration. Thank you very much. 23 MEMBER BAUER: One thing. When they 24 are on the corner they can get two signs.
70 1 MR. GREGORY: I'm sorry? 2 MEMBER BAUER: When they're on a 3 corner they can get two signs on the corner. 4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The Post signs. 5 MEMBER BAUER: They are on the side. 6 They are on the corner. 7 MR. GREGORY: We're on the corner 8 also, sir. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 10 MR. GREGORY: We have difference of 11 opinion but I appreciate your consideration. 12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you for 13 your comments. 14 15 The next case number: 07-089 filed by 16 Northern Equities Group for LaSalle 17 Technology Center located at 28375 -- That's 18 not the one? 19 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You want to do 21 one before that. It's at the bottom, I'm 22 sorry. 23 24 Case number: 07-087 filed by
71 1 Woong Shin for Shiro Restaurant located at 2 43180 Nine Mile Road. Applicant is 3 requesting an extension to the variance 4 granted in ZBA 06-026 to allow the off 5 premises Shiro restaurant sign to remain on 6 the northeast corner of Nine Mile Road and 7 Novi Road. The properties where the sign 8 and the restaurant are located are owned by 9 Arkin Enterprises and the property is zoned 10 RM-1. 11 City Ordinances Section 28-81 talks 12 about off premises advertising signs states: 13 Off premises advertising signs, illuminated 14 or un illuminated, shall be permitted in an 15 I-2 district only. 16 Is the Applicant present? Please come 17 forward and if you are not an attorney be 18 sworn in by our Secretary. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm 20 to tell the truth regarding case number: 21 07-087? 22 MR. ARKIN: I do. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: State your name
72 1 and address and present your case, please. 2 MR. ARKIN: Erwin Arkin of 43900 Nine 3 Mile. I am here representing Mr. Shin of 4 the Shiro Restaurant. I am here tonight to 5 request a permanent renewal of the variance 6 in April of 2006. This is the sign that was 7 approved in April of 2006. We're asking for 8 renewal of this signage to allow the off 9 premise Shiro Restaurant sign. 10 Here is the restaurant here which sits 11 back 265 feet from Nine Mile Road. It's on 12 the northeast corner of Nine Mile and Novi 13 Road and the signage approval that we had in 14 the past has made a significant difference 15 and we appreciate it. 16 This is the restaurant which you can 17 hardly see from the road. The hardship we 18 have is that the restaurant is extremely 19 well hidden. It's an industrial wooded area. 20 This picture here is looking east on Nine 21 Mile Road from Novi Road. The restaurant 22 surely cannot be seen. This picture here is
23 looking down Nine Mile Road towards the 24 west. Once again the restaurant cannot be
73 1 seen. 2 The picture here is looking north just 3 before Nine Mile Road. The restaurant cannot 4 be seen. Looking south on Novi Road towards 5 Nine Mile Road, once again the restaurant 6 cannot be seen. Directional signage isn't 7 new to Novi. Some examples of that are the 8 Rotary Park, City of Novi sign and there is 9 signage in front of the actual facility. 10 The Novi Ice Arena and the Sports Club on 11 Novi Road. The picture here shows the 12 signage on Venture Road or the 13 (unintelligible) Park. 14 This is a signage for the CVS on Novi 15 Road. The landmark is not on Grand River a 16 clear view, but rather hidden in the 17 industrial wooded area. No matter how good 18 our restaurant may be, the restaurant needs 19 directional assistance (unintelligible)
20 customers. Discontinuance of the off 21 premise restaurant sign could result in 22 devastating loss of customer base as 23 restaurant patrons could interpret the 24 absence of a sign as the restaurant being
74 1 closed. Out of sight, out of mind. 2 The value of the land that Shiro sits 3 on far exceeds the value of the business. I 4 feel it's important that we as a community 5 support the business with the aid of the 6 signage requested to insure the continuance 7 existence of the unique landmark location. 8 The signage request would not 9 negatively impact any neighbor or alter the 10 character of the land. Thank you for your 11 time and much needed consideration. 12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you, sir. 13 This is a public hearing. Is there anyone 14 in the audience who cares to speak on this 15 case? Seeing none, we'll close the public 16 hearing and turn to the Vice-Chair to read 17 notices. 18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 19 Mr. Chair. In in case there were 40 notices 20 with six approvals and zero objections. 21 Approval from Vickie Matreo (ph) of 22 43180 West Nine Mile writing to ask that we 23 grant the request. Said person is an 24 employee of Shiro for the past seven years
75 1 and still get several calls from potential 2 customers trying to locate the restaurant. 3 Because the restaurant is located off the 4 beaten path of most restaurants I believe 5 the sign is helpful in directing them to the 6 restaurant. 7 This restaurant is a very unique one 8 and needs to continue to increase sales to 9 establish a base that is loyal to the 10 restaurant. 11 Lastly, if the sign is taken down 12 consumers may assume the restaurant is 13 closed. 14 G Wong Shin of 43180 West Nine Mile 15 Road also states an approval and writes to 16 say the owner, this is the owner of Shiro 17 Restaurant working very hard to make this a 18 successful business after being open seven 19 years still hear from Novi residents that 20 they thought the building was a funeral 21 home. Because this is a unique building for 22 such business that sign is very helpful. The 23 current economic times in Michigan are also 24 cited and needs to continue to maintain an
76 1 increased sales for the restaurant. 2 Welcomes the help of the sign for 3 advertising location and hope that will 4 consider this a way to help them continue to 5 be successful in the Novi Community. 6 Erwin Arkin, the Petitioner up front, 7 also states an approval. He states that 8 working with many neighbors to the west and 9 says that the sign variance is of genuine 10 necessity.
