| 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, January 8, 2008. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: 1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, January 8, 2008 3 7:30 p.m. 4 - - - - - - 5 6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: After looking at 7 the clock on the wall it's 7 o'clock p.m. 8 The City of Novi regular meeting of the 9 Zoning Board of Appeals, Tuesday, January 10 8th, 2008 is called to order. 11 Before we move into anything else on 12 the agenda I want to welcome aboard our 13 newest member to the ZBA, Mr. Rickie Ibe. 14 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And we will move 16 forward and have comments a little bit later 17 to that regard. 18 At this time please call the roll for 19 attendance. 20 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 21 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 22 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. 24 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?
4 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Present. 2 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer? 3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Present. 4 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 5 Member Krieger? 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: Here. 7 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 8 MEMBER WROBEL: Present. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 10 MEMBER IBE: Present. 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Canup is 12 absent excused. He notified me that he 13 would not be present this evening. 14 Okay, we do have a quorum. Thus, this 15 meeting is official and is now in session. 16 At this time if our newest member would 17 please lead us in the pledge of allegiance. 18 MEMBER IBE: I pledge allegiance to 19 the flag of the United States of America and 20 to the Republic for which it stands, one 21 nation under God indivisible with liberty 22 and justice for all. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Now, 24 I would ask that the Vice-Chair please read
5 1 the rules and conduct of the meeting. 2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 3 Mr. Chair. A full copy of the hearing 4 format as well as the rules of conduct can 5 be found on the front page of the agenda. 6 Please make sure to turn off all 7 pagers and cell phones during the meeting. 8 An Applicant or Representative will be asked 9 to come forth and state their name and 10 address and be sworn in by our Board 11 Secretary. 12 Applicants will be allowed five 13 minutes to address the Board and present 14 their case. An extension of time may be 15 granted at the discretion of the 16 Chairperson. Anyone in the audience who 17 wishes to address the Board regarding the 18 current case will be asked by the Chair to 19 raise their hand to be recognized. Once 20 recognized the audience members will have 21 three minutes to speak if speaking as an 22 individual or ten minutes to speak if 23 representing a group. 24 Members of the audience will be
6 1 allowed to address the Board once unless 2 directly questioned by a Board Member. 3 The Secretary will read the number of 4 public hearing notices mailed and objection 5 and approval responses will be entered into 6 the record at that time. 7 The Chair will ask for input from the 8 Community Development Department, the 9 Ordinance Enforcement Officer, the Planning 10 Department and the City Attorney. 11 The Chair will turn the case over 12 to the Board for discussion as well as a 13 motion if appropriate. Impromptu statements 14 from the audience will not be tolerated and 15 be considered out of order. 16 A roll call vote will then be taken to 17 approve or deny the motion on the table and 18 the next case will be called. 19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. The 20 Zoning Board of Appeals is a Hearing Board 21 empowered by the Novi City Charter to hear 22 appeals seeking variances from the 23 application of Novi Zoning Ordinances. 24 It takes a vote of at least four
7 1 members to approve a variance request and a 2 vote of the majority present to deny a 3 request. The Board consist of seven regular 4 members and one alternate member. The 5 alternate member has the right to 6 participate in all Board discussions and 7 hearings and may not vote except in the 8 absence or abstention of a regular Board 9 member. 10 Our alternate this evening is 11 sitting in as a regular member and does have 12 the right to vote. 13 Looking at the agenda is there any additions 14 or corrections to the agenda? 15 MS. WORKING: Yes, Mr. Chair. I would 16 like to add with the Board's consent the 17 approval of the December 4th, 2007 ZBA 18 Hearing Minutes if you have had the 19 opportunity to review them. Should we add 20 them to the agenda for approval this 21 evening? 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I believe so. 23 MS. WORKING: Let's do so. On to item 24 number two of the agenda. The Petitioner, I
8 1 hope you received in your packet via e-mail 2 has requested to postpone his case until the 3 February meeting. 4 Case number three on the agenda. The 5 Applicant will be withdrawing his case from 6 ZBA consideration. He will no longer be 7 required to have a variance. 8 Case number five on the agenda has 9 indicated, has requested to be postponed to 10 February 12th. I wanted to bring that to 11 your attention. 12 And under Other Matters, may we please 13 add number five, nominations for Board 14 positions for the upcoming year. Those 15 would be all the proposed changes. 16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Motion to 17 approve as amended. 18 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Motion to 20 approve by Member Fischer. Seconded by 21 Member Bauer. 22 Please call the roll. 23 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 24 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
9 1 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer? 2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 3 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 4 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 5 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 7 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 11 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 12 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 13 MS. WORKING: Motion to approve 14 passes. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have an 16 agenda this evening. 17 First item then is to review, approve 18 the minutes for the November 5th, 2007. Any 19 changes, corrections, etcetera to those 20 minutes? 21 MEMBER BAUER: Move to approve. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion 24 by Member Bauer. A second by Member
10 1 Sanghvi. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Is that for both 3 sets? 4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: No, just for the 5 first one. 6 All in favor say aye? Opposed same 7 sign? That one was approved. 8 Now for November 6th, the minutes for 9 November 6th. Changes, corrections, 10 etcetera? 11 MEMBER BAUER: So moved. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: It's been moved 14 by Member Bauer. Seconded by Member 15 Sanghvi. We'll go with the voice vote on 16 that as well. 17 All in favor say aye? 18 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Opposed same 20 sign? November 6th has been approved. 21 Now December 4th, the last one for 22 this evening. Any corrections, additions, 23 changes to those minutes? A motion? 24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Motion to
11 1 approve. 2 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Motion to 4 approve by Member Fischer. Seconded by 5 Member Bauer. 6 All in favor say aye? 7 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: All opposed same 9 sign? All of our minutes have been 10 approved. 11 Are there any public remarks? And 12 what I'm looking for is anyone who cares to 13 speak to the ZBA regarding any case other 14 than one that is currently on the agenda as 15 a public hearing. Seeing none, we move on 16 to our first case. 17 18 The first case is number: 07-093 19 filed by Kim Capello for 26444 Taft Road. 20 Mr. Capello is requesting seven variances 21 for the proposed use of an existing 22 non-conforming structure and the use of the 23 land for professional office located at said 24 address.
12 1 The Applicant is proposing use of an 2 existing residential structure in an I-1 3 district for an office, without structural 4 alterations on a temporary basis until a new 5 structure can be approved and built. 6 The Applicant is requesting one front 7 yard setback variance, one front yard 8 parking setback variance, one off street 9 parking configuration variance, one variance 10 with a number of required parking spaces, 11 one parking space dimension and maneuvering 12 lane area variance, one parking surfacing 13 variance and one variance from the required 14 standards for landscaping. 15 Property is zoned I-1 and located 16 south of Grand River and east of Taft. 17 And for the audience's information, 18 the reason I read these cases is for our 19 viewing audiences at home and those of you 20 in the audience that may not have copies of 21 the agenda. I see the Applicant has come 22 forward and typically if they are not an 23 attorney they need to be sworn in, but I 24 believe this Applicant is an attorney.
13 1 So you can move forward and present 2 your case. 3 MR. CAPELLO: Thank you. Kim Capello, 4 24406 Nantucket Drive. I find it awkward to 5 be in front of you this evening, not that 6 I'm not used to being in front of public 7 body, but because of my relationship with 8 the City. I did give it some thought to 9 hire somebody to make the presentation on my 10 behalf but assumed that I would be getting 11 up and answering all the questions anyway, 12 so I decided to go ahead and do it myself. 13 I apologize if it makes any of you feel 14 uncomfortable. 15 I have lived in the city in access of 16 15 years. My business has been in the City 17 of Novi in access of 11 years. During that 18 period of time I have been leasing office 19 space primarily in JCK Building on Grand 20 River. 21 During that period of time for the 22 last seven or eight years I have been trying 23 to purchase property or purchase a building 24 to have some investment for my office in the
14 1 City of Novi. It's been intolerable. I 2 have made several offers on properties and 3 gotten close to closing on a couple of 4 deals. For various reasons the deals fell 5 through. This particular house on Taft Road 6 I have negotiated over a year and a half to 7 acquire. 8 Finally got rid of the real estate 9 broker, sat down with the owner at Lowes one 10 morning over coffee. It turned out to be a 11 family business, a great guy. He said we're 12 not selling now. A month later he called 13 and said we're selling. I still overpaid on 14 what we paid for the property, but given the 15 situation and the cost of what I can afford 16 it made more sense to overpay for this then 17 to invest a lot more money in something I 18 couldn't afford. 19 I can't afford to maintain paying rent 20 at the JCK Building or elsewhere and to 21 maintain payments of taxes and insurance on 22 this investment property until such time as 23 we can get a building up and I can occupy 24 the building. In fact, my costs right now
15 1 are doubled than what they were at JCK and I 2 have or will have if you approve my 3 variances, less space in this house. 4 The space lays out okay. I can deal 5 with it. It's my office. I am an attorney 6 as most of you know. My wife is my very 7 part time secretary. So, there is one and a 8 half of us working. I have no walk-in 9 clients. All of my clients are by word of 10 mouth. 11 I might have five or six appointments in my 12 office during the week and that's about the 13 extent of the traffic that will be visiting 14 26444 Taft Road. 15 The Building Department has inspected 16 the house. I have electrical approval, 17 plumbing approval. The construction I have 18 performed most of the work. The few 19 remaining items are outside. Hopefully this 20 weekend with a break in weather my 21 contractor can get out there. They mostly 22 have to do the steps and height of the 23 railing. 24 I will have to go to the Construction
16 1 Board of Appeals at the State level to get a 2 variance for barrier free. The inside of 3 the house is barrier free. I just put over 4 a thousand dollars into the rest room to 5 make it barrier free. The other issue is 6 whether or not I'm going to have to 7 construct a ramp at the front door to make 8 the front door barrier free. Otherwise I'll 9 comply. 10 I am going to ask for a variance 11 because of my 31 years of practice I have 12 not had a single handicap person come to my 13 office to visit. For what reason I don't 14 know, it just hasn't occurred. I have a 15 partner in this project. Glorall (ph) 16 Brothers, LLC, owns the property. They will 17 be developing the building. I will be the 18 sole occupant. My partner is not occupying 19 the house, it's just myself. He intends to 20 occupy part of the building. I intend to 21 occupy part of the building and lease out 22 another portion of the building. 23 As you can tell from the variances 24 that I have needed in the existing house, in
17 1 constructing the new building I am going to 2 need just as many variances. This used to 3 be residential. It's a very narrow lot. 4 With the light industrial zoning setbacks, 5 it makes this property practically 6 un-buildable without variances. So to be 7 honest with you, I'll be back here again. 8 I don't know what I am going to ask 9 for at that time. I have already hired a 10 land surveyor. I have already hired an 11 engineer and I'm waiting for the contractor 12 to come up with the architect. 13 So we're moving forward, but it's 14 going to take some work to finish the 15 building for this particular site. That's 16 for another day. 17 The materials that I 18 submitted to you aren't specifically 19 accurate with regard to the parking. A lot 20 of the variances that I am requesting have 21 to do with the parking lot. It is a gravel 22 parking lot. When I realized from the City 23 that I needed to have a plot plan showing 24 the house and the parking area, it was right
18 1 after our very first snowfall. All the 2 surveyor could go out and survey was where 3 the landscaper had plowed the area for us to 4 have access. When the snow melted actually 5 there was a lot greater area for parking or 6 turnaround. Like I said, if I can get 7 people to park in the proper locations. A 8 lot of the parking issues will be resolved 9 mainly because of the location of the gravel 10 being able to see where you can park and 11 where you can turnaround. 12 I am asking for all of the variances. 13 Hopefully within a five-year period I will 14 have the building up and I will have an 15 occupancy permit. This particular house as 16 it lays out will be in the parking lot so 17 the building can go up, be ready for 18 occupancy. Then the house can come down. 19 Hopefully it will just be a short couple 20 week delay until I can move in. 21 I can't afford to do this project if I 22 can't move into the house and eat some of 23 the cost. It's an existing building and the 24 variances are requested because the building
19 1 is existing, not that I am doing anything in 2 addition to the building. 3 The last issue is the landscaping. I 4 certainly, if anybody has driven by the 5 house, it does need to be cleaned up in the 6 front. I am going to do that. I don't know 7 what I am going to do yet because I don't 8 know if the State is going to grant me a 9 variance for barrier free. If not, the ramp 10 has to take up a substantial amount of the 11 front yard so I have to determine if I need 12 to put the ramp in and then I'll make my 13 decision on how I am going to landscape the 14 front. I certainly want it to look better 15 than it does now. So I am asking for a 16 variance, I don't intend for it to be 17 permanent. I am asking to be granted 18 variances for a five- year period. 19 If something happens and the 20 project falls through, I will come back to 21 you telling you what I would do to improve 22 the property and the house and pave the lot, 23 hook up to the water, everything that's 24 required under the Ordinance.
20 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. This 2 is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the 3 audience who cares to speak on this case? 4 MR. LEVINE: Yes. 5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please come 6 forward and state your name and address. If 7 you are not an attorney be sworn in by our 8 Secretary. 9 MR. LEVINE (ph): Good evening my name 10 is Rodger Levine, 22656 Foxmore Drive, Novi. 11 I have been a resident of the City for 12 nearly 20 years. I am not an attorney. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand. 14 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth 15 regarding case: 07-093? 16 MR. LEVINE: To the best of my 17 knowledge and ability. 18 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 19 MR. LEVINE: First of all, thank you 20 for giving me this opportunity. Larry 21 Santos and I jointly own the two parcels 22 adjacent to the south of this subject 23 property. And I am here this evening 24 speaking on behalf of both of us. We first
21 1 would like to thank each one of you for your 2 civic mindedness and your efforts in 3 developing this city. It is our 4 understanding that the Applicant is 5 requesting these variances for a 6 non-conforming structure on a temporary 7 basis until a new plan can be approved and 8 built. We welcome development of the 9 parcel, but we are concerned and justifiably 10 so in that a development plan would ever be 11 approved or built. It appears to 12 us that the past actions of the City Council 13 would prevent a structure to be built on 14 this parcel without the bringing of City 15 water for Grand River at great expense to 16 that development. That was the case with 17 the Winns Dental Clinic application on the 18 property adjacent to the south of this 19 parcel. The physical size of this subject 20 property is so small that it has virtually a 21 2000 square foot or less development 22 envelope. 23 If for any reason that a plan is not 24 approved and/or built, we the neighbors and
22 1 the City would be stuck with this 2 non-conforming structure with these proposed 3 variances. To our knowledge no such plan 4 has been submitted to the City for approval 5 and if these variances are granted, the 6 Applicant and/or future owners or future 7 tenants could operate their business from 8 this non-conforming structure forever. 9 Regardless of the intent and the sincerity 10 of the Applicant which we personally have 11 great respect for, it is for these and more 12 reasons that we respectfully ask that you 13 deny these requested variances for this 14 non-conforming structure. Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Is 16 there anyone else in the audience who cares 17 to come forward and speak? Seeing none, 18 we'll close the public hearing. And ask the 19 Applicant if you care to comment on anything 20 that was just discussed prior to moving 21 forward? 22 MR. CAPELLO: Yes. Thank you. I did 23 talk with Mr. Levine on the telephone and he 24 really has no rational basis to ask that the
23 1 variances be denied because the house is 2 going to be there anyway. His property is a 3 vacant property. The fact that my wife and 4 I are going to occupy the house will have no 5 impact on his property at all. What he 6 wants to do is he wants to force me to 7 develop my property in the near future. So 8 that I would bear the entire cost of 9 bringing that water line from Grand River 10 down to the edge of his property. That's 11 what prevented his property from getting 12 developed a few years ago, the extreme cost 13 of running that water line. 14 I explained to him on the telephone 15 that we have got the church across the 16 street that's looking at developing. I am 17 looking at it and possibly he is. Perhaps 18 it will all come together at the same time. 19 The only reason he is asking to deny it is 20 because he wants to force me to bring water 21 to his property at my sole cost. 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 23 Turning to the Vice-Chair. Are there any 24 notices in this case?
24 1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes, Mr. 2 Chair, there were 30 notices mailed with one 3 approval and zero objections. The approval 4 coming from Robert Lebedder (ph) of 26510 5 Taft Road. No comments. 6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You said there 7 was one objection? 8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: One 9 approval. Zero objections. 10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any comments 11 from the City or Counsel? 12 MS. KUDLA: No. 13 MR. FOX: Just a little clarification 14 from the Building Department. He does as 15 the Applicant said he has to get a State 16 variance for barrier free requirements in 17 order to not construct this ramp. At this 18 time we will not issue a C of O for that 19 project until we see that variance or that 20 ramp, whichever one comes first. We will 21 not issue the C of O for occupancy on that 22 until that issue is cleared up. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The C of O is 24 the certificate of occupancy?
25 1 MR. FOX: Yes. 2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Making sure we 3 have got the audience's understanding. 4 At this time then we will turn it over 5 to the ZBA for comments and discussion. Who 6 cares to go first? 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Sure, I will go 8 first. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Sanghvi? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: I am going to try and 11 see if I can call you Mr. Capello. 12 MR. CAPELLO: Mav, Kim is fine. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Because I don't think 14 I have very, very often in the past. I was 15 there at your property actually yesterday. 16 And looking at it, how long have you been 17 using it as an office now? 18 MR. CAPELLO: I just moved my stuff in 19 over the holidays. The computers have just 20 gotten set up yesterday and I am hoping to 21 actually start full operations there 22 tomorrow. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: So you are just 24 moving in, you haven't really started
26 1 working out there? 2 MR. CAPELLO: Yes. In fact, the 3 balance of my files came over from JCK 4 Friday night. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: As you very well 6 know, this is a tough situation all around. 7 But if I take your word that you are going 8 to build a new place and do everything else 9 what you just said, we looking at a five 10 year max temporary variance rather than a 11 permanent variance. The situation is a 12 little different and I like to consider it. 13 Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 15 Other comments? Member Bauer? 16 MEMBER BAUER: How soon do you think 17 you would have some prints or something off 18 to the City? 19 MR. CAPELLO: For the building itself? 20 Because of the difficulties in the front and 21 rear setbacks, the architect and the 22 engineer have to work together. The 23 engineer already has a layout of the 24 building and the parking area which I think
27 1 I have submitted to you. The architect took 2 a look at that and had some other ideas and 3 suggestions. I have hired them now. I have 4 already started paying the engineer and as 5 soon as the architect sends me his contract, 6 they are moving forward. 7 I don't have any control 8 over what they do. 9 MEMBER BAUER: I understand that. I 10 just wanted a ball park figure. 11 MR. CAPELLO: I am moving ahead. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Fine. Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Fischer? 14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 15 Mr. Chair. As far as putting a time limit 16 on it, I am not sure that I would be 17 comfortable putting a five-year limit on it. 18 Would you be willing to compromise and come 19 back in a year, a year and a half, two years 20 and show us where you are with your plans? 21 Is that a comprise that you can -- 22 MR. CAPELLO: I don't have any problem 23 with that. I took out a five year mortgage 24 on the property assuming that by the time I
28 1 got through the planning stages and the 2 construction approval stages and 3 construction. And also the things we need 4 to consider are the water lines. I cannot 5 afford to carry that water line, the burden 6 of the cost of that water line all by myself 7 on that project. Lotus Bank is my bank. I 8 know that the Indian church across the 9 street, there has been talk with Lotus Bank. 10 I have been trying to keep up with how 11 quickly they are moving. They will be a 12 great contributor. Hopefully the property to 13 the south of mine. I talked to the neighbor 14 to the north who sent the letter. 15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Approval? 16 MR. CAPELLO: Yeah, approval. I am 17 going to move everybody along as quickly as 18 I can. There are so many other factors, 19 Justin, I don't have control over all of 20 them. If you want me to come back I will do 21 that and tell you where I'm at. 22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Right. I 23 am not looking for here is my plans, here is 24 my approved plans. I am looking for the
29 1 status update to make sure that things are 2 moving along just because of the concerns 3 that were brought up. I mean, given the 4 fact that the building is already there, I 5 am not sure that temporary approval would be 6 something that I wouldn't be looking into. 7 So, I don't see much of an issue as long as 8 we put some type of time limit, so that the 9 Board can continue to watch over and insure 10 that things are moving forward so all 11 parties involved are treated equally and 12 fairly. 13 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Krieger? 15 MEMBER KRIEGER: Can I ask a question 16 for the City? The variances are regarding 17 the road for parking. And then the water 18 would be, this is just -- is going to go on 19 the east side or the west side of Taft? Has 20 it been in the works at all? 21 MS. REINOWSKI: I am not sure about 22 the water situation. Being the planner I 23 think it would be more of a question the 24 engineer would need to answer regarding
30 1 that. Variances are related to parking as 2 well as the land and the building setbacks. 3 Questions regarding those variances I can 4 answer, but I'm not aware of the situation 5 with the water line. I'm sorry. 6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Wrobel? 7 MEMBER WROBEL: I agree a lot with 8 what Mr. Fischer said. Five year I feel a 9 little bit uncomfortable with, but I know 10 it's going to take time to get the building 11 plans submitted and approved and everything. 12 I just want to make sure that, and I assume 13 it will be knowing you, Kim, that it will be 14 done. But I want to protect the City from 15 the standpoint that we put a date on here 16 saying we have to have the plans by a 17 certain date, a year, year and a half 18 whatever, and that the variances will only 19 be for that specified time. And then at 20 that time if it's still required we would 21 have to re-evaluate them. So, the five year 22 I feel kind of foggy on. 23 But I appreciate the fact that you are 24 going to invest in the City and build
31 1 something on that area which needs to be 2 done and I would like to accommodate it as 3 much as possible. But I just don't want to 4 leave it open-ended for such a period of 5 time. 6 MR. CAPELLO: And I understand. If 7 that's the understanding and you just want 8 to make sure I am moving forward, I mean 9 that's fine. Give me a time period and I 10 will bring it to you what I've got in that 11 period of time. 12 MEMBER WROBEL: To our City Attorney, 13 is this something that is acceptable that we 14 could do, give a time period? 15 MS. KUDLA: Yes, you can do that. 16 MEMBER WROBEL: Okay. That's all, Mr. 17 Chair. Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Ibe? 19 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Capello, it appears 20 based on your sworn statement I sense there 21 is a contingency built in to your intent to 22 put together a permanent structure. The 23 water line, you mentioned the water line 24 quite a bit and it appears that you are
32 1 relying on the neighbor to the south as well 2 as the church that you mentioned to assist 3 with the cost of this water line. Now, is 4 this water line, is that going to be an 5 issue in determining whether or not you go 6 forward with the permanent structure? 7 MR. CAPELLO: Yes. And I honestly 8 told you guys, yes, it is. That's why the 9 property to the south did not develop 10 because the cost of bringing their water 11 line to that property was far in access of 12 percentage wise of the cost of the project 13 that it didn't make sense to do it. And I 14 am telling you that my hope is is to have 15 all of the developments coming on line in 16 close proximity of each other or to try to 17 get the projects and the properties in that 18 area and maybe create an SAD. 19 This project is no different than 20 the Northern Equities project that could be 21 brought to you. There are contingencies 22 that are outside of our control. The cost 23 of infrastructure that are outside of my 24 control.
33 1 I am going to do the best I can 2 to get that water line there. I cannot pay 3 for the entire water line myself and make 4 the project financially work. 5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. I 6 have a couple of questions for the City as 7 well. The property is currently zoned I 8 believe R-1 and is up for zoning change 9 (unintelligible) approximately across the 10 street. Is that where the church is going? 11 Or is that looking at the condominium 12 development or something? 13 MR. CAPELLO: Tim, if I might. That 14 might be where the Brazilians are going to 15 build closer down to to Eleven Mile Road. 16 MS. REINOWSKI: It's sounds like that 17 might be what you are speaking of which is 18 further south and it's on the northwest 19 corner of the street. 20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You don't know 21 whether they have water or not? 22 MS. REINOWSKI: Unfortunately I'm not 23 sure what the utility situation is in that 24 area.
34 1 MR. CAPELLO: I don't think they have 2 water down at Eleven Mile Road. Father Rome 3 (ph) is another person I will be contacting 4 to see what their intent is. I didn't mean 5 to interrupt. 6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: That's fine. 7 That's a quite large piece of property and 8 if they are looking at increasing the 9 density there they are looking at the 10 possibility of quite a few units that would 11 require city water as well. 12 MR. CAPELLO: What they want to do is 13 they just want to build one dormitory for 14 the Brazilians, not just the teachers at 15 Catholic Central, but those that are going 16 to actually retire and they would stay 17 there. So it would be a great location for 18 them. 19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Also, I wanted 20 to ask the City. What's the anticipated 21 date for widening of Taft Road? Is it in 22 the master plan? 23 MS. REINOWSKI: I don't know a 24 particular date, I'm sorry. I don't know of
35 1 anything immanent. Again, it would be 2 another question for the engineers if there 3 is any time frame on that or if it's just 4 shown as future for something that may be 5 far out. 6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. And 7 to our City Attorney. If we do incorporate 8 conditions under -- or do we need maybe is a 9 better way to phrase it, to incorporate 10 conditions for ADA meeting those 11 requirements even on a temporary basis? 12 MS. KUDLA: Well, that would be a 13 separate issue. Even if you didn't make a 14 condition, he still wouldn't be able to get 15 a certificate of occupancy without it. So 16 you wouldn't necessarily have to add that as 17 a condition. 18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: So that would 19 not be necessary. And I was going to ask 20 (unintelligible) overriding the State or the 21 County to allow a variance for the barrier 22 free ramp. 23 MR. CAPELLO: I wish you could. 24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You had
36 1 indicated initially that you wanted to have 2 the building torn down within three years. 3 Now we're talking five. 4 MR. CAPELLO: Maybe there was a 5 misunderstanding what I said is how it's 6 designed now the new building would be to 7 the north of the existing house. 8 The house sits in a parking lot. So if 9 things work well the building will be up and 10 ready for occupancy except for completion of 11 the parking lot. Then the house could come 12 down and I will just have a short period of 13 time that I am in limbo. 14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I was trying 15 figure out how you were going to tear down 16 the house and then wait a year or whatever 17 for it to be built. 18 MR. CAPELLO: I am hoping that period 19 of time will be very short. 20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And your 21 anticipated number of vehicles I know you 22 were looking at three parking spaces. You 23 had indicated five or six customers per 24 week, so obviously typically there never
37 1 would be more than two spaces? 2 MR. CAPELLO: There is space right now 3 if people parked in a parking spot for at 4 least five cars without even using the 5 turnaround. What happens is people stop in 6 the middle of the turnaround whether 7 delivery or running in or not, so I need to 8 get them to park back where there is ample 9 parking. 10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And those would 11 be signed or some type of signage? 12 MR. CAPELLO: I need to figure out 13 some way to tell people this is where you 14 park. I haven't figured it out yet, Tim. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I guess I was 16 looking at three spaces and if you and your 17 part time secretary are both parked there, 18 if you drove separately now you only have 19 one space. 20 MR. CAPELLO: We do drive separately, 21 but there is more, there really is more than 22 three. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Those are all 24 the questions I have. Member Fischer?
38 1 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 2 I would move that we grant the Petitioner's 3 request as stated in case number: 07-093 on 4 the temporary basis of 18 months given the 5 fact that the Petitioner has established 6 practical difficulty given the narrowness 7 and shape of the lot. Given the Applicant's 8 statements regarding ample parking for 9 people. And given the fact that it would be 10 impractical and burdensome for the Applicant 11 to bring the structure in compliance in 12 order to use said property. 13 I would also ask the condition that 14 light and safety issues identified during 15 the building inspection be addressed within 16 60 days. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion. 18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion 19 by Member Fischer. A second by Member 20 Bauer. Any further discussion? 21 I would like to make one comment. I 22 think 18 months is a little quick with all 23 the work that needs to be done. I prefer to 24 see the motion be 24 months or maybe even
39 1 three years if we are looking at a five year 2 plan just to minimize the work that the 3 Board has to do in the further if nothing 4 else. 5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The only 6 reason I am comfortable with 18 months is 7 because I am not looking for a full fledge 8 presentation. I am looking for a quick 9 update of the status. So I would assume 10 that given the minutes from this meeting and 11 seeing the plan move forward that Mr. 12 Capello could present in 18 months it would 13 be pretty quick for the Board. Not really a 14 burden. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Since the 16 Applicant had indicated that he would be 17 willing to come back and share status 18 updates with us I will support the motion. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, I was going to 20 say something, but I don't need to anymore. 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Robin, are you 22 prepared to call the roll? 23 MS. WORKING: Yes, I am. 24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please do so.
40 1 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 3 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 4 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 5 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 6 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 7 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 8 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 11 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 13 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 15 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0. 16 MR. CAPELLO: Thank you very much. 17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 18 MR. CAPELLO: Hopefully I will see you 19 before 18 months. 20 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: 22 Our second case this evening, let me get on 23 the right page here. The second case was 24 removed. The third case was withdrawn. So
41 1 we're up to the fourth case, correct? 096? 2 MS. WORKING: That's correct. 095 is 3 also going to withdraw. We just haven't 4 gotten that in writing. 5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: All right. We 6 will move to Case number: 07-096 filed by 7 Tammy Stubbe of Singh Homes Building Company 8 for 41335 Clermont Avenue. 9 Tammy Stubbe of Singh Homes Building Company 10 is requesting one 62.5 square foot ground 11 sign variance renewal for continued use of a 12 9'3" by 6'10" subdivision business sign for 13 the Willowbrook Farm Subdivision Phase IV. 14 The sign is currently located on the 15 northeast corner of Clermont and Meadowbrook 16 Road at the entrance of Phase III of the 17 Willowbrook Farm. 18 The property is zoned R-4 and located 19 north of Ten Mile Road and east of 20 Meadowbrook Road. 21 Member Wrobel? 22 MEMBER WROBEL: Chairman and Board, as 23 I am the president of the Willowbrook Farm 24 Homeowners Association I would ask your
42 1 permission to recuse myself from this case. 2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Move to 3 allow Member Wrobel to recuse himself. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion 6 by Member Fischer and a second by Member 7 Sanghvi for recusal. 8 Please call the roll. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 11 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Aye. 13 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 14 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 15 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 16 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 17 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 18 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 19 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 21 MS. WORKING: Move to recuse is 22 approved. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please leave the 24 chambers.
43 1 And, sir, at this time since we 2 do not have a full Board, it is your option 3 as to whether you want us to proceed or 4 whether you would like the case to be tabled 5 until next month? 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: We have six don't we? 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: No, we have to 8 have seven. 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Seven is a 10 full Board. 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Seven is a full 12 Board. It's your choice, sir? 13 MR. HUMPHERD (ph): What does that 14 mean? I'm not sure how this -- 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Since one member 16 was recused, we are now down to six members 17 being able to vote this evening as opposed 18 to a full compliment of seven. Consequently 19 we made it the process to allow the 20 Applicant if he chooses to wait until we 21 have a full Board it could be set back 22 another month. Obviously the reason for the 23 recusal, next month he would recuse himself 24 that month as well. So I just wanted to
44 1 make sure you knew this. 2 MR. HUMPHERD: If it's okay I would 3 like to proceed. 4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay. Can you 5 come forward so you are representing this 6 case. If you are not an attorney please 7 state your name and address and be sworn in 8 by our Secretary. 9 MR. HUMPHERD: My name is Russ 10 Humpherd (ph), 5471 Parkside Drive, 11 Brighton, Michigan. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm 13 to tell the truth regarding case: 07-096? 14 MR. HUMPHERD: Yes, I do. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please state 17 your case. 18 MR. HUMPHERD: So, Willowbrook Farms 19 is subdivision which was built in four 20 phases. We are currently still building in 21 Phase III which we have lots available in 22 Phase III which is the entry to Phase III is 23 where the sign is located. And we are also 24 building in Phase IV. And Phase IV I meets
45 1 the criteria of having less than 80 percent 2 of the lots with a certificate of occupancy 3 and I think we're about just under 50 4 percent and we're asking for a renewal of 5 the sign to keep our exposure to keep the 6 traffic off of Meadowbrook Road and let them 7 know that we are still building in there and 8 we have lots available at both locations. 9 And that's really the basis of what we're 10 asking for. 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay, thank you. 12 This is a public hearing. Is there anyone 13 in the audience who cares to speak on this 14 case? 15 MR. SATHE: Yes. 16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please come 17 forward. State your name and address and be 18 sworn in by our Secretary if you are a not 19 an attorney. 20 MR. SATHE: My name is Zuhaus Sathe. 21 My address is 41338 Scarborough Lane in 22 Novi. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand. 24 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
46 1 regarding case: 07-096? 2 MR. SATHE: Yes, I do. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 4 MR. SATHE: Thank you for the 5 opportunity to speak. This particular sign 6 is fairly large and it's at the entrance of 7 Phase III which is over 90 percent occupied. 8 And the sign portion is on Meadowbrook Road 9 and there is another sign of the same size 10 on Ten Mile. 11 To go from this sign to where Phase IV 12 is located is about half a mile and if one 13 enters the subdivision from this sign, then 14 there are three turns that one has to take. 15 There is no indication when you enter the 16 subdivision about where to go to where the 17 Singh offices are located. So if somebody 18 was to enter, they would likely get confused 19 or that would at least increase the traffic 20 in the subdivision. 21 The other sign which is located is on 22 Ten Mile Road which has a large amount of 23 traffic and has a substantial amount of 24 exposure.
47 1 We do want residents of the 2 subdivision, we do want all the houses to be 3 sold. But at the same time we don't want a 4 sign to be located for a long time and in 5 that area which is more than 90 percent 6 occupied and indicate that maybe things are 7 not selling well in this subdivision. So as 8 for the City ordinances, after a phase is 9 more than 80 percent complete, now I 10 understand it is the Homeowners 11 Association's option to have a sign or at 12 least be approached for that request. That 13 hasn't happened from Singh Homes. In fact, 14 the reason that a Singh Home representative 15 is here is because they have been, they have 16 been called out by a letter from the City of 17 Novi Ordinance Enforcement office on October 18 22nd of this year. So, we would like to 19 have the Singh Homes approach the Homeowners 20 Association since it is over 90 percent 21 occupied. 22 Finally, the way the sign is located 23 it covers the monument light. And I believe 24 there is a photograph in the packet that you
48 1 have received. So it's not ideally located 2 and is (unintelligible) subdivision. That's 3 all I have to say. 4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you, sir. 5 Anyone else in the audience who cares to 6 speak? Seeing none, we are going to close 7 the public hearing. 8 And ask the Vice-Chair if there was 9 any comments? I'm sorry, Petitioner, if you 10 care to comment on any of his comments, you 11 have the right to do so. 12 MR. HUMPHERD: I would just like to 13 comment that speaking of the two signs and 14 the locations of the two signs, we were 15 really looking to keep the sign over on 16 Meadowbrook Road. So if you look at the 17 layer of the subdivision, if somebody pulls 18 into that location or drives by, we're 19 looking for them to know that there is 20 construction in the area and to get our 21 phone number and then contact us so we can 22 let them that, hey, there are also lots over 23 off of Ten Mile and there are lots available 24 in Phase III also.
49 1 Some of the same reasons that he 2 didn't like the sign there are the reasons 3 we feel -- we don't think somebody can go 4 through there and drive all the way through 5 the subdivision and find Phase IV. If you 6 look at the map, there are extremities of 7 the entire project. We are looking for that 8 sign to stay so that we can get all the 9 exposure we can because nowadays we need all 10 the help we can get to get a sale. And 11 that's pretty much what we're looking for 12 for the sign. 13 And then, you know, I guess I am not 14 aware of any provisions of contacting the 15 Association for approval of signs and stuff 16 like that. I'm not sure that's the case. 17 But the sign is located on a vacant lot at 18 the entry and it has easements for the sign 19 location that the sign is located in so it 20 is on one of our vacant lots that we own and 21 has not been built on. So it is not in 22 somebody's yard or anything like that. 23 That's all I have to add. 24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Now
50 1 I'll ask if there is correspondence? I 2 believe there is. 3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes, Mr. 4 Chair. In this case there were 19 notices 5 mailed with one approval and 20 objections. 6 If it pleases the Board I am going to 7 start with the Homeowners Association 8 letter. After that I am going to go to each 9 of the individual letters and read the name 10 and address, however, I will only touch on 11 the new pieces. 12 This letter is in regards to Singh 13 Home Building Company's request for 62.5 14 square sign variance renewal for continued 15 use of a subdivision business sign at 16 Willowbrook Farm Phase IV. The Association 17 strongly objects to the request for the 18 following reasons: The exiting sign is 19 located at the Phase III entrance for Phase 20 IV of Willowbrook Farm. An identical sign 21 already exist at the Phase IV entrance of 22 Willowbrook Farm at Ten Mile and Amanda 23 Lane. Additionally, the existing sign 24 location at Phase III entrance is over one
51 1 half mile away from Phase IV. 2 Number two. There are only four 3 undeveloped lots on out of a total of 51 in 4 Phase III. Based on these figures Phase III 5 is greater than 90 percent built and 6 homeowner occupied. This completion 7 percentage is greater than the 80 percent 8 completion level specified in the City of 9 Novi Code of Ordinance. Therefore, it is the 10 opinion of this Association that any sign 11 located at Phase III is not warranted. 12 A side note. Singh has moved its 13 sales office completely out of Willowbrook 14 Farm and is relocated at Churchill Crossing 15 subdivision. 16 Number three. Most importantly in 17 2005 Singh Development Company turned over 18 Willowbrook Farm III to the Willowbrook Farm 19 Homeowners Association. This included all 20 common areas as well as the Phase III 21 entrance at Clermont and Meadowbrook Road. 22 The existing sign in question is 23 located at the Phase III entrance north of 24 (unintelligible). It is the contention of
52 1 the Homeowners Association that Singh Homes 2 would be required to get permission from the 3 Homeowners Association prior to placing any 4 sign on Willowbrook III property. Singh has 5 not approached said Homeowner Association. 6 Number four. The location of the 7 existing sign partially blocks the north 8 entrance monument light at the Phase III 9 entrance. 10 Number five. Singh Homes did not 11 apply for the sign variance extension until 12 they were notified from Ordinance 13 Enforcement that their permit had expired on 14 October 22nd, 2007. This provides another 15 example of how Singh conducts business and 16 has interacted with our Association. 17 Once again, we strongly object to the 18 request for an extension to keep the 19 existing sign for Phase IV at its current 20 location in Phase III. We urge the Zoning 21 Board to consider our concerns and not 22 approve the request as stated. 23 Daniel Diantonis, D-I-A-N-T-O-N-I-S, 24 (unintelligible).
53 1 Nick and Misty Rallis, R-A-L-L-I-S, 2 4095 Scarborough Lane. Objection. They 3 have completed most of the lots in Phase 4 III. 5 Timothy Dziewit, D-Z-I-E-W-I-T, of 6 24687 Bethany Way, an objection. Same 7 concerns. 8 Debbie Waterstrat (ph) of 24568 Ackert 9 Court objects. 10 Ron Pitlock, P-I-T-L-O-C-K, 24558 11 Ackert objects. One sign is enough. 12 Zuhaus Sathe, S-A-T-H-E, 41338 13 Scarborough objects citing aesthetics as 14 well. 15 Rajish and Serita Belluha (ph), 2467 16 Bethany Way, objection. 17 Carey Kendall 41118 Clermont Avenue 18 objects. 19 Tod Bosley (ph, 41009 Scarborough Lane 20 objects. 21 Jimmy and Rosalind Crawford, 24963 22 Bloomfield Court has an approval. Says: 23 They live in Phase III and the home is 24 adjacent to three of the four remaining lots
54 1 and has a clear view of the Singh signage 2 that is the issue. There are no sales 3 office located Willowbrook Farm Subdivision 4 and the signage of Phase III is probably 5 necessary to attract buyers to the remaining 6 lots. I did not find the sign to be 7 unsightly and the vacant lots are more of a 8 distraction if they remain unsold. Chances 9 are the Willowbrook Farm residents that are 10 most opposed live in the other phases. 11 Please allow to remain. 12 Jeffrey Lam, L-A-M, 24510 Bethany Way 13 objects. Cites traffic concerns. 14 Mark Macale, M-A-C-A-L-E, 40971 15 Scarborough Lane objects. 16 Edmond Shaheen, S-H-A-H-E-E-N, 24487 17 Bethany objects. 18 Tom Li, 41021 Scarborough Lane 19 objects. 20 Nellis and Sangarita (ph) Parikh, 21 P-A-R-I-K-H, of 41027 Scarborough objects. 22 Pikoron (ph) Singh, 23 24951 Bloomfield Court objects. 24 Chung Fu and Zow Zang (ph), 24557
55 1 Ackert object. 2 Reverend Tiffany Halboth, 3 H-A-L-B-O-T-H, 41240 Clermont objects. 4 Randy Block of 41252 Clermont objects. 5 Eric Kurish Ishnov (ph) of 4104 6 Scarborough Lane objects. 7 Fortunately that is all, Mr. Chair. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 9 Comments from the City or Counsel? 10 MS. KUDLA: No. 11 MR. FOX: No comment. I do have a 12 comment. If it pleases the Board I would 13 like to make a clarification on the 14 temporary signage from what I heard being 15 stated by some of the letters written. The 16 Ordinance does say that temporary signs for 17 subdivision business signs are valid until 18 80 percent of the final phase of the project 19 is complete, not just the area it's in. So 20 I just want to be clear because I heard some 21 contradiction to that. 22 MS. WORKING: You will find that on 23 your agenda and the public hearing 24 announcement.
56 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Turn 2 it over to the Board for comments. 3 Member Sanghvi? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: I would like this to 5 go up on the screen so people can see what 6 we are talking about, namely Phase III and 7 Phase IV. Because when you look at this 8 map. I don't know how to do it. 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Here you 10 are, Mr. Sanghvi. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. When you 12 see the entrance and the sign we are talking 13 about in that Meadowbrook almost across from 14 Cherry Hill near the traffic light that's 15 where Clermont is, right? Phase IV which 16 you are talking about is really its primary 17 entrance is on Ten Mile Road, right? 18 MR. HUMPHERD: Correct. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: So, I don't know how 20 it helps you to have a sign there and not on 21 Ten Mile road and why isn't it enough? 22 MR. HUMPHERD: Well, there is one on 23 Ten Mile as well. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's what I'm
57 1 saying. Why isn't it enough? 2 MR. HUMPHERD: Well, we are saying 3 anybody that would drive down Meadowbrook 4 Road and not turn in that direction down Ten 5 Mile and see the other sign would never know 6 that two things, that Phase IV is even there 7 or that Phase III still has lots available. 8 So we would miss all Meadowbrook exposure. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: But there is nothing 10 on Meadowbrook as far as Phase IV is 11 concerned, is it? Tell me honestly 12 yourself, what has Phase IV got to do with 13 Meadowbrook Road? 14 MR. HUMPHERD: It's part of that 15 existing project. I mean, we see that as 16 we're a builder that came in and did this 17 whole site. Phase IV is part of this. You 18 come in and see that subdivision, hey, there 19 is a nice subdivision, oh, but there is a 20 Phase IV over here that's connected to it or 21 part of this 162 lots that are all done by 22 the same builder. It's all one thing. 23 If somebody went over to Phase IV, 24 Phase IV is more of a separate kind of
58 1 entity to it but it is attached. You know, 2 the way subdivisions are all attached to 3 each other a lot of people wouldn't 4 recognize that. So we feel that helps. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: To me the way it is 6 laid out it looks more like a separate 7 entity than it is attached to anything. 8 Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you, 10 Member Sanghvi. 11 Member Fischer? 12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr. 13 Amolsch, getting clarification from the 14 City. Can you explain again why this is 15 before the ZBA? What is the variance being 16 requested? 17 MR. AMOLSCH: We have a sign on Ten 18 Mile. 19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, it's 20 the additional sign is that the key that 21 makes it come before the Zoning Board? 22 MR. AMOLSCH: Right. 23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I just 24 wanted to clarify the issue there.