11 Erwin Arkin again of 43100 Nine Mile 12 Road states as the owner of the property 13 adjacent to the restaurant, recognizes the 14 need for the sign request and vigorously 15 supports total approval. 16 (Unintelligible) of 43100 Nine Mile 17 Road states his approval. States that he is 18 very familiar with the topographical 19 difficulties in the area and recognize the 20 restaurant's hardship and sympathize with 21 their problem. Sign variance has been very 22 helpful to the restaurant and the public. 23 Edward and Irene Kazarosin, 24 K-A-Z-A-R-O-S-I-N, 22275 Chelsea Lane in
77 1 Novi cites an approval. 2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Any 3 comments from the City or Counsel? 4 MS. KUDLA: No. 5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We'll turn it 6 over to the ZBA for comments. Member 7 Wrobel? 8 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 9 First off I would like to clarify the 10 extension. What period of time are we 11 looking at? Is it an 18-month extension 12 like I was granted before or is there a 13 given time or a requested time? 14 MR. AMOLSCH: They didn't indicate any 15 time on their application. 16 MEMBER WROBEL: To the City Attorney. 17 This is a time we can pick the time to 18 extent it to, am I correct? 19 MS. KUDLA: I would say you can renew 20 it for the same amount of time or less. 21 MEMBER WROBEL: So we would be looking 22 at 18 months basically. 23 To the Applicant. I fully understand 24 the need for a sign there. Given when Nine
78 1 Mile Road is there you would never think to 2 find a restaurant down there. I drive down 3 there every day and I understand the need 4 for a sign. Every since the first sign went 5 up it kind of left me kind of feeling 6 queazy. I understood the need for a sign but 7 when I look at the sign, number one, the 8 sign to me should be a directional sign with 9 the -- 10 and that's about it because you have got 11 your sign in front of the restaurant. 12 So, as far as like "Novi's Best Hidden 13 Secret," I didn't never agree with that. 14 That's additional advertising to me. 15 The directional arrow is fine to me. 16 Currently you have like 600 feet on it. It 17 makes me feel like I'm driving down a road 18 down south somewhere and you're seeing see 19 Joe's Produce 500 feet or 400 feet. I don't 20 think that that's really necessary there. A 21 directional arrow would be fine and I could 22 support an extension of this sign. With 23 just a directional arrow and a little extra 24 advertising, "Novi's Best Hidden Secret,"
79 1 being removed from that sign. Thank you. 2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Other comments? 3 Member Canup? 4 MEMBER CANUP: I agree with the 5 previous member in his statements. I think 6 from a time thing, I don't know if we can do 7 it or not. I would be willing to entertain 8 a variance that would go with the 9 continuation of the use of this particular 10 restaurant. Because they are going to be 11 back here in 18 months and the restaurant is 12 going to be there we hope for a long time. 13 I'm sure Mr. Arkin hopes for a long time. 14 So rather than -- how long can we grant a 15 variance? Is there a time frame -- 16 MS. KUDLA: For this particular? A 17 variance is usually permanent running with 18 the land. 19 MEMBER CANUP: Could we grant a 20 variance based on Shiro Restaurant only and 21 not be transferable? Is that something that 22 could be done for continued use? 23 MS. KUDLA: While you're looking at 24 this there are going to be a couple
80 1 questions with this one. It's apparently not 2 on the title. Is it on property owned by 3 the petitioner? I don't know. Do we have a 4 licensed agreement that continues on beyond 5 what time period? I don't know. Those are 6 additional issues that are going to have to 7 be taken into consideration. 8 MEMBER CANUP: I understand Mr. Arkin 9 owns the property; is that correct, Mr. 10 Arkin? 11 MR. ARKIN: Yes. 12 MEMBER BAUER: If they do make 13 (unintelligible). Actually they are 14 requesting an extension of the variance 15 granted. 16 MEMBER CANUP: For the information for 17 the Board. Mr. Arkin has been before this 18 Board 20 years, 25 years dealing with this 19 restaurant off and on and I think the people 20 that are there now for seven years is 21 probably the longest tenant that you have 22 had there. And every time it presents new 23 challenges. 24 So, any way, that's my opinion that I
81 1 would agree with maybe downsizing the sign a 2 bit and maybe modifying it and grant the 3 variance based on and we would have to be 4 very particular in the wording in that. And 5 also if Mr. Arkin chose to sell that piece 6 of property for some reason, then the sign 7 as granted would become null and void. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I believe what 9 Member Bauer was alluding to, our attorney 10 may have addressed. And that is that it was 11 advertised as an extension of a temporary 12 permit. And if we look at making it 13 permanent or having it tied in with the 14 length of the restaurant and the restaurant 15 is there for another 10 years, great. And I 16 understand where you are going, and I agree 17 fully with that. Because, yes, if you grant 18 18 months today, hopefully the business will 19 still be thriving 18 months from now and we 20 will see you again back here asking for 21 another extension. But I believe we would 22 have to re-advertise if we were going to do 23 anything other than grant the extension. 24 MS. KUDLA: I believe we would have to
82 1 add if you were going to go beyond what was 2 requested in this specific request. If I 3 could direct you back to the last variance 4 granted. It is limited to the ownership of 5 this owner. So if it did change, that would 6 terminate this variance. 7 At this point I think unless you 8 wanted to table and renotice it for a longer 9 time period we would have to limit it to the 10 current variance and something less. 11 MEMBER CANUP: The current variance 12 was 18 months if I understand that 13 correctly, so we could grant it for 18 14 months and they could come back and see us
15 in 18 months at that time and remember -- 16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I am sure the 17 Applicant -- 18 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 19 MEMBER CANUP: You want to make a note 20 on the bulletin board. I am sure Mr. Arkin 21 will remind us that we granted variance in 22 this case based on those facts. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Sir, you want to 24 make a comment?
83 1 MR. ARKIN: I do want to make one 2 comment. The directional arrow is very 3 important and the footage is extremely 4 important. At least one of us at one time 5 or another has traveled out on the 6 expressway or going out of town somewhere 7 and we see a sign with an arrow and there is 8 a restaurant just down the way and we think 9 to ourselves, well, it might be five minutes 10 down the way or ten minutes down the way. 11 They are not going to come back ten miles. 12 So I think the footage is extremely 13 important to let people know that it's just 14 600 feet away. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 16 Member Krieger? 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Question. Since you 18 put up the sign a couple of years ago do you 19 have a statistic as to how much it sort of 20 helped the Shiro Restaurant? 21 MR. ARKIN: I don't. I am told that 22 it's been significant especially in these 23 down times. It's been very important to 24 them. And to take it away, I am afraid that
84 1 people will think the place is closed. 2 They'll interpret the removal of the sign 3 that the place may be closed. 4 It would be devastating to their 5 customer base. 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: I would agree that 7 the sign is very important, and if I 8 remember right for signs that we can agree 9 to size, but not to content; is that 10 correct? 11 MS. KUDLA: I would agree with that, 12 correct. 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Canup? 14 Oh, Member Krieger, were you through with 15 the floor? 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Well, actually, no. 17 That I would be in favor of supporting the 18 variance for 18 months and then in the 19 future if Mr. Arkin would consider wanting 20 it for as long as he owns the property or as 21 long as Shiro is a restaurant there that to 22 make the next time around be an extension 23 that he doesn't have to keep coming back 24 every 18 months.
85 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Did 2 you have another comment, sir? 3 MR. ARKIN: Yes, I did. If you recall 4 back then. Lee showed two signs back then. 5 The sign here that I am showing showed a 6 restaurant, a variety of restaurant prepared 7 cuisine as well as some more advertising and 8 the Board at that time said make it lower 9 and eliminate that, which we did. It's 10 expensive to keep changing signs, so we 11 ended up with the lower version that was 12 approved rather than this tall version here. 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. I 14 will make a quick comment. My only comment 15 on this is that I am sure you will be 16 repairing the broken leg on the sign? 17 MR. ARKIN: (Unintelligible) move 18 slowly. 19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay. That's the 20 only comment I have. I would like to see 21 the sign stay as is and grant the extension. 22 Member Fischer? 23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That was 24 going to be my first question was that the
86 1 sign looked in a little bit of disrepair and 2 that's one of my main concerns is making 3 sure that any sign that we do grant 4 temporary or otherwise be maintained. So as 5 long as that is taken care of. Thank you, 6 Mr. Chair. 7 I would tend to agree with Member 8 Wrobel regarding the extra verbiage. 9 Normally I am against changing the content 10 of a sign. But that's more or less telling 11 the Petitioner how to write the restaurant's 12 name or that kind of stuff. I do feel that 13 this extra verbiage is not necessarily any 14 longer but I do understand the 600 feet. 15 So, if I could have my way I would see that 16 "Novi's Best Hidden Secret," taken out. 17 I am also reluctant to allow this as a 18 permanent sign going forward into 19 perpetuity. I understand the difficulty of 20 being in the area that they are. Given that 21 it's not a normal place to have a 22 restaurant. However, at the time I believe 23 we also looked at keeping this as a 24 temporary variance. In doing so my hope was
87 1 that alternative methods of advertising 2 would be investigated. And that there would 3 come time when Novi could look forward to 4 the sign coming back down. 5 If you guys want to go 18 months I 6 guess I can support that. I would still 7 rather see less time and look forward to 8 asking the Petitioner to continue to work to 9 find alternative methods to get people to 10 the restaurant. 11 Once again, just my take. Thank you, 12 Mr. Chair. 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 14 Member Bauer? 15 MEMBER BAUER: Last Thursday I was by 16 there and the parking lot was full. That 17 was the first time I had ever seen it full. 18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: But did you stop 19 and eat? 20 MEMBER BAUER: No. 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Because the 22 parking was full you couldn't get in? 23 MEMBER BAUER: Right. Thanks. 24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Canup?
88 1 MEMBER CANUP: With all respect to our 2 City Attorney. My understanding from past 3 experience on the Board is that we can grant 4 a variance on a sign based on the contents 5 of that sign. So, we do have if the Board 6 so desires, we do have control over the 7 content of that sign based on the variance 8 that may be given. So, that's been my 9 experience over the past 30 years of being 10 somewhat involved in these matters. 11 MS. KUDLA: You have to be careful at 12 what you mean about content, about what kind 13 of content you are going to limit. Are you 14 going to have him put -- 15 MEMBER CANUP: Well, first if we say 16 this must of a 600 foot arrow on it that 17 would be part of the motion and that would 18 be part of what has to be on that sign. 19 MS. KUDLA: You can limit the amount 20 of the content. 21 MEMBER CANUP: I am not going to argue 22 about it. I am just telling you what my 23 experience has been. We do have the right 24 to dictate what is on that sign if they want
89 1 a variance. 2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay, at this 3 time I will entertain a motion. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: I have been trying to 5 draw your attention for the last ten 6 minutes. Thank you. So that will complete 7 everybody on this Board making comments 8 about this very important case. 9 Thank you, Mr. Arkin, I appreciate 10 your presence here. I also appreciate all 11 what you have done for the City of Novi. We 12 are one of the few people, old timers here 13 who know what's gone on in the past here. 14 I have a very simple comment to make 15 and that is a very old American 16 (unintelligible) and that is, "Don't fix 17 something that ain't broke." So let's go 18 and keep it as it is and give them the 19 extension for 18 months. Thank you. 20 MEMBER CANUP: Is that a motion? 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, I make a motion 22 to approve -- 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: -- extension of the
90 1 sign for 18 more months as there is no 2 adverse reactions having been noted. Thank 3 you. 4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 5 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion 7 by Member Sanghvi and seconded by Member 8 Krieger. 9 Any further discussion? Please call 10 the roll. 11 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 13 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Krieger? 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 15 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 16 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 17 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Canup? 18 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 19 MS. MARCHIONI: Vice-Chair Fischer? 20 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: No. 21 MS. MARCHIONI: Chairman Shroyer? 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 23 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Wrobel? 24 MEMBER WROBEL: No.
91
1 MS. MARCHIONI: Motion passes 5-2. 2 MR. ARKIN: Thank you very much. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Enjoy your sign. 4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: For 18 months. 5 Normally after meeting for 90 6 minutes the group takes a short break. Is 7 the group wanting to move forward? I 8 believe we have four more cases. Or do we 9 want to take a short break and come back? 10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Take a 11 short break. 12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay, we will 13 break for about five minutes and reconvene 14 shortly. Thank you. 15 (A recess was held.) 16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We are going to 17 reconvene here. 18 19 The next case is with LaSalle 20 Technology Center; is that correct? Case 21 number: 07-089 filed by Northern Equities 22 Group for LaSalle Technology Center located 23 at 28875 and 28845 Cabot Drive. 24 Northern Equities Group is requesting
92 1 two variances from the required 20-foot side 2 yard parking setback in an OST district to 3 accommodate a proposed lot split for both 4 LaSalle North and LaSalle South. The 5 property is zoned OST and located north of 6 Twelve Mile Road and west of Cabot Drive. 7 City of Novi Code of Ordinances, 8 Article 2400 Schedule of Regulations 9 requires a minimum 20-foot side yard parking
10 lot setback in an OST zoned district. 11 Is the Applicant present? 12 He is. If you are not an attorney please be 13 sworn in by our Secretary. 14 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm 15 to tell the truth regarding case: 07-089? 16 MR. GROLDHAGEN (ph): I do. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please state 19 your name and address. 20 MR. GROLDHAGEN: Joe Groldhagen (ph) 21 and we're at 39000 Country Club Drive in 22 Farmington Hills. Today, we are asking for 23 a consideration of a variance of two 24 existing buildings. We built these
93 1 buildings under the assumption that the game 2 plan for our previous two U-shaped buildings 3 were go to be found and that would be that a 4 normal leasing environment would occur and 5 we would lease up the building approximately 6 the same way and the normal financing 7 environment would be in place and we would 8 take these that are currently under 9 construction loan and put them into 10 permanent loan basis via the light company 11 or something else like that. 12 But what we have found is two things 13 happened. Leasing up has happened primarily 14 in LaSalle North where we have two tenants 15 there. The first tenant is Temkin (ph) 16 Corporation and they took about 75 percent 17 of the space and Lidell Corporation took 18 about 25 percent of the space. 19 LaSalle south has kind of lagged as 20 far as leasing is concerned. We thought we 21 had a couple of good prospects, and they 22 have since fallen out of the way. So we are 23 probably six to eight months away from 24 getting a lease and getting it built out and
94 1 getting it in place to put a permanent loan. 2 With the financing market basically 3 falling apart, you all heard about the 4 mortgage problems that have happened in the 5 residential, that's trickled to the 6 commercial market too. It's very difficult 7 now to find a lot of lenders have gone out 8 of the market entirely because of this 9 financing crisis. And those that are left 10 have changed their programs substantially. 11 So, in order to put the north building to 12 bed to eliminate interest rate risk and 13 things like that that you do in order to put 14 a permanent loan on, we needed to split 15 these up. 16 The ordinance with the setbacks it 17 just happened to be from an (unintelligible) 18 topping the north building off and leaving 19 the south building under construction. So 20 that is the reason for our request here and 21 I am here for your questions. 22 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. This 24 is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the
95 1 audience who cares to speak on this case? 2 Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing 3 and turn to our Vice-Chair for 4 correspondence. 5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 6 Mr. Chair. In this case there were 13 7 notices mailed with zero approvals and zero 8 objections. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any comments 10 from City or Counsel? 11 MS. KUDLA: No. 12 MR. FOX: Through the Chair, a little 13 clarification. As Mr. Groldhagen said, this 14 is very similar, something we have also done 15 earlier this year up by Fountain Walk we had 16 two common parcels that were split for two 17 hotels that are built up there. It's very 18 similar for a parcel split. They have a 19 shared parking lot issue. This one should be 20 no different than something else we have 21 already seen and looked at in that regard. 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. And 23 I did want to ask the attorney, you did have 24 a chance I assume to review the declaration
96 1 agreement? 2 MS. KUDLA: That's correct. I think 3 you had got the updated materials. I do 4 have a review letter approving that 5 declaration dated November 28th, 2007. I 6 can pass it down if you don't have it. 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have it. 8 MS. KUDLA: Okay. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have it. At 10 this time we will turn it over to our Board 11 for comments. Member Bauer? 12 MEMBER BAUER: To our attorney. So 13 the agreement has already been filed? 14 MS. KUDLA: This declaration? 15 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 16 MS. KUDLA: No, it's not recorded yet 17 to my understanding. We reviewed it and 18 approved it and it's pending approval of 19 this variance and then there is still a 20 master deed amendment that would need to be 21 recorded in the event this variance is 22 granted. 23 MEMBER BAUER: You need this for us? 24 MS. KUDLA: Right.