59 1 I agree with the comments by the 2 previous speaker. When I look at the sign 3 what surprises me is that there is only two 4 key items. Phase IV, Grand Opening and the 5 fact that the sales office has moved. And 6 this is a very, very large sign. Those are 7 the two smallest components on this sign. 8 So to have a 62.5 square foot sign to call 9 out those two little items seems way too 10 large and that is definitely unneeded. 11 Given the fact that they do have 12 identification on Ten Mile I would not 13 support this sign. 14 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 16 Member Krieger? 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Can you explain to me 18 a little more about your practical 19 difficulty or hardship that you need that 20 sign there on Meadowbrook? 21 MR. HUMPHERD: We feel it's a hardship 22 that anybody that might be traveling, you 23 know, we are still trying to market Phase 24 III and we would love to get all these --
60 1 our plans were to have these lots done years 2 ago. So things have changed and we feel we 3 need all the exposure we can. We feel that 4 it's a hardship for people traveling along 5 there not to know that, hey, there are still 6 lots in Phase III and also over here in 7 Phase IV. 8 If you take it down (unintelligible) 9 other subdivision that maybe 10 (unintelligible) lots that may be owned by 11 not a builder or just privately owned, so we 12 feel it's important to keep it there. 13 MEMBER KRIEGER: What about a 14 directional sign? 15 MR. HUMPHERD: As far as like in place 16 of it? I guess I don't understand. 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Never mind that. 18 Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 20 I have a couple of comments. First of 21 all, to the City. Help me understand what 22 was addressed several times in the letters 23 and by our speaker previously regarding the 24 association approval? I don't know if that
61 1 is anywhere in our Ordinance. 2 MS. KUDLA: That wouldn't be 3 something -- at this point more than just 4 their statement that it's a legal question 5 they haven't presented any evidence to that 6 fact, so it's not something that we would 7 really consider as part of our discussion. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I didn't think 9 it was but I wanted to clarify that for 10 audience members. One of the letters or 11 someone also said that there are four lots 12 still available in Phase III; is that 13 correct? 14 MR. HUMPHERD: There is actually one 15 that we are building a spec home on right 16 now. So there is five total. One has a 17 spec home under construction and there are 18 four additional lots available. And three 19 of them are right at the entry where that 20 sign is. So the sign also gives those lots 21 exposure that they are right there. And 22 those may be some of the more challenging 23 lots. A lot of times the challenging lots 24 are right at the entry. Those are the
62 1 harder ones to get away so it helps with 2 that as well. 3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I have similar 4 concerns as the other Board Members. I 5 would feel a lot more comfortable if it was 6 a much smaller sign and as a lot of the 7 signs in the City indicate four or five lots 8 still available, something like Phase III, 9 five lots still available at that entrance 10 and keeping the large sign at Phase IV on 11 Ten Mile. Unfortunately this evening we're 12 not here to discuss a different sign. We 13 are here to discuss that sign and I am 14 primarily in agreement with the other Board 15 Members that I don't feel that I could 16 support it. 17 Any other comments? Looking for a 18 motion? 19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr. Chair, 20 may I have the floor? 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Certainly. 22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would 23 move that in case number: 07-096 filed by 24 Tammy Stubbe of Singh Homes that we deny the
63 1 Petitioners's request given the fact that 2 the Petitioner has not established practical 3 difficulty and given that the sign is fairly 4 large for Meadowbrook Road and distracting 5 to those people. It is overshadowing to the 6 neighbors who reside in the Homeowners 7 Association. And that approving this 8 variance would not be in the spirit of the 9 Ordinance and allow substantial justice to 10 the homeowners of Willowbrook Farms. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Second the motion. 12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion 13 by Member Fischer and a second by Member 14 Bauer. 15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I might add 16 one more finding that the Board also found 17 that the Ten Mile sign was sufficient as 18 well. 19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: That's been 20 added and approved. I would like to ask if 21 you would be open to adding as a possibility 22 an amendment. I know that you alluded to 23 not being fair to those living in the 24 subdivision. Could we say something like
64 1 those living in Phases I, II and III that 2 may incur additional traffic and increase 3 safety concerns with people driving through 4 the subdivision? 5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would 6 agree to that as a finding of this Board. 7 MEMBER BAUER: Agreed. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any further 9 discussion? Please call the roll. 10 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer? 11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 12 MS. WORKING: Motion to deny. 13 Member Bauer? 14 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 15 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 17 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 19 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 20 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 21 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 23 MS. WORKING: Motion to deny passes 24 6-0.
65 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Sir, your 2 request was denied. 3 The next request is case number: 07 4 -- that one has been postponed to February. 5 6 So we'll move up to case number: 7 07-098. Member Wrobel will be rejoining us. 8 Which is filed by William Hass of 9 Thompson-Phelan Group, Incorporated for 10 Lotus Bank located at 44350 Twelve Mile 11 Road. 12 William Hass of Thompson-Phelan Group, 13 Incorporated representing Lotus Bank is 14 requesting one 25.6 square foot illuminated 15 wall sign variance for the placement of a -- 16 it says 14" by 22" east elevation logo wall 17 sign for the Lotus Bank located at said 18 address. I believe that's supposed to be 19 14' by 22' and is zoned OS-1 and located 20 north of Twelve Mile Road and east of Dixon 21 Road. 22 Before we move forward with that I do 23 want to point out to the City and ask our 24 attorney. This was advertised both in the
66 1 written form and in our paper, the Novi News 2 as being 14" and 22". Does that create a 3 problem with us moving forward with this 4 case this evening? 5 MS. KUDLA: I believe it does create a 6 problem because it's a question of a bigger 7 sign. If it was a question of a smaller 8 sign, a smaller sign that was actually being 9 requested I don't think it would be a 10 problem. 11 MS. WORKING: But it's also requesting 12 a 25.6 square foot illuminated wall sign. 13 Does that not indicate that the 14" to 22" 14 was just a clerical typographical error and 15 the Board could move consider a 25.6 square 16 foot sign? 17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We're prepared 18 to move forward this evening. But I want to 19 make sure that we're okay with the City 20 Attorney's office. 21 MS. KUDLA: Given that additional 22 statement there. 23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It appears 24 that the notice went out with inches as well
67 1 to the -- 2 MS. KUDLA: There is a total overall 3 square footage clarification there, so I 4 think that would be -- 5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: In the letters 6 to the surrounding community as well? 7 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: All right. It 9 looks like we can move forward. 10 MR. FOUNTAIN: I would like to advise 11 the Board that I'm not an attorney and would 12 take your oath. 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please state 14 your name and address and be sworn in. 15 MR. FOUNTAIN: John Fountain, 9834 16 Dixie Highway, Anchorville, Michigan. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand. 18 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth 19 regarding case: 07-098? 20 MR. FOUNTAIN: Yes, sir, I do. 21 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 22 MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you for hearing 23 our Petition for a variance from the sign 24 ordinance at the Lotus Bank project which is
68 1 located at Twelve Mile and Dixon Road 2 approximately. We have a unique condition 3 at our site where our building is on a major 4 thoroughfare and also we share the corner 5 with a natural beauty road which is Dixon 6 Road. 7 We have worked with the City Planning 8 Department, City Engineering to maintain the 9 characteristic of the natural beauty road of 10 Dixon and we're on a major traffic artery of 11 Twelve Mile. 12 The Zoning Ordinance does permit in this 13 zoning district for a commercial zoning 14 building to be permitted two signs. One on 15 each thoroughfare. And that would be Twelve 16 Mile and it would also be Dixon Road. 17 Our finding here is that our elevation 18 that faces Dixon Road is the natural beauty 19 road elevation and also faces a residential 20 zoning RA. We would like to respect that 21 and not to throw our illuminated sign out 22 towards the residential area. 23 So, we're before you tonight to ask 24 for permission via this variance to locate
69 1 the sign that is permitted on the west 2 elevation and move that sign to the east 3 elevation as is on the rendering that you 4 see in front of you. We have fastened a 5 banner to the building to give you an 6 indication of this ahead of time so you 7 would have the opportunity to drive by and 8 take a look at it for yourself. The size of 9 the sign is within the restrictions of the 10 Ordinance and we seek to move the sign from 11 the west elevation to the east elevation 12 with your permission. Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. This 14 is a public hearing, is there anyone in the 15 audience who cares to speak on this matter? 16 Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. 17 It's my understanding that we have no 18 correspondence? 19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct, 20 Mr. Chair. In this case as always Robin 21 amazes me, there were 440 notices mailed 22 with zero approvals and zero objections. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay, thank you. 24 MS. WORKING: Did you read into the
70 1 record how many were returned? 2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: With 155 3 mails returned. 4 MS. WORKING: Yes, I did, Mr. Chair. 5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Any 6 comments from the City or Counsel? 7 MR. AMOLSCH: No comments, sir. 8 MS. KUDLA: No. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Moving on to the 10 Board. Member Sanghvi? 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. 12 Chairman. From my perspective it makes 13 really a great deal of sense to have these 14 on the east elevation than the west. You 15 don't want flashing lights in front of the 16 people's bedrooms. That is not a kind thing 17 to do and it is a friendly thing to do what 18 you are suggesting. I have really no 19 problem supporting your variance. Thank 20 you. 21 MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you. 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you, 23 Member Sanghvi. Member Wrobel? 24 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
71 1 Having seen this project before in the 2 Planning Commission, first off, again, thank 3 you for relocating to Novi. It's a good 4 asset to the City. The building was done 5 tastefully. The signs are not obnoxious in 6 size. They are very small for a building 7 that size. I gave no issue whatsoever with 8 allowing the sign to go on the eastern side. 9 MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you for your 10 support. 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Fischer? 12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 13 Mr. Chair. I too would welcome you to the 14 city -- well, in this office anyway. And I 15 think it looks great as well. I wish I could 16 have been part of the planning so far. It's 17 going to be an illuminated sign, is that 18 what I'm reading? 19 MR. FOUNTAIN: Yes, the logo sign, the 20 logo portion of the sign has light coming 21 through the face of it as well as behind it. 22 The letters "Lotus Bank" are affixed to the 23 building and have an interior source of 24 illumination that is flooding the light on
72 1 the surface of the building so that the 2 letters are contrast and not illuminated 3 itself. 4 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Will it be 5 illuminated 24/7, is that the intent? 6 MR. FOUNTAIN: I believe that's the 7 intent. 8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. I 9 was a little concerned about the 24/7, but 10 given the description of how it's lighting, 11 I don't think it's going to be any affect on 12 any surrounding areas, so I am willing to 13 support as well. 14 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 15 MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Sir, could you 17 put a copy on the overhead. Perhaps the 18 sign so the audience can see it. 19 MR. FOUNTAIN: Give me just a moment 20 to get this situated. I think we need a 21 little help. 22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: On the 23 right corner if you push that black button 24 on the left hand side it should zoom out.
73 1 MR. FOUNTAIN: There we go. 2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I guess that's 3 the best focus we can get. Point out where 4 the two signs are. 5 MR. FOUNTAIN: This elevation is the 6 Twelve Mile Road elevation which faces 7 south. And this elevation is the main entry 8 of the bank which faces east to the Lotus 9 One District that we adjoined. 10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 11 Member Bauer? 12 MEMBER BAUER: On your plans and 13 drawings you show a monument sign. 14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: At the corner. 15 MEMBER BAUER: At the corner. 16 MR. FOUNTAIN: We are permitted only 17 one sign, one or the other. We will not 18 have a monument sign. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Okay, thank you. 20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Any 21 other comments? 22 I would like to say it's a true 23 pleasure to have an Applicant in front of us 24 not asking for something beyond what the
74 1 City Ordinance requires or the minimum, I 2 should say maximum. And also someone that 3 has taken the neighborhood in consideration. 4 So, I too welcome you aboard and I would 5 fully support a motion in approval of this. 6 MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you. We 7 appreciate your support. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Krieger? 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Therefore, in case 10 number: 07-098 filed by William Hass of 11 Thompson-Phelan Group, Inc., for Lotus Bank 12 located at 44350 Twelve Mile Road, I move 13 that we grant the Petitioner's request for a 14 25.6 square foot illuminated wall sign 15 variance. He has shown his uniqueness that 16 they have a corner that they will be taking 17 into consideration the natural beauty road 18 and in regards to the elevations and 19 everything. 20 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would 21 second that motion. 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion 23 by Member Krieger and a second by Member 24 Fischer. Any further comment? Please call
75 1 the roll. 2 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 4 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 6 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 7 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 8 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 10 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 11 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 12 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 14 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 15 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 16 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0. 17 MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you. On behalf 18 of Lotus Bank I want to thank you for your 19 support. 20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 21 22 Our next case is case number: 23 07-028 filed by William Condon for 1411 West 24 Lake Drive. Mr. Condon is requesting a
76 1 three side yard setback variances and one 2 total lot coverage variance for construction 3 of a new home in the J.W. Hawthorne 4 Subdivision located at said address. The 5 property is zoned R-4 and located south of 6 Pontiac Trail and east of West Lake Drive. 7 I see the Applicant is here. Please 8 come to the podium. State your name and 9 address and be sworn in by our Secretary if 10 you are not an attorney. 11 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, if we could 12 before Mr. Condon is sworn in. If you will, 13 Members of the Board, look in your meeting 14 file packet, there was an approval/objection 15 letter that was filed in the Singh Homes and 16 it's really for case number: 07-028, 1411 17 West Lake. If you take the time to transfer 18 that now so when you get to that part of the 19 hearing you'll have it for reference. I 20 appreciate your support. Thank you. 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 22 MR. CONDON: Hello, my name is Michael 23 Condon. Address, 45694 Marlborough Place in 24 Novi, Michigan. I am the owner of 1411 West
77 1 Lake Drive. 2 MEMBER BAUER: Would you raise your 3 right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm 4 to tell the truth regarding case number: 5 07-028? 6 MR. CONDON: Yes, I do. 7 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please present 9 your case. 10 MR. CONDON: As this lot is on Walled 11 Lake in the City of Novi and as some of 12 these lake lots go, there is a bit of 13 history and some uniqueness to this, okay. 14 I have lived on the lake for 11 years 15 and wanted to build another house on the 16 lake because after a divorce the house ended 17 up going with my children's mother. And so 18 several years ago I found this lot for sale, 19 it was kind of a crazy lot. I knew it had 20 some unique challenges so I came up and at 21 that point I purchased this in early '05. I 22 met with Don Saven at that point and I said, 23 hey, what is this lot? Is it buildable? He 24 went through a lot of paperwork for me which
78 1 I presume is in the packet or at least an 2 explanation of it. And he told me, yes, 3 this is a buildable lot and this probably 4 realistically what would probably be 5 allowed, but there is no promises. It 6 depends on whether the ZBA gives final 7 approval. 8 Having lived on the lake 14 years, I 9 kind of know what's reasonable and 10 everything. So, anyway, I met with him. I 11 purchased the thing three years ago. 12 Earlier this year I came up and met with the 13 Building Department again and said, hey, I 14 am finally going to get going ahead, is this 15 thing still in line and I kind of followed 16 those guidelines once again with no 17 promises, I understand. 18 As these lake lots go, they are kind 19 of challenging. I met with three 20 architects. I hired three different 21 architects to come up with something and 22 then I finally went with the best overall 23 design and that has gotten us here. I think 24 you all have the plot plan in your packet,
79 1 but just to point out a couple of points on 2 it, if you will. This one here I have put 3 it up on the thing. 4 In meeting with the architect, 5 and I did go talk to the neighbors before I 6 met with the architect. The adjacent 7 neighbors. This lot immediately to the 8 north here and immediately to the south, 9 these having the greatest two impacts and I 10 went and told them what I was looking at 11 doing and they said they were fine and could 12 live with it. So I went ahead, the 13 architect came up with this design. 14 I have since met with all residents 15 that had adjacent properties. There are 16 these two and then across the road here 17 there is another house, one house here that 18 would be affected that I have met with them. 19 The other gentleman or household I should 20 say here, it really doesn't affect him that 21 much. I went to their door three different 22 times, never got a response. Finally left 23 them a note and said please call me. I am 24 the owner of 1411. I would like to explain
80 1 what I am requesting. 2 In meeting with these two, I have got 3 approval letters from them. I think one was 4 mailed in directly from the Bowles to the 5 north. The other I have directly to the 6 south here. And then across the road there 7 is one here also. And then another neighbor 8 to the north two houses here. Everybody 9 seemed fine with it. All the letters are 10 approved. Where do these go? 11 MS. WORKING: I did not receive them. 12 MR. CONDON: When I went and explained 13 what was being done I didn't -- did they 14 have to mail them into you? 15 MS. WORKING: No, not necessarily. I 16 just don't want to replicate something. 17 MR. CONDON: Yes, those are the ones 18 you didn't -- those people just gave them to 19 me directly. 20 MS. WORKING: Okay. 21 MR. CONDON: Just to explain some of 22 the reasons to try to make sense on some of 23 the home work that was done, what we did, 24 and I think there are some tradeoffs in
81 1 building on these lake lots. And what we 2 did is in asking for the side yard setbacks, 3 yeah, we could have not asked for side yard 4 setbacks, but then for every foot we didn't 5 ask for it made the house longer this way. 6 And obviously we didn't want to take away 7 from the views of either of the neighbors, 8 okay. Yes, we have an open space here and 9 we left that a little bit open. There is a 10 telephone pole right in here with wires 11 running to this house right here so we 12 wanted it kind of tucked back from that. 13 Having lived only the lake for 13 14 years, I guess I wanted to go with the type 15 of house and the storage and the garage and 16 everything, because I know one of the 17 variances was the lot coverage was over by 18 two percent. But, I have never had -- I 19 have never stored stuff outside. I would 20 like to keep it clean and in the garage. 21 And even though the property line here shows 22 that it is set back, if you will, the road 23 really runs straight, but the city road 24 right-of-way.
82 1 Now, the good news is even though I'm 2 five foot off the property line, I am still 3 23 foot from the neighbor's garage wall here 4 if you will. It's just a straight garage 5 wall and I am really 39 foot from their 6 living space on this side and 48 foot from 7 their living space on this side. So what I 8 really did is went ahead and said, okay, 9 there is this city stub street here or a 10 vacant lot or whatever, I am really not 11 going to be interfering with anybody over 12 there, if you will. The tradeoff of, okay, 13 I can narrow it up, but then I would go out 14 further and it's going to take away from the 15 lake view. So, I really think I came up 16 with the best design for the lot. I spent 17 some time. I am planning on dying in this 18 house. So I tried to put some time in it to 19 do it right. 20 I think that tries to explain 21 everything how we got here. I am willing to 22 take any questions that you may discuss. I 23 appreciate your approval and I promise to 24 build a nice house.
83 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 2 Stick around, I am sure there will be 3 questions. 4 This is a public hearing. Is there 5 anyone in the audience who cares to speak on 6 this matter? Seeing none, we'll close the 7 public hearing and ask if there is any 8 correspondence? 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes, Mr. 10 Chair. In this case I'm not certain how many 11 notices -- it might have gotten erased -- 12 that were mailed, but there were two 13 approvals and one objection and then three 14 approvals which were handed in to us 15 tonight. 16 James and Ann Bowles of 1405 West 17 Lake Drive: Mr. Condon has asked us to 18 write this letter in support of requested 19 variances. His lot is immediately to the 20 south of our home and adjacent to our 21 property. He has discussed the plans with 22 us and we have reviewed the variances and 23 believe it's reasonable considering the size 24 and configuration of said lot.
84 1 Tim Richardson 1311 West Lake Drive 2 says: I approve if the immediate neighbors 3 to the north and south also approve of this 4 project. 5 And continuing with the approvals, the 6 ones handed in tonight. 7 Hurts Vanshiger (ph) of 1419 West Lake 8 Drive approves. 9 James Wood, III, of 1418 West Lake 10 Drive approves. 11 John Harvey of 1321 West Lake Drive 12 approves. 13 And now to the objection letter from 14 Daniel and Diane Tonus (ph) of 117 Rexton 15 states an objection. Says: That would be, 16 no. When is enough going to be enough? He 17 should be happy with the land that it's 18 currently built on. We have been here over 19 30 years. Out my window I have a great view 20 of the lake until now. 21 I'm sorry, is there an original to 22 this, Robin? This one has been cut off with 23 the copy. 24 MS. WORKING: That was the one that
85 1 arrived late this afternoon via fax and 2 apparently it got sorted into a different 3 file. 4 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'll 5 continue to go through it, but -- 6 MS. WORKING: The first time I've seen 7 it was tonight when I heard Chairman Shroyer 8 mention it. So I am not honestly sure. I 9 would have to re-examine it and find out 10 what happened to the original. 11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. I 12 will just struggle through with it if the 13 Board will oblige me. 14 For approximately 100 years. I have 15 really enjoyed the lake lot they can build 16 on until around five years ago City 17 officials decided to switch pieces of 18 property around and everyone voted no on. 19 Now the property is deemed ready to build 20 on -- he is referring to the previous case 21 with Jeff Sobolesky (ph) got the first 22 variance. He should be more than grateful 23 for what he has. The officials they need to 24 care about the people around this lake that
86 1 has helped keep it such a nice place to live 2 at this time than it used to be. Maybe some 3 of the officials could come and take a visit 4 to look at his property and make an offer. 5 And he states several objections with the 6 City of Novi at this point. 7 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The full letter 9 is on file? 10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct. 11 And we did receive it in our packet. 12 MS. WORKING: It may be the original 13 because it arrived via fax. I see the fax 14 scroll across the top, so it's highly 15 possible. Is there a red date stamp on that 16 letter? 17 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes. 18 MS. WORKING: That is the original. 19 So, it is what it is by virtue of the fax 20 machine sending and receiving it. 21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: All I'm 22 saying is that we did receive it in our 23 meeting file tonight. 24 MS. WORKING: Yes, you did.