97 1 MEMBER BAUER: I have no problems with 2 this whatsoever. 3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Any 4 comments? 5 Member Sanghvi? 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: I have no problem. 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Wrobel? 8 MEMBER WROBEL: I have no problem. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: This end of the 10 building. 11 Member Canup? 12 MEMBER CANUP: Go ahead, Mr. Fischer, 13 I was just going to make a motion. 14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I was too. 15 MEMBER CANUP: You go first. 16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would 17 move that is in Case number: 07-089 filed 18 by Northern Equities Group located north of 19 Twelve Mile, west of Cabot Drive that we 20 approve the variances as requested given the 21 Petitioners's comments. Given that it will 22 not impair the ordinance or the surrounding 23 areas or impact them detrimentally. 24 MEMBER BAUER: Second.
98 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. We 2 have a motion by Member Fischer. And second 3 by Member Bauer. 4 Any further comments? For 5 clarification to our attorney. We do not 6 need to reference any of the other 7 materials; is that correct? Since it is 8 part of the packet. 9 MS. KUDLA: That's correct. The split 10 may be subject to the materials, not 11 necessarily to the business. 12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 13 Please call the roll. 14 MS. MARCHIONI: Vice-Chair Fischer? 15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 16 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 17 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 18 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Krieger? 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 20 MS. MARCHIONI: Chairman Shroyer? 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 22 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 24 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Wrobel?
99 1 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 2 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Canup? 3 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 4 MS. MARCHIONI: Motion passes 7-0. 5 MR. GROLDHAGEN: Thank you very much. 6 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Case number: 8 07-090 this is the one where we had a change 9 on it, is that correct? 10 MS. MARCHIONI: Mr. Fox is going to 11 address that. 12 MR. FOX: There is a little 13 clarification on the change. Originally the 14 change was said to be nine feet instead of 15 nine feet six inches, it's actually supposed 16 to read for the required building setback 17 should be 10 feet and the variance requested 18 should stay the same. So just the required 19 building setback should be ten feet instead 20 of nine. 21 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. I 23 will read the case. Case number: 07-90 24 filed by Ilene and
100 1 Randy Patterson for 41626 Chattman Drive in 2 Meadowbrook Lake Subdivision. The Applicant 3 is requesting four variances for the 4 placement of an accessory structure shed in 5 the Ampton Drive right-of-way located in the 6 Meadowbrook Lake Subdivision adjacent to the 7 exterior side yard of 41626 Chattman Drive. 8 The Applicant is requesting relief 9 from the strict application of the ordinance 10 which prohibits placement of an accessory 11 structure within an easement or dedicated 12 right-of-way and further stipulates an 13 accessory building may not located closer 14 than ten feet to any main building or be 15 erected in any required exterior side yard. 16 The property is zoned R-3 and located 17 north of Nine Mile and west of Meadowbrook 18 Road. 19 The City Ordinances Section 2503 H. 20 Accessory Uses states: In no instance shall 21 an accessory building be located within an 22 easement or dedicated right-of-way. There 23 are other statements regarding ordinances 24 here which are all identified on the agenda.
101 1 The Applicant I believe has come 2 forward. If you are not an attorney please
3 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our 4 Secretary. 5 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm 6 to tell the truth regarding Case number: 7 07-90? 8 MS. PATTERSON: Yes, I do. 9 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please state 11 your name and address and proceed with your 12 case. 13 MS. PATTERSON: My name is Ilene 14 Patterson. I reside at 41626 Chattman 15 Street in Novi. 16 What started out as a very simple 17 thing has turned into a long process. My 18 husband and I we require additional storage 19 for many items in our home and so we began 20 with our Association and we applied to erect 21 a shed on what we thought was our property. 22 And that was all approved by our Association 23 in the Fall of 2006 and there is a drawing 24 in the packet with the signatures of all the
102 1 Association members. 2 So in the next Spring we built the 3 shed. We got as far as putting the flash 4 form up and we had a city tree fall on our 5 garage during the storm and the City 6 forester came out to our house. And the 7 next thing I knew is I heard from City 8 ordinance that we had a code enforcement 9 issue. 10 So this is where the journey began. 11 And we found out that our property line 12 comes one inch beyond our driveway. We have 13 only resided in this house for three years 14 and somewhere along the line someone who was 15 building our garage up to one inch to the 16 edge of the property line. No one in the 17 City understands how that happened. We 18 don't know it happened. We don't know why 19 they didn't know about this, but this is 20 where we are. Our 21 Association does not allow us to erect a 22 shed or any kind of a building away from the 23 residence. It has to abut up against the 24 residence. It seems that our subdivision is
103 1 in violation of the City ordinance. So, we 2 applied, we went to the City and we spoke 3 with Rob Hayes and we were directed to ask 4 for vacation of the land because there was 5 -- and the driveway that was supposed to be 6 built there, it's never going to be built 7 there because there are wetlands behind our 8 property. 9 We went through City Council and it 10 seems that it's a little even more further 11 complicated because it's a creek alongside 12 our home and it's my understanding that we 13 would have to apply to Circuit Court to 14 vacate the property (unintelligible). So 15 the City does not want to grant vacation and 16 we are fine with that. All we want to do is 17 erect a shed in our yard somewhere. 18 Council Member Gatt suggested that 19 perhaps we apply for immunity and erect the 20 shed. Abut it up against our garage, maybe 21 finish with the rest of our house. None of 22 our neighbors have a objected. We have 23 talked to all of our neighbors. There are 24 drawings in the packet showing, it's an 8 by
104 1 10. We just simply need more storage. 2 That's it. 3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. This 4 is a public hearing. Is there anyone else 5 in the audience who cares to speak on this 6 case? I will close the public hearing. 7 Vice-Chair, would you please review 8 the correspondence. 9 VICE CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 10 Mr. Chair. In this case there were 17 11 notices mailed with one approval and zero 12 objections. 13 The approval is from Michael and Alice 14 Albu, I believe, A-L-B-U, of 41645 Chattman. 15 We both approve of the variances that 16 Applicant is requesting. We live across the 17 street from the Applicant and have discussed 18 these with all of them. Granting a variance 19 will not affect access or use of the 20 easement. 21 This is also, Michael is also the 22 treasurer of the Meadowbrook Lake 23 Subdivision Board of Directors. I will note 24 that for the record as well.
105 1 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 3 Comments from the City or Counsel? 4 MR. FOX: Through the Chair, just a 5 little bit more information. I had a couple 6 of meetings with Rob Hayes on this project 7 as well. Prior to them going to ZBA for 8 variances, his dealings with the Pattersons 9 and with City Council's request that they 10 try to help them out. They have issued a 11 licensed agreement from the City to allow 12 them to build the shed in the right-of-way 13 of Amptom Drive because they don't -- were 14 not going to vacate that property, they had 15 to do something to allow that in that side 16 yard. 17 Unfortunately they still need the 18 variances because of specifics of our 19 ordinance that do not allow it to be in the 20 right of way and also the setback 21 requirements from the property line and the 22 building. 23 MS. KUDLA: I just would like to, Mr. 24 Chair, that the license agreement that was
106 1 approved that any variance would be subject 2 to it has to have that the agreement is 3 terminable at will and that the City would 4 be able to remove the structure at no cost 5 to the City in the event that it was 6 necessary to do so. 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: So it would be 8 wise to include that in our motion? 9 MS. KUDLA: Just subject that the 10 license agreement be terminable at will, at 11 the City's will, yes. 12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 13 Member Canup? 14 MEMBER CANUP: I have been reading 15 (unintelligible) letter of August 13th. That 16 was my -- when I first read this that was my 17 major concern the fact that there was an 18 easement with access to a sewer line that 19 runs along the back counters of the 20 property. If you read the letter it kind of 21 raises a red flag. With the red flag that's 22 been cured. That's been taken down and a 23 green flag put up by the fact that 24 (unintelligible) with no cost to the City
107 1 and they're willing to accept that. I see 2 no problem with this at all. It was a 60 3 foot piece of property. 4 How large is your building going to 5 be? 6 MS. PATTERSON Eight by ten. 7 MEMBER CANUP: So you still got 50 8 feet after having the trucks in and out of 9 there they have got 50 feet of easement 10 without tearing your building down. 11 MS. PATTERSON: They were out this 12 summer when they worked on the creek that 13 dumped into the Meadowbrook lakes. There 14 were trucks there. Whoever owned the home 15 before us built a landscaping alongside of 16 the garage. We are within the landscape 17 depth. 18 We also had to dig out to make sure 19 there was nothing beneath that area. The 20 sewer is all closer to the stream path. 21 MEMBER CANUP: Thank you. It seems 22 like a pretty simple case. I would be 23 willing to make a motion if there is no 24 further discussion.
108 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: I just have one 2 question. What happened to the Ampton 3 street? It's a phantom street. It doesn't 4 exit. There is no sign there. You can't see 5 it. You can't find it. It's a phantom. 6 MS. KUDLA: It doesn't physically 7 exist, but it exist on the plat. The plat 8 is recorded with the County. It does show 9 that it is a plat. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I have one or two 12 very quick -- were you done, Member Sanghvi? 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: I am done. 14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The colored 15 picture rendering or colored picture that is 16 shown it says shed will located here. But 17 when I drove over to the property there was 18 already a shed there. 19 MR. PATTERSON: Right. Robin Working, 20 when I went in -- we have been working on 21 this thing for a year. In the Spring when 22 we were going to start we had already bought 23 all of the materials. Because we already 24 had the storage they were actually stored in
109 1 our garden this stash and so when I began 2 the process of the variance I said to her, 3 can we at least put this up since we can't 4 get in here until December? And if they 5 don't grant the variance we will take it 6 down. She said that would not be a problem. 7 So that just went up about a week ago. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And there are 9 two renderings here. One shows an 8 by 10 10 and the other one shows a 10 by 8. 11 MS. PATTERSON: We had to turn it 12 because of the roof line. There are two 13 renderings here. One shows 8 by 10 and the 14 other one shows a 10 by 8. 15 MS. PATTERSON: We had to turn it 16 because of the roof line of the garage. So, 17 actually I believe it sticks out. 18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: That's the way 19 it appears. 20 MS. PATTERSON: Yeah, it sticks out 10 21 feet (unintelligible). And then 8 foot 22 alongside the wall of the garage. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 24 Member Krieger?
110 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: I have a question for 2 the City. The 15 feet, that's from the side 3 yard. Ten feet is from the building. Is 4 that from the fire marshall to keep them 5 away from the property? 6 MR. FOX: No, that is part of the 7 setback ordinance for accessory structures. 8 In our zoning ordinance it says that all 9 accessory structures will -- the detached 10 accessory structures will be a minimum of 10 11 feet away from the building, any primary 12 structure. So since it's an attached garage 13 on a house it has to be by ordinance 10 feet 14 away from that house or the garage. Anything 15 that's attached to the primary structure. 16 And then you have a setback from the 17 property line also. 18 MEMBER KRIEGER: So, if we grant it 19 for this property how does that affect the 20 rest of the subdivision? 21 MR. FOX: Well, it's a site by site 22 basis in this case. This is a very unique 23 condition since they are actually allowing 24 it to be in a right-of-way.
111 1 Also, with the side yard, all sorts of 2 conditions that by ordinance are not 3 allowed. The only reason they even allowed 4 it is because there is a licensed agreement 5 with the City to actually place it there. 6 So, without that in place nobody else would 7 have that same kind of -- we would not allow 8 it to the side yard or up against the 9 buildings. If they had been built there 10 previously, they were built without permits. 11 And a lot of people still believe that 12 that's allowable that they can put a shed up 13 without asking. It's not under the purview 14 of the Building Code. It's under the 15 purview just of the ordinance, zoning 16 ordinance. They have a permit for that. 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: By agreeing to this 18 this is for this property only? 19 MR. FOX: Correct. It's going to be 20 specific to this property only, not as a 21 subdivision wide or a city wide provision. 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Canup? 24 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a motion.
112 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please do. 2 MEMBER CANUP: That in Case number: 3 07-098 that we grant a variance based on the 4 restrictions or covenant as agreed to by the 5 City with the Applicant. Does that sound 6 correct? 7 MS. KUDLA: The license agreement. 8 MEMBER CANUP: The license agreement. 9 Subject to terms and conditions met by the 10 City. 11 MS. KUDLA: Correct. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion 14 by Member Canup and a second by Member 15 Sanghvi. 16 Any further discussion? Please call 17 the roll. 18 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Canup? 19 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 20 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 22 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 23 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 24 MS. MARCHIONI: Vice-Chair Fischer?
113 1 VICE-CHAIR FISCHER: Aye. 2 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Krieger? 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 4 MS. MARCHIONI: Chairman Shroyer? 5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 6 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Wrobel? 7 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 8 MS. MARCHIONI: Motion passes 7-0. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Your request has 10 been granted. 11 And just a quick comment. This is the 12 reason the Board exist because not 13 everything falls under black and white 14 categories. And every so often something 15 comes forward like this and I do appreciate 16 working with this assignment. Thank you. 17 MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. 18 19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Case number 20 seven, which is number: 07-091 filed by 21 Michael M. Yamada of Colliers International 22 for Meadowbrook Corporate Park located at 23 26800 Meadowbrook Road. 24 The Applicant is requesting a renewal
114 1 of one sign variance for a 60 square foot 2 real estate leasing sign located at said 3 address. Property is zoned OST and located 4 south of Twelve Mile and east of Meadowbrook 5 Road. 6 And under our City Ordinances Section 7 28-6(4) Use, Area, Height and Placement 8 Regulations for Temporary Signs states: 9 Sale, rental or lease sign which identifies 10 the sale, rental or lease of non-residential 11 property shall be no greater than 16 square 12 feet and no more than 10 feet in height. 13 The Applicant has come forward. If 14 you are not an attorney, please be sworn in 15 by our Secretary. 16 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm 17 to tell the truth regarding case: 07-091? 18 MR. YAMADA: I do. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please state 21 your name and address and go ahead with your
22 case. 23 MR. YAMADA: Yes, my name is Michael 24 Yamada. I work for Colliers International
115
1 it's 2 Corporate Drive, Suite 300, 2 Southfield, Michigan. 3 This picture shows the kind of signs, 4 the existing sign on Meadowbrook Road. And 5 the signs for these 2,400 square feet to 6 110,000 square feet. 110,000 square feet 7 indicated to incorporate the first of two 8 buildings which were started in year 2000 9 and 2001. We call it building one and 10 building two. Each building is 55,000 11 square feet. So combined to two buildings
12 size is 110,000 square feet. This year 13 (unintelligible) 5,000 square feet of the 14 last unit of the building one. And finally 15 we see total 110,000 square feet for two 16 buildings. However, the development started 17 under total of six building complex. And we 18 truly need it to develop market, marketing 19 the remaining four buildings to either for 20 leasing or for purchase by the user. 21 So this sign what I was contemplating 22 was to change the verbiage from 23 (unintelligible) square feet would be 24 increased to 500 square feet or 600,000
116 1 square feet. 2 The five is not definite because each 3 user have different square feet 4 requirements. We would like to 5 (unintelligible). Approval and direction 6 from Council members today. 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 8 This is a public hearing. Is there 9 anyone in the audience who cares to speak on 10 this case? Seeing none, we will close the 11 public hearing. 12 Are there any correspondence? 13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr. Chair, 14 there were 23 notices mailed with zero 15 approvals and zero objections. 16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Any 17 comments from the City of Counsel? 18 MS. KUDLA: No. 19 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir. 20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We'll turn it 21 over to the ZBA. Member Canup? 22 MEMBER CANUP: It seems like a 23 reasonable request. 24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