87 1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If the 2 Board Members want to review it they can try 3 to do a better job reading it than I did. 4 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Any 6 comments from the City or Counsel? 7 MS. KUDLA: No. 8 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I'll turn it 10 over to the Board. Member Bauer? 11 MEMBER BAUER: I have one question. 12 Under both sides setback 25 feet. Proposed 13 side yard setback zero. It should be 10 14 feet? The variance request is 15. 15 MR. FOX: Yes. I believe it's just a 16 typo. 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 18 MEMBER BAUER: Do we have to do 19 anything about that? 20 MS. WORKING: I think if we did the 21 math 25 minus 10 would equal 15 as the 22 variance request. 23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The 15 is 24 still what's being requested, so I don't see
88 1 an issue. 2 MR. FOX: The variance request itself 3 was correct. 4 MS. KUDLA: There is no legal issue. 5 You can proceed. 6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 7 Further comments? Member Fischer? 8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What is the 9 square footage of the house that's being 10 proposed? 11 MR. CONDON: 3,000 roughly. 12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: 13 (Unintelligible). 14 MR. CONDON: The square footage of the 15 house being proposed is, ended up somewhere 16 between 3,000 and 3,300 square foot. I do 17 have it here. Bear with me. Somewhere 18 between 3,000 and 3,300. I know that is a 19 bit of a variance but we started -- 20 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I was 21 looking for an estimate. That's more than 22 appropriate for an answer. 23 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer, the 24 Applicant did submit that to me in writing.
89 1 You will find to left of the file I taped it 2 underneath the map, so flip back a couple of 3 pages to the left side of the file. 4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: While he is 5 looking for that. Sir, could you put up the 6 drawing of the house for our audience to 7 view as well? 8 MS. WORKING: Is there a handwritten 9 note that he submitted? 10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Building 11 2282 square feet. Parcel 8346 square feet. 12 That's how he got to 27 percent lot 13 coverage? 14 MS. WORKING: Yes. 15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. 16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: 2282. 17 MS. WORKING: Does that answer your 18 question? 19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes, thank 20 you. 21 To the City can you speak to parcel C at 22 all, do you have any backyard? 23 MR. FOX: I don't know too much about 24 the parcel split that was originally done
90 1 here. I believe that parcel B and C and 2 actually parts of parcel A were all one lot 3 at one time and then were split into 4 multiple parcels. It was all I believe a 5 lake access lot at one time. It is now just 6 parcel C is the lake access lot that is 7 left. Just a strip of land left there. 8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Does the 9 City own that then? 10 MR. FOX: I do not know who owns it or 11 who did own it at the time of all the 12 splits. I didn't research that. So I don't 13 know the answer to that. 14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: If you had 15 to guess who owned it -- 16 MS. WORKING: Members of the Board, I 17 will draw your attention to the submission 18 in the packet of the City Council minutes 19 from November 18, 1996, page 14 continuing 20 on to page 15. I believe it's addressed 21 there saying that in return Mr. Sobolesky 22 (ph) would have executed deed conveying the 23 20 foot strip to the City to resolve the 24 underlining dispute over the title to that
91 1 property. And it goes on further to talk 2 about that lake access part of the lot. 3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct. 4 Has there been any changes since 1996? 5 MS. WORKING: If there were any they 6 weren't accessible through the document 7 files that we were able to search. 8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, 9 according to the City the best knowledge 10 that we have is -- 11 MS. WORKING: This is what we came up 12 with, right. 13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: -- of who 14 owns the property. 15 MS. WORKING: Correct. 16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. I 17 just wanted to make sure that was still the 18 case, nothing else had come up. 19 I was a little concerned like Member 20 Bauer when I saw the zero feet, but since 21 that has been addressed I am fine with that. 22 This doesn't seem to be an overbuilding of 23 the lot. I think you have done a wonderful 24 job and I definitely applaud you in doing
92 1 the right thing in talking with your 2 neighbors first. I think that's one of the 3 important things and getting their 4 (unintelligible). 5 Another big concern of mine on 6 these lake lots, which is interesting 7 because I was just thinking the other day 8 that we haven't had a lake lot in a while 9 which was actually nice, but -- 10 MS. WORKING: Be careful what you wish 11 for. 12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It looks 13 like I was penalized for that. Taking into 14 consideration the view of other people. I 15 think that's one of the most important 16 things I look at on these lots. I don't 17 think when people try to block it using 18 their homes. I think you have taken all of 19 the considerations of myself and your 20 neighbors and I applaud you for that. I wish 21 you the best of luck with this. I will be 22 supporting. 23 MR. CONDON: Thank you for your 24 support.
93 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 2 Further comments? 3 I will echo the comments of Member 4 Fischer and I will go ahead and make a 5 motion. 6 I move that we grant the variance in 7 case number: 07-028 sought by Michael 8 Condon. The Petitioner has established 9 practical difficulty. The Petitioner has 10 established the compliance with the strict 11 letter of the restriction of the Ordinance 12 which would unreasonably prevent the use of 13 the property that would be unnecessarily 14 burdensome because it would prevent the 15 Petitioner from building a reasonably sized 16 residence comparable to others on the 17 street. 18 Petitioner has established unique 19 circumstances regarding the narrowness and 20 the shape of the subject property because of 21 the lot layout. The Petitioner has 22 established that the proposed use 23 improvements would not be a detriment to the 24 public safety and welfare because it has
94 1 maintained adequate setbacks to assure 2 safety concerns on that. 3 Petitioner has established that the 4 use improvement will not impair an adequate 5 supply of light and air to adjacent 6 properties and will not unreasonably impair 7 or diminish established property values 8 within the surrounding area based on the 9 submitted drawings and lot layout. 10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Second. 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion 12 by Member -- 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Shroyer. 14 MS. WORKING: Shroyer. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I forgot my 16 name. And seconded by Member Fischer. 17 Further comments or discussions? 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Proceed. 19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Proceed. Please 20 read the roll. 21 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 23 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer? 24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye.
95 1 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 3 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 4 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 5 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 6 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 7 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 10 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 11 MS. WORKING: Motion to approve passes 12 7-0. 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: With the Chair's 14 motion, typically after about an hour and a 15 half of meeting we like to take a short 16 break, so we will adjourn for ten minutes 17 and come back to complete the evening. Thank 18 you. 19 (A recess was held.) 20 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: 22 We are going to move ahead, we will call the 23 meeting back to order and move on to our 24 next case which is case number: 07-099
96 1 filed by Marc O'Rourke of Pointe Park 2 Condominiums, LLC, for 30662 Ardmore. 3 Marc O'Rourke of Pointe Park 4 Condominiums, LLC, is requesting one 54 5 square foot construction identification sign 6 renewal for the continued placement of a 6 7 foot by 9 foot ground sign located at said 8 address. The property is zoned RM-1 and 9 located east of Beck Road and east of Dixon 10 Road. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: That is not correct. 12 That is south of Pontiac Trail. 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes, it is. 14 It's east of Beck Road and south of Pontiac 15 Trail. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Fischer? 18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 19 Mr. Chair. I am a homeowner in this 20 Association and it is one of the smaller 21 ones in Novi with 52 units so it's kind of a 22 smaller close-knit relationship that I have 23 with the Association and the Board. I would 24 request that the Board make a motion to
97 1 recuse myself. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: So moved. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We do have a 5 motion and a second. Motion by Member 6 Sanghvi. A second by Member Bauer to 7 approve of the recusal of Member Fischer. 8 Please call the roll. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 11 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 12 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 13 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 14 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 15 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 17 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 19 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 20 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 21 MS. WORKING: Motion to recuse 22 Vice-Chair Fischer approved. 23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Sir, before we
98 1 move forward. If we do not have a full 2 voting Board here you have the option of 3 selecting whether or not you want to have 4 the activity tabled to another month. 5 Obviously with him being a homeowner, every 6 month that he is on the Board it would 7 continue. 8 MR. O'ROURKE: Yeah, hopefully I won't 9 have to come back here twelve times. 10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: So I assume you 11 want to move forward? 12 MR. O'ROURKE: Please. 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please state 14 your name, address and if you are not an 15 attorney be sworn in by our Secretary. 16 MR. O'ROURKE: Marc O'Rourke of Pointe 17 Park Condominiums, 40440 Grand River, Suite 18 E, Novi, Michigan. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand. 20 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth 21 regarding case: 07-099? 22 MR. O'ROURKE: I do. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. Go 24 ahead.
99 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please state 2 your case. 3 MR. O'ROURKE: Pointe Park 4 Condominiums is as Mr. Fischer noted, it's a 5 52 unit condo complex. We are almost done 6 with the project. We still maintain a model 7 on-site and the nature of the layout of the 8 community is that we have a 60 foot 9 right-of-way access easement to Beck Road. 10 So the visibility of the project to the 11 drive-by traffic is pretty much limited to 12 the entrance sign. We track the traffic 13 that we get diligently in all of our 14 communities and this site, internet traffic, 15 advertising, real estate book, Home and 16 Land, all the site activity combined, 60 17 percent of the traffic comes from drive-by 18 signage, so this is our main source of 19 activity to attract purchasers and residents 20 to the community. 21 We also feel that there aren't too 22 many other resale units in the complex, but 23 from time to time there are. This actually 24 helps to identify those resale customers.
100 1 We will see a little bit of traffic from our 2 sign being available on the entrance. So, 3 we ask that you approve it basically because 4 this is our primary source of business to 5 close out the remainder of this project. We 6 would certainly consider limiting a 7 timeframe too, because we hope that it's not 8 going to drag on. But we would like to keep 9 it as our main source of obtaining the 10 traffic. 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. This 12 is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the 13 audience who cares to comment? Please come 14 forward. State your name and address. If 15 you are not an attorney please be sworn in. 16 My name is Carol Klausing (ph). I 17 live at 30704 Ardmore Court in Pointe Park 18 Condominiums and I am president of the 19 Pointe Park Condominium Association. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand. 21 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth 22 regarding case: 07-099? 23 MS. KLAUSING: Yes, I do. 24 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.
101 1 MS. KLAUSING: I would like to express 2 an objection to having this sign continued. 3 The first question I have is the sign that's 4 out there right now, if I can place this on 5 there. According to the Ordinance, the 6 Ordinance is for a construction sign. This 7 doesn't have anything to do with 8 construction. This is obviously a marketing 9 sign. It is 6 feet by 9 feet as the size of 10 the sign. But there is also a portion on 11 the bottom, "Models for sale," that is an 12 additional two and a half feet in addition 13 to the 54 feet that's allowed. So, my 14 question is, this not being a construction 15 sign, is it still included in the Ordinance? 16 We see this as a marketing sign. It 17 was erected at least a year ago. I'm not 18 sure of the exact date. I know that wasn't 19 up there too much before that year ago. The 20 other sign was this one, you can't read 21 what's on it in this case, but that was the 22 original sign. I am sure that's in your 23 packet also. 24 MS. WORKING: It is in your packets,
102 1 Members of the Board. 2 MS. KLAUSING: My question is again 3 is, did the developer have a permit to 4 change from one sign to the other, from one 5 sign to the other if the other was a 6 construction sign and this is a for sale 7 sign? There are, like I mentioned, the 8 bottom of the sign there is an additional 9 two and a half feet. The sign has a couple 10 of pieces sticking out of the side. That's 11 just additional square footage to the sign. 12 They also have pennant. I have seen 13 as many as two or three in the past. Right 14 now there is a pennant. You can see it 15 right here. It's a flag flying. It says 16 "Open." That's flying today. I don't know 17 if those are included in the signage. 18 Also, in that same vein, the pennant 19 sign is stuck in a hollow pipe in the 20 ground. There is one there where that one 21 is stuck in. There is one over here and 22 there is another one north of Ardmore Court. 23 Two of the three are not being used. I feel 24 that they are hazardous to landscaping
103 1 equipment and I don't know why they are 2 still there if they are not being used. I 3 would like it to be whether the sign is 4 approved or not approved, I would like those 5 stakes removed so that they are not a hazard 6 any more. 7 According to the 8 Ordinance that you listed, the structure 9 identification is to be valid until the 10 issuance of the first certificate of 11 occupancy. The first C of O was issued on 12 July 15th, 2003. We are currently at 94 13 percent occupied units that are sold and 14 occupied. That's 49 out of the 52 units. 15 And the last unit that was completed and 16 sold was approximately December of 2006. 17 The objections that we have to the 18 sign, coming from the south heading north on 19 Beck Road you can't see the sign for the 20 street Ardmore Court. It's blocked by this 21 sign. I have told many people, turn right on 22 Ardmore Court and they call me and say, 23 where is Ardmore Court? So now I have to 24 say, well, where the big green sign is. The
104 1 sign partially blocks your view when you are 2 exiting Ardmore Court onto Beck Road turning 3 to the south. There are no lights on the 4 sign. It's not visible a night so it's 5 really doing nothing for any sales traffic 6 in the evenings. Which I would think that a 7 lot of people would look for the sign in the 8 evenings after work on the way home from 9 work. 10 There are three units 11 left for sale. They are shown by 12 appointment only. There is no sales office 13 located within the complex. They sold that 14 sales office and the new homeowner moved in, 15 I believe it was in November. So we feel 16 that he can use the realtor as the other 17 homeowners, we have had three homeowners put 18 their units up for sale personally. One has 19 sold. They have used realtors. I'm sorry, 20 we have had four units go up for sale 21 personally and two have been sold and two 22 are still available. 23 We also feel that this is 24 aesthetically not pleasing to our
105 1 Association. The whole complex on Beck Road 2 is a light industrial beautifully 3 maintained, very impressive light 4 industrial, signage, everything is great. 5 One last item I would just like to 6 mention is when you enter Ardmore Court. I 7 don't know if you are familiar, if you have 8 driven into Ardmore Court. The sign is way 9 down here at the bottom. I can't put the 10 whole thing on at one time here. The sign 11 is down here. When you drive up Ardmore 12 Court there are signs along the road. Eight 13 in total. They measure 22 by 32 and each 14 one of these signs has a different saying on 15 it, "Welcome to Pointe Park." The next one 16 says "Award Winning Walled Lake Schools," 17 and on the opposite side, "Four Acre Nature 18 Preserve." And they say different things. 19 Three of these signs say "Sales Center" with 20 an arrow pointing down the road. There is 21 no sales center. 22 So, those are my objections as 23 president of the Association. 24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. You
106 1 were speaking for the entire Association on 2 behalf of? 3 MS. KLAUSING: I am speaking as the 4 president. 5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Is 6 there anyone else in the audience who cares 7 to speak? Please come forward. State your 8 name and address. 9 MS. HIDERMANWINSOR (ph): My name is 10 Bruragon Hidermanwinsor. My address is 11 30707 Ardmore Court, Novi. I also live in 12 Pointe Park. 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please be sworn 14 in. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear 16 or affirm to tell the truth regarding case: 17 07-099? 18 MS. HIDERMANWINSOR: I do. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 20 MS. HIDERMANWINSOR: Thank you. 21 Without reiterating what Carol Klausing was 22 saying is I also feel -- I want to object to 23 the sign. The sign has been with us for the 24 longest time. We haven't gotten any through
107 1 traffic at all. Granted it's wintertime, 2 but we have -- I have specifically called 3 that number that is on the sign. The sign, 4 this telephone number will redirect you to a 5 different telephone number and then you have 6 to make an appointment to have the model 7 shown. 8 So I don't know what the purpose of 9 the sign really is, except for us as the 10 people that live there it's an eye sore. 11 Thank you very much. 12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 13 Anyone else care to speak? Seeing none, 14 we'll close the public hearing. And ask the 15 Applicant if he cares to comment on any of 16 the previous speakers' comments? 17 MR. O'ROURKE: I just wanted to add 18 that we do have the model there. We have an 19 office with computers, phones and our 20 staffing isn't full time. But we have 21 existing office. That's all I can add. 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Any 23 comments from the City or staff? 24 MR. FOX: No comment, sir.
108 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Counsel? 2 MS. KUDLA: No. 3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Turn it over to 4 the Board. Member Bauer? 5 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair -- 6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Oh, yeah, we 7 have correspondence. 8 MS. WORKING: Right. 9 MEMBER BAUER: There were 81 notices 10 mailed and two objections. Eight mails 11 returned. 12 Objection from Robert Stanzenio (ph): 13 Contractor has failed to correct any 14 building defects. Does not respond to 15 written communication. 16 Candice Kampg: He has over four years 17 to sell 52 condos. It's time for me to live 18 in a nice neighborhood with no construction 19 signs. He can auction off the last few. 20 Also perhaps he would have something -- 21 residents with respect and be happy and 22 allow for sign. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Now 24 we'll turn it over to the Board for
109 1 comments? Member Sanghvi, did have you a 2 comment? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. You have got 4 the white signs all along Ardmore Court. 5 How long have you had them? 6 MR. O'ROURKE: Signs probably since we 7 opened our very first model. They're on our 8 private property, so that are not -- 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Is Ardmore Street a 10 private street? 11 MR. O'ROURKE: Yeah, they are within 12 the community. They are your typical berm 13 shape sign that says, "Brownstones. Welcome 14 to the Community." 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: While we are looking, 16 they appear to be illegal signs. Are they 17 legal signs? 18 MR. AMOLSCH: I am not familiar with 19 the signs that he is talking about -- 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: I was in there 21 yesterday. Whatever is there it's all true, 22 I have seen it with my own eyes. 23 MR. O'ROURKE: If they're not 24 permissible we'll certainly remove them.
110 1 Those are not really a big contentious item 2 from us. 3 MR. AMOLSCH: They're not visible from 4 the right-of-way, we don't go in and look at 5 the signs. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 8 Further comments? Member Bauer? 9 MEMBER BAUER: He has one sign per 10 contract; is that correct? 11 MR. AMOLSCH: I'm sorry, the question 12 was? 13 MEMBER BAUER: He has one sign -- 14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: It's no longer 15 there. 16 MR. O'ROURKE: That's the only sign we 17 currently have, sir. 18 MEMBER BAUER: The size of the sign 19 has been extended to some degree and I don't 20 believe he has ever come to us to ask for it 21 to be done. And I would not go along with 22 asking to be renewed. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 24 Member Wrobel?
111 1 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 2 To the City. A construction identification 3 sign is that different from a sales sign or 4 is it just a sign to us? 5 MR. AMOLSCH: Well, actually to clear 6 this up a little bit for the Board. This 7 sign was originally approved as a 8 subdivision or a site condo business sign 9 because we were under the impression this 10 was a site condo or condo project. It turns 11 out upon review of this recently when we 12 occasionally look at signs to see when they 13 expire and things like that, it came to our 14 attention that it should have been actually 15 a construction identification sign because 16 it wasn't a site condo. So that's why we 17 put this language in here of what he needs 18 approval of because actually it's a 19 construction identification sign. 20 Construction identification signs 21 generally have name of contractor, 22 developers and whatever information they 23 want on it. They certainly always include 24 real estate information, leasing
112 1 information, things like that. We don't 2 object to that. But that's why it was 3 approved as one sign but it's actually 4 another. And the removal of a construction 5 identification sign under the old Ordinance 6 was allowed to be the last certificate of 7 occupancy is now the first certificate of 8 occupancy, so that's why there is a little 9 discrepancy here as to what kind of a sign 10 it is. 11 MR. WROBEL: Looking at the picture 12 from what the sign was to what it is now, 13 obviously they are two completely different, 14 different things. Personally, the second 15 sign is hideous to me. And I know we are 16 not concerned with the content of signs as 17 much as sizes and locations, etcetera, but I 18 find the second sign totally offensive if I 19 was a resident there. 20 Based on the number of units that are 21 left and the comments I have heard from both 22 parties, both the Plaintiff and the people 23 commenting on the public hearing, I could 24 not support the extension of the sign.