117 1 MEMBER CANUP: In that case I would 2 make a motion in 07-091 we grant the request 3 as stated for the variance for a period of 4 one year at which time the Applicant if he 5 wishes to renew this would have to come back 6 before this Board. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion 9 by Member Canup. A second by Member 10 Sanghvi. 11 Any additional comments? I need to 12 ask the City a question here. The other 13 signs and I know we are only talking about a 14 60 square foot sign this evening, but he
15 provided photographs of the other signs and 16 driving by it. Once the construction is 17 about near the end there is at least three 18 signs there that normally would -- may not 19 even be needed. Are they under a different 20 review? I am talking about the smaller 21 signs. 22 MR. AMOLSCH: Right. Part of this 23 variance is that he is asking for an access 24 size in a real estate sign. Also in that
118
1 body, that Ordinance Section it only allows 2 one real estate sign per parcel of land. So 3 he is asking to have a smaller real estate 4 sign on the property and then 5 (unintelligible). 6 The other construction sign we don't 7 really regulate. If there is no 8 construction there they probably should take 9 it down. We don't do permits for those or 10 issue permits (unintelligible). 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Looking at the 12 ones that say like new construction traffic? 13 MR. AMOLSCH: Right, we don't really 14 regulate that. There is no construction 15 traffic. Or if the Board would like they 16 could make that part of the motion. 17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any other 18 comments? Member Canup? 19 MEMBER CANUP: If I understood what 20 you are saying there are some signs there 21 that are non-conforming signs? 22 MR. AMOLSCH: They are allowed one 23 real estate sign. Part of this variance is 24 they are going to have two. One of them is
119 1 the size of the portion that is before you 2 today. 3 MEMBER CANUP: But the smaller 4 signs -- 5 MR. AMOLSCH: The construction sign we 6 don't get into that. That's just a 7 construction traffic sign we don't regulate. 8 MEMBER CANUP: So we have no 9 jurisdiction (unintelligible). 10 MEMBER CANUP: That was my question. 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: All right. No 12 further comments, please read the roll. 13 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Canup? 14 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 15 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 17 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Wrobel? 18 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 19 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 20 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 21 MS. MARCHIONI: Vice-Chair Fischer?
22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 23 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Krieger? 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
120 1 MS. MARCHIONI: Chairman Shroyer? 2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 3 MS. MARCHIONI: Motion passes 7-0. 4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Your request has 5 been granted, sir. 6 MR. YAMADA: Thank you very much. 7 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Case 9 number: 07-092 filed by Kramer Triad 10 Management Group representing Saratoga 11 Circle Condominium Association for the 12 common areas of Saratoga Circle. The 13 Applicant is requesting one one seven foot 14 sign setback variance for the placement of a 15 subdivision entranceway sign to be located 16 three feet from the right-of-way in Saratoga 17 Circle Commons area. Property is zoned R-4 18 and located south of Thirteen Mile Road and 19 east of Old Novi Road. 20 The City Ordinances reflected are 21 Section 28-5(2)d 3, Entranceway sign 22 placement space not less than 10 feet from 23 any street right-of-way and in yards 24 adjacent to streets at the entrance to the
121 1 subdivision, apartment complex, condominium 2 development or permitted institution. 3 I see the Applicant has come forward. 4 If you are not an attorney please raise your 5 right hand and be sworn in by our Secretary. 6 MS. PALMER: Actually I am an 7 attorney. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You are an 9 attorney. Then we believe you. Please state 10 your name and address and your case. 11 MS. PALMER: My name is Laurie Palmer. 12 I reside at 43032 Emerson Way in Novi. Here 13 upon sitting through this evening I see that 14 you all take a lot of time reading the 15 packets and I am not going to waste your 16 time by repeating what's (unintelligible) 17 any additional information other than we 18 have submitted. 19 So other than questions, I will put it 20 in your hands. 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. We 22 like those kind of attorneys who don't talk 23 a whole lot. 24 This is a public hearing. Is there
122 1 anyone in the audience who cares to speak on 2 this case? Seeing none, we'll close the 3 public hearing. 4 Any correspondence? 5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes, Mr. 6 Chair. In this case there was 50 notices 7 mailed with one approval and zero objection. 8 The approval comes from Mr. Clay 9 Pierson of 43021 Emerson Way states that 10 it's a great location for a neighborhood 11 sign. 12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Any 13 comments from the City or Counsel? 14 MS. KUDLA: No. 15 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment. 16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I will turn it 17 over to the Board for discussion. Member 18 Sanghvi? 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: It's a very 20 straightforward situation, Mr. Chairman. I 21 wholeheartedly support your application. 22 Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 24 Member Canup?
123 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right, I'll make 2 a motion. In case number: 07-092 filed by 3 Kramer Triad Management Group for the 4 Commons areas of Saratoga Circle Condominium 5 Association we grant the request of the 6 Applicant for putting up the sign and accept 7 the setback variances as recommended by 8 them. Thank you. 9 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Motion made by 11 Member Sanghvi. Seconded by Member Bauer. 12 Any further discussion? 13 One quick question. The wood sign 14 that is currently put up that's the correct 15 size; is that correct? 16 MS. PALMER: Oh, yes. That's to scale. 17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: It doesn't have 18 any words on it or anything? 19 MS. PALMER: Right, it's just a 20 mock-up. 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And correct 22 location? 23 MS. PALMER: Yes. 24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: That was the
124 1 only comments I have. Please call the roll. 2 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 4 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Canup? 5 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 6 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? 7 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 8 MS. MARCHIONI: Vice-Chair Fischer? 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 10 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Krieger? 11 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 12 MS. MARCHIONI: Chairman Shroyer? 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 14 MS. MARCHIONI: Member Wrobel? 15 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 16 MS. MARCHIONI: Motion passes 7-0. 17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 18 19 We have a couple items under 20 other matters. The first one is ZBA 07-058, 21 23820 Lynwood. Would the City care to make 22 any comments on this? 23 MR. FOX: Yes, I would. In your 24 folders that were given out to you tonight
125 1 there are some additional photographs of 2 this property. The Petitioner has removed 3 those bushes that they were here, they were 4 here for variance request to try to keep 5 those in place and the Board sent them back 6 to the City to get with our engineers and to 7 do something about the site issues that they 8 had with that corner. 9 They met with City engineers and have 10 removed some of those bushes. Further 11 requests of the City Engineering Department, 12 I have talked to them this morning. They 13 have went out there and looked at it and 14 they are in agreement that that is what they 15 asked for. What they have done, I took some 16 photographs of it with some notes on there. 17 But instead of them coming before the Board 18 and presenting their case as to what they 19 needed to do, they have already done the 20 work so we put it under other matters to see 21 that they have compiled. Thank you. 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 23 MS. KUDLA: We have some comments from 24 a legal perspective too, Mr. Chair.