113 1 Thank you. 2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you, 3 Member Wrobel. 4 This side of the table. Member 5 Krieger? 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: I agree. 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: She agrees. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Go ahead with your 9 comments. 10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You want me to 11 go ahead, all right. Several of my 12 questions were answered already. But I do 13 have a question for Mr. Amolsch. I keep 14 wanting to put this under Section 2862 under 15 the Subdivision Business Sign which 16 advertises subdivisions under development. 17 Is it no longer in that because it's 18 exceeded the capacity the C of Os? 19 MR. AMOLSCH: No, actually it was a 20 result of us approving the sign as a 21 different sign. It was approved as a site 22 condo business sign, but it actually should 23 have been approved as a construction sign 24 because it has different timelines might
114 1 have to have been removed. It was initial 2 error on our part because when it came in 3 all documentation said condos and it turns 4 out they were actually townhouses. 5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The C of O as 6 one of our speakers indicated was in 2003 7 then we are several years behind that. 8 MR. AMOLSCH: Correct. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The comment was 10 made about resale of the condominiums and 11 the sign. That is not one of our concerns. 12 That's out of our bailiwick. So we can't 13 worry about that. I myself was there, in 14 fact, today and did notice the sales office 15 signs as well. I tried to find the sales 16 office to talk to someone because I thought 17 I might be interested in the possibility of 18 one of the units. I couldn't find the 19 office. I drove all the way around the 20 entire unit and I couldn't find anything 21 that was identifying as an office, but that 22 doesn't have anything to do with that 23 either. And the berm signs are different 24 and that's not part of us this evening
115 1 either. 2 Another question for the City. With 3 this being so far off the road if the 4 Association wanted to have a permanent sign 5 would they be able to put say a monument 6 sign out on Beck Road? 7 MR. AMOLSCH: There is a monument sign 8 there. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Oh, that's 10 right, there is. (Unintelligible). 11 Short-term memory since I was there today. 12 MEMBER WROBEL: It happens when you 13 get old. 14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: That's right. 15 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I believe that's 17 all the questions that I have. I can't 18 support it either. I don't see a practical 19 difficulty with only three units left to 20 sell. And I assume that includes the model? 21 MR. O'ROURKE: Right. 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: If other houses 23 have sold through realtors, since it's 24 substantially beyond the limitation date, I
116 1 can't support the continuation of this. 2 Any other comments? Member 3 Sanghvi? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: If nobody has any 5 more comments I would like to make a motion. 6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please do. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: In case number: 8 07-099 we deny the request of the Applicant. 9 The Applicant has failed to demonstrate any 10 great hardship -- 11 MEMBER BAUER: Turn on your mike. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Oh, I beg your 13 pardon. I will start all over again. 14 Case number: 07-099 we deny the 15 request of the Applicant for the continued 16 presence of this "construction 17 identification sign," because the Applicant 18 has failed to demonstrate hardship. Thank 19 you. 20 MEMBER WROBEL: Second. 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion 22 by Member Sanghvi and a second by Member 23 Wrobel. 24 Any further comments?
117 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Question? 2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Krieger? 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: Shouldn't that be 4 practical difficulty? 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: It is always a 6 practical difficulty. 7 MS. KUDLA: Actually the section for 8 appeals under signs it doesn't specifically 9 state practical difficulty but it's a 10 similar standard, similar issues that you 11 are looking at. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: If you want to use 13 practical difficulty it's fine with me. 14 It's all semantics. Whatever the legal 15 semantics, whatever you want that's fine 16 with me. 17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We're okay with 18 the way it is. 19 Any further comments or questions? 20 Please call the roll. 21 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 23 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 24 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes.
118 1 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 2 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 3 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 4 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 5 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 7 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 9 MS. WORKING: Motion to deny passes 10 6-0. 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Sir, your 12 request has been denied. 13 Yes, ma'am? 14 MS. KLAUSING: I would just like to 15 ask about the three metal posts on the 16 ground that are sticking up maybe 8 inches? 17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: That's not under 18 our purview. 19 MS. KLAUSING: That he uses for open 20 flags. 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I understand 22 that. That's not part of the ZBA. Call the 23 City. 24 MR. AMOLSCH: Through the Chair. That
119 1 property is actually in Wixom. Where the 2 flag is located just beyond that sidewalk is 3 where the City of Wixom jurisdiction begins. 4 You need to contact them. 5 MS. KLAUSING: What about the two 6 posts that are in Novi that he is not using 7 now that is hanging out of the ground? 8 MR. AMOLSCH: If they are in our 9 jurisdiction we will look at them. Right 10 beyond that sidewalk there is -- 11 MS. KLAUSING: One is just to the 12 north and one is just to the south. 13 MR. AMOLSCH: I believe they are both 14 in Wixom, but I will check it out. 15 MS. KLAUSING: Okay. Thank you very 16 much. 17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Mr. Amolsch is 18 one of our sign ordinance officers. Thank 19 you. 20 And I see our Vice-chair has returned. 21 Welcome back. 22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you. 23 24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Our next case is
120 1 case number: 07-100 filed by Scott Elliot 2 of CB Richard Ellis for Novi Expo Center 3 located at 43700 Expo Center Drive. 4 They are requesting that the Expo 5 Center be granted a variance for an 80 foot 6 wall sign for a placement of 8 foot by 12 7 foot real estate leasing sign to be located 8 on the building at said address. 9 The property is zoned Expo and is 10 located south of I-96 and west of Novi Road. 11 The Applicant has come forward. 12 Please state your name and address and if 13 you are not an attorney be sworn in. 14 MR. ELLIOT: Scott Elliot, 29741 Fox 15 Club Drive, Farmington Hills, Michigan. I 16 am not an attorney. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm 18 to tell the truth regarding case: 07-100? 19 MR. ELLIOT: Yes, I do. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please state 22 your case. 23 MR. ELLIOT: Yes, I am with CB Richard 24 Ellis Commercial Real Estate Group. We are
121 1 a large commercial real estate firm. We 2 have been hired by the owners of the former 3 Novi Expo Center to handle the marketing of 4 that property and to locate a suitable 5 tenant to occupy the building. So our 6 request this evening is to seek to have an 7 approval to put a sign on the building, an 8 8 by 12 sign that would be visible to the 9 interstate as you drive past. That's one of 10 the prongs of our marketing program we will 11 be doing mailers and fliers and the typical 12 things that commercial realtors do to market 13 buildings. However, we would like to be 14 able to take advantage of any passing 15 traffic at such a prominent location there 16 by having a sign placed on the building. 17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Would you please 18 put a copy of your sign on the overhead for 19 the audience? 20 MR. ELLIOT: Sure. 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We will point 22 out for the audience that the building is 23 not brick. 24 MR. ELLIOT: That is correct.
122 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: So we want to 2 look at the sign and not the building. 3 This is a public hearing. Is there 4 anyone in the audience who cares to make a 5 comment on this case? Seeing none, we'll 6 close the public hearing and ask if there 7 has been any correspondence regarding this? 8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you, 9 Mr. Chair. In this case there are 28 10 notices mailed with zero approvals and zero 11 objections. 12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay. Is there 13 comments from the Counsel or City? Yes? 14 MS. WORKING: Members of the Board, I 15 would like to point out a document in your 16 meeting file that is highlighted for you. I 17 apologize. In your packets this month that 18 reiterates directly from the current sign 19 ordinance, the findings that are required to 20 make a motion based on practical difficulty 21 in a sign case since this is a sign case. 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. It 23 always makes it easier. 24 Turn it over to the ZBA for comments.
123 1 Member Sanghvi? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: No. Mr. Fisher had 3 his hand up first. 4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I'm sorry, Mr. 5 Fischer. Yes, sir? 6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr. 7 Amolsch, didn't the ZBA approve the sign 8 near there that was not on the building at 9 some point? 10 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes. 11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do you 12 remember the square footage of that sign? 13 MR. AMOLSCH: Let me find it for you. 14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I do 15 remember having that case. 16 MR. AMOLSCH: Actually it was 64 17 square feet in area and 7 feet in height. 18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: This one is 19 a little bit larger, but I know the 20 difficulty that the Applicant has had or 21 whoever is representing has had in getting a 22 tenant in there. So I think that the square 23 footage is justified. 24 How long of a variance are you
124 1 requesting? 2 MR. ELLIOT: We are seeking a one year 3 variance. Our term runs from the first of 4 the year until the end of the year, 31st of 5 December. 6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Another 7 comment of mine is the time limit. I think 8 one year would be more than appropriate. 9 So, I know that when you are going down on 10 the off ramp and everything you definitely 11 want to see the building and I can 12 appreciate that and I wish them the best of 13 luck on that and I am willing to support 14 this sign. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 16 Member Sanghvi? 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: I didn't see any 18 mock-up there. I don't know whether you are 19 aware you are supposed to put up a mock-up 20 sign there? 21 MR. ELLIOT: Right. I think this all 22 unfolded fairly quickly and I believe with 23 our office we had notified them that weren't 24 going to put up a mock-up but that we would
125 1 prepare this. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Which wall and where 3 do you plan to put this? 4 MR. ELLIOT: We would like to put it 5 on the wall that is parallel to the 6 interstate that would be a bit east of the 7 Motor Hall of Fame that is there so it 8 delineates that they are still in business 9 and open. But we put it down far enough so 10 it shows that the balance of the building is 11 for lease. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Do you know how tall 13 is that wall? 14 MR. ELLIOT: I would estimate that 15 that wall is -- I don't know exactly, but I 16 would say it's probably about 22 or 23 feet 17 high. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: The reason why I ask 19 you, you want to go 12 feet above the 20 ground? 21 MR. ELLIOT: Right. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Whether you have 23 enough space in between -- 24 MR. ELLIOT: We could always move it
126 1 up a bit higher on the wall. And I don't 2 know whether the wall is that high. We just 3 thought that would be appropriate height. 4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Sir, here is an 5 overhead of the building. If you can put 6 that on the overhead to point out where on 7 the wall you might want to place the sign it 8 might help Member Sanghvi and the rest of 9 the Board. 10 MR. ELLIOT: Sure. 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You still have 12 the floor. 13 MR. ELLIOT: I think we would like to 14 place the sign right here on the bend 15 because then the building tails around and 16 you can't see it from this direction. So I 17 think it would go right on the corner where 18 it makes the bend on the building. Can you 19 see that okay? 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. But I am not 21 sure whether there is a wall there on what 22 you are showing? 23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yeah. 24 MEMBER BAUER: By the Motor Sports.
127 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: It's right 2 beside it. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Right on the corner 4 there. 5 MR. ELLIOT: The Motor Sports entrance 6 would be just west of that. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any further 9 comments from Members of the Board? 10 I had a question or two. First one is 11 to the City. We have obviously a lot of 12 businesses along 96. Do you have an idea as 13 to what the size of some other signs might 14 be along that interstate? 15 MR. AMOLSCH: With regard to real 16 estate signs? They all have been 16 square 17 feet if they are on any property. However, 18 there is two that are just east, east of 19 Meadowbrook Road for the Campus Tech Park 20 and for the Certified Management Eastern 21 sign which were approved by the Board. Both 22 of them are 63 square feet. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And how -- I am 24 trying to remember the size of those
128 1 buildings in comparison to the Expo. 2 They're a little bit smaller. 3 MR. AMOLSCH: The buildings are 4 smaller. Plus, these are ground signs, they 5 are right on I-96. The building is quite a 6 ways off. 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: So the setback 8 is quite a bit more. Thank you. 9 I much prefer the wall sign over 10 free standing pole signs anyway. So I would 11 be more than happy to support are larger 12 sign being set back in the road further, so 13 I would be in support of this as well. 14 Further comments? Member Fischer? 15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr. Chair, 16 I would move that we grant the variance 17 requested in case number: 07-100 filed by 18 Scott Elliot of CB Richard Ellis for 19 property at 43700 Expo Center Drive given 20 the fact that the Petitioner has established 21 a practical difficulty in the size of the 22 property, the size of the building trying to 23 be leased, the difficulty of leasing said 24 property and given the current economic
129 1 situation. And also that the larger size is 2 required due to the setback from I-96 as 3 well as when you are going down the off 4 ramp. 5 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. We 7 have a motion by Member Fischer and a second 8 by Member Bauer. 9 Any further discussion? Member 10 Wrobel? 11 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you. Should we 12 in the motion specify where the sign should 13 be placed? 14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes. I 15 would like to state for a period of one year 16 and that the sign will be placed on the 17 building where the Applicant has pointed 18 out. 19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Portion parallel 20 to 96. 21 VICH-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct, 22 parallel to 96. Pretty much the western 23 most side of the north side of the building. 24 (Interposing)(Unintelligible).
130 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Just east of the -- 2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: North 3 elevation western most point of the side 4 elevation. 5 MS. WORKING: On the record? 6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Absolutely. 7 As is the seconder? 8 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The amendments 10 to the motion have been approved by the 11 motioner and seconder. 12 Any further comments? Please call the 13 roll. 14 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer? 15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 16 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 17 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 18 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 19 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 20 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 21 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 22 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 24 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
131 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 2 MS. WORKING: Member Shroyer? 3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 4 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0. 5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Sir, your 6 request has been granted. 7 MR. ELLIOT: Thank you very much. I 8 appreciate that. 9 MEMBER BAUER: Good luck. 10 MR. ELLIOT: Thank you. 11 12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: 13 Okay, moving on. Case number: 07-101 filed 14 by Betina Brown of the Original Sign 15 Studio, Incorporated, for Lydall 16 Thermal/Acoustical located at 28875 Cabot 17 Drive. 18 Ms. Brown of the Original Sign Studio 19 representing Lydall is requesting one 16 20 square foot illuminated wall sign variance 21 for the placement of an 8 foot by 2 foot 22 wall sign to be located on the southwest 23 elevation of said building. The northwest 24 elevation of the same building has an
132 1 existing wall sign. The property is zoned 2 OST and is located east of M-5 and west of 3 Cabot Drive. 4 I see someone has come forward. 5 Please state your name and address and if 6 you are not an attorney please be sworn in 7 by our Secretary. 8 MS. BROWN: My name is Betina Brown. 9 I am representing the Original Sign Studio. 10 Address, 5931 Ford Court, Brighton, Michigan 11 48116. And I am not an attorney. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Do you sear or affirm 13 to tell the truth regarding case: 07-101? 14 MS. BROWN: Yes. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 16 MS. BROWN: As stated earlier, I am 17 here representing Lydall which is a new 18 tenant in this building. And we are 19 requesting to get a (unintelligible) 20 illuminated sign facing M-5 on the part of 21 the building that they are going to be 22 occupying. As proposed in the package we 23 are also showing the existing sign that's 24 already existing.
133 1 The problem we had with Lydall is they 2 do not have the advantage as Temkin to have 3 a sign. Their main entrance is not out by 4 Cabot Drive. Temkin at this time has a sign 5 on Novi as well as on Cabot Drive. If you 6 drive the industrial park on Thirteen Mile, 7 if you come from Thirteen Mile, the only 8 sign that's up there is Cabot Drive is a 9 street sign. 10 When you drive down towards the 11 building the only sign that's out by the 12 road is the address and it also says, I 13 believe it says Lasalle Technology Park. 14 There is no sign out there that has spacing 15 for the tenants for said building. It's 16 only the name of the Technical Park at that 17 park. If you come from Twelve Mile, I do 18 not remember the exact name there, but it's, 19 I think it's Corridor Park, it's a 20 commercial park or something like that as 21 well. It seems to be that there is multiple 22 parts within the park. None of them has 23 actual tenant signs out by Cabot Drive. 24 The one problem that Lydall is running
134 1 into is that their entrance to their offices 2 is going to be inside of the parking lot 3 facing southbound, so it would actually be 4 facing towards Twelve Mile. They do not 5 have an entrance out by Cabot Drive, 6 therefore, we have been asking to ask for an 7 additional sign facing M-5. We know that 8 your Ordinance states that there can only be 9 one sign. But since there is multiple 10 tenants and Temkin and Lydall is the only 11 two tenants that's actually going to be 12 occupying part of the building that's facing 13 M-5, there will be no other ones that will 14 have sign availability out towards M-5. So, 15 therefore, we are asking to get that so that 16 it will be easier. Also people that's 17 driving on M-5 can see when they're coming 18 to either Thirteen Mile or Twelve Mile that 19 when they are coming in on Cabot Drive they 20 are located in the same building as Temkin. 21 Since there are no tenants out by Cabot and 22 that's why we are asking for this. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 24 MS. BROWN: I'm sorry, I forgot to
135 1 add. It's going to be a solar sensored sign 2 so it will not be lit 24/7. It will only be 3 lit (unintelligible). 4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And during a 5 full moon. 6 MS. BROWN: Depending on how sensitive 7 the photo cell is. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay. Thank 9 you. This is a public hearing. Is there 10 anyone in the audience who cares to speak on 11 this matter? 12 Seeing none, we'll close the 13 public hearing. 14 Is there any correspondence? 15 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Mr. Chair, in 16 this case there were eight notices mailed 17 with zero approvals and zero objections. 18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 19 Comments from the City or staff? 20 MR. AMOLSCH: No comments, sir. 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: City attorney? 22 MS. KUDLA: No. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We'll turn it 24 over to the ZBA for comments and discussion.
136 1 Member Krieger? 2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Question. I was 3 looking for the Lydall sign on the south 4 entrance. Is it there? 5 MS. BROWN: No, it's not put up yet. 6 That is in the process of being asked for a 7 permit application, that's why there is no 8 sign there at the moment. But that's why we 9 put it in the package here so that they can 10 see that there is a request for a sign above 11 the main entrance. 12 MEMBER KRIEGER: I was driving around 13 and around. So I can support this motion. 14 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 15 MR. BROWN: They are just in the 16 middle of, they got their C of O, so they 17 are just in the middle of moving in. There 18 has only been external signs put up for it. 19 There has only been internal signs to be put 20 into the building. There will be a permit 21 coming asking for the sign above the main 22 entrance. But we wanted to make sure that 23 it was in this package that there was also 24 going to be a request for a sign above that
137 1 main entrance. 2 MR. AMOLSCH: Member Krieger, we have 3 approved the permit for the south elevation 4 wall sign. 5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you. That's it 6 for now. 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I found the sign 8 that said Temkin. 9 Member Sanghvi? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, sir. 11 Can we put up that sign on the screen so 12 people can see what we are talking about 13 even though there was no sign there? 14 Looking at the booklet that you have 15 provided where I might add that you have 16 done a very good job of demonstrating your 17 signs and I don't have any difficulty in 18 approving the sign for the identification. 19 Thank you. 20 MEMBER BAUER: You want to put that 21 one up? 22 MS. BROWN: I have that one, I 23 believe. 24 That is the one that is what's going to be
138 1 facing M-5. And as you can see the building 2 is shaped like a U so there is actually 3 going to be space in between the two areas 4 of the building that has Temkin and has 5 Lydall. So people that will be driving down 6 M-5 at a quick glance and they will see 7 signs. But they wouldn't necessarily -- -- 8 the first time I drove I actually thought it 9 was two individual buildings until I 10 actually came in on Cabot and I realized it 11 was a U-shape building. There won't be any 12 question where is Temkin? And where does 13 Lydall belong? And that was the other 14 reason too why Lydall is not going to put 15 any sign out by Cabot because their main 16 entrance is not out there. It is on the 17 south side of the building and that was 18 where we were running into the issue if we 19 are only putting the sign on the south side 20 of the building nobody is ever going to find 21 it. They are going to be calling and 22 saying, where are we? 23 MEMBER BAUER: Where are you? 24 MS. BROWN: So that's why we are
139 1 asking. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: You need a business 3 identification sign and I appreciate your 4 request. My only question was, does anybody 5 at any point, can we have a huge sign at the 6 entrance of the Cabot Drive listing all of 7 the businesses which are inside? 8 MR. AMOLSCH: They have a choice in 9 multi-tenant buildings. They can either have 10 a ground sign that lists all tenants and no 11 wall signs, or all wall signs and what we 12 call a business center sign which identifies 13 the name of the center only, but cannot have 14 any tenant names on it. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: I see. So I have no 16 way of knowing what is inside of Cabot? 17 MR. AMOLSCH: That's correct. There 18 is a center sign directing you to direct 19 people to where the center is and then the 20 wall signs direct them to where the 21 businesses are at. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you, 24 Member Sanghvi?
140 1 Other comments? I have no objection. 2 I think it is an attractive sign, well 3 placed, proper size and definitely see the 4 need, so I will support it. 5 Member Sanghvi? 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: If nobody has any 7 other comments I might make a motion that in 8 case number: 07-101 filed by Betina Brown 9 of the Original Sign Studio, Inc., for 10 Lydall Thermal/Acoustical located at 28875 11 Cabot Drive, we approve the request for the 12 variance for this particular sign for the 13 business identification. 14 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I have a motion 16 by Member Sanghvi and a second by Member 17 Bauer. 18 Any further discussion? Please call 19 the roll. 20 MS. WORKING: You said Member Bauer 21 seconded? 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes, ma'am. 23 MS. WORKING: Thank you. 24 Member Sanghvi?