126 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please. 2 MS. KUDLA: Tom Schultz I guess 3 indicated back when this case was initially 4 considered and I do believe there might a 5 letter from him, indicating anyway, that he 6 thought this matter was not appropriate for 7 consideration as a variance and it should be 8 handled administratively in the City 9 Department and that either the Applicant who 10 is not here should withdraw this as a motion 11 for a variance request or that in the event 12 that at he refuses to do so, then it should 13 be denied and just dealt with 14 administratively through the City. 15 MR. FOX: I believe it was denied if I 16 am not mistaken at the meeting and sent back 17 to the City -- 18 MEMBER BAUER: Tabled. 19 MR. FOX: I apologize. 20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: It was being 21 tabled. There is some action that needs to 22 be taken; is that correct? 23 MS. KUDLA: We were hoping that the 24 action would be a quick withdrawal, but I
127 1 see the Applicant is not here. 2 MEMBER CANUP: Do you want to table it 3 again and allow them to show up and ask us 4 to withdraw it? Or do we want to act on it 5 and just get it off -- 6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Can't they 7 withdraw it not in front of the Board? 8 MS. KUDLA: We could table it and then 9 they could withdraw it in the meantime, yes. 10 MEMBER CANUP: What would be the 11 difference if we just acted on it and denied 12 it and then it can go administratively to 13 the City? 14 MS. KUDLA: Legally we prefer it to 15 just not even be here at the ZBA. 16 MEMBER CANUP: I don't have a problem 17 with it one way or the other. 18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: So for the 19 Minutes we can make a statement similar to 20 we are in agreement to what the City has 21 counseled? 22 MS. KUDLA: Just leave it on the table 23 and then -- 24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Hopefully
128 1 they postpone it or withdraw it. 2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Recommend that 3 it be withdrawn. 4 MEMBER CANUP: I wonder if we made a 5 motion and voted on it to the fact that we 6 would grant a withdrawal if the Petitioner 7 so asked and that way it's done. We don't 8 have to mess with it anymore. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Hold that 10 thought. Member Sanghvi? 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: In case you forget. 12 Just kidding. I just wanted to make a 13 simple comment that this case would 14 considered closed. They have complied with 15 our request and the matter is closed. We can 16 make a motion to that effect that Applicant 17 has complied with the request and the 18 requirement of City and hence the chapter is 19 closed. Thank you. 20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: That's the way I 21 was looking at it. 22 MEMBER CANUP: Something to close it 23 and get it done. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: That is a motion.
129 1 MEMBER CANUP: Second. 2 MS. KUDLA: That's fine. 3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a 4 motion. We have a second. Is there any 5 further verbiage that we need to include in 6 that? 7 MS. KUDLA: Can you repeat back the 8 motion? 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Why don't 10 we just take the advice of the City Attorney 11 and table the motion, table the case and let 12 them withdraw it as we have been suggested 13 by the City Attorney. That's what we pay 14 the City Attorney for. I don't know why we 15 question a lot of the issues. She has made 16 a recommendation. I think it's a very good 17 one. 18 There is a motion on the table. Go 19 ahead and call it. 20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You are in 21 agreement that the motion is appropriate? 22 MS. KUDLA: I don't agree that a 23 motion is necessary. I think it can be left 24 on table and I think it can be withdrawn by
130 1 the Applicant at any time not even in front 2 of this Board without being here. 3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: What's the pros 4 and cons? 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: I withdraw the 6 motion. Let's get on with it. 7 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. It sounds like a 8 good idea. 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If we don't 10 take any action it's postponed until next 11 time anyway? 12 MS. KUDLA: Correct. And then in the 13 meantime administration can talk to the 14 Applicant. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Sounds like a 16 plan. 17 There is no action on this this 18 evening and the City will talk to the
19 Applicant and recommend that they withdraw 20 the variance request. 21 Member Krieger, do you have a comment? 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Just from what I 23 understand from the previous meeting that 24 maybe the Applicant wasn't aware that that
131 1 was a choice that he had. 2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I don't think he 3 was. 4 MS. KUDLA: So you can talk to him. 5 MR. FOX: We will call him and get 6 that in writing. Thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 8 Express our appreciation for working with 9 the City and trying to get this matter 10 resolved. Thank you. 11 12 Other matters. Rules and 13 Procedures Update. 14 Member Canup, did you have a comment? 15 MEMBER CANUP: I don't know if this is 16 appropriate or not, but I was looking at the 17 Anglin case and just for clarification and I 18 know they are not here and I don't know if 19 it's appropriate, but did I understand that 20 the only thing that you are saying that is 21 nonconforming is that little area in the 22 middle that is 31,000 square feet they got 23 checked out? 24 MR. FOX: I don't know. I'm not
132 1 familiar enough with it to answer that 2 question. 3 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 4 MEMBER CANUP: Just for my own 5 curiosity I just wondered. I noticed that 6 before when I was it sitting reviewing the 7 case. 8 MR. FOX: I was not there during all 9 the conversations that Robin had with them 10 about what they thought was the issue so I 11 don't know the answer. 12 MEMBER CANUP: Another thing I would 13 like to bring up. Robin Working is probably 14 one of the best people we have ever had 15 working with us. You can't tell people it's 16 okay to do something. Somebody needs to 17 tell her that she can't tell people it's 18 okay to build a garage that's in 19 nonconformance. 20 MR. FOX: For a little bit of 21 clarification. Robin and I both talked to 22 the Petitioner on this. We both talked to 23 the Petitioner about this. They were 24 adamant about wanting to put it up. We both
133 1 said we can't tell you yes or no. This is 2 the way the conversation went. We can't tell 3 you yes or no. If you put it up there you do 4 it at your own risk. It's not our decision, 5 and we did tell her, it's not our decision 6 to tell her yes or no. That is exactly the 7 way it went. She did make it a point to say 8 that. 9 MEMBER CANUP: I apologize for that. 10 MR. FOX: No, that's all right. 11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I figured 12 something was wrong there. 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Move on. Rules 14 and Procedures update. Vice-Chair Fischer? 15 MEMBER BAUER: I think we should not 16 okay this tonight. Take it home and digest 17 it. 18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Absolutely. 19 What I am going to do tonight just so the 20 Board knows, we did receive an e-mail from 21 Tom Schultz with highlighting and we also 22 received another copy in our packet. The 23 subcommittee met with Tom to go over some of 24 the recommendations we talked about in our
134 1 first meeting. And we also told them to 2 kind of go through and make some grammatical 3 changes, implement some rules from the 4 Michigan Zoning Enabling Act. So, if I 5 could just call your attention to some 6 things that I want the Board to especially 7 review because it was recommendations that 8 we had had. 9 Number one, if you go to page three of 10 the packet. Vacancies which is Number 2.1. 11 We changed the absence policy and basically 12 it says that: The un-excused absence of any 13 member for more than three meetings within a 14 twelve month period without being excused, 15 the Board will accept that as a voluntarily 16 resignation. We had talked about actually 17 having it at three. So I need to touch 18 basis with Tom. 19 The way to get an absence excused is 20 to make sure that you contact the Board's 21 Recording Secretary in writing which is 22 letter, fax or e-mail seven days prior to 23 the absence and then that Board Secretary or 24 Recording Secretary will let the Chair or
135 1 the alternate member know. 2 One key point is that we had 3 recommended to Tom that the Community 4 Development Department notify City Council 5 and the member who is missing too many times 6 of the voluntary resignation as opposed to 7 the Chair. That onus should not fall on the 8 Chair. 9 If you turn to page four -- 10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Before you move 11 on can we make quick comments on this? 12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: You are the 13 Chair. 14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Well, I have a 15 question on this that may need further 16 clarification by Tom or whomever. How is 17 the consent determined because it says 18 without the consent of the majority of the 19 Board present at the meeting. 20 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I am 21 surprised he left that in there honestly. It 22 was basically if you let the Recording 23 Secretary know seven days before, it's 24 excused. If it's an emergency, family