141 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 2 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 3 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 4 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 5 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 6 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 8 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer? 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 10 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 11 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 12 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 13 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 14 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. It's 16 been approved. 17 18 Our next case is case number: 19 07-102-A filed by Kathy Wichman of Innerface 20 Architectural Signage, Incorporated, for 21 Henry Ford Health System located at 40000 22 Eight Mile Road. 23 You are requesting two variances for 24 the placement of an 8'8" by 5'7" illuminated
142 1 ground sign to replace the existing ground 2 sign located at said address. The 3 property is zone OSC and is located north of 4 Eight Mile and west of Haggerty Road. 5 The Applicant has come forward. 6 Obviously you're not -- I don't believe you 7 are Kathy? 8 MR. CAPIONI (ph): I am not Kathy. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please state 10 your name and address and if you are not an 11 attorney be sworn in. 12 MR. CAPIONI (ph): My name is Marco 13 Capioni. My address is 835 Pine Hill Drive, 14 in Bloomfield Hills and I am the 15 vice-president of Henry Ford Health System 16 and I am not an attorney. 17 MEMBER BAUER: You are not an 18 attorney? 19 MR. CAPIONI: No. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm 21 to tell the truth regarding case: 07-102? 22 MR. CAPIONI: Yes, I do. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 24 MR. CAPIONI: Thank you for this
143 1 opportunity this evening and appreciate that 2 we are towards the end of your agenda, so I 3 will try to make sure this is as brief as 4 possible. 5 As a health care system we are not 6 your typical commercial entity. We actually 7 serve a public good so we consider ourselves 8 a quasi public institution. As Henry Ford 9 Health System is a non-profit system, we do 10 actually participate in the network that 11 provides indigent care as well as 12 uncompensated care in the State of Michigan 13 and we do that to the tune of 150 million 14 dollars a year. 15 Why is signage so important to us? 16 Signage is very important to us because it's 17 a matter of safety. Everyone who comes to 18 our facility has undergone some type of 19 handicap. And what we mean by that, they 20 are stressed or they have some kind of other 21 disability, they are sick. Even if you are 22 coming to our facilities healthy, most 23 people are a little nervous about 24 approaching their doctor. So we feel that
144 1 when you approach our facilities that most 2 of the people coming to our facilities are 3 not normally relaxed and usually is alert as 4 they might be if they were going to visit 5 let's say some other facility. 6 As part of our studies we have done 7 extensive focus group studies. We are 8 actually changing all of our signs 9 throughout Southeast Michigan. And part of 10 that change was to make sure that we took a 11 look at the demographics of our patients. 12 In particular the older patients to make 13 sure that they are able to easily identify 14 our signs and to make sure that they are 15 able to see them at a distance. So that 16 they are able to make the necessary course 17 changes, lane changes and other things to 18 make sure that they are lined up with our 19 facilities. 20 As part of that our customers feel 21 it's very important in certain situations, 22 the height of the sign that they will be 23 able to see over cars in front of them, the 24 sign coming up ahead. They felt that it was
145 1 very important to be able to see the address 2 because many times they feel that that's 3 their final indicator that they have the 4 right building and as a part of this back 5 lighting of the signs. 6 Also, one of the reasons why we 7 went with the blue colors that the told us 8 that earth tones and other greens make it 9 very difficult to distinguish between 10 background sometimes if you have any type of 11 eye deficiencies. 12 Our Eight Mile and Haggerty facility, 13 also we did a study on the traffic in that 14 area and we know that the intersection of 15 Eight Mile and Haggerty has about 73,000 16 vehicles per day traveling through there. 17 We did have a traffic study done by Wade, 18 Trim, Martin, Parker. I have copies of that 19 if you would like to see those. 20 As part of that they indicated that 21 this intersection has a higher than expected 22 crash rating of 1.91 crashes per million. 23 The standard for an intersection of this 24 type would be .83 crashes and that typically
146 1 we see about 1.14 crashes per million for a 2 five year period. That equates to basically 3 one accident per week on that intersection. 4 The facility that we have here has 5 been in our possession since 1996 and quite 6 honestly is undergoing a number of different 7 changes in terms of the services that are 8 being provided there. This is one of our 9 under-performing locations and we were 10 having a hard time maintaining the volume 11 that we need to keep this facility open. So 12 it is under consideration as we look at our 13 opportunities for cost cutting in the future 14 for possibly changing the location of that 15 site because it is very difficult to see. 16 Basically from a practical standpoint 17 when you are approaching the site, you don't 18 have much time from the intersection to 19 identify its location and the height of the 20 sign we think is a very important part of 21 that. We understand that that is a variance 22 to your Ordinance which we understand is 23 very helpful to maintaining the aesthetic 24 beauty of the City, but we think that this
147 1 is a matter of safety for our patients and 2 visitors who come to the site. 3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Is that it? 4 MR. CAPIONI: Yes. 5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. This 6 is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the 7 audience who cares to speak on this matter? 8 Seeing none. 9 Is there any correspondence? 10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes. Mr. 11 Chair, in this case there were 18 notices 12 mailed with two approvals and zero 13 objections. An approval from Paul J. Parent 14 at 20820 Turnberry Boulevard. And James and 15 Loretta Morman at 20790 Turnberry. No 16 comments. 17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I do need to 18 close the public hearing. I will do that 19 and make it official. 20 Any comments from the Counsel or the 21 City? 22 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir. 23 MS. KUDLA: No. 24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. I'll
148 1 look to the Board for discussion. Member 2 Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: One question. The 4 new sign you are proposing is the same size 5 as the one that is existing? 6 MR. CAPIONI: No, it's not. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: How much bigger it is 8 and why do you need it bigger? 9 MR. CAPIONI: I know you can't see it 10 completely there in the background, but let 11 me see if there is a better sign than this 12 one here. The existing sign is much lower. 13 It actually is within your restrictions, I 14 believe. The height of the sign is 15 basically elevated so that when other cars 16 are passing by you would be able to see the 17 top of the sign. And the address as you can 18 see is very prominent which again our 19 customers told us was a very important part 20 of identifying our location. 21 The existing sign is probably -- 22 I believe it's 32 square feet and only about 23 a half the size. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you.
149 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 2 Member Wrobel? 3 MEMBER WROBEL: I don't think it was 4 answered. What is the height of the 5 existing sign? 6 MR. CAPIONI: I am going to guessing 7 at this that the height of the sign 8 requested is 8.7 inches. It appears that 9 the existing sign is probably about half 10 that, about four feet. I am taking a guess 11 at that. 12 MEMBER WROBEL: What type of offices 13 are in this medical center? 14 MR. CAPIONI: This medical center has 15 ear, nose and throat, complimentary 16 medicine, family practice, physical therapy 17 and our integrated medicine which includes 18 chiropractic and acupuncture. 19 MEMBER WROBEL: So, non-emergency type 20 offices? 21 MR. CAPIONI: That's correct, these 22 are non-emergency services. 23 MEMBER WROBEL: I do understand the 24 need for sign. I drive by this road all the
150 1 time. And it does come up on you quickly 2 when you are heading west on Eight Mile Road 3 from Haggerty and 275, but I am leery of 4 going to this height. I can understand the 5 need for a higher sign, but this seems in 6 excess to me of what is really needed. And, 7 again, not judging content or something, it 8 seems like playing with the sign you can get 9 it across. It just seems like -- for 10 example where it says Henry Ford up at the 11 top it just seems excessive for me just to 12 place a logo up there. You could reduce the 13 sign, get the same medical center 14 information on a little lower sign. 15 I understand the need for the address, 16 that's good, but I am just leery of the 17 height. I will wait to hear what my other 18 ZBA members think of that. 19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you, 20 Member Wrobel. 21 Member Fischer? 22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The traffic 23 study that you mentioned what five year 24 period was that?
151 1 MR. CAPIONI: That was 2002 to 2006. 2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So it was 3 somewhat recent. I just know that they have 4 made several improvements to that 5 intersection. I just wanted to get the 6 context of it. 7 Alan, looking at the 8 square footage of the sign is the base of 9 this sign as shown here included in that 10 square footage? 11 MR. AMOLSCH: No, it is not. 12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It is not? 13 MR. AMOLSCH: No. 14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Why am I 15 confused on that? Does that mean that we do 16 include -- 17 MR. AMOLSCH: The sign area that we 18 calculate is not a sign structure that is 19 located on is not included in the square 20 footage. 21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. 22 MR. AMOLSCH: That's under area under 23 the Ordinance. 24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Got you.
152 1 All right. 2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Even though they 3 placed an address on it? 4 MR. AMOLSCH: The address is required 5 by Ordinance and we don't regard it as a 6 signage. 7 MS. WORKING: It's like a foundation. 8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: How large 9 is the square footage of the building? 10 MR. CAPIONI: The building is 11 approximately 63,000 square feet. 12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I am leery 13 of the height of the sign as well. I have 14 no problem with the area of the sign. It 15 seems okay with me. I am glad that the 16 address is more prominent, but it almost 17 seems like if you drop that foundation, if 18 you will down, then we would be able to 19 bring the height of the sign down. Have you 20 considered keeping the foundation primarily 21 to the size of the address in order to bring 22 the size down? 23 And just some background there. There 24 is another sign that we approved recently in
153 1 that same area that we allowed quite a large 2 height on further down that road. And now 3 that I have gone by, and maybe the 4 renderings weren't as good as they should 5 have been or what, but I have gone by that 6 sign and I am kind of upset with myself for 7 approving that sign. So height in that area 8 is a large, large concern because I think it 9 looks un-tasteful now. I just feel like 8 10 foot 7 inches would be too high. 11 Have you considered anything with the 12 foundation? 13 MR. CAPIONI: Obviously we are trying 14 to keep the foundation up to keep the snow 15 from getting up to the height of the 16 letters. But I think we could take it 17 twelve inches off and lower that base by 18 twelve inches. 19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: How big is 20 the foundation currently? 21 MR. CAPIONI: It's 34 and a half 22 inches. 23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So it would 24 leave about a foot of clearance for snow
154 1 there? 2 MR. CAPIONI: Yes. 3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would be 4 much more willing to approve the sign if 5 they were to take that down and take it to 6 about 7 feet 7 inches. Still a little tall 7 in my mind, but I will leave that up to the 8 Board for discussion. Very tasteful sign 9 and I appreciate you being there. I think 10 it's a great business. 11 MR. CAPIONI: Thank you. 12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Bauer? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. Taking it down 14 that will help greatly because they do have 15 a big sign on the wall of the building. So 16 that height can come down. 17 MR. CAPIONI: We do not currently have 18 any sign on the wall of the building. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Pardon? 20 MR. CAPIONI: We do not have a sign on 21 this building. 22 MEMBER BAUER: Facing Eight Mile Road? 23 MR. CAPIONI: That's correct. We do 24 have them on other of our buildings. But I
155 1 did verify this. 2 MEMBER BAUER: Okay. 3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Other comments? 4 Member Ibe? 5 MEMBER IBE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 6 Sir, aesthetically I think your sign looks 7 very nice. However, I re-echo the concern 8 the other Board Members have about the 9 height. Now, looking at the picture that 10 you provided, the one that is on the 11 overhead projector. If a 6 foot person is 12 standing next to this structure you are 13 about to put up, this structure itself is 8 14 feet and 7 inches; is that correct? 15 MR. CAPIONI: Yes, that's the 16 dimension that we are planning on minus the 17 12 inches. 18 MEMBER IBE: Given the 12 inches you 19 want to take away, it comes to about 7.7? 20 MR. CAPIONI: Yes. 21 MEMBER IBE: Which is still, for me I 22 have a huge problem with anything that is 23 over 6 feet tall because really now you are 24 talking about it blocks the view for
156 1 traffic. I don't know how based on the way 2 it's going to position compared to the ones 3 you had before. See, anything that is over 4 7 feet tall for someone who is feet 6 feet 5 standing you can't really see above it. So 6 if you are 5 feet it becomes even a huge 7 problem. Aesthetically it just does not 8 look very good at all in terms of size. But 9 in terms of the lettering and the colors and 10 all of that I have absolutely no problem 11 with it at all. I do like it. However, I 12 am almost incline not to support this just 13 because of the height, (unintelligible) just 14 for the height. If you think you can come 15 below that 7 feet or at least get it under 16 7. But 7 and 7 just doesn't make it easy 17 for me to support this. 18 MR. CAPIONI: I think you are 19 absolutely right about the height of the 20 signs and the impact that they have in most 21 normal locations. This one in particular 22 doesn't cause from the driveway, actually 23 you are pulling in on the road, the road 24 that's right next to there. It's very much
157 1 isolated. So this is one of the reasons 2 why we felt the height was one more 3 acceptable than other circumstances. 4 The second reason is that when -- I 5 drove back and forth along this facility 6 along Eight Mile a number of times, and it 7 really comes very fast. The traffic is 8 moving very quickly and I did that primarily 9 because a lot of our customers told me that 10 I should take a look at it and they said 11 it's very difficult to see. Really, it's 12 for those reasons. I personally believe the 13 Ordinance is to try to get the signage done 14 is the best thing for most cities. In this 15 case we're really at a particular location 16 where we think this is very appropriate. 17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You still have 18 the floor. 19 MEMBER IBE: Sir, as much as you are 20 concerned about safety, isn't possible that 21 this can also be a distraction because of 22 the height for, say, potential motorists 23 going down Eight Mile and even for your own 24 patients who come to your facility? I am
158 1 looking at it from a liability point of view 2 as well. The height is something to be very 3 concerned about. You are talking about 8 4 feet, almost 8 feet tall. If someone gets 5 into an accident around that area they can 6 blame the sign for maybe distracting their 7 view or it was something that was just 8 setting up there, it's unusual. Do you have 9 similar signs in any other facility that is 10 8 feet tall? 11 MR. CAPIONI: Yes, we do. Actually at 12 the majority of our hospitals the signage is 13 8 foot and taller. Actually it's the same 14 height of the sign I believe is for 15 Providence Park Hospital, the entrances at 16 their entrances, I know they are above 6 17 feet. Probably about the same height. 18 Probably under a different Ordinance because 19 they are probably different zoning. But 20 those signs are also above the size. 21 We do have lots of experience with 22 signs at this height at other locations. 23 All I can say is that I can't say about 24 whether or not it has caused other
159 1 accidents. I can say that our patients have 2 said that they find it much easier and this 3 was one of the recommendations. For us it's 4 much cheaper just to make the sign smaller. 5 We actually are looking forward to making 6 our signs bigger, but that was one of the 7 reasons that we did that. 8 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. Any 10 other comments? I have a question or two. 11 If I may address the attorney here, 12 and ask her a question. We don't have -- 13 well, first of all and maybe it's not the 14 attorney, maybe it's the City. He has 15 indicated, the Applicant has indicated that 16 if the business doesn't go and they may have 17 to move, if we granted a larger sign and a 18 new person comes in and we see a new 19 business comes into that address, are they 20 permitted to use that size sign? 21 MS. KUDLA: No. 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Would they have 23 to start over again? 24 MS. KUDLA: Right. They would have to
160 1 ask for a sign. 2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I wanted to make 3 sure of that. 4 Secondly, if we don't have a problem 5 with the new sign but want to restrict it to 6 meet the Ordinance requirements or something 7 smaller because I know we are trying to make 8 it smaller, is it better to deny the request 9 or to approve the request and add the 10 conditions for approval? 11 MS. KUDLA: If you are talking about 12 that 12 inch height distance you are talking 13 about? 14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Well, even if we 15 liked the current sign that's there. 16 MS. WORKING: Oh, you meaning existing 17 sign? 18 MS. KUDLA: That would probably be a 19 motion to deny then. 20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: That would be a 21 denial. But if we go one foot making the 22 sign smaller -- 23 MS. KUDLA: Right, you could do a 24 motion to approve.
161 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: With conditions? 2 MS. KUDLA: Yes. If the Applicant is 3 amenable to that 12 inch change. 4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. I 5 obviously am not in favor of the big one 6 either. The only difference I see between 7 the two, the old one and the new one trying 8 to look at them side by side and having 9 driven by the old sign, the logo is much 10 larger on the old one. So, my first thought 11 would have been to make the logo the size of 12 the logo on the new sign and put the address 13 underneath it since that was a major thought 14 that people have trouble finding the 15 address. In other words, I think there is 16 plenty of room on the existing sign to 17 update it and make it work. 18 I do like the new logo with the slash 19 across or whatever that is. I don't agree, 20 again, with the size. The bottom portion of 21 the blue that's outlined in white on the new 22 sign to me would be a place where you could 23 put the address as well. So even if you 24 took a foot out of the foundation or
162 1 actually even if you used the existing 2 foundation of the old sign, reduced the size 3 of the new sign you would reduce it probably 4 a foot. 5 So there are a couple of things there. 6 I just want to throw out for comment for 7 Board discussion or whatever. I would not 8 be in favor of approving it as is, but I 9 would be open to some type of modification. 10 Member Sanghvi? 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: I think you have been 12 waiting. 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Krieger? 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: I do find the sign 15 aesthetically pleasing, but I am also 5'3" 16 and if I stood by the sign I would totally 17 disappear behind it. And also if you need a 18 sign that big and you have a little elderly 19 person driving a car I would be frightened 20 to be on the road with my car and their car. 21 Because it's not an emergency center area, 22 if you could take into consideration 23 proportion. That would be all my comments. 24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you.
163 1 Member Sanghvi? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. I was 3 just going to suggest a kind of a compromise 4 and this is just a suggestion for the Board 5 as well as for the Applicant. If you make a 6 sign 8 foot by 8 foot and other dimension 6 7 foot 7 inches and keep the height at 7 foot 8 7 inches this is acceptable. 9 If we change the dimensions of the 10 sign you have requested to (unintelligible) 11 you have got 104 inches, that is really 8 12 foot 8 inches, that's exactly what I am 13 suggesting. I am not suggesting anything 14 smaller. But we are talking about is 15 shrinking the height by one foot which we 16 have already talked about. And then you can 17 leave everything as it is. (Unintelligible) 18 the same way as 6 foot 7 inches. That is 19 what you have there is 6 foot 7 inches. Is 20 it acceptable? Is it acceptable with the 21 Board and to the Applicant? 22 MR. CAPIONI: I just want to make sure 23 I am following your number -- 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: If you look at your
164 1 picture here you have got the same 2 dimensions which I have suggested except 3 that reducing the height of your base and 4 making the total height one foot smaller. 5 MR. CAPIONI: Okay. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Do you see what I 7 mean now? 8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Member 9 Sanghvi, I believe that's what we had 10 discussed and what I had discussed, but I 11 don't think that the rest of the Board felt 12 that that was enough taken off of the sign. 13 MR. CAPIONI: If I could just make 14 just one comment to the Chair's comment 15 about the logo. The reason the logo is 16 actually not any bigger but it is higher up, 17 is that was something that people said 18 without being able to read it's kind of like 19 the, it's not quite the blue oval, but it's 20 kind of like almost the white oval was 21 scripted and people said they could see that 22 at a much longer distance. So the idea was 23 to move that up the sign to be in the upper 24 most corner so it would be the most visible.
165 1 So, you are right in terms of 2 visibility. We actually liked the way the 3 old logo looked where it was. The problem 4 is people told us they couldn't see it. 5 As far as the setback here is, we are 6 well behind the sidewalk and the 7 right-of-way on this road is very large. So 8 we are actually probably a good 25 to 30 9 feet from the curb at that point. 10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: If I may. 11 Member Sanghvi, did you indicate 8 foot by 8 12 feet? Did I hear you correctly? 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: One hundred and four 14 inches that comes to 8 by 8 foot, yeah. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Eight foot by 8 16 is 64 square feet. Right now they are only 17 requesting -- 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: No, no. Eight foot by 19 8 inches is the total line from the top even 20 if you go by what they have drawn here. 21 Height is reduced by, their height is 8 foot 22 by 8 inches and we are talking about 7 foot 23 by 7 inches. 24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay, just
166 1 rounding it, 8 foot by 7 foot rounding it 2 down is 56 square feet. Right now they are 3 requesting 48 square feet so, in fact, you 4 would be making the sign larger. 5 MR. CAPIONI: The reason -- 6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Sir, I have the 7 floor. 8 MR. CAPIONI: Oh, I'm sorry. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And the reason 10 why I believe is because the sign here is 11 not taking the base into account as the City 12 indicated earlier. I think we're on the 13 same page. 14 Member Fischer? 15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Might I 16 offer one attempt at a compromise and see 17 where the Board sits? Looking at the sign 18 on the overhead, the Applicant has agreed to 19 take a foot off of the base and there are 20 several recommendations such as moving the 21 address up in the blue area, that might 22 allow them to take another foot off the 23 base. Or if they wanted to scale it down, 24 and leave the foundation at maybe around two
167 1 feet and scale the size of the top sign 2 down, that could allow for another foot 3 taken off the height. I would almost 4 suggest that given the recommendations, we 5 approve the variance at 6 foot 7 inches as 6 height and leave it up to the Applicant as 7 to how they want to accomplish that 6 foot 7 8 height. 9 We could also approve the area because 10 they can either go up to that or if they 11 want to scale, they choose the option to 12 scale down they can go smaller than that 13 variance. Does that make sense? Does that 14 sound okay to you? 15 MS. KUDLA: Yes. 16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Six foot 7 from 17 the ground? 18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct. 19 And they can have a one foot foundation, 20 move the address up and have the size sign 21 they want, or they can take one foot off the 22 sign and one foot off the foundation and I 23 think it gets closer to the 6 feet that we 24 are all trying to accomplish.
168 1 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, I might 2 recommend being the person who does the 3 motion tomorrow that the Board makes 4 tonight, that since they are asking for an 5 area as well as a height variance, you can 6 also break the motion up that way as well 7 because it sounds to me like Member Fischer 8 is suggesting on the height section of the 9 variance request, they are right now 10 requesting 8 feet 7 inches and he is putting 11 out there 6 feet 7 inches, so you could 12 break the motion up if you so choose to do 13 it that way as well to be able to articulate 14 exactly what you are saying. 15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Would you 16 prefer it that way? 17 MS. WORKING: I think that that would 18 be an agreement between the Applicant and 19 the Board. 20 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We would 21 approve 6 foot 7, but we would also approve 22 up to 48.38 square feet. 23 MS. WORKING: That would be one way to 24 do it.
169 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Or whatever the 2 sign is. 3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That's why 4 I say up to because if they choose option 5 two where they scale down the size to get 6 one foot out of the height, it would 7 obviously be less than what they are 8 requesting. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I for one would 10 be in favor of that. 11 MEMBER BAUER: I would too. 12 MEMBER IBE: I would too. 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Would anyone 14 like to make a motion? 15 So, do you understand what we are 16 referring to? 17 MR. CAPIONI: Yes. 18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: That will give 19 you the flexibility if you wanted to do 20 proportion. 21 MR. CAPIONI: I appreciate it. That's 22 very reasonable and I appreciate the thought 23 that you put into that, sir. Thank you. 24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'm a
170 1 numbers guy, I don't know. It took me a 2 while. I'm not good at articulating it per 3 se, but if everyone seems to agree I would 4 move that in case number: 07-102 filed by 5 Kathy Wichman of Innerface Architectural 6 Signage for Henry Ford Health System located 7 at 40000 Eight Mile Road. That we approve 8 the Petitioner's request for a ground sign 9 height variance of 7 inches which would 10 allow them up to 6 foot 7 inches in height. 11 And that we -- I'm sorry? 12 MS. WORKING: I'm sorry, I am 13 following you along. 14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And that we 15 approve the requested ground sign area 16 variance as requested of up to 48.38 square 17 feet. Allowing the Petitioner to move the 18 sign around as the Board has recommended as 19 they see fit. And the reasons being that 20 the traffic study indicated by the 21 Petitioner shows that the -- as well as the 22 health factors of the many of their clients 23 and the surveys of their clients have shown 24 that it would be in the public interest and
171 1 safety and welfare of the residents of Novi 2 as well as those visiting that people are 3 able to identify this building. Also due to 4 the size of the building as well as the 5 property as well as the speed of Eight Mile 6 Road. 7 MEMBER WROBEL: Second. 8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The 9 Petitioner has established setback 10 difficulty. 11 MEMBER WROBEL: Second. 12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And setback from 13 the road. 14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: And setback 15 from the road. 16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion 17 and a -- a motion by Member Sanghvi (sic) 18 and a second by Member Wrobel. 19 Did we go over the correspondence in 20 this case? 21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: There were 22 two approvals. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I had just 24 gotten to those in my packet.
172 1 Any further discussion? Please call 2 the roll. 3 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer? 4 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 5 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 6 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 7 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 8 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 10 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 11 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 12 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 13 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 15 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 17 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0. 18 MR. CAPIONI: Thank you very much. 19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Thank you 20 for your willingness to compromise. 21 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Next case is 23 Case number: 07-102-B filed by Kathy 24 Wichman of Innerface Architectural Signage
173 1 for Henry Ford Health System located at 2 39450 Twelve Mile Road. They are requesting 3 two illuminated ground signs and three 4 illuminated wall signs for the center 5 located at said address. This location has 6 approval for a single illuminated ground 7 sign located on the corner of Twelve Mile 8 and Haggerty. The property is zoned OST and 9 located north of Twelve Mile and west of 10 Haggerty Road. 11 The Applicant is coming forward. 12 Okay. 13 MR. CAPIONI: I am trying to find some 14 of the paperwork here that we have too. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Since it is a 16 separate case we do need you to state your 17 name and address and be sworn in all over 18 again. 19 MR. CAPIONI: Thank you very much. My 20 name is Marco Capioni. I live at 835 Pine 21 Hill Drive in Bloomfield Hills and I am not 22 an attorney. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm 24 to tell the truth regarding case: 07-102-B?
174 1 MR. CAPIONI: Yes, I do. 2 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 4 MR. CAPIONI: On this application, and 5 I don't want to -- we have done obviously 6 the same signage studies have been done and 7 we do have a traffic analysis also for this 8 intersection which again, also being 9 directly off of the freeway entrance at M-5 10 is an area that as well has a higher than 11 usual traffic accident occurrence rate. 12 But what I really want to talk about 13 for this one is that the boulevard along 14 Twelve Mile is absolutely stunningly 15 beautiful. For us it does a very good job 16 of masking the building. And so while we're 17 asking for a lot of different variances from 18 your Ordinances, it's really with the 19 studies that we have done driving back and 20 forth on Twelve Mile Road and on Haggerty 21 trying to determine the placement of the 22 sign to give you that cueing effect so that 23 from the distance of an eighth of a mile or 24 in some cases hopefully up to a quarter mile
175 1 you are able to see the building and then 2 get yourself set to the right place to make 3 the left turn. 4 As you know in this case the 5 drives are out of line with the Michigan 6 left turn drives so you actually have to go 7 past it to come back to them. So there is an 8 element of confusion. So what we have done 9 is tried to study the placement of, and I 10 know you are not going to believe this, the 11 least number of the signs on the building 12 and at gray that would make sure that people 13 would be able to identify those entrances. 14 The two ground signs are very critical 15 to announce where the entrances are because 16 of actually the berm it does a good job of 17 hiding those two drives. And the building 18 signs are primarily there to give you that 19 cueing affect so that you are able to see 20 the facility before you get to it. As you 21 see we concentrated on Twelve Mile which we 22 think is where the majority of the traffic 23 coming to our facility as opposed to the 24 traffic that would be coming down Haggerty.
176 1 We think that the Haggerty sign on the 2 Haggerty entrance at ground which be 3 sufficient. We have not placed any wall 4 signs up on the northeast corner, but we 5 placed them towards the south end and that 6 is basically based on our studies to find 7 out what signs have the greatest impact on 8 the drivers approaching the facility. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. This 10 too is a public hearing. Is there anyone in 11 the audience who cares to comment on this 12 case? We have someone. 13 MR. SOSIN: Matthew Sosin, Northern 14 Equities Group. I am the owner of the 15 building. 39000 Country Club Drive, 16 Farmington Hills, Michigan. 17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Please be sworn 18 in. 19 MR. SOSIN: I'm actually an attorney. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Would you raise your 21 hand -- 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: No, no, he's an 23 attorney. 24 MR. SOSIN: I'm the developer of the
177 1 site. I can help Marco talk about existing 2 conditions. I can also provide historical 3 interpretations of what went on when the 4 site plan was approved and what was intended 5 for those boulevards and the building. So, 6 I can speak on that. Also some background 7 on some of the gradings of Twelve Mile and 8 Haggerty which changed when the site was 9 originally -- when the Twelve Mile Road was 10 expanded. There were some grades that Marco 11 alluded to that creates some blind spots 12 that require the height in the signs. You 13 might find that height of the signs is 14 required (unintelligible). What happens is 15 the intersection on Haggerty is so high 16 (unintelligible). It go downs on the north, 17 east, west and south. I am here to answer 18 any of those questions. 19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: So you are 20 actually part of the case as opposed to 21 being part of the public hearing? 22 MR. SOSIN: Yes. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Which is fine. 24 At this time I will close the public hearing
178 1 and ask about correspondence. 2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: In this 3 case, Mr. Chair, there were 22 notices 4 mailed with zero approvals and zero 5 objections. 6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 7 Comments from the City or Attorney? 8 MS. KUDLA: No. 9 MR. AMOLSCH: I just have one point of 10 clarification for the Board. There are a 11 number of variances here requested 12 (unintelligible) gets lost in the shuffle, 13 but just for the Board's purview. The 14 parcel of land is an OST zoning district 15 which permits a ground sign and wall sign. 16 So, one of the variances for the wall sign 17 will just be for area only and not the other 18 sign. 19 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 20 Comments from the ZBA? Member Sanghvi? 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Question for you, Mr. 22 Chair, do you want to consider the sign all 23 individually or do you want to do it all at 24 the same time?
179 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Would the group 2 be open to doing the ground signs together 3 and the wall signs together? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Whichever way you 5 want to go. (Unintelligible) -- 6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Let's do it that 7 way. 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: All right, let's talk 9 about the ground signs then. 10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Part of the ground 12 signs, these are two really major entrances 13 your ground signs are at and I have no 14 problem. Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay. Further 16 comments? Member Wrobel? 17 MEMBER WROBEL: I was involved in this 18 project when it came before the Planning 19 Commission. Since this is one of the 20 premier buildings we thought at the time and 21 since it's at the entrance to the City then 22 we want this to look as good as possible. 23 And we're pleased that Henry Ford Hospital 24 will be taking the entire building which is
180 1 nice. 2 The one thing I am looking here on the 3 blueprints. Item number six, for the life 4 of me, I don't see a need for a sign there 5 because that's just parking lot. It has no 6 access to the street. Could you give me 7 your rationale as to why that is being 8 requested? 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Wrobel -- 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: We are just 11 considering the ground sign. 12 MEMBER WROBEL: Oh, the ground sign? 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. Initially 14 we are only going to discuss the ground 15 signs. 16 MEMBER WROBEL: Okay, excuse me. 17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Hold that 18 comment. 19 MEMBER WROBEL: Ground signs are fine 20 the way they are. I agree it's needed 21 there. They're both at the main entrances. 22 That's fine for ground signs. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay, thank you. 24 Comments from this side of the table?
181 1 Member Fischer? 2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What is the 3 square footage of this building? 4 MR. CAPIONI: It's 130,000 square 5 feet. 6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: How does 7 that compare to Providence? 8 MR. AMOLSCH: Don't know. 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Chris? 10 MR. FOX: Really small. 11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'm sorry? 12 MR. FOX: Really small. I don't know 13 the square footage. 14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What were 15 the approved variances for Providence? Not 16 the big one, but the other smaller ones? 17 MR. AMOLSCH: We approved five sizes 18 total. 19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What was the 20 height of those smaller ones, do you 21 remember? 22 MR. AMOLSCH: No. 23 MR. FOX: Fourteen. 24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Around 14
182 1 was the large entrance sign? 2 MR. AMOLSCH: I think the other one 3 was -- 4 MR. FOX: I thought the main sign was 5 18 or 20 -- 6 MR. AMOLSCH: The main sign was 20 by 7 the entrance -- 8 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: 10 Interesting. 11 MS. WORKING: I can go pull the file 12 and it will take me less than five minutes. 13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: 14 (Unintelligible) I am fine with that. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 16 Further comments on the ground signs? I 17 have a question as to what the size of the 18 corner sign is? 19 MR. AMOLSCH: That is 44.66 square 20 feet. 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And that one is 22 approved and it's already been placed? 23 MR. AMOLSCH: That one was approved, 24 yes.
183 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: That really 2 catches people northbound Haggerty and 3 eastbound -- 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Westbound. 5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I'm sorry, 6 westbound Twelve Mile. 7 I have no problem with the 8 monument signs and even though they are over 9 double the permitted size, I would be in 10 favor of it as well. 11 Any other comments? Okay, can we have 12 a motion just on the ground signs? Member 13 Fischer? 14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would move 15 that in case number: 07-102-B filed by Kathy 16 Wichman of Innerface Architectural Signage 17 for Henry Ford Health Systems at 39450 18 Twelve Mile Road that we approve sign number 19 two and sign number three, the two ground 20 signs as requested due to the fact that the 21 Petitioner has established a practical 22 difficulty in the elevation of the property. 23 The traffic on Twelve Mile and Haggerty 24 roads, the speed as well as the volume and
184 1 the need for two identification signs for 2 this large, large property. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: So we have a 5 motion -- 6 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: That's a 7 technical term by the way. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion 9 by Member Fischer and a second by Member 10 Bauer. 11 Further discussion? Please call 12 the roll. 13 MS. WORKING: I'm sorry, the second 14 came from? 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Bauer. 16 MS. WORKING: Thank you. Vice-Chair 17 Fischer? 18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 19 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 20 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 21 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 22 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 23 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes.
185 1 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 3 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 5 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 6 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 7 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0 to 8 approve the two ground signs. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Correct. Now, 10 we want to discuss the three wall signs. 11 Open it up to the Board for discussion. 12 Member Wrobel, would you like to make 13 your comment now? 14 MEMBER WROBEL: I would like to make 15 my comment now. Thank you. 16 Explain the rationale for sign 17 number six, the area that just faces the 18 parking lot. 19 MR. CAPIONI: That sign was originally 20 intended to try and grab some visibility 21 from M-5. But I have to admit after having 22 driven it a number of different times I find 23 it doesn't achieve that either. So, if you 24 so kindly permit it we would save the money
186 1 and take number six off of our request. 2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We can do that. 3 We can reduce, but we can't add. 4 MR. CAPIONI: Thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Other comments? 6 Member Fischer? 7 Oh, I'm sorry, were you finished, Mr. 8 Wrobel? I guess not. 9 MEMBER WROBEL: I am looking at sign 10 four and five there. I understand that 11 because of the height of the building, but I 12 am kind of leery approving two signs in such 13 a close area even though they sort of get 14 two different traffic angles. I am 15 wondering whether one sign five would be 16 better placed at the eastern end of the 17 building where you could see it the same way 18 if you are coming down Haggerty or westbound 19 Twelve Mile. 20 MR. CAPIONI: I'm sorry, are you 21 talking about moving it? 22 MR. WROBEL: Yeah, I'm just looking 23 because see these two signs four and five. 24 They are very close to each other. And I
187 1 understand the reason for sign four if you 2 are coming eastbound on Twelve Mile to see 3 the building there. Even though I am still 4 wondering if the ground sign at the entrance 5 will serve the same purpose. But if it were 6 me, and this is just my opinion, when I look 7 at sign five it would be more appropriate at 8 the other end of the building where you 9 could see it coming the other direction. 10 Just from driving through that intersection 11 everyday. 12 MR. CAPIONI: We actually had the same 13 discussion on our team. The problem what we 14 were having was we actually did tests. When 15 you are coming from the other side of 16 Haggerty Road going west on Twelve Mile, 17 that other corner of the building is totally 18 invisible and this is actually the best 19 visibility here. And also it's also from 20 the Michigan left turnaround it's basically 21 another identifier that you found the right 22 place. I know that the two signs are very 23 close together, but time and time again we 24 really thought those two really serves the
188 1 needs both coming off of the freeway M-5 2 going east and west and then onto Twelve 3 Mile Road. Really, we think this is where 4 the majority of our traffic volume will be. 5 Most of the people who may be traveling on 6 Haggerty will probably be more familiar with 7 the area. But, this would be the ones that 8 people would be drawn who might not be 9 familiar with that location. 10 MEMBER WROBEL: I still have a concern 11 with both of them but I will wait to hear 12 what my colleagues have to say before I 13 decide. Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you, 15 Member Wrobel. 16 Member Fischer? 17 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I am glad 18 that Member Wrobel brought up sign number 19 six, I couldn't agree more. I don't really 20 take particular issue with signs four or 21 five. I think the size is right for the 22 size of the building there. 23 I can see Member Wrobel's point 24 about too close together and possibly moving
189 1 it, but in the end I am not a sign expert 2 and I'm not a traffic expert and if this is 3 where they choose to put the signs at, I can 4 support that. My concern is what -- my 5 concern, frankly, would be are you going to 6 come back and ask for signs in that 7 northeast corner of the building eventually? 8 MR. CAPIONI: No, I don't intend to. 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Okay. The 10 only reason I ask that is because we have 11 had areas who have had the four corners and 12 they want one basically on every side of the 13 building and I would not be willing to 14 support this. But if this is where you have 15 chosen to put the two signs, I can support 16 signs four and five as submitted. 17 MR. CAPIONI: I can tell you that our 18 signage experts as well as Wade and Trim, 19 our traffic engineers, they recommended 20 against it. They didn't feel it had any 21 value, so. 22 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Seeing that 23 this seems to be the least amount that would 24 be value at it, I could support it.
190 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. 2 Other comments? Member Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: I had some question 4 and it is not really related to these high 5 wall signs. But I didn't see any 6 directional signs inside. 7 MR. CAPIONI: In terms of the parking 8 lot? 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: In the parking, where 10 are you going to be, whether MRI, x-ray or 11 Surgery Center or whatever else you are 12 going to have there. 13 MR. CAPIONI: The nice thing about the 14 building is we have a front entrance and a 15 back entrance. All the entrances are -- 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: So, you are going to 17 use this and put signs on the wall there? 18 MR. CAPIONI: Yes. I'm not sure if I a 19 picture of the building. But in the front 20 of the building there is the center of the 21 building -- 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: I have been there. I 23 have sat there in your parking lot trying to 24 figure out what you were trying to do, so I
191 1 know. 2 MR. CAPIONI: Actually we did do some 3 focus studies and basically people said they 4 are going to go right to the stone so that 5 better be the entrance. And then when you 6 come in either the front or the back then we 7 are going to have signage interior to the 8 building. So, we actually -- truth be known 9 a lot of signage inside parking lots becomes 10 very confusing and one of the reasons we 11 like this building was the way it was 12 designed. It really attracted you, if you 13 parked in the front or the back you are 14 actually equal distance from everything 15 because you are going to go right into that 16 middle section. So we won't be having any 17 other entrances for our patients. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: You are not coming 19 back with the directional signs? 20 MR. CAPIONI: No. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, thank you. 22 MR. CAPIONI: Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any other 24 comments?
192 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: No, it's time to make 2 a motion. 3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Let me make one 4 first, please. Initially I came in and I 5 was okay with the monument signs and I was 6 totally against all three wall signs, but my 7 colleagues have convinced me that they are 8 important and your presentation was very 9 well laid out and convincing. So I am in 10 support of number four and number five with 11 the Applicant choosing the locations of 12 those signs. If they choose to put them 13 both on the Twelve Mile side. That's my 14 comments. 15 Anything else? Member Fischer? 16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: In making 17 the motion how should we handle sign six? 18 Do we just leave it off and not find any 19 findings? Or make a comment that they have 20 withdrawn that sign? 21 MS. KUDLA: That they have withdrawn 22 the sign. 23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would 24 make a motion that in case number: 07-102-B
193 1 filed by Kathy Wichman of -- am I saying 2 that correctly? 3 MS. WICHMAN: Yes, you are. Thank 4 you. 5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Of 6 Innerface Architectural Signage for Henry 7 Ford Healthy System located at 39450 Twelve 8 Mile Road that we approve the Petitioner's 9 request for sign four and sign number five 10 as submitted due to the fact that the 11 Petitioner has established practical 12 difficulty. That the request is based on 13 circumstances that are unique to the 14 property such as the size of building, the 15 layout of the building on the property as 16 well as the fact that a failure to grant 17 relief will result in substantially more 18 than a mere inconvenience and that it will, 19 in fact, be safer for the residents and 20 visitors of the City of Novi. 21 And lastly, that the granted relief 22 will not result in a use that is 23 incompatible with the surrounding uses and 24 does substantial justice to this property
194 1 owner as well as those surrounding. 2 I would also comment that the 3 Petitioner has chosen to withdraw sign 4 number six, so we will not dictate action. 5 MEMBER IBE: I'll second the motion. 6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a motion 7 by Member Fischer. Seconded by Member Ibe. 8 Comments or discussion further? 9 Mr. Amolsch, did that address your 10 concern about the wall sign? 11 MR. AMOLSCH: There wasn't a concern. 12 I just wanted the Board aware that one of 13 those wall signs were permitted with an 14 addition to the permitted ground sign. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any further 16 discussion? Seeing none, please call the 17 roll. 18 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer? 19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 20 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 21 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 22 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 23 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 24 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?
195 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 2 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 4 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 6 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 7 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 8 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Your request has 10 been approved. 11 MR. CAPIONI: Thank you very much. 12 And thank you for your full consideration. 13 14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay, up to 15 Other Matters. Even though we have already 16 welcomed Mr. Ibe, we will continue to thank 17 him. Now that you have made it through an 18 entire meeting, hopefully you will come back 19 in February. 20 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 21 MEMBER BAUER: That's when the big one 22 comes. 23 24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We'll move on to
196 1 item number two, Rules and Procedures. 2 Everybody received a copy of the 3 rules put together by our Subcommittee and 4 chaired by Member Fischer and hopefully you 5 have had a chance to review them. And we 6 want to make any last changes that may be 7 necessary and hopefully we can adopt these 8 this evening. 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Mr. Chair, 10 if I may have the floor one minute? 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Certainly. 12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I have 13 spoken with Robin at great length about one 14 of the comments regarding the Building 15 Official having authority to basically go 16 around and move around the mock-up sign 17 requirement. I just think that it's hard to 18 give such as cases like Providence the 19 Building Official the authority for safety 20 reasons, etcetera to go ahead and allow a 21 mock-up to not be put up -- 22 MS. WORKING: Chris, could you move 23 out into the atrium? Thank you. Sorry, it 24 was distracting me.
197 1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I agree. So 2 I think it's important for them, it will 3 take some burden off of us under Other 4 Matters of reviewing cases like Providence. 5 But I did want to bring up this package. 6 This is a good package I think from Lydall. 7 MS. WORKING: Oh, as an example? 8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: This is a 9 package of an example of pretty much what we 10 might be expecting as a Board as long as the 11 Board agrees. 12 Thank you, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to 13 go ahead and get that clarification and I'll 14 be happy to answer any other questions or 15 concerns as well as Member Krieger. 16 MS. WORKING: Member Fisher, picking 17 up on that, I did have one question for you 18 and I don't know if it's necessary to have 19 to put it in writing or not, but previous 20 Petitioners have also done like slide shows 21 for you when there has not been a mock sign 22 on a building, i.e., the Providence 25 foot 23 structure. Remember we asked them to come 24 back? When you say a package, could it be
198 1 either or? 2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would 3 prefer to have it in my packet. 4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: As long as we 5 can see it in advance. 6 MS. WORKING: Okay. It helps me to 7 see it. 8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: He can put 9 this package onto a power point. 10 MS. WORKING: Right, it does help me 11 when the Applicants come to talk to me when 12 they are applying to appear before you to be 13 able to show them this is what we mean. 14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Hand them 15 this. My other comment about that would 16 be -- I forget what I was going to say now. 17 See, I am getting old. It's my birthday 18 month. I am going to be 25 this month. If 19 I think it of -- 20 MEMBER BAUER: Geez, I don't remember 21 when I was 25. 22 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Are there 24 any other questions or comments?
199 1 MEMBER BAUER: Yes, sir. 2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Bauer? 3 MEMBER BAUER: (Unintelligible). 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: There is no question. 5 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: General 7 procedure rule Section 9. 8 (Interposing)(Unintelligible) 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The last 10 paragraph, 11 I'm sorry. 9.0, the last paragraph. 12 MS. WORKING: Oh, thank you. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Mock-up sign must be 14 removed or replaced with a sign conforming 15 to the variance granted within five working 16 days. Now, he's got the temporary sign up. 17 He has got to take the other one down. They 18 wouldn't have a sign yet. 19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: This is 20 only when they are denied or approved 21 differently. 22 MEMBER BAUER: He's got no sign. 23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So you are 24 saying while they are fabricating a sign of
200 1 lesser size he wouldn't have a sign? 2 MEMBER BAUER: No. 3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Is that the 4 concern? 5 MEMBER BAUER: That's right. 6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The sign would 7 be taken down and there would be nothing 8 there for perhaps a month or two until the 9 sign is made. 10 MS. WORKING: Although having said 11 that, the Henry Ford case that was before 12 you this evening, they have the sign there 13 currently. You granted them something less 14 than what they asked for this evening. So if 15 they were to remove that mock sign that they 16 did erect for your consideration this 17 evening, they still have their ground sign, 18 so it doesn't apply to every case. 19 MEMBER BAUER: No, not to every case, 20 but -- 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: For a new 22 building or something like that. 23 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: My concern 24 about mock-up signs, I am surprised at what
201 1 some of these Petitioners do. If it was me 2 and it was my business, I would get out 3 there with a piece of cardboard paper and 4 put it on there and some of these can be 5 torn up and whipped apart by the wind. So I 6 would be concerned about allowing even 7 someone to have a mock-up sign longer than 8 that. That's just my take. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Mr. Amolsch, you 10 have a comment? 11 MR. AMOLSCH: Through the Chair. I 12 was wondering about this myself. I don't 13 know why anybody would want to put another 14 mock-up up of a lesser variance than what 15 was required. Also we have discussed this 16 before about an approval sign, how long a 17 mock-up can remain on a building. I think 18 the Board -- it's not in here, but I think 19 the Board's feeling was before that they can 20 it keep it up until they had their sign 21 fabricated. Am I right about that? 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I believe that's 23 the way we have looked at things in the past 24 that perhaps a time frame needs to be on it.