136 1 emergency, etcetera, it's excused. If you 2 cannot take the time to let everyone know 3 within that seven day period then it's 4 un-excused. So I will touch base with him 5 regarding that as well. 6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Very good. 7 Thank you. 8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Feel free 9 to jump in if you guys have any comments as 10 well. 11 Moving to Section 2.5. We want to put 12 in the rules basically a new member packet. 13 When some of us joined you may remember that 14 a packet was put together very diligently 15 with a checklist and it had the ordinance 16 and it had a bunch of different things, so 17 basically we had a recommendation about 10 18 or 11 things that every new member will get 19 from the City. Feel free to review that and 20 let me know of any additions or deletions. 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I have one 22 addition. 23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes. 24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Number 12, you
137 1 want to make at that. 2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'll make it 3 number one because your the Chair. 4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Other 5 information as requested by the Chair to be 6 included in the packet. What that does is 7 it allows us additional educational 8 materials or anything else that comes above 9 and beyond this, the Chair can request that 10 that be part of the new member packet as 11 well. 12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct. 13 And if I can take you to the top of that 14 page, page 4. I forgot this when I was 15 talking about the absences. All members 16 including the alternate will be required to 17 attend an annual training session conducted 18 by the City staff or City attorney's office. 19 Failure to attend that will be un-excused 20 basically. It's very important that we all 21 attend that. 22 And I actually want to change that to 23 say that will be part of our yearly calendar 24 that we approve each year as well. So, I
138 1 will get with Tom on that one. 2 Page number five. Some minor 3 additions to the rules or the 4 responsibilities of the Chair. The Chair 5 shall appoint other members of the Board to 6 insure that correspondence is read when 7 appropriate or may ask the Recording 8 Secretary of the Board to do so. The 9 Vice-Chair will be changed to be responsible 10 for enforcing the rules of the ZBA. 11 Move to page seven. 12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Before you get 13 to seven. On page six under meetings did we 14 already approve the 7 o'clock time? 15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I have that 16 note down to talk to Tom because that's what 17 I had on the thing too. 18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay. Thank 19 you. 20 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Number 6.5 21 we are stating in here that we run the 22 meeting by current addition of Robert's 23 Rules of Order Newly Revised. We didn't 24 previously state that in here.
139 1 And then we switch to page nine. We 2 talk about the case limits and we are going 3 to change the Board limit to twelve per 4 night per meeting but give the discretion to 5 the Chair to go up to 15 cases, that way 6 we'll never get stuck having too many and 7 the Board limit is twelve, but if it's a 8 light load or easy cases the Chair is 9 allowed to add it up to 15. Remember, just 10 suggestions. I love to hear your comments. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: No, I'm listening. 12 Go ahead. 13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. And 14 then, I'm sorry I go back to page eight. 15 Regarding mock-ups. We are saying that the 16 Community Development director may grant 17 relief from the requirement of a mock-up 18 sign when the sign would be demonstratively 19 unsafe or unreasonably burdensome, that way 20 in cases like Providence they don't have to 21 come before us to ask us, we will leave that 22 up to, they are in the community all day 23 long so there is no point in holding up a 24 case just based off that. But we do state
140
1 that you if you going to do that, that the 2 Board wants to see color renderings and we 3 want to make sure that the City is not 4 assessed the cost. 5 So the Petitioner must provide enough 6 color copies to furnish packets and 7 etcetera. So, those are some of the 8 highlights that I wanted to bring up. As I 9 said, I will touch base with Tom, make the 10 changes, see what he was thinking and 11 hopefully we can -- my goal would be to have 12 this turned back around to you guys via 13 e-mail within a week and we can have further 14 discussions/voting at January. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Sounds good. 16 MS. KUDLA: I just have one thing to 17 add if I could, Mr. Chair. 18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Certainly. 19 MS. KUDLA: Tom had asked me also that 20 you had a concern whether or not you could 21 have a permanent standing committee to 22 review the procedure. And I did look into 23 that in the Zoning Enabling Act and I did 24 not find anything that would prevent you
141 1 from having a standing committee. 2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That was 3 another thought was we made some major 4 changes this time, but this should be a 5 document that stays in front of us, a living 6 document and that maybe we should have a 7 standing committee or the Chair should 8 nominate an ad hoc committee every year to 9 do a quick meeting to review it to make sure 10 everything is still pertinent. Any 11 suggestions on that? 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's a very good 13 idea. I had another question and that is, 14 right here in the variance in the first 15 page. The building structure and land 16 cannot be used reasonably, etcetera, 17 etcetera. Here you are the legislature. 18 This is not a (unintelligible) you are the 19 legislature. Legislation at the local 20 ordinance level is the function of the City 21 Council and not elected officer. 22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Which page? 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: First page. The use 24 variance where you highlighted two things.
142 1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, we cannot 3 legislate as this Body as it is structured. 4 And this in my opinion falls within the 5 degree of legislation. 6 MEMBER BAUER: Falls in the Ordinance. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: So it is beyond our 8 terms of reference. 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That was 10 one of the changes that Tom would have done 11 as part of it. 12 MS. KUDLA: I could note that and I 13 will raise that with him specifically. I 14 can't tell where the changes were -- 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Legislation is the 16 function of City Council and not Zoning 17 Board of Appeals. 18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Absolutely. 19 So, we'll let him respond to that comment or 20 question. 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Good point. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I had several 24 recommended changes and made copies for
143 1 everybody. But at this point since we're 2 not going to be voting on it until next 3 month, if it's okay with everyone I will 4 just give a copy to the Vice-Chair 5 Subcommittee Chairman to look at and share 6 with Tom and the Committee members. 7 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you have 8 three. 9 MEMBER BAUER: If there are any 10 changes besides what's there? 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Most of it is 12 just verbiage or quite often in here we 13 state like the number two we write it out 14 T-W-O and put parenthesis number 2. I want 15 to be consistent throughout the rules. So 16 there is a lot of places in there that we 17 are not consistent. So, just some simple 18 things like that. Nothing major. The major 19 things that I have thought of I have already 20 mentioned. 21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Just one 22 other thing. We did look at a couple other 23 things like changing quorums, changing 24 approval of motions and whatnot and decided
144 1 basically it would be counter-productive and 2 confusing, more adverse to the community. 3 And basically a lot of them would only 4 affect when there were seven members present 5 and we did look at all those other different 6 things. But this is where we ended up. But 7 hopefully we will get these done and back to 8 everybody in a week so we will have a good 9 month over Christmas to look at the final 10 version. 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: So the goal is 12 to have them back to us earlier than the 13 packet for January? 14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct. So 15 this can be reviewed prior to the cases. 16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Very good. Any 17 other comments? 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: No. Motion to 19 adjourn. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a 22 motion. We have a second. All in favor? 23 Aye. We're adjourned. 24
145 1 (The meeting was adjourned at 2 10:04 p.m.) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
146 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 4 I, Mona L. Talton, do hereby certify 5 that I have recorded stenographically the 6 proceedings had and testimony taken in the 7 above-entitled matter at the time and place 8 hereinbefore set forth, and I do further 9 certify that the foregoing transcript, 10 consisting of (122) typewritten pages, is a 11 true and correct transcript of my said 12 stenographic notes. 13 14 15 16 17 18 _____________________________ 19 Mona L. Talton, 20 Certified Shorthand Reporter 21 22 December 21, 2007 23 24
|