202 1 I think where Member Bauer is coming from, 2 the denial, five days for a denial is fine, 3 that's good. But if we are granting a 4 request and they reduced it five, ten square 5 feet, we're saying that perhaps they ought 6 to be allowed to keep the mock-up sign up 7 for a longer period of time and that maybe 8 we need to identify a time frame. 9 MEMBER BAUER: (Unintelligible). 10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Well, I don't 11 want to say that because maybe they spent a 12 lot of money on that -- 13 MS. WORKING: Right now they are not 14 going to pour a foundation for a ground sign 15 until the Spring. So you can have that mock 16 sign out there if the weather doesn't take 17 it away for the next four to five months. 18 MR. AMOLSCH: And the other problem we 19 have is that some of the mock-ups are very 20 well done, but some of them are just banners 21 that are flapping around on the building. If 22 it takes two or three months to fabricate a 23 sign, I don't think we want to see that. 24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Henry Ford
203 1 I was taking to them to make sure they know 2 they need sign foundation permits through us 3 and they are stating eight weeks out before 4 they do their sign foundations based on the 5 weather and stuff of that nature. So you 6 can have mock-up signs out there for two 7 months. We don't want that. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And if their a 9 banner or something it's not going to look 10 good. So maybe we leave it the way it is. 11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I guess I 12 would, I would prefer the mock-up signs be 13 removed. I would say we could act on 14 leaving a mock-up sign in the individual 15 case, could we not? 16 MEMBER BAUER: But you are not stating 17 that? 18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We could 19 state it in here. 20 MEMBER BAUER: I think it's got to be 21 a time limit. 22 MS. KUDLA: It doesn't necessarily 23 need to be in the rules. You can do it on a 24 case by case basis.
204 1 MR. AMOLSCH: As part of the motion? 2 MS. KUDLA: Yes. 3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, this 4 could be a pretty stringent rule, but we are 5 able to kind of veto our own rule and 6 overrule our own rule and give an exception 7 to leave it up for longer. 8 MS. KUDLA: It probably should be part 9 of the motion. But if you are going to 10 leave this in here as a general rule and 11 deviate from that, I would give yourself 12 some language saying that -- 13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I would 14 have Tom give is some language. 15 MS. KUDLA: Exactly. That there may 16 be some exceptions where you vary from this 17 standard. 18 MS. WORKING: So we're looking at two 19 prongs and a leverage change as well as a 20 case by case stipulated motion? 21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So the 22 language in here from him would basically 23 say the Board has the ability to as part of 24 the motion make exceptions for mock-up sign
205 1 length? 2 MS. KUDLA: Something like that, yes. 3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Something like 4 that. 5 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: So, he can 6 make that change. 7 MS. WORKING: So, are we going to 8 request that it be an additional section or 9 placed in Section 9.0? 10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Another 11 paragraph or another sentence. Whatever he 12 says. That's why he gets paid the big 13 bucks. 14 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I have two very 15 minor changes. One was on page six which is 16 to put the number 72 in parenthesis and to 17 do the same thing in Section 6.1. And on 18 page 9 the same thing in Section 9.2 put 21 19 in parenthesis. Just to be consistent 20 throughout the Rules and Regulations. 21 MS. WORKING: What was the second one, 22 I'm sorry? 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Page 9, Section 24 9.2 the number 21 to be put in parenthesis
206 1 after the words twenty-one. That would make 2 it consistent with all the numbers that we 3 have in our Rules and Regulations. 4 MS. WORKING: Okay. 5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any other 6 additions, corrections? Member Sanghvi? 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. I have a 8 question. And my question is this, the City 9 of Novi was chartered in 1969. I tried to 10 find out who really authored the primary 11 rules of conduct and everything which we 12 have been using so far. 13 MEMBER BAUER: They were 14 (unintelligible) -- 15 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Jerry 16 Bauer -- 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: So, I want to know if 18 there ever have been any amendments to those 19 since they have been adopted, and if they 20 have when and what were they? 21 MS. WORKING: I know the current Rules 22 of Procedure you are operating under were 23 approved in 1999. That's the only answer to 24 your question that I have.
207 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: See, because I -- 2 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Then we had 3 a mock-up amendment which you investigated, 4 found and sent to the Subcommittee. So, I 5 feel like these have been updated by the 6 City and we did get the most recent version. 7 We did any amendments that this Board has 8 approved. I feel good about that. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: So, my second 10 question is, what did you think was broken 11 here which we are trying to fix? 12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The main 13 objective originally by the Chair of this 14 Zoning Board was to insure, number one, that 15 the rules were updated given the NZBA Act. 16 And we have made several changes in here to 17 make it kind of more general regarding 18 noticing and that kind of stuff, basically 19 saying that we will abide by whatever the 20 current statute governing this from the 21 State of Michigan Legislature. And then we 22 made some of the other changes which I 23 highlighted the last time. Like the 24 attendance policy, etcetera.
208 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: That is my 2 (unintelligible) question now? 3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'm sorry? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: That is what I am 5 questioning. Why are we doing that? What 6 we are trying to do is to take out the 7 meaning of this whole thing and go to see 8 what you have done is what you have created 9 is conditions of employment and grounds for 10 termination. 11 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Correct. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Is it any of our 13 business how to decide what us and the 14 future members of the Zoning Board of 15 Appeals will conduct themselves in the way 16 of how many times has a City terminated 17 membership of the Zoning Board of Appeals on 18 the grounds of absenteeism? 19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We have 20 not, but I feel that there may have been 21 errors in past years. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Have you any 23 statistics to prove anything? Or are you 24 just guessing?
209 1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I was not 2 given these when I was Chair and I am not 3 going to go back and recreate an attendance 4 schedule. So I didn't have these so I 5 couldn't enforce any of these when I was 6 Chair. So I can't give you statistics so I 7 am not going to take you over them and do 8 that. But, to answer your question as to 9 who are we to stipulate the termination and 10 the rules of employment here? We need some 11 ground rules. We as appointees by City 12 Council do have an obligation to them and 13 the citizens of Novi. We have an obligation 14 to other Board Members including alternate 15 members. So, this isn't a way to try to put 16 conditions on people. It's merely a way to 17 guide them to be courteous when they won't 18 be there. If you can make sure that seven 19 days before a meeting you let us know that 20 you are not going to be here, that's an 21 excused absence and you can miss every 22 single meeting in the year. But if you 23 don't show up and you don't let anyone know, 24 that is rude to the citizens, it's rude
210 1 Chair, it's rude to the alternate, it's rude 2 to every other member on this Board, and I 3 don't want to be a part of a Board that 4 doesn't have any conditions like that. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Why would you think 6 that this rule is necessary? What has 7 happened in the past to create this 8 situation that you need this rule? 9 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'm just 10 looking to the future -- 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: I am not looking to 12 the future. You have to look at the past 13 and try to see if there has been any 14 commissions and you want to rectify 15 something, you want to introduce new rules 16 and regulations. A, I am not an employee of 17 this Board or this City. I am a volunteer 18 -- 19 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I don't 20 disagree with that fact -- 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligible) It's 22 a fact of life. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Sanghvi 24 --
211 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: No, no. The whole 2 point is, this is a ridiculous creation. 3 Terms of conditions for employment and 4 grounds for termination does not apply to a 5 voluntary board which is not -- you have no 6 right to fire somebody whom you have not 7 hired. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Excuse me. 9 Turning to the attorney, is this within our 10 purview to write the rules and regulations? 11 MS. KUDLA: It is within your purview 12 to have rules and regulations. You're 13 appointed by City Council. So I almost want 14 to say that maybe City Council needs to look 15 at something like a termination policy. 16 MEMBER BAUER: They can only 17 terminate. 18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Which is 19 stipulated -- 20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: They are the 21 only ones that can terminate -- 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: This is the whole 23 point. I don't think we have any business 24 making this. You can tell them, City
212 1 Council, do you have any kind of rules for 2 this? (Unintelligible). You ask them. But 3 you don't (unintelligible) sitting here 4 deciding for me and my future colleagues who 5 are join here, how to hire them, fire them, 6 when to fire them, what they should do, how 7 they should they dress, how should they 8 (unintelligible) hair cut. That is all 9 nonsense. 10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It's not 11 supposed to be a hostile policy. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: You have created a 13 hostile document. 14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I'm sorry 15 -- 16 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 17 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, could we 18 agree to disagree and possibly have this 19 outside of the regular hearing discussion? 20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Absolutely. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: And the language 22 here. I mean, look at it. I want to point 23 out that there is a difference between use 24 of the word shall and will or maybe or
213 1 expected. You have put down shall which 2 becomes a commandment. Though shalt not 3 steal. Though shalt not commit adultery. 4 It's a commandment. Shall is a commanding 5 futuristic word which should not be utilized 6 in this kind of document unless you are an 7 employee and you want to fire 8 (unintelligible), and I am not an employee. 9 I don't buy your position that, yes, I am an 10 employee of this Board. 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: And you are 12 totally entitled to your opinion. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, I am totally 14 entitled. And I challenge your opinion to 15 call me an employee of this Board. 16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We didn't call 17 you an employee of this Board. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: That is what Mr. 19 Fischer just did. He said that you are -- 20 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You are a 21 voluntarily member -- 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: I am a volunteer here 23 and I volunteer my time. I volunteer my 24 talent. I volunteer my energy. I volunteer
214 1 all kinds of things including my own money 2 to go traveling around doing everything 3 else. I am not a compensated employee of 4 the City or this Board and I think you ought 5 to have a very clear understanding of the 6 status of the members of this Zoning Board. 7 We are all volunteers. Don't try to create 8 a situation where you are forcing the 9 volunteers to do certain things your way. 10 That is not acceptable. That is not 11 democrative. That is not how this country 12 is based on. This is not how the country 13 runs. This is a fundamental problem with 14 this whole document if you go ahead and read 15 one by one and everything. I feel it's full 16 of crap. 17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you for 18 your opinion. 19 Member Bauer, do you have a comment? 20 MEMBER BAUER: I don't disagree with 21 this. But why would you take what is 22 already in the Ordinance for the Zoning 23 Board or for the Ordinance and in the State 24 and do it over again?
215 1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I am not 2 sure I understand the question. 3 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I believe if I 4 may, what he is referring to is like the 5 whole first page about variances, for 6 example, listing exactly what the use 7 variance is, the non-use variance is is 8 already in written form in the Ordinance. 9 And my thought to that is it just makes it 10 clearer or provides a short version without 11 having to look through an entire Ordinance 12 to find that information. 13 MEMBER BAUER: I'm just asking why? 14 But I don't disagree. 15 MS. WORKING: Would it be appropriate 16 to pose these questions to Mr. Schultz and 17 the Subcommittee outside of a regularly 18 scheduled hearing date and then bring them 19 back to the Board at a later date? 20 MEMBER BAUER: You can, but that's no 21 problem. 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I would prefer 23 to move forward on it. It's been already 24 reviewed by Member Schultz and by the
216 1 Attorney's office. 2 There really isn't that many 3 changes from what the rules and procedures 4 were previously, at least in my opinion. 5 Everybody has different opinions as I 6 mentioned. I'll throw it out to the group, 7 however, because this is a democracy. What 8 is the thoughts of the group? Would you 9 want to hold off on the vote and talk to 10 Member Schultz -- or Mr. Schultz, I can't 11 make him a member -- Attorney Schultz and go 12 forward? 13 Member Krieger hasn't spoken yet. 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: I would like 15 Schultz's input and Counsel's input. 16 MS. KUDLA: It does say when it has 17 been accepted by City Council. Any kind of 18 suggestion based on this would have to be 19 finalized by City Council, any termination 20 of any members. 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: But I just meant this 22 whole paper. 23 MS. KUDLA: You mean the whole thing 24 to be accepted by City Council?
217 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: No, verbalized 2 concerns. 3 MS. KUDLA: If you are looking to make 4 other suggestions to add to these or 5 subtract, is that what you are talking 6 about? 7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Tom has 9 made all the recommendations. 10 MS. KUDLA: Did you guys have 11 Subcommittee meetings? 12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Right. 13 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yeah. 14 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: We made our 15 recommendations to him and as Chairman 16 Shroyer said, we really didn't change that 17 many fundamental things. The absentee 18 policy was probably one of the biggest, 19 other than that it was just changing it, 20 updating wording according to Community 21 Development Department -- 22 MS. WORKING: Community Development 23 Department -- 24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: -- to make
218 1 it current. Tom has already accepted these. 2 He is the one who has actually drafted this. 3 I don't see what the point of sending it 4 back to the City Attorney is other than to 5 waste taxpayer dollars. 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: The red print then 7 would be what he corrected. 8 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: The changes that 9 were made. 10 MS. WORKING: And the most updated 11 copy was in your meeting file tonight. That 12 was one that I did e-mail out last Friday 13 evening, but I gave you a hard copy today in 14 your meeting file in case you didn't get the 15 e-mail or didn't have a chance to read all 16 of the ten pages of the document. 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Because of Mav's 18 concerns, I would want to keep this as a 19 soft issue versus like a hard this is it 20 kind of deal for now. 21 MS. WORKING: You don't want to vote 22 on it? 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: I don't want to vote 24 on it.
219 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: If you want to 2 discuss this document, maybe you should 3 discuss it when Mr. Schultz is around and I 4 would like to read line by line which I have 5 highlighted here and I have questions about 6 and I would like to get some answers. 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Would it be -- 8 if I may, would it be better for each of us 9 individually to talk to Mr. Schultz or to 10 have him talk to the group because people 11 have different concerns? 12 MS. KUDLA: I mean, I can answer your 13 legal concerns. If you have drafting 14 suggestions that you would rather see, and 15 Tom is working on this document, yeah, I 16 mean you can interact with him directly. But 17 if you have questions I can answer them. 18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: What I would 19 like to do at this point. There is enough 20 concern addressed by the Board not to move 21 forward with this this evening. I had hoped 22 to get it resolved this evening, but it 23 looks like it needs to be discussed further. 24 What I would suggest is that any members
220 1 that have specific questions regarding this, 2 contact the attorney directly. And if Mr. 3 Schultz then feels that we need to meet 4 together as a group, we can set that up and 5 move forward from there. 6 Is that agreeable with everyone? 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: My only problem with 8 your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, what happens 9 to the Open Meeting Act when you go 10 individually and talk about it because you 11 don't know what I am talking to him about. 12 I don't know what you are talking to him and 13 that completely destroys the concept of an 14 Open Meeting Act. 15 MS. KUDLA: These are procedural rules 16 so that doesn't really apply. 17 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: So, we will 18 table this for now and move forward with my 19 recommendation. Is that agreeable with 20 everyone? 21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What are 22 the next steps on that then? 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I will get back 24 in touch with our attorney.
221 1 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer, would 2 you like this to appear on the February 3 agenda? 4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes, please. I 5 will contact the Attorney and see what the 6 recommendations are to move forward. 7 MS. WORKING: Do we need to take a 8 vote for that or? 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I was going to 10 ask -- 11 MS. KUDLA: What is it on there right 12 now? 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: It's under Other 14 Matters. 15 MS. WORKING: Rules and Procedures. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: We're not working on 17 anything else. 18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay, we will 19 just do that. 20 21 Item three under Other Matters is East 22 Lake Drive, request for variance extension. 23 MS. WORKING: You have in your meeting 24 file as well as I believe I e-mailed to you
222 1 a few weeks back that you would be asked to 2 consider under Other Matters a request from 3 Mr. Joe Debrincat who came before you. He 4 was granted a variance and as you well know 5 our Ordinance stipulates 90 day requirement 6 to pull a permit. He is asking for an 7 extension to that and a 180 day extension. 8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Motion to 9 approve the 180 day from the original 10 approval by the Board to pull the permit by 11 Mr. Joseph Debrincat. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Motion by Member 14 Fischer. Seconded by Member Sanghvi. 15 Any other discussions? Please call 16 the roll. 17 MS. WORKING: Vice-Chair Fischer? 18 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Aye. 19 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 21 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 22 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 23 MS. WORKING: Member Ibe? 24 MEMBER IBE: Yes.
223 1 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 2 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 3 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 5 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 6 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Yes. 7 MS. WORKING: Motion to approve 180 8 extension approved. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay, thank you. 10 11 MS. WORKING: Our next case would be 12 23820 Lynwood. If you recall the Board 13 asked the Applicant to try and resolve the 14 case through administrative matters. He was 15 required to apply in writing for a 16 withdrawal. He has done so and we would 17 like to close the case. 18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Do we need a 19 vote on that? 20 MS. WORKING: Do we need a vote on 21 that? 22 MS. KUDLA: Might as well vote on 23 that. 24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: What are we
224 1 voting on? 2 MS. WORKING: Accepting a withdrawal 3 for ZBA consideration. 4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Per motion? 5 MS. WORKING: I would leave it up to 6 the attorney. If we need to have a motion 7 and a vote, we'll do it. But he was 8 required to submit in writing to withdraw by 9 this Board last month. 10 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I thought 11 last month we said if they chose to 12 withdraw, they withdrew the case. There was 13 really no action. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: If we close it what 15 was there to discuss? 16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Right. 17 MEMBER BAUER: There is nothing to 18 discuss. 19 MS. KUDLA: I don't believe it's 20 required, but if it's on the agenda and it's 21 something that you got on the agenda. I 22 didn't think it needed to be on the agenda, 23 it could have been withdrawn. Now that it's 24 here.
225 1 MS. WORKING: It had to be done in 2 writing. It was just part of the minutes 3 since I wasn't here last month I listened to 4 it and they was asked that they submit in 5 writing and the Board knows the submission 6 was made. 7 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Second 8 Member Krieger's motion. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: You can say the 10 consensus of the Board was to accept his 11 withdrawal. 12 MS. WORKING: Okay. Can we just do 13 that? 14 MS. KUDLA: Yes. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have accepted 16 the withdrawal. No need to vote on it. 17 Last item under other matters is 18 nominations for the Chair and Vice-Chair and 19 Secretary to be voted on at the February's 20 meeting. 21 I'll open up the floor for nominations 22 for the Chair. Typically I will do that one 23 first. 24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Do we?
226 1 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Don't we? I 2 believe we do. 3 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: It's been a 4 year, I'm getting older. 5 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I would like to 6 nominate our Vice-Chair, Justin Fischer, for 7 Chair. 8 MEMBER BAUER: Sure, why not. Good 9 old boy. 10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You accept the 11 nomination? 12 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Yes. 13 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any other 14 nominations for Chair? 15 MEMBER KRIEGER: Justin. 16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Looks like 17 that's closed. 18 Nominations for Vice-Chair? Nobody 19 wants to be an officer? 20 MEMBER BAUER: Member Sanghvi. 21 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 22 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: We have a 23 nomination for Member Sanghvi. 24 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: I second
227 1 the nomination for Member Sanghvi. 2 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Do you accept 3 the nomination? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: To do what? 5 MEMBER BAUER: Vice-President. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Maybe state what you 7 would like to me to do. Because I already 8 know that reading this in public 9 (unintelligible). 10 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You don't want 11 to accept it? 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: If that is part of 13 the job, no, I don't want it because I don't 14 think that it is appropriate for me to be 15 reading things aloud. 16 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: The 17 Secretary could do it. 18 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You can defer to 19 the Secretary. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's fine with me. 21 The Chair doesn't want me to do it, that's 22 fine with me. But it's the Chair who 23 decides. 24 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Okay. So you
228 1 accept the nomination? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, I'll accept the 3 nomination. 4 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any other 5 nominations for Vice-Chair? 6 MS. WORKING: Who nominated Member 7 Sanghvi? 8 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Bauer. 9 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Member Bauer. 10 MS. WORKING: Thank you. 11 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Nominations for 12 Secretary? 13 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Nominate 14 Linda 15 Krieger. 16 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: You accept the 17 nomination? Second. 18 MEMBER KRIEGER: I don't know. 19 (Unintelligible). 20 MEMBER BAUER: She is a good girl. 21 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: She said yes. 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: All right. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Any other 24 nominations for Secretary? So, it looks
229 1 like we will have an official vote in 2 February. 3 Do we do that at the beginning of the 4 meeting so I don't have to Chair or do we do 5 it at the end of the meeting? 6 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 7 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I can do it at 8 the beginning? 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: I think so. 10 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Usually we have done 12 it in the beginning. 13 MS. WORKING: Our Attorney just 14 informed me that it could be the first order 15 of business on the agenda in February. I 16 don't know offhand if the Rules of Procedure 17 govern that, but then you indicated that you 18 might pass the gavel to the new Chairperson 19 to chair that meeting. I guess it's at the 20 Board's pleasure what they would like do to. 21 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: At the 22 Chair's discretion. 23 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: I think it 24 should be first on the agenda.
230 1 VICE-CHAIRPERSON FISCHER: Seeing no 2 other items, Mr. Chair, I would make a 3 motion to adjourn. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Third. 6 (The meeting was adjourned at 7 10:56 p.m.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
231 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 (193) 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 January 17, 2008 23 24
